With Kissinger now in a unique relationship with President-elect Trump as shadow foreign policy adviser, with Kissinger allies Tillerson as Secretary of State and Mattis as Secretary of Defense, it is beginning to appear that the heavy hand of Kissinger and his version of British Balance of Power political manipulations is about to target China, as well as Iran, and to try to use Putin and Russia to destroy the genuine possibility of a counterweight to Western One World delusions, by fostering mistrust and bad blood between China and Russia and Iran.Engdahl expands on his thesis that he argued in a November post entitled "The Dangerous Deception Called The Trump Presidency" by focusing on Kissinger's role to serve the powerful Rockefeller clan's interest in building what George Bush Sr. referred to as a "new world order" which is essentially the dominance of the US-led Empire. With his excellent understanding of history Engdahl reminds us of the extensive use of the "balance of power" strategy so often employed by the British ruling class to build the British Empire and to neutralize all opponents, and he argues the Kissinger and the current Rockefeller faction are influenced by exactly the same strategy to divide Russia and China.
My main problem with this argument is the continuing news coverage provided by corporate media that continues to engage in virulent attacks on Trump. It's as if corporate news producers get together everyday and see how they can gather together every scrap of information with which to defame Trump and delegitimize his presidency. I've never seen anything like it. Perhaps Engdahl, an American who resides in Germany, is not exposed to so much negative coverage of Trump and it does not figure in his calculations. None of his recent articles arguing this view seem to pose an alternate faction that I believe is led by those in control of the CIA and other "intelligence" agencies.
Engdahl's position is not that Trump was elected by some chicanery, but that the Rockefeller faction saw in him an excellent vehicle that they could use to appeal to wide sections of the American populace and promote their new world order policies. Thus they chose to back Trump. Referring to Trump's style of political campaign, Engdahl wrote his November's article an excellent parody of the performer Trump:
‘Ladies and gentlemen, It’s Showtime!’ Today we give you Donald Trump. He will tell you just what many of you want to hear. Trump the showman will tell you he will make America great again; Trump will say he will ship at least 3 million illegals back across the Rio Grande; Trump will introduce a bill to declare the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization; Trump will bring jobs back to America from China and other low wage countries; Trump will sit down with Putin and work out some kind of a deal to calm things down; Trump will scrap the Iran nuclear deal of Obama…There are three key events that come to mind that I think support Engdahl's thesis.
Often during this election campaign, which was more a Hollywood “D” grade movie than any honest debate of policies and ideas candidate Trump made statements that resonated with the “silent majority” of not only so-called blue collar workers, but also the disenfranchised middle class whose earnings have been declining in real terms since the 1970’s. Trump, like an earlier actor-President named Ronald Reagan, has a talent to make himself sound sincere.
1) Zbigniew Brzezinski's startling essay entitled "Toward a Global Realignment" (because this can no longer be accessed at The American Interest website--access it here) which subtly argued that some sort of accommodation should be reached with at least one of the two nations. Brzezinski has always exhibited a fanatic anti-Russian attitude.
While no state is likely in the near future to match America’s economic-financial superiority, new weapons systems could suddenly endow some countries with the means to commit suicide in a joint tit-for-tat embrace with the United States, or even to prevail. Without going into speculative detail, the sudden acquisition by some state of the capacity to render America militarily inferior would spell the end of America’s global role. The result would most probably be global chaos. And that is why it behooves the United States to fashion a policy in which at least one of the two potentially threatening states becomes a partner in the quest for regional and then wider global stability, and thus in containing the least predictable but potentially the most likely rival to overreach. Currently, the more likely to overreach is Russia, but in the longer run it could be China.2) The FBI's re-opening of their investigation about Clinton's alleged misuse of emails only eleven days before the election, and at that time the FBI was denying that Russian influence had any effect on the election. I think that this event was crucial in Trump's victory. Likely the Rockefeller faction influenced Director Comey of the FBI to do this.
3) Kissinger's trip to Russia to meet Putin and other officials in February 2016, and various statements made by Kissinger regarding Trump as reported in this article by Engdahl.
However, I am still concerned about the significance of corporate media's continuing vendetta against Trump and what this represents. This is a phenomenon that Engdahl ignores.