My big-picture outlook is that America with its quasi world empire has been following in the footsteps of the warmongering British Empire. That road is leading to America’s premature downfall. I suppose others have noticed the striking similarity between the two “Anglo-Saxon” great powers in their approach to the outside world.

On the American side, some have pointed to the Great War and Woodrow Wilson as pivotal. I have suggested that the Spanish American war (1898) was the real turning point for the U.S. Why? Because it began the road to empire…Hawaii, the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and briefly Cuba. This makes me an “isolationist” in the mind of small minds. Hoppe Unplugged: Views... Hoppe, Hans Hermann Buy New $9.95 (as of 04:21 UTC - Details)

On the British side, one could say the Boer War (1900) laid the groundwork for England’s road to ruin. Like the Spanish-American war, the Boer War was an unnecessary war of choice and hubris. Washington should have left Spain alone. London should have left the Boers alone in their self-governing South African republics.

I vote for the Great War (1914-18) as the critical turning point for England from which there was no return. Many books have been written to explain which country was most responsible for the outbreak of the Great War after decades of general European peace and prosperity.

Recently, there is Margaret MacMillan’s wonderful The War that Ended Peace (2014). Earlier, there was Professor Sidney Bradshaw Fay’s magisterial The Origins of the World War (1928). My own view is that England was most responsible for the general European conflict and then the world war. See the  Unauthorized World Situation Report (2020)…

“It is rather late in the day, granted, but perhaps we can learn something from the track record of the British, especially from their mistakes. In a previous age, the British went everywhere for various reasons, some good some bad, and created along the way the greatest empire the world has ever seen or ever will see.

“The problem is, at the start of the 20th century they lost perspective on what they were doing and why. Again, all roads lead to The Great War. In the summer of 1914, the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, could have halted the slide to war in Europe by simply asking the French to calm down and by suggesting to Tsar Nicholas II that he have a serious talk with his cousin-in-law, The Kaiser, a grandson of Queen Victoria, about the regicide in the Balkans, and for them to work out a deal between Vienna and Serbia.

“Instead, the British Ambassador in Moscow, Sir George Buchanan, was urging Russian mobilization in response to Austria’s moves against Serbia. In those bygone days, mobilization meant war. Without the Czar succumbing to England’s mischief-making in Moscow, there would have been no outbreak of a general European conflagration in August 1914.

“The retreat from war could have been accomplished, but it was not on the agenda because Sir Edward and other short-sighted leaders in Whitehall took the attitude that Germany was a danger to British Empire preeminence in the world.”

Sound familiar? It seems to me that Washington, like Whitehall before it, is constantly on the lookout anything which might eclipse or potentially threatened its world hegemony. This is unashamedly stated in the grandiose, so-called Wolfowitz Doctrine.  A sample:

“…The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. 

“In non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.”

This full-throated taste of imperialism, along with Israel-promotion without qualification, is the driving force of neo-conservatism. It is simply a form of bullying and lording it over others. That is the essence of U.S. foreign policy.

That’s what England did until it over-extended itself and imploded after the Second World War. Please bear in mind that without the Great War, which Lord Grey could have prevented, there would have been no Second World War. These were two parts of the same war, which I have called British Empire wars. Absolutely unnecessary and a disaster.

America or Washington has the same mindset today against Russia and China. Indeed, it can be argued that America has been looking for a boogeyman of one kind or another ever since the Spanish-American war. This has made us predisposed to becoming employed first by England and now by Israel to take part in their wars for no rational reason of our own. It’s madness.

As for China, Washington’s boogyman of choice, nothing is going to stop it. By that I mean, its economic success. That success, Washington takes for granted as a threat. “…We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role….” Just like the gentlemen in Whitehall regarded the rise of Germany from the end of the 19th Century onwards. It’s a self-defeating obsession.

When in the Course of ... Adams, Charles Best Price: $4.99 Buy New $19.95 (as of 10:42 UTC - Details) Recently, I splurged and bought the new Apple Mac Mini computer. With some customization, it took a few weeks for it to arrive at my front door. Where did the package come from? Directly from China, from a city I could not begin to pronounce. It was not trans-shipped from Apple HQ in Cupertino, California. Apple is a de facto Chinese company. All its products, or nearly all, are made in China. I doubt that the Mac Mini could even be produced in the USA.

You go to the matt with China with tariffs and sanctions, you cripple Apple, the world’s largest corporation. Ditto Amazon and Walmart. And you send inflation soaring. So why are we seriously even considering going down that road? See what Charlie Munger and Warren Buffett have to say about it.

Here’s what I think. I want China on my side. America needs China. I’m not suggesting a modus vivendi, but an outright alliance between the two countries. Actually, why not a tripartite economic pact with China, Japan and the U.S.? This has the added benefit of helping to prevent a territorial conflict in the South China Sea. But only, of course, if Washington get’s off its high-horse with respect to Taiwan, which Washington has officially recognized as part of China decades ago.

In short, let’s stop creating problems for ourselves and others, whether it be in the Far East, the Middle East or Eurasia. Let’s not go the way of the defunct British Empire. Let’s try to return to the ideals of the Founding Fathers.