The Ethnography of American Foreign Policy

At a recent briefing of the Russian SVR, the Kremlin’s intelligence agency disclosed information suggesting a recalibration of American and British backed media entities and NGOs, who have been instructed by their handlers to launch an information assault seeking to recreate the Ukraine conflict in other nations bordering Russia.

Both the CIA and MI6 appear to be importing the Syrian model to Eastern Europe, where instead of unleashing Jihadists on geopolitical opponents of Zionism, GLADIO revanchists and parochial nationalists are being indoctrinated, armed and trained by American, British and Ukrainian intelligence to provoke violence and instability in Belarus, Georgia, and through groups like the “Russian Volunteer Corps,” in Russia proper.

In the SVR’s presentation, care is taken to distinguish Europe from the United States and Britain. It is the latter nations, referred to as Anglo-Saxons in Russian reporting, that have decided to perpetually escalate all conflicts towards the unthinkable (such as an exchange of nuclear strikes) and set the world on fire, while Europe is portrayed as a reluctant vassal in this project.

But just how ethnically Anglo-Saxon are the pro-war parties in America? In France, Jewish neo-conservative Bernard Henri-Levi can be viewed as the most unapologetically pro-war public figure in the country. In the UK, media fixture Paul Mason, also of Jewish ancestry, has recently penned an article calling for Britain to declare war on Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. These pro-war voices have no base of popular support and the electorate regularly rejects them, yet they continue to get their way.

The ethnography of warmongers in America follows in this pattern. Jewish sociologist Eric Kaufmann’s work, The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America, details how the historic WASP elite was uninstalled as the dominant power bloc and removed from most American institutions by the end of the 1960s. When observing the outgoing Biden administration, we see largely a panel of Jewish actors steering the American ship globally, while the incoming Trump administration has placed figures such as billionaire Zionists Howard Lutnick and Miriam Adelson in charge of appointing a cabinet of obedient politicians and various celebrity-seeking self-promoters vetted for their ability to read a script and look good on television without asking any questions.

Pushed out of institutions, prominent WASPs such as Tucker Carlson have reconstituted themselves as critics of the American empire, much like ethnic Russian patriots like Alexander Solzhenitsyn developed into leading opponents of the Soviet empire. WASPs who were once held in good-standing with the American regime, such as Carlson, Douglas MacGregor, and Michael Hudson, are today some of the most prominent critics of America’s support for Israel and do not hide their sympathies for Russia.

Many in this dissenting WASP faction on the periphery of American politics have gone all-in on Donald Trump, but there is no sign Trump plans to reciprocate. A recent clash between America’s Jewish foreign policy establishment and WASP outsiders that exemplifies this dynamic emerged when Elbridge Colby’s name appeared as a potential pick for National Security Advisor.

Colby is what passes in Washington for a “realist.” As an opponent of aid to Ukraine and for Russian detente, as well as a supporter of trying diplomacy with Iran, he has been maligned in the press as an “appeaser.” But this WASP faction should not be viewed as isolationist, instead, Colby seeks to pursue historically familiar Anglo-Saxon geopolitical imperatives, such as destroying economic competitors through force and monopolizing international trade routes. In order to take on this difficult task, Colby has suggested pulling out of Europe and the Middle East to concentrate on battling China.

Colby’s foreign policy views are bellicose, interventionist and dangerous in their own right, but they diverge from most in Washington in that at least they are self-aware and self-interested from an American perspective, and thus geopolitically rational.

When rumors began to swirl that Tucker Carlson, the realist Quincy Institute, and others in this milieu were lobbying Trump to appoint Colby, Jewish media outlets such as the Jewish Insider began to ring alarm bells. Matthew Kassel compares Colby’s indifference towards Iran and Israel to Barack Obama and a “source of contention within Republican foreign policy circles,” quoting unnamed figures from Trump’s own inner circle who inferred that there was nothing to worry about because they got the last say in who would serve in the administration.

Ultimately, Trump, whose financial base of support is heavily Jewish, disappointed his MAGA backers by rejecting Colby for the conventional neoconservative Israel-firster Mike Waltz. While Colby’s name continues to appear in conservative publications for a potential role elsewhere in the administration, the reality of WASP political impotence in the shadow of America’s Jewish plutocratic core means that Colby would struggle to clear the Senate confirmation process in the off chance of being nominated.

The Ethnography of America’s Pro-War Elite

Rivals of American hegemony such as Vladimir Putin, the Iranian government, and Xi Jinping often remark that Washington’s foreign policy decisions often needlessly weaken its power and economic interests for little discernible benefit. Examples cited are the weaponization of the US dollar or the freezing of Russian assets, which have reduced confidence in the world reserve currency and scared the elites of vassal states into considering options that hedge against the waning American empire.

The world’s exhaustion with Washington’s abuse of unilateral global attitude adjustment measures has, from an attempt to impose international sanctions on Russia to America’s role as blank check and accomplice to Israel’s genocide in Gaza, marked a period of increasing American diplomatic isolation. The recent decision by the United States to threaten the International Criminal Court with penalties for issuing arrest warrants for Israeli war criminals has discredited the American empire’s assertion of being uniquely qualified to lead a “rules-based liberal order.” When the United States created the World Trade Organization in 1995, the purpose was to impose a free trade system on the world that ensured American access. Now that China is successfully challenging the United States, Washington has been one of the major breakers of its own rules and is actively undermining the very system it engineered.

When examining American hegemony and the way its global institutions operate we observe little in the way of ideological consistency beyond anarchic diplomacy, Machiavellian power plays, and breath-taking displays of moral nihilism (as seen in Gaza).

Some of the more erratic decisions can be explained by the wild overrepresentation of Jews among the American empire’s policy makers goes a long way in explaining the obsession of figures like Anne Applebaum (who is still angry that her family was forced to flee Czarist Russia) with keeping Russia poor and weak, while the prominence of individuals with personal ties to Israel helps explain the seemingly irrational decision to make an enemy of the whole resource rich Muslim world so a Jewish supremacist state can thrive.

American policy decisions are not made by elected officials, but instead by an elaborate web of think-tanks and non-governmental organizations financed and led by the same billionaires who leverage their role as major donors to both parties to impose their political will.

Through the influence of wealthy Jewish billionaires, individuals of Jewish ancestry have been able to emerge as clear Pareto elites in the direction of US foreign policy by forming either an ethnic plurality or occupying leadership positions in America’s most powerful interventionist globalist think-tanks and NGOs. This disproportionate Jewish representation is so great that it has not been seen since the first decade and a half of the Soviet Union, which had an equally aggressive and internationalist foreign policy.

Due to the immense diversity of non-Jews at these think-tanks — a proverbial ethnic grab-bag with infinite obscure agendas — Jews form an ethnic plurality of policy authors in all of them. The overrepresentation of individuals of Jewish ancestry is as follows.

Council On Foreign Relations

Leadership: CFR’s Chairman (David Rubenstein), Vice Chairman (Blair Effron), and President (Michael Froman) are Jewish.

Experts: At least 36 of 97 (38%) of full-time experts were identified as Jewish.

The Atlantic Council

Leadership: Adrienne Arsht (Vice Chairman) and Jenna Ben-Yehuda (Executive Vice President) are Jewish.

The Atlantic Council’s president Frederick Kempe is married to a Jewish woman from Washington DC, Pamela Meyer, as is WASP Chairman of the Board John Rogers whose wife is Deborah Lehr.

Experts: At least 77 of 300 (25%) full-time experts being identifiably Jewish.

Brookings Institute

Experts: A minimum of 62 of 250 (25%) are Jewish.

Carnegie Endowment For International Peace

Leadership: At least six (with an additional two highly likely but unconfirmed) of 12 Senior leaders are Jewish, including Senior Vice President for Policy Research Dan Baer and COO Alison Markovitz.

Hudson Institute

Leadership: Chairman of Board of Trustees is Sarah Stern, who is the daughter of deceased Chairman Emeritus Walter P. Stern.

Center For The Institute Of International Studies

Leadership: Thomas Pritzker (Chairman)

At regime change NGOs a similar dynamic is at play. At the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a think-tank that was designed to replace the CIA in foreign destabilization operations, 7 of 24 (29%) ((note that two are honorary)) active board members are Jewish. At the infamous Open Society Foundation, three of six board members are Jewish, with a fourth being George Soros’ wife. Freedom House’s president is the Jew Jane Harman, the Carter Center’s CEO is the Jew Paige Alexander, and so on.

In the House of Representatives, Jewish congressmen are only slightly overrepresented at 6%, but their relatively few numbers are strategically concentrated in the area of foreign and imperial affairs. Three of 12 members of the Subcommittee on Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia are Jewish, with Dean Phillips of Minnesota serving as Ranking Member (co-chair). In previous iterations of Congress, such as the 115th session, both the head Republican (Ileana Ros-Lehtinen) and Democrat co-chair (Ted Deutsch) were Jewish.

In the Subcommittee on Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organizations, three out of 10 members (Kathy Manning, Susan Wild and Sara Jacobs) are Jewish.

In the Senate, the Foreign Affairs Committee is controlled by Maryland’s Jewish Senator Ben Cardin. Cardin has emerged as an understated American foreign policy figure. As chairman of the Subcommittee State Department & USAID Management, International Operations, & Bilateral International Development he oversees departments in the federal government dedicated to organizing havoc and civil strife abroad. Cardin, one of only nine Jews in the Senate, leads an additional four foreign policy related work groups dealing with everything from spreading liberal values throughout the Western Hemisphere to the subcommittee on the “Near East and Counter-Terrorism.”

It is difficult to identify any power bloc in Washington besides the Jewish one. In some instances, non-Jewish national security officials such as Colin Powell and Jake Sullivan have expressed reluctance about the policies they are instructed to implement by the Zionist foreign policy establishment, yet due to lack of direction and the non-existence of an alternative power bloc, end up dutifully executing the will of AIPAC and JINSA.

Not only does America have no independent WASP faction — a George Marshall to counterbalance a Henry Morgenthau — America doesn’t even have a coherent non-Jewish faction to offer debate on diplomatic affairs.

Those who have sociologically and anthropologically profiled the Jewish people in the past have often remarked that they are a people whose ambitions outstrip their size and abilities. The America of the 21st century is what it looks like when they have seized the reins of a military and economic juggernaut.