The Western world at a crossroads

Introduction

On July 13, 2024, the entire world witnessed Donald Trump's raised fist and heard his words, “Fight! Fight! Fight!” and “God spared me for a reason” during an assassination attempt at a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.

During his presidential campaigns, he spoke of ending “endless” or “eternal wars” and declared that eliminating “warmongers and globalists who put America last” would be among the priorities of his second term in office.

The “chosen one” thus became a symbol of a turning point: the end of kinetic wars had come and would be replaced by a strategy of “deal making”. The world began to adjust to the idea that American politics would now follow the relatively non-warlike philosophy described by Trump in his book The Art of the Deal: Negotiate hard to get the most out of it; always have several options up your sleeve; market yourself as a brand to gain negotiating power; take risks, but in such a way that you lose as little as possible; put pressure on your opponent and exploit the momentum – but don't waste money on wars.

Many believed these promises. However, as it now turns out, these were not just wishful thinking that did not and do not correspond to the current reality. Rather, they were products of the propaganda workshop of social engineering (a method of influencing people). The classic historical model for this methodology is David Rockefeller and his circles.

Rockefeller

Anyone who has been around this globe for a while and has kept their eyes and ears open will remember the postulate “We must have people in all camps”. This is attributed to David Rockefeller for good reason. He was a grand master of networking and social engineering.

Remember his role in the Rockefeller Foundation, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderberg meetings.

Rockefeller repeatedly said that he and his family supported global institutions “to promote international cooperation.” This sentence, for example, has become famous:

„Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.“

David Rockefeller, Memoirs

Here are two of his protégés:

David Rockefeller did not “invent” Brzezinski, but he promoted him institutionally and strategically through his networks: first through the Council on Foreign Relations, then specifically through the Trilateral Commission. There, Brzezinski was given the stage to implement his ideas. He became Lyndon B. Johnson's campaign advisor from 1966 to 1968 and US President Jimmy Carter's national security advisor from 1977 to 1981. His book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and the Future of World Order, about Anglo-Saxon geopolitical strategy, is still a classic today.

Rockefeller and Kissinger were not a mentor-pupil pair in the traditional sense. But Kissinger rose through the ranks of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), in which Rockefeller played a leading role as its financier. Kissinger wrote for Foreign Affairs, the CFR's flagship magazine. Together, they combined banking interests, oil policy, the Cold War, and globalization. Rockefeller's 1973 trip to China with Kissinger to explore the possibility of establishing economic relations became famous. Kissinger was National Security Advisor under Nixon at the time. After his time in government, Kissinger set up a consulting firm (Kissinger Associates), where Rockefeller's contacts opened key doors.

The Rockefeller network and its current successors continue to pursue the old financial imperialist goals – as they do today.

Donald Trump, the establishment's newly disguised talking head

At the time of Donald Trump's election campaign against Joe Biden, several key problems converged for the circles that rule America: In the eyes of the domestic population, the established political caste had run the country into the ground, had been delegitimized, and had lost all trust. The population was weary of war. At the same time, the looming apocalyptic scenario of a financial crash due to the US budget and trade deficits was becoming increasingly apparent. What was needed was a figurehead who could authentically embody the mistrust of the political establishment and present himself as an outsider who would “drain the swamp”. He also had to give the impression that he would reverse the deindustrialization of the economy, effectively combat the budget and trade deficits, and end the “forever wars.”

There was no intention of seriously solving any of these problems. All that was done was to install a new puppet who would pretend to do so.

In order to truly end the obvious delegitimization of the ruling political caste, it would have been necessary to reform the basic structure of the existing political system. No one with influence inside or outside the Beltway had any interest in doing so, because ultimately “we” all live from the fact that “we” keep our jobs, continue to be supported by the state, and can line “our” pockets – after “us,” the deluge.

The budget and trade deficits cannot be resolved without a fundamental loss of power by the financial empire, quite apart from the almost insurmountable technical and social changes that would be necessary to do so. So they are betting on kicking the can down the road a little longer, hoping to find financiers who will keep the system going for the time being.

And we see every day that the wars are not being ended by the current US administration, but are being fueled with diabolical zeal.

The fraud is becoming known.

There is considerable unrest among Trump's voters. Some of the most prominent Trump propagandists are attacking him fiercely. Retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson says that the MAGA movement is beginning to split “from the heart.”

Well-known American television presenter and political commentator Tucker Carlson, who had strongly supported Trump during the election campaign, is currently attacking him for various reasons. For example, he objects to Trump's attempts to cover up his own involvement in the more than unsavory Epstein affair and his refusal to release the relevant files.

Carlson goes on to denounce the Trump administration's aggressive war policy. In this context, he conducted an interview with Texas Senator Ted Cruz, one of Trump's most important allies in the push for regime change in Iran, in which the senator was more or less completely dismantled.

But Tucker Carlson is not alone. Many point out that Trump has not kept a single one of his campaign promises – especially with regard to ending the wars led by USrael.

Georgia Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG) recently made a surprising and clear break with Donald Trump, despite having been one of his most loyal supporters for a long time. She told The Times that Americans are “tired” of conflicts in distant countries. She strongly condemned Trump's announcement to supply weapons to Ukraine via NATO. She said this was a betrayal of the “America First” principle. In her opinion, Trump is risking dragging the US into another war. She speaks of a broken promise:

“That's exactly what we rejected in the election campaign – no more money for Ukraine, we want peace.”

Source: The Daily Beast

Back in June, she called for no bombs to be dropped on Iran and criticized Trump for ordering airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. She described this as a broken promise and a departure from his pledge not to wage new wars.

These open attacks on Trump's course show that there are significant cracks in the “America First” movement. Greene openly opposes Trump's foreign policy and parts of his economic policy. Although she emphasizes that she still supports Trump personally, her criticism shows that his once-united camp is threatening to fall apart.

Trump is losing people, he is losing his base, and this only a few months into his second year in office.

And this erosion is not only taking place in the United States. Confidence in the willingness of the US administration and its mouthpiece Trump to engage in serious “deal making” is now at zero internationally.

Negotiations Kabuki

Knowledgeable observers of the situation, such as Gilbert Doctorow, still assume that “Trump” is interested in normalizing relations between the US and Russia and is working toward that end. Colonel Douglas Macgregor, long one of Trump's most loyal supporters, said on July 15, 2025, in an interview with Judge Napolitano that his sources in the White House had assured him that background talks between American and Russian negotiators were continuing and going well.

Others, such as Pepe Escobar, compare this traveling circus of negotiations to a Japanese art form. Kabuki is a traditional form of theater in which dramatic gestures, mask-like performances, and formal rules are important, but the outcome of the drama is predetermined. The seductive sounds of Steve Witkoff's pipes in Moscow and St. Petersburg have produced nothing but futile attempts to lull Russia with vague announcements of economic cooperation and, if possible, lure it away from the Chinese camp.

But the attempt to lure Russia with the carrot of economic benefits and, if it behaves well, the easing of sanctions is too transparent. At the same time, Keith Kellogg is cracking the whip in Kiev.

The focus there remains on cooperation between the respective intelligence services, tougher sanctions against Russia, the expansion of US military aid, and maximum demands on Russia, which should then immediately surrender. There is no talk whatsoever of “normalization” in relations with Russia.

Russia and the US did meet in Istanbul on February 27 and April 10, 2025, with the aim of normalizing the work of diplomatic missions and improving bilateral relations. As a result of the last consultation, the parties agreed to simplify the freedom of movement of diplomats and to develop a “road map” for seized Russian diplomatic property.

However, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Alexeyevich Ryabkov stated on July 10, 2025, that a “technical pause” had arisen in the dialogue with the US on restoring bilateral relations. The Russian Foreign Ministry expects concrete information on the date of the next round of consultations shortly.

People with contacts to Ryabkov have learned behind closed doors that he pointed out that, apart from “fine words”, there had been no positive movement on the issue in the talks so far. For example, Russian real estate seized by the US has not been returned. There is also no longer any talk of the agreed establishment of direct flights between the US and Russia. So much for “deal-making” or even a normalization of relations between the US and Russia.

End of the thaw

But what finally broke the camel's back was USreal's blatant breach of trust toward Iran.

On June 22, 2025, under the code name “Operation Midnight Hammer,” the US carried out air strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Prior to this, on June 13, Western intelligence agencies had launched a surprise attack on Iran.

However, in the summer of 2025, there were parallel diplomatic efforts and talks between the US, the US Congress, and Iran regarding the nuclear program and tensions in the Middle East. The bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities on June 22, 2025, came at a time when covert negotiations were taking place between US representatives and Iranian diplomats to achieve de-escalation or at least contain the so-called “nuclear” tensions. At the same time, however, the US military and some hardliners in the US government were preparing military operations, which were then carried out.

This contradictory approach was a flagrant violation of the most fundamental principles of good faith in interpersonal relations. Every negotiator knows that even before a contract is concluded and during contract negotiations, one can be held legally responsible if, for example, one conceals important information, makes false statements, or acts dishonestly. This is intended to protect trust in private and international business transactions.

But of course, these “masters of the world” claim that these principles only apply to the “slaves”: “Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi” (“What is permitted to Jupiter is not permitted to the ox”). What is permitted to the powerful or privileged is forbidden or impossible for “normal” people.

This is strongly reminiscent of the distinction between ius divinum (immutable divine law) and ius positivum (secular law) in earlier canon law. Until the 19th century, there were canon lawyers who believed that agreements between a non-ecclesiastical entity (the state) and the Holy See had no binding effect under international law for the Church. As a divine institution, the Church could not bind itself to secular treaties in the fulfillment of its mission. The welfare of souls (salus animarum) took precedence over any secular agreement. If a concordat contradicted such a supreme goal, the Church was ipso facto not bound by it.

The religiously motivated political exceptionalism of the 19th-century “Manifest Destiny” is a crude copy of this idea. It states that the United States has a divine destiny to spread across the North American continent and beyond.

In this allegorical representation of “Manifest Destiny,” the figure Columbia personifies the United States, which is bringing the “light of civilization” to American settlers in the West and driving out the Native Americans and other wild animals. Columbia is pulling a telegraph wire and holding a schoolbook in her right hand. The self-proclaimed world powers of the West still live in such a fantasy world.

But now even some of the most loyal companions of NATO and the US military machine have had enough – or should we say, they finally understand that they are only tools and victims of a slowly dying, delusional empire.

Voting with their feet

The Indo-Pacific Four (IP4) is an informal alliance between Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand that has been participating regularly in NATO summits since 2022. Its goal is to link security challenges in the Euro-Atlantic region with those in the Indo-Pacific. These four countries are of extremely high strategic importance to the West. Their alliance brings together the Indo-Pacific dimension within the framework of NATO cooperation.

The NATO summit in The Hague on June 24–25, 2025, was not attended by the heads of government of South Korea (President Lee Jae Myung), Japan (Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba) and Australia (Anthony Albanese).

Prime Minister Ishiba officially canceled his participation just three days before the summit. The Japanese Foreign Ministry cited vague “various circumstances” as the reason.

President Lee Jae Myung decided not to attend due to “domestic priorities” and developments in West Asia. Tensions there have escalated after the US attacked Iranian nuclear facilities on Sunday, while hostilities between Israel and Iran continue. There are also concerns about provoking China or Russia, especially after the US attacks on Iranian targets.

Prime Minister Albanese also canceled shortly before the summit. In addition to tensions in the Middle East, trade and defense policy tensions with the US, particularly regarding tariffs and other demands, were cited as reasons.

New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon was the only representative of the IP4 countries to attend.

The absence of these countries was no coincidence, but a conscious joint decision, largely due to USrael's aggressive approach toward Iran. Previously loyal allies who had always been reliable for the West are increasingly voting with their feet against continued imperial policy because they see their own vital interests threatened by Western policy. Moreover, they are seeing a real alternative more and more clearly.

BRICS is the new post-West environment

The West believes it is engaged in a new “clash of civilizations,” a catchphrase coined by Samuel P. Huntington in the 1990s. The global majority sees things completely differently. In their view, this is a break with the past.

BRICS is not a confrontational alliance, but acts out of self-interest and seeks global influence to achieve this.

These countries see themselves as part of a new multipolar world order that is not Western-centric.

Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, spoke at the 53rd Munich Security Conference in 2017 of a “post-Western world order” in which each country is defined by its own sovereignty.

In June 2017, Chinese President Xi Jinping delivered a landmark speech at the BRICS Economic Forum in which he challenged Western dominance of the global economy. According to his speech, China intends to work with partners to build a new global value chain by rebalancing economic globalization.

Since then, there have been many statements along the same lines.

Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, made it clear:

“We are not working against anyone; we are working in our own interests and those of the member states. BRICS does not pursue a confrontational agenda.”

Sergey Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister, added once again:

“We are fighting for a balance of interests, but in no way against anyone in the West.”

Celso Amorim, Brazilian BRICS founder and diplomat, emphasized:

“BRICS is not against the West; it is for balance, for development, for multilateralism, and for social justice.”

An article in the South China Morning Post puts it:

“BRICS is not anti-Western; it wants a more equitable world order.”

Eurasia Magazine also sums it up succinctly:

“The BRICS system is ‘non-Western’, but not ‘anti-Western’.”

The Guardian comments that BRICS is building a financial infrastructure to “break free from the Western system” – a clear sign of a new, decentralized world order.

In summary: The representatives of the BRICS countries clearly state that they are not anti-Western, but no longer pro-Western. They operate in a post-Western, multipolar order that is understandably gaining more and more support.

So, dear West: it is high time for courageous decisions.

It seems that no one in the West dares to make the difficult decisions that lie ahead. Shouldn`t we be retreating? Do we recognize the problems we have in our own countries? Are we addressing these problems? Are we reforming the economy? Are we reforming the way we govern and are we taking a different path? In other words, are we willing to give up our political, financial, and military dominance over the world? Because that is what this is really about.

Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping are polite. They don't brag. They don't say they will destroy or break the other side. They are professionals. They don't engage in such rhetoric. But we must understand one thing: they mean business. Either they are sovereign and independent, or they don't exist. The same applies to us. We in the West must also emancipate ourselves from financial imperialism.

Life punishes those who are late

During the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, Mikhail Gorbachev indirectly warned Erich Honecker during a state visit to the GDR (October 1989) that reforms were necessary. Gorbachev said at the time:

“I believe that dangers await only those who do not respond to life.”

History teaches us that those who ignore historical changes will be overwhelmed by them.

Does anyone out there in our aloof political merry-go-round understand that?