Online Dating..The Not So Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

I recently became single again (phew!) and decided to explore the online dating world. This was not my first rodeo as I have jumped on these services a couple other times. I admit to have even paid for a subscription a few years back. I don’t last long on dating sites because they get old pretty quick. I occasionally will try a site out to see if anything has changed, or to find a genuine old fashion lady that seeks a guy like me. I have a busy life, have an introverted nature about me that makes me a homebody, and on top of it all, I live in a pretty rural area, so my options of finding a significant other in the real world are limited. On the flip side, I am pretty content on being single. I have built a great life and did it all by myself. Of course now that I am in my 30’s, I have been getting this bug about having a family. I prefer not to do it the “new school” way whereby I knock someone up, pay child support and see my children every other weekend. I want an old fashion family, something that is dying away in the country.

You would think in today’s technological age that dating would be so much easier. We can jump on a site or launch an app and browse for a suitable mate. You can find out a lot about someone just by reading a profile (if it is well thought out). But there are so many faults with dating sites, or should I say the people on the sites themselves. Our society and the way people live their lives has made dating in general a difficult thing to master. I list just some of the issues with trying to find love in the online dating world.

People are trashy and even flaunt it

I may get some flak for this one, but I have found many people on dating sites have a lot of self-inflicted issues and come off as “trashy”. This of course does not mean everyone as I personally don’t consider myself to fit in this category. This is very relevant on free services such as POF and Tinder. I cannot tell you how many times I have viewed a profile of a thirty something (even some 20’s) that has kids from multiple men, never married, jobless, car less, drama filled life, and just overall trashy looking. I have never browsed the choices of men on these sites, but I am sure they are worse than the women. I have no issues with someone who has a child with someone that didn’t work out. I have always been willing to accept a child in a relationship. But many of these people simply pop children out from hookups (probably from the same dating site) and then complain how all men are the same. Then you have the ones that just look the part of trash. They take half naked pics, filled with tattoos and piercings, which ironically they seem to think makes them attractive. I am not judging all people that have tattoos and having them doesn’t make someone automatically trashy. But a tattoo on the breasts, piercings all over the face, and a half naked pose in front of a dirty mirror is pretty trashy. I have seen it many times on these sites. These people simply attract the same level of trash from the opposite sex and the pendulum keeps swinging for them.

People are too independent

On the flip side, those that are well off and established tend to be very independent. I fall victim to this issue. Who doesn’t want someone that has a career, established, intelligent, hardworking, and dedicated? It all sounds good, the only issue is a person with those features also tends to be independent. We tend to own our own homes and take care of ourselves. Generally we seek someone else like us and that is where failure begins before it even starts. Two people can hit it off well and even start dating. But if things get serious, who is moving with who? By that I mean, who is going to sell their house and everything they have to move with someone? I have met women online who have their own house, a sound career, and are independent. They want the same things I do – family, love, children, etc. But because they have worked hard for what they have, they do not want to give up what they built. Their only other option is to move someone in, and chances are anyone they meet that doesn’t have their own house and is established will be undesirable to them. Many years ago people started dating younger and built their lives together. Today, people date later in life and have each built their lives separately. I believe this to be the number one factor in why modern relationships just never take off. I have met people who I think would make a great wife and mother, but I never got anywhere with due to us having different goals in mind.

People are too picky

The first thing you see when you launch a dating app is the swipe feature. We have all heard about Tinder and their “swipe right for yes or left for no” feature. All dating apps have went to this approach and it is such a sad way of meeting someone. By judging just one picture of someone, you are making the decision right then and there if they are worthy of your time. I realize we all tend to judge someone the first time we meet them. I don’t care who you are, we all take looks into account. But someone’s personality is equally, if not more, important. A young lady who dresses provocatively, yet has the personality of a rock and the intelligence of a 3 year old will get far more “right swipes” than an intelligent individual who looks mediocre in her picture. This is the sad state of dating in the modern age. There are some dating services which try to avoid this kind of issue, but they tend to be very match focused and cost (way too much) money.

People are boring

I don’t think people really put much effort into online dating. Again, this is more relevant on the free services. They sign up, make a lame profile, and put their “hottest” picture up so that they can see how many swipes they receive. When two people become a “connection” you would think that they could hit it off and see where it goes. But generally, messages go ignored, especially by the “hot” girl that gets a ton of matches and subsequently a lot of messages. Many people simply say “Hey” and expect someone to respond to them. The conversational skills are very limited on dating sites it seems. No one puts the effort into writing a nice message, and if they do it usually goes ignored anyway. Paid sites try to “fix” this issue by focusing more on matching people better before they can connect. This of course limits the number of people you can message, and of course there is a premium for that kind of service.

People are jerks

Lastly, there is the situation that tends to arise even if two people connect and begin messaging each other. Talking over a messenger service tends to create a mixed bag of signals and the interpretation of what things are said to mean something the person did not intend. It begins right away, usually when people begin to tell the other person about themselves. If someone mentions their accomplishments or things they own, the other individual may take it as them bragging. If I were to say to someone “I am intelligent and have a good paying job, own my own home, and have  a nice car” or say “I am pretty good at basketball and playing guitar”, both may be interpreted as me bragging, when I am simply making conversation and telling the person about myself. This has created a world of jerks, conceded, and stuck up people. Most of the time the person may not be any of the above, but can come off as something they are not over virtual messaging. Indeed there are many of those kind of people on dating sites that are the same in person, but it is generally hard to tell from simple conversation. An aforementioned person from the boring category above is definitely a stuck up jerk for not responding to your messages. But someone who doesn’t respond because you say “hey” or because your profile makes you look like an idiot they do not desire, they are not jerks by any means. They simply want to engage a conversation with someone that shares similar traits and actually wants to talk to them. Of course all of this is difficult to interpret over messaging, which is why dating sites never work.


I could go on writing about other downsides of dating sites, but I would need to contact a book publisher first. I have since quit the online dating scene and have no desire to go back to it. I am pretty content on being single and will try other means of filling the void in my life. I understand others have tried more focused sites that they paid for and had luck. I am sure they work, but being in a rural areas limits my options on those kind of sites. If I lived in the Silicon Valley, then perhaps a site more tuned toward professionals would work best. I am also aware that many have had some luck on the free sites, but I find that to be a lot less common than those of us who have no luck. My advice to others who are in my boat, get off the dating sites and try to meet someone in person. That is my goal, no matter how challenging that may be.

The War of Northern Aggression

I consider myself a history buff of sorts, specifically American History. I am an engineer by trade, but history fascinates me to the point of it being a hobby. I can tell you that the modern education system from elementary school all the way to advanced college courses has failed in their attempt to teach American history. Until I started reading books on history I began to realize that much of what makes up our history is not taught in public schools. It has nothing to do with time constraints and more to do with picking and choosing what is taught to students. There is a clear bias in the American education system. This bias has brainwashed most American people in believing that what is told to them is right and that there is no other explanation. I think the Civil War (or more appropriately, the War of Northern Aggression) is a perfect example of the bias being pushed onto children in the public education system.

I am not going to give anyone a course on the Civil War, it would take many pages to write and there are many resources out there to learn for yourself as I will show you below. Most people who went through public education could not give any simple facts on the Civil War without using Google. How many Confederate and Union generals do you know? What years did the war occur? What percentage of the south actually owned slaves? Did you know Lincoln himself didn’t truly care about slavery? I could go on with questions that no one could answer. It is expected though because the American education system does not teach such things. If you open a textbook you will find maybe a dozen pages on the Civil War and everyone one of them will focus on slavery as the underlining issue. They may mention a few notable battles, maybe call out a Confederate general or two, but the takeaway on their educating the student will be that the Civil War was over slavery and nothing but. This has brainwashed people into a state where anytime issues are mentioned in the news, especially of late with the removal of Confederate monuments, they attack with their “facts” given to them by the education system. I have read hundreds of comments on different media sources on the drama surrounding the removal of the Confederate monuments. Most of those that support the removal of the monuments do so in the name of “forgetting the slave owning south and their bigotry” or “the south lost the war, slavery was abolished because the north won, time to move on”. Those kind of reactions clearly show how our education system has failed people, because they truly know nothing of American history, especially the Civil War.

I compiled a list of books for those that want to learn about the Civil War. I realize every author may present their form of bias, but it is the facts that I tend to focus on when reading history. There are many books just on the Civil War, but I have found these to be the best.

The Civil War by Bruce Catton – One of the first writings on the Civil War and to this day still one of the best. Can be a hard read, but very informative.

Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson – James is a great historian and he doesn’t skip a beat with this book. Lot of information and a much easier read.

Civil War Volumes 1-3 by Shelby Foote – Another classic that is very informative. Shelby puts great attention to the battles that took place and the individuals who were part of them.

Lee by Dougles Freeman – Since Lee has been getting a lot of flack and disrespect I think this book is a plus. After reading this book you may actually start giving Lee the respect he deserves. There are also many books on other Civil War generals that people should look into as well.

Everything They Taught You About the Civil War is Wrong by Lochlainn Seabrook

The Politically Incorrect Guide to The Civil War by H.W. Crocker III

These 2 books may have some bias toward the Confederacy, but are filled with facts that they do not teach in schools. I highly recommend reading them both.

The Real Lincoln by Thomas Dilorenzo – And finally a book that I think all should read, especially Lincoln supporters. This book shines light on the real Lincoln and his views on war and slavery. I won’t say no more, just read it and find out for yourself.

Remember the old sang, “Do not believe everything you hear”. It is unfortunate that it applies to our education system, but it does. So go do some reading and then spread the word to others. People need to be educated on real history, not bias!


The Power of the First

This past week we have seen yet another clash between different groups with opposing opinions. One side there was a group of white supremacist NAZI sympathizers who are by sheer definition racist toward anyone that is not white. On the others side were a mix of leftist organizations, who want American history, or more specifically white American history, all but erased. I want to add as a footnote that in attendance were peaceful demonstrators who were legally permitted to hold a rally in protest to the city of Charlottesville taking down the Robert E. Lee monument and changing the name of the park. These people were not part of any side, even though the media considers them NAZI supporters, which is clearly their intent.

Both of the above mentioned groups have a right to their opinion and believe it or not, their voice is protected by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. I could end it there, but there is more to be said on the matter. You see the media and people of higher power pick and choose what is protected by the 1st Amendment. If an individual goes outside with a NAZI flag and yells “white power” he could potentially be charged with a federal hate crime and most likely a slew of state level crimes as well. This person will then be all over the media outlets who will berate him of his “crimes”. Social media will then get involved with the help of Hollywood hypocrites that will shame the individual. Minorities will use the occasion to push their belief that white people are all racist and new laws should be in place. Now let’s shift gears to a black lives matter (BLM) march where young black men in masks are holding signs that say “Kill white people” or “Shoot the police”. Before you think I am making up those signs do an image search on them. These same protestors are marching down the street chanting anti-white propaganda and things such as “Fry the pigs like bacon” (again look it up). As light turns to dark these protestors turn violent and begin destroying storefronts and city owned property. Now I understand that not all BLM supporters are like this, but it is clear there is a subset that are racist and violent. Outside of maybe a few BLM supporters who were arrested for damaging property, how many do you think were arrested for chanting racist talk? None! On top of that the mainstream media does not even report on the racism that BLM spews. Social media is quite and the Hollywood elites are mum on the subject.

The Libertarian viewpoint is and always has been that the 1st Amendment protects all speech, regardless if it offends or triggers another party. There is no difference between a NAZI sympathizer and a BLM march shouting racist slurs. They are both completely wrong in their approach to solving any problems, but they have a right to their opinion. Furthermore, hate crimes pushed down on people for simply saying something are entirely biased and wrong. If someone causes physical harm to another, regardless if it was because of their race or simply because they wanted to, they should be held accountable for their actions. If a white person harms a black person because of his skin color, he will receive a hate crime. Yet if a black person harms another black person, which is 1000 times more likely to happen, no one seems to care. The hypocrisy of berating someone because of their 1st Amendment rights is ridiculous. I am sure by this point some will bring up the “Fire in a crowded theater” statement and how it applies to free speech. Again, the Libertarian belief is that one does indeed have a right to yell “Fire” in a crowded theater because that is his 1st Amendment right. But the theater is also private property and they impose their own rules on certain matters, assuming that government does not restrict what they can and cannot do, which is always the case. If the theater makes it a rule not to talk or yell in their establishment, they can do so and anyone who breaks said rules can be thrown out. I realize philosophically the term “Fire in a crowded theater” means more, but in a real world sense it is as simple as that.

The 1st Amendment protects the free speech of ALL people regardless of what they say. As soon as physical harm is done to someone then the line is crossed and appropriate laws are in place to protect them. If you are driving by and you see a NAZI march, as long as they are not harming you, move on and let them be. The same applies to a BLM march. They have their opinion and you have yours.


By: TheDJTek

I want to try an experiment. My experiment involves a demographic of couples between the ages of 18-25 who make less than $35,000 a year, rent their home, and essentially live day to day on the fringe of their earnings. The couples are to answer a series of questions involving the adoption of a new state of the art robot, let’s call him Max. Now stay with me here because the whole point of this experiment will come out at the end. Okay, so Max is a sophisticated robot with a lot of needs. He needs his batteries changed every now and then, and they can be expensive, not to mention messy at times because well acid tends to run out of them. Max also tends to be loud and obnoxious, at all hours of the night. Max needs to be charged now and then, but not through a plug in the wall. He is environmentally friendly and creates electricity through a chemical process, of which you need to mix and feed him. I should mention Max does like to regurgitate his chemical goodness now and then. I cannot forget about the high maintenance that comes with Max, he is very needy. As for costs, well his batteries will add up to about $100 a month, chemical feed maybe $150-200 a month. You also need to cloth the little guy, he hates to be naked, so add another $100 for that. I am sure you have good insurance, so doctor visits for Max should be a breeze. You do have good insurance right?

So the questions are mainly regarding how each couple would adopt and take care of the little bundle of circuits named Max. Would they be able to deal with his behavior? Could they stand changing his batteries and feeding him chemicals? And of course, would they be able to afford to keep Max a strong little robot as he grows up? Jumping ahead I am certain that most, if not all, of these young struggling couples would think this experiment was downright crazy. Why would they ever want to take on such a huge responsibility? Plus, even if they wanted the presence of Max in their lives, they could never afford to keep him going. But therein lies the problem, because these are the exact same demographic of people that are having children. If you think Max is a handful, try having a child!

There was a time in this country where having a child was a huge responsibility. Many would say it still is and that nothing has changed, but I concur. You see the establishment of social programs has ballooned into a full-fledged welfare state. Every aspect of the “huge responsibility” of raising a child is subsidized by a social program, which of course is supported by the middle class families that coincidentally aren’t having children. Living in a small town I see it every day, young couples in their 20s that scrape to get by are having children left and right. The first thing that comes to my mind is how are these two individuals going to raise a child? But then it dawns on me, the child will simply be a product of a bunch of “entitlement programs”. The parents will have the child signed up well before it is even born. The mothers doctor visits will be handled by Medicaid, as will all future visits with the child. Food will be taken care of by the EBT and WIC programs. Heat and electricity will be handled by the HEAP program. Rent will be paid by the Section 8 program. And of course the parents will get some spending cash from the welfare benefit program. I am sure I missed some social programs in the mix. Bottom line is, the parents will not know the huge responsibility of raising a child because it will be masked by the social programs they are on. Something I also see quite often is the influence of the grandparents in helping to raise the child, which I am not sure is a good thing considering how their own child was raised to not be responsible for their own actions.

We have a problem in this country, well we have many, but the for sake of this post, the problem is that the wrong people are having kids. There is a big shift in the social class in this country. You may be against the philosophy of a cast system, but we have one and there is no other way of approaching it. We have rich, we have middle class, and we have poor. Of course it isn’t as simple as that, but the for sake of argument, it works. The poor are having more children than the middle class and the rich combined. I am not sure of the statistic, but I am sure it by a large factor. Many will say it is because there are more poor families, therefore they have more kids. But that seems to be the answer to the problem altogether. The poor keep having kids because the middle class and the rich support them. If it were the other way around, the poor would not be having kids simply because they would not be able to raise them. Then in turn, the middle class would embrace having more kids because the cost would be less. You see social programs drive the cost of everything up, not just taxes, but food, medical costs, energy, and so on. Baby formula and diapers would be a lot less if manufacturers of said products knew that the money going toward them was from individuals that worked to support their family. But since most of these products are paid for by social programs, the manufacturers can get away with increased prices. Same goes with medical costs, the health insurance industry is not stupid. Bottom line is, year after the year the number of poor increases while the middle class and rich are in decline. A young couple that are the product of two middle class families has now joined the poor class because they were irresponsible and decided to have a child, which is now a product of government programs.

As a Libertarian I do not support any form of government benefit programs. I would like to see them all abolished immediately. In turn, the health insurance industry also needs to be revamped, or to put it in simpler terms, the government needs to get out of health insurance altogether. But what of the poor starving children? Hogwash! We live in the most technological and advanced country on this planet. We need to go back to the community and the churches helping out the poor. Of course over a temporary period of time, because people need to get on their two feet and support their family on their own. A young couple that decides to have a child when they are not ready will have to face the consequences of their actions. If they need support, plenty is available, but not from the government. If the man needs to work 80 hours a week to make ends meet, so be it, he is the one who chose to have a child. It is time for people to take responsibility for their own actions and not others floating the bill.


As a single man seeking a female partner, I feel the vibe of this post. Modern feminism has destroyed almost all aspects of traditional human bonding. An individual such as myself is considered “old fashion” in my values. I believe in a patriarchal family and society. I believe that a man is to lead his family and country. I believe that women have the right to be independent, but also have the strength of raising children as a role in the family. The title of this post is a little misleading. The author is simply stating that the west needs to go back to being a patriarchal society and rid the disease of feminism and government influence in our lives.


Image result for WHITE SHARIA

There is a meme circulating which is partly in jest and partly meant to illustrate a truth about the state of relations between men and women in the West – the White Sharia meme. It is meant to imply that perhaps men of the West need to create their own version of Sharia law to forcibly reestablish traditional gender roles for men and women to save civilization. It is meant to be provocative and offensive to highlight the truth that our society is coming apart like a frayed fabric.

Third wave intersectional feminism has destroyed the role of men and women in our society. Men are no longer expected to be strong, leading figures who support the home financially, are stable, employed, intelligent and are willing to fight for their society. The Left has replaced them with the State. Without men occupying that role, women cannot find theirs (and vice-versa). We are in a downward spiral – a double helix of narcissism and nihilism.

Image result for pajama boy

While both men and women have become profoundly deranged versions of the Classical Ideals, Antifa Girl, who was recently punched in the face in Berkeley, brought the decline of women into the spotlight. It is more and more apparent every day that the women of the West have lost their way. They have managed to divorce themselves from their nature. They have divorced themselves from:

  • child-rearing due to the use of day care centers
  • marriage due to focusing solely on careers
  • domestic chores due to cheap illegal alien labor
  • home-made clothes due to cheap foreign clothing
  • home cooking with take-out food
  • femininity with feminism
  • meaningful procreative sex with casual sex for purely pleasure
  • rigorous mate selection due to the State providing welfare for single mothers. 

Furthermore, acting as a demographic voting block, they vote for the enlargement of the State as a substitute for marriage and fatherhood, vote for politicians that want to destroy the primal need of territorial borders (the sovereign nation), and vote to import unassimilable 7th century desert moon-cult worshiping rapists and low IQ African migrants into the West. The results have been predictably disastrous. Third wave feminism, combined with suffrage and a rejection of female nature, are civilization-killers.

Women have gone from being the foundation of the human race in their ability to produce children and a family to eroding the foundation of civilization. Their behavior has become destructive, negative, and malignant.

  • Women engage in promiscuous sex with men who are not good candidates for marriage or stable families.

  • Women destroy the simple, natural beauty of their form and appear more Harpy-like than a vision of Aphrodite.

  • Women form bonds with pets that normally would be formed with men or their children, hence the meme of the cat lady.

Image result for childless propaganda

  • Women take the aggression they would normally use for the defense of their children and families, and direct it to counterproductive, antisocial ends.

Image result for antifa girl

  • They ridicule, mock, and debase themselves and their natural procreative abilities.

Image result for antifa girl

  • Instead of having children themselves, they fetishize children into mere accessories to virtue-signal their goodness, which would normally be done by showing how well they raised their own children.

Related image

  • Instead of having children and learning to be good mothers, they go to college where they are indoctrinated by their Marxist professors into feminism and postmodernism. They graduate having lost years of child-rearing, ignorant of domestic skills, and emerge functionally insane and useless to society.

And yet, as women erode the culture and distance themselves from their traditional role, they still have natural urges and inclinations that come out in odd, unnatural, perverse ways of which they appear to be unaware.

For all that Western Women say about wanting to be strong and independent (of a man, not of the State), they are trying on hijabs – symbols of submission. Think about that. They are actually wearing clothing that symbolizes submission to a male dominant theology. And in doing so, they are experiencing a bond with other women – a bond which used to be made through shared child-birth, child-rearing, the weaving and sewing of clothing for their family, and the home education of their children. Their conscious mind thinks that they are virtue-signalling their acceptance of women of another culture, but they are actually recreating their traditional role in a traditional society, albeit a horrible, perverse and abusive one.

Image result for world hijab day

Although some cultures in the West offer women modesty and scarves to cover their hair, women are turning away from the feminized West to the unfeminized and brutal culture of the Middle East.

Women have a powerful genetic drive to nurture. Lacking children, they turn that drive to nurture towards caring for strange, foreign, grown men that they convince themselves are needy, helpless, and need their protection, like infants. The desire of Women in the West to nurture needs to be guided back to health.

Image result for refugees welcome sign

Would these three young women be out with that sign if they had several children at home they wanted to care for? If they had food to prepare? If they had animals to tend? If their husband was strong and virile? If motherhood was a vaunted virtue still in our culture?

Women instinctively want strong, virile, dominant men, and because Western Men have been feminized, they subconsciously meet this need by importing men from primitive, traditional cultures where masculinity is still important. Their needs are being met by allowing a hostile invading army of military age men who are repelled by feminism, happily subjugate and humiliate their women, and seek to replace our weakened culture with their own. Feminism has sowed the seeds of our destruction.

Image result for i need feminism because men

The result of this hapless confusion and misapplication of their natural drives has been thousands of instances of violence, rape, and murder of women in Europe by these enemy-grants, which has been covered up by the Marxist media. Women have become a danger to themselves and to society.

Image result for swedish immigrant rape

The Cultural Marxists have destroyed the family, the core unit of society, through their “child free”propaganda and their arguments about “overpopulation”, to convince men and women not to form families and live traditional gender roles. In destroying the family, they are destroying civilization.

Image result for childless propaganda

Image result for childless propaganda

Governments that have been nationalist in the past have actively promoted family life, childbirth, and child-rearing. This poster is from Germany in the First World War. Note the church spire in the background, and the man tilling the earth.

Image result for childless propaganda

The Alt-Right understands that nationalism and traditional gender roles are necessary to save Western Civilization from the Cultural Marxism corroding its foundations. While the strict enforcement implied in the White Sharia meme is not necessary, the Ideals of male and female virtue need to be reestablished and promoted. The Alt-Right is stepping in to provide this.

Image result for @whitemotivation

What is the cure for the Western Woman (and Man)? What will defeat third wave intersectional feminism? How can men find their way again without traditional Western European Christianity and traditional masculinity?

Orthodox Christian Jesus shows us the way, but even Christianity has been weakened and made nearly irrelevant by Cultural Marxism. All Christian holy days are being secularized and made into secular, consumer “holidays”. The stripping of traditional religion and traditional ideals from the West is nearly complete, and it shows in our decline.

Does our society have to re-learn the basics of civilization through the severe hardship of Societal Collapse where a stable family could mean the difference between life and death for all members?

A new series of multiple Civil Wars occurring in nations throughout the West, including the United States, might be the best thing for civilization, to purge the rot of Cultural Marxism with a cleansing fire. As we can see from the images from Berkeley, men turn to Classical ideals of strength when fighting for the preservation of their culture and way of life. There are no other options left other than conflict.

Just Like The Rest

By: TheDJTek

I am pretty convinced at this point that President Trump is turning out to be just like the previous President’s we have had the last 100 years. Here is a guy that campaigned on getting out of the ongoing wars and entangling alliances that have been bankrupting us for years. He challenged pretty much every other Republican candidate that wanted to continue our occupations, and of course Hillary Clinton and her desire for World War 3. Trump made it seem like he wanted lasting peace with Russia, something that now will probably never happen after Thursday’s events. Trump’s desire to pull us out of all of these wars was actually one of the [very few] things I did like about him. But to be honest, I am not surprised the least as to Trumps actions, he had no choice.

The deep state, as it is called, has been running the show for some while now. I can’t put my finger on when these people took over, but their power has increased in the last 100 years. They are elitist and represent the .01% of the world. They have the money and control most of the major corporations that we depend on every day. They are established within governments by their power of manipulating people by money. They have been challenged by some in government, most notable being JFK, and we see how that ended for him. The individuals that run the deep state are responsible for the formation of the Federal Reserve, CIA, NSA, and pretty much every other government entity that benefits their cause. They are responsible for getting us involved in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Cold War, and every war/conflict to this day. They drive the ongoing conflicts throughout the world, never to send any of their own sons or daughters to die in them. They are behind the shredding of the Constitution by forcing the government to pass laws such as the patriot act and NDAA. They control pretty much everything around us one way or another.

Why would this deep state entity want ongoing wars? There are many reasons, each of which could take up a whole article. I believe the biggest reason is to deter the American people from seeing the damage they have truly caused abroad. War has always been a good means of distracting people. People get patriotic, buy American flags, shout “USA USA USA” and support whatever actions the President takes in the name of world peace. Meanwhile, our heads are turned away from the massive economic bubble that is about to burst. Millions of people are defaulting on student loans, auto loans, and mortgages. The average person has about $1,000 in savings and even less in retirement. The total credit debt racked up is toppling 1 trillion dollars. People are borrowing money at an alarming rates, generally for things that have no value. People are simply not paying on their credit card debt because they can’t afford to live. The real estate market is seeing an increase in houses that just aren’t selling for the price that the owners think they are worth (thanks to the initial 2008 bubble). The job market numbers are fluffed to convince us that there is job growth, when in fact there hasn’t been true job growth in over a decade. The stock market has become an illusion to get the little guy believing that the economy is doing well. The deep state control the markets and 99.9% of the money in it. They do not care about your 401(k) and IRA accounts. Our population is increasing, people that should not be having kids are having them, while those that should be are holding back. The poor that are having kids simply depend on the government to support them, while successful couples are having less due to growing costs, since they pay out of pocket to raise their children. This dilemma is causing a shift in the social class, and the government is fitting the bill. The “entitlement” bubble is only beginning, especially since thousands of baby boomers are retiring every day and expect their social security payment promptly. I could go on, but I think by now you can see that we are in some deep trouble. War is the answer, but there will be no real solution. When the American people wake up someday and realize any savings they have are worthless because the economy has tanked, they won’t be so patriotic.

I think Trump truly believed in his message when he was running for President. But the day he was sworn into office he was brought into a room and was told exactly how things were going to be, or else. This sounds like a crazy theory, but when you think about how powerful the elite are, it all makes sense. Trump has been in office almost 100 days and he hasn’t brought one soldier home or closed one foreign base. Now it seems we will only be increasing our presence in Syria and inevitably fighting in another useless conflict. I see Russia not backing down from this, which only means the igniting of another cold war. Some are predicting World War 3, which is a very good possibility. Regardless, the issues that we will be facing in the coming years are going to be life changing for a lot of people. We can thank the deep state along with all of the past presidents, congressman, senators, and now President Trump.

The Syrian Gas Attack Persuasion

I call bullshit on this supposed gas attack. The military industrial complex wants another war in Syria and will do whatever to make sure it happens. Of course a war with Syria only means a growing issue with Russia and most likely a conflict with them. I truly hope the American people do not fall for this nonsense like we have the other 20 times in the last 100 years!

Guest Post By: Scott Adams

According to the mainstream media – that has been wrong about almost everything for a solid 18 months in a row – the Syrian government allegedly bombed its own people with a nerve agent.

The reason the Assad government would bomb its own people with a nerve agent right now is obvious. Syrian President Assad – who has been fighting for his life for several years, and is only lately feeling safer – suddenly decided to commit suicide-by-Trump. Because the best way to make that happen is to commit a war crime against your own people in exactly the way that would force President Trump to respond or else suffer humiliation at the hands of the mainstream media.

And how about those pictures coming in about the tragedy. Lots of visual imagery. Dead babies. It is almost as if someone designed this “tragedy” to be camera-ready for President Trump’s consumption. It pushed every one of his buttons. Hard. And right when things in Syria were heading in a positive direction.

  • Interesting timing.
  • Super-powerful visual persuasion designed for Trump in particular.
  • Suspiciously well-documented event for a place with no real press.
  • No motive for Assad to use gas to kill a few dozen people at the cost of his entire regime. It wouldn’t be a popular move with Putin either.
  • The type of attack no U.S. president can ignore and come away intact.
  • A setup that looks suspiciously similar to the false WMD stories that sparked the Iraq war.

I’m going to call bullshit on the gas attack. It’s too “on-the-nose,” as Hollywood script-writers sometimes say, meaning a little too perfect to be natural. This has the look of a manufactured event.

My guess is that President Trump knows this smells fishy, but he has to talk tough anyway. However, keep in mind that he has made a brand out of not discussing military options. He likes to keep people guessing. He reminded us of that again yesterday, in case we forgot.

So how does a Master Persuader respond to a fake war crime?

He does it with a fake response, if he’s smart.

Watch now as the world tries to guess where Trump is moving military assets, and what he might do to respond. The longer he drags things out, the less power the story will have on the public. We’ll be wondering for weeks when those bombs will start hitting Damascus, and Trump will continue to remind us that he doesn’t talk about military options.

Then he waits for something bad to happen to Assad’s family, or his generals, in the normal course of chaos over there. When that happens on its own, the media will wonder if it was Trump sending a strong message to Assad in a measured way. Confirmation bias will do the rest.

There is also a non-zero chance that Putin just asked Assad to frame one of his less-effective Syrian generals for going rogue with chemical weapons, and executing him just to calm things down.

I don’t think we’ll ever know what’s going on over there. But I think we can rule out the idea that Assad decided to commit suicide-by-Trump.

Woodrow Wilson made democracy unsafe for the world

Today marks the 100 year anniversary of the U.S entering World War 1. Looking into the events that caused World War 1, it is no surprise that the same kind of tactics are still being used today in destabilizing the world around us. The British warmongers of the early 19th Century were looking for war with Germany, mainly because they were seen as a “threat” to British Empire (there was no reason for their hatred of Germany). This destabilizing of Europe and the rest of the world has set a precedent for every conflict that has followed since World War 1. The United States has taken over as the major super power, and as so has been destabilizing the rest of the world with ongoing wars. This will inevitably lead to World War 3, all due to the same reasons the last two world wars erupted. Powerful, egotistical, and narcissistic leaders will never learn, unless of course this next conflict simply terminates life as we know it. With a world filled with crazy nations armed with nuclear missiles, that is a strong possibility.

Guest Post By: James Bovard

This week is the 100th anniversary of President Woodrow Wilson’s speech to Congress seeking a declaration of war against Germany. Many people celebrate this centenary of America’s emergence as a world power. But, when the Trump administration is bombing or rattling sabers at half a dozen nations while many Democrats clamor to fight Russia, it is worth reviewing World War One’s high hopes and dire results.

Wilson was narrowly re-elected in 1916 based on a campaign slogan, “He kept us out of war.” But Wilson had massively violated neutrality by providing armaments and money to the Allied powers that had been fighting Germany since 1914. In his war speech to Congress, Wilson hailed the U.S. government as “one of the champions of the rights of mankind” and proclaimed that “the world must be made safe for democracy.”

American soldiers fought bravely and helped turn the tide on the Western Front in late 1918. But the cost was far higher than Americans anticipated. More than a hundred thousand American soldiers died in the third bloodiest war in U.S. history. Another half million Americans perished from the Spanish flu epidemic spurred and spread by the war.

In his speech to Congress, Wilson declared, “We have no quarrel with the German people” and feel “sympathy and friendship” towards them. But his administration speedily commenced demonizing the “Huns.” One Army recruiting poster portrayed German troops as an ape ravaging a half-naked damsel beneath an appeal to “Destroy this mad brute.”

Wilson acted as if the congressional declaration of war against Germany was also a declaration of war against the Constitution. Harvard professor Irving Babbitt commented in 1924: “Wilson, in the pursuit of his scheme for world service, was led to make light of the constitutional checks on his authority and to reach out almost automatically for unlimited power.” Wilson even urged Congress to set up detention camps to quarantine “alien enemies.

Wilson unleashed ruthless censorship of any criticism. Anyone who spoke publicly against military conscription was likely to get slammed with federal espionage or sedition charges. Possessing a pamphlet entitled Long Live the Constitution of the United States earned six months in jail for a Pennsylvania malcontent. Censorship was buttressed by fanatic propaganda campaigns led by the Committee on Public Information, a federal agency whose shameless motto was “faith in democracy… faith in fact.”

The war enabled the American equivalent of the Taliban to triumph on the home front. Prohibition advocates “indignantly insisted that… any kind of opposition to prohibition was sinister and subversively pro-German,” noted William Ross, author of World War 1 and the American Constitution. Even before the 18th Amendment (which banned alcohol consumption) was ratified, Wilson banned beer sales as a wartime measure. Prohibition was a public health disaster; the rate of alcoholism tripled during the 1920s. To punish lawbreakers, the federal government added poisons to industrial alcohol that was often converted into drinkable hooch; ten thousand people were killed as a result. Professor Deborah Blum, the author of The Poisoner’s Handbook, noted that “an official sense of higher purpose kept the poisoning program in place.”

The war provided the pretext for unprecedented federal domination of the economy. Washington promised that “food will win the war” and farmers vastly increased their plantings. Price supports and government credits for foreign buyers sent crop prices and land prices skyrocketing. However, when the credits ended in 1920, prices and land values plunged, spurring massive bankruptcies across rural America. This spurred perennial political discontent that helped lead to a federal takeover of agriculture by the Roosevelt administration in the 1930s.

POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media

World War One was ended by the Treaty of Versailles, which redrew European borders willy-nilly and imposed ruinous reparations on Germany. One of Wilson’s top aides at the peace talks, Henry White, lamented: “We had such high hopes of this adventure; we believed God called us and now we are doing hell’s dirtiest work.” Wilson had proclaimed 14 points to guide peace talks; instead, there were 14 separate small wars in Europe towards the end of his term — after peace had been proclaimed. Millions of Irish Americans were outraged that, despite Wilson’s bleatings about democracy, Britain brutally repressed Ireland during and after the war. The League of Nations, which Wilson championed in vain, was so smarmily worded that it could have obliged the U.S. to send troops to help Britain crush the burgeoning Irish independence movement.

The chaos and economic depression sowed by the war and the Treaty of Versailles helped open the door to some of the worst dictators in modern times, including Germany’s Adolf Hitler, Italy’s Benito Mussolini, and Vladimir Lenin — whom Wilson intensely disliked because “he felt the Bolshevik leader had stolen his ideas for world peace,” as historian Thomas Fleming noted in his 2003 masterpiece, The Illusion of Victory: America in World War 1.

Despite winning the war, Wilson’s Democratic Party was crushed at the polls in both 1918 and 1920. H.L. Mencken wrote on the eve of the 1920 election that Americans were sickened of Wilsonian “idealism that is oblique, confusing, dishonest, and ferocious.”

Have today’s policymakers learned anything from the debacle a century ago? Wilson continues to be invoked by politicians who believe America can achieve great things by warring abroad. The bellicosity of both Republican and Democratic leaders is a reminder that Wilson also failed to make democracy safe for the world.


Post from TheBurningPlatform

If you prefer fake news, fake data, and a fake narrative about an improving economy and stock market headed to 30,000, don’t read this fact based, reality check article. The level of stupidity engulfing the country has reached epic proportions, as the mainstream fake news networks flog bullshit Russian conspiracy stories, knowing at least 50% of the non-thinking iGadget distracted public believes anything they hear on the boob tube.

This stupendous degree of utter stupidity goes to a new level of idiocy when it comes to the stock market. The rigged fleecing machine known as Wall Street has gone into hyper-drive since futures dropped by 700 points on the night of Trump’s election. An already extremely overvalued market, as measured by every historically accurate valuation metric, soared by 4,000 points from that futures low – over 20% – to an all-time high. Despite dozens of warning signs and the experience of two 40% to 50% crashes in the last fifteen years, lemming like investors are confident the future is so bright they gotta wear shades.

The current bull market is the 2nd longest in history at 8 years. In March of 2009, the S&P 500 bottomed at a fitting level for Wall Street of 666. In a shocking coincidence, it bottomed on the same day Bernanke & Geithner forced the FASB to rollover like mangy dogs and stop enforcing mark to market accounting. Amazingly, when Wall Street banks, along with Fannie and Freddie, could value their toxic assets at whatever they chose, profits surged. The market is now 240% higher.

You have the second longest bull market in history, while stock market valuations, as measured by the Shiller PE ratio and every other historically accurate valuation method, are higher than 1929 and 2007, but the Wall Street hype machine and the business network shills adamantly declare this bull has years to go and thousands of points of upside. Greybeards who haven’t been captured by the Wall Street machine honestly point out the market will deliver 0% returns over the next ten years at these valuations. Eric Peters’ words of wisdom will fall on deaf ears:

“The longer a market trends lower, or higher, the more confident people become that tomorrow will look like today. And what they forget is that the single most important consideration in investing is your starting point.”

You would think the PE ratio of the market rising to historic highs must be due to corporate profits continuing to rise and making investors confident about the future. The narrative being flogged by the fake news networks is a strong economy and surging corporate profits are the reason for all-time high stock prices. The narrative is fake news, as corporate profits have been stagnant for the last five years, as the market has advanced by 70%.

In March of 2009, at the height of the financial crisis, Fed overnight interest rates were at an emergency level of .25%. Eight years later after a “tremendous” economic recovery, Fed overnight interest rates are still at an emergency level of .75%. Ten year Treasuries were 2.9% in March 2009 and are currently 2.3%. If this was a true economic recovery, would rates be at these levels?

The truth is, this entire bull market has been generated through financial engineering. A critical thinking individual, which eliminates all CNBC bimbos/talking heads and Ivy League educated Federal Reserve schmucks, might ask how reported corporate earnings per share since 2009 have risen by 221% when corporate revenues have only risen by 28%. That’s quite a feat – creating fake earnings without increasing revenue. It’s easy when you implement a three pronged scheme to manufacture a phony economic and stock market recovery. 

Step one was to “temporarily” repeal FASB Rule 157 in March 2009 so banks could value their toxic real estate assets at whatever price they chose. Mark to fantasy versus mark to market allowed the criminal Wall Street banks to generate billions in fake profits. Step two was for the Federal Reserve to buy $3 trillion of toxic worthless assets from the criminal Wall Street banks at 100 cents on the dollar and stick them on their own insolvent balance sheet.

Step three was breathing life into failing corporations with unnecessarily  low interest rates. The Fed’s 0% interest rates allowed Wall Street banks to generate billions in risk free profits by depositing reserves at the Fed. ZIRP also allowed insolvent financial firms, underwater real estate developers and zombie retailers to refinance their massive levels of debt at ridiculously low interest rates – eliminating the market clearing creative destruction that happens in free markets. Corporations also used off-balance sheet shenanigans to suppress leverage levels and boost earnings.

Lastly, S&P 500 companies embraced the benefits of globalization by off-shoring millions of jobs to slave labor camps in the Far East, drastically reducing their cost structures and boosting earnings. These same corporations used the BLS fake inflation data as the reason to suppress wage increases for their employees at a 2% level, further boosting earnings. As a humorous aside, executive pay and bonuses advanced at double digit rates.

The following chart sheds some light on this “fundamentally” driven bull market.

S&P 500 companies have bought back $500 billion in stock in the last two years, and $2.1 trillion since 2010. Until recently, individual investors have been net sellers for the last eight years. Pension funds have not been net buyers. That means the entire stock market surge has been reliant upon corporations buying their own stock and Wall Street institutions using their HFT machines to rig the system. And this entire scheme has been enabled by the Federal Reserve’s crisis level low interest rates for the last eight years.

After you’ve run out of accounting gimmicks, refinanced all your debt, and outsourced as many jobs to the third world as possible, how else can you make your earnings per share rise? Why invest your money in capital, innovation, research or human resources to grow your sales, when you can just buy back your own stock and goose earnings per share the easy way. Goosing EPS by reducing the number of shares makes it easier for the Wall Street fleecing machine to pump stocks and it makes it easier for corporate CEOs and their executive teams to “earn” their million dollar bonuses while stiffing their employees with 2% raises.

But it gets better. Since 2009 over $1 trillion of debt was taken on by S&P 500 companies just to buyback their own stock. The narrative about corporations being flush with cash is complete bullshit. In the last two years, the trend of issuing debt to buyback stock has accelerated to an all-time high of 30%. Think about that for one moment. With stock market valuations at all-time highs, the brilliant Ivy League educated MBA CEOs of the largest companies in the world have issued $300 billion of debt in the last two years to buyback their stock at all-time highs.

The stupid, it burns. This ridiculous miss-allocation of corporate funds was enabled by the Fed keeping interest rates so low for so long. The Fed is always the culprit in the boom and bust cycles that plague our rigged economic system. The big banks and corporations always get bailed out when their reckless financial schemes blow up, while the average American gets screwed by inflation, stagnant wages, and higher taxes. Retail CEO’s were buying back their stock over the last eight years and are now declaring bankruptcy and closing stores at a record pace. Maybe they could have used the cash used on buybacks to sustain their businesses.

Corporate debt levels are at all-time highs despite a supposed eight year economic recovery. The debt was used to buyback stock rather than invest in the business. Revenues have been stagnant and earnings are now falling. Interest rates are being ratcheted up by the Fed, and the economy is falling into recession. With debt levels already high and interest rates rising, the buyback machine is going to shut off. Without corporate buybacks what will sustain the stock market rise?

The trillion dollars of stock bought at record high prices with debt will be vaporized in the next inevitable stock market crash. But the debt will remain. And the CEOs will plead ignorance and say who could have known as they cash their multi-million dollar paychecks. The Wall Street shysters know their only hope now is to lure the stupid money into the market as they head for the exits. That’s why their hype machine has been in overdrive with the Snapchat IPO and gushing articles about Tesla’s Model 3 revolutionizing the auto industry. It’s enough to make a sane person gag.

And it’s working. The little guy has been hesitant to dip their toe back in the water after seeing 50% of their net worth obliterated in 2000/2001 and then again in 2008/2009. It seems the election of Donald trump and his promises of tax cuts, walls, infrastructure and fixing healthcare have enthused the masses into investing in the stock market at its all-time high. I guess they forgot how much it hurt when they were clubbed over the head eight years ago. Well, they are going to relearn that lesson again.

As the stupid money goes in, the smart money heads for the exits. The perfect example of how American corporations are led by greedy, short-term oriented, unprincipled, dishonest, corrupt egomaniacs can be seen in their personal actions versus the their corporate mandates. As Wall Street touts stocks to the little guy and corporate executives commit billions of shareholder dollars towards buying back their stock, corporate executives are cashing in their stock options and selling like there is no tomorrow. What a despicable display of self-interest.

If all is well and the market is headed higher then why are corporate executives buying their own firms’ shares at the slowest pace in at least 29 years.  According to the Washington Service, there were a total of 279 insider buyers in January, the lowest since 1988.  Moreover, the number of sellers has also grown in recent months, pushing the ratio of buyers to sellers in February to its lowest since 1988 as well. If the market isn’t overvalued, then why are corporate executives, who know their business’ prospects better than anyone, selling their stocks at a far greater rate than buying? It’s because they are going to let the ignorant investing masses be left holding the bag when the shit hits the fan.

Human beings are so predictable en mass that it’s almost humorous to watch them get it good and hard once again. They are like Wile Coyote thinking they will surely catch the Road Runner this time by using the same old methods that have failed a thousand times before. Their confidence rises just before they go over the cliff once again. We’ve reached that point again for the third time in the last seventeen years. Consumer confidence is at a sixteen year high (seems odd considering retailers are closing 3,500 stores in the next few months). The previous peaks were in May 2000 and July 2007. We all know what happened next. But it will surely be different this time. Jim Cramer tells me so.

So all the pieces are in place for an epic stock market crash, along with a real estate and debt market crash as an added kicker. The arrogant, over-confident thirty year old MBA investment geniuses and their super computer algorithms are sure they are smarter than the next guy and will get out before it’s too late. They think there will be a clear event which will signal it’s time to go. The markets are so overvalued, so dependent on the Fed, and so propped up by massive amounts of leverage, they will topple under their own weight at any moment. Central bankers, Wall Street bankers, politicians, pundits, experts, and the stupid lemmings will be shocked by this truly unexpected development.

Data reported in the last week will be the gasoline thrown on the fire when this market starts to burn, turning it into a towering inferno. Margin debt has reached an all-time high, as supremely confident investors (aka speculators) know the trend is their friend. They have borrowed over $500 billion against their stock portfolios to buy some more Snapchat, Tesla, Amazon, Facebook, Google and Apple. The previous peaks of $400 billion to $425 billion in 2000 and 2007 have been far surpassed. What happened after those previous peaks? I forget. I’m sure this time will be different. A CNBC bimbo spokesmodel told me so.

Lance Roberts, an honest, analytical, critical thinking investment manager describes what will happen, because it always does:

“Investors can leverage their existing portfolios and increase buying power to participate in rising markets. While “this time could certainly be different,” the reality is that leverage of this magnitude is “gasoline waiting on a match.”

When an event eventually occurs, it creates a rush to liquidate holdings. The subsequent decline in prices eventually reaches a point which triggers an initial round of margin calls. Since margin debt is a function of the value of the underlying “collateral,” the forced sale of assets will reduce the value of the collateral further triggering further margin calls. Those margin calls will trigger more selling forcing more margin calls, so forth and so on.”

I watched The Big Short a couple weeks ago for the second time. The lessons from that movie will never grow old. Greed drives human beings to do reckless things in the pursuit of riches. Men think in a herd like manner and go mad in pursuit of their delusional aspirations of wealth and power. Those who see the irrationality and stupidity of the herd are scorned and ridiculed until they are ultimately proven right. Delusions die hard, but they do die as reality always wins.

“We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object, and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first.” – Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds

Why Is Kim Jong Un Our Problem?

Guest Post By: Patrick J. Buchanan

“If China is not going to solve North Korea, we will.”

So President Donald Trump warns, amid reports North Korea, in its zeal to build an intercontinental ballistic missile to hit our West Coast, may test another atom bomb.

China shares a border with North Korea. We do not.

Why then is this our problem to “solve”? And why is North Korea building a rocket that can cross the Pacific and strike Seattle or Los Angeles?

Is Kim Jong Un mad?

No. He is targeting us because we have 28,500 troops on his border. If U.S. air, naval, missile and ground forces were not in and around Korea, and if we were not treaty-bound to fight alongside South Korea, there would be no reason for Kim to build rockets to threaten a distant superpower that could reduce his hermit kingdom to ashes.

While immensely beneficial to Seoul, is this U.S. guarantee to fight Korean War II, 64 years after the first wise? Russia, China and Japan retain the freedom to decide whether and how to react, should war break out. Why do we not?

Would it not be better for us if we, too, retained full freedom of action to decide how to respond, should the North attack?

During the August 2008 war between Russia and Georgia, despite John McCain’s channeling Patrick Henry — “We are all Georgians now!” — George W. Bush decided to take a pass on war. When a mob in Kiev overthrew the pro-Russian government, Vladimir Putin secured his Sebastopol naval base by annexing Crimea.

Had Georgia and Ukraine been in NATO, we would have been, in both cases, eyeball to eyeball with a nuclear-armed Russia.

Which brings us to the point:

Have something to say about this column?
Visit Pat’s FaceBook page and post your comments….

The United States is in rising danger of being dragged into wars in half a dozen places, because we have committed ourselves to fight for scores of nations with little or no link to vital U.S. interests.

While our first president said in his Farewell Address that we might “trust to temporary alliances” in extraordinary emergencies, he added, “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”

Alliances, Washington believed, were transmission belts of war. Yet no nation in history has handed out so many war guarantees to so many “allies” on so many continents, as has the United States.

To honor commitments to the Baltic States, we have moved U.S. troops to the Russian border. To prevent China from annexing disputed rocks and reefs in the South and East China Seas, our Navy is prepared to go to war — to back the territorial claims of Tokyo and Manila.

Yet, our richest allies all spend less on defense than we, and all run trade surpluses at America’s expense.

Consider Germany. Last year, Berlin ran a $270 billion trade surplus and spent 1.2 percent of GDP on defense. The United States ran a $700 billion merchandise trade deficit and spent 3.6 percent of GDP on defense.

Angela Merkel puts Germany first. Let the Americans finance our defense, face down the Russians, and fight faraway wars, she is saying; Germany will capture the world’s markets, and America’s as well.

Japan and South Korea are of like mind. Neither spends nearly as much of GDP on defense as the USA. Yet, we defend both, and both run endless trade surpluses at our expense.

President Trump may hector and threaten our allies that we will not forever put up with this. But we will, because America’s elites live for the great game of global empire.

What would a true “America First” foreign policy look like?

It would restore to the United States the freedom it enjoyed for the 150 years before NATO, to decide when, where and whether we go to war. U.S. allies would be put on notice that, while we are not walking away from the world, we are dissolving all treaty commitments that require us to go to war as soon as the shooting starts.

This would concentrate the minds of our allies wonderfully. We could cease badgering them about paying more for their defense. They could decide for themselves — and live with their decisions.

In the Carter era, we dissolved our defense pact with Taiwan. Taiwan has survived and done wonderfully well. If Germany, Japan and South Korea are no longer assured we will go to war on their behalf, all three would take a long hard look at their defenses. The result would likely be a strengthening of those defenses.

But if we do not begin to rescind these war guarantees we have handed out since the 1940s, the odds are high that one of them will one day drag us into a great war, after which, if we survive, all these alliances will be dissolved in disillusionment.

What John Foster Dulles called for, over half a century ago, an “agonizing reappraisal” of America’s alliances, is long, long overdue.