John Bolton asked the question: “Who Will Lead the United
Nations?” It happens to be the title of an article he wrote, which also came
under the subtitle: “Will President Obama back a 'secular pope' or a humble
'chief administrative officer'?” It was published on August 8, 2016 in the Wall
Street Journal.
It is only natural that this should prompt the reader to
ask: “Who is John Bolton?” in the sense of what makes this man tick? The fact
is that Bolton did not appear out of nowhere;
he's been around for a long time and has had a history that defined him in the
past. Thus, the reason to ask what makes him tick now is to try and determine
if he changed. If the answer is yes, other questions may follow.
There is no doubt that as time moves on, circumstances
change. Immersed in those circumstances, we all change because we need to adapt
lest we ossify and wither away. But there is a difference between changing
superficially to harmonize with the times, and changing fundamentally after
discovering that we've been on the wrong track long enough. Well then, how does
all this apply to John Bolton?
Briefly, Bolton was at one
time the most powerful individual laboring to implement Pax Americana; an
important plank in the neocon ideology. But eight years of Democratic
governance in America ,
followed by the implosion of the Republican Party, has killed that project for
good. Does this mean Bolton has changed his
view of the world? It is too soon to give a definitive answer to this question.
But given Bolton 's celebration of the Brits
voting to leave the European Union, we see that he still favors doing away with
the existing order.
This poses a dilemma. With an existing order that's being
dismantled, and a Pax Americana that is no longer available to replace it, where
does Bolton hope to see the world go? To find
out, we could look for clues in his article. Unfortunately, doing so raises
more questions than it answers because John Bolton seems uncertain of what he
wants.
The article being on choosing a new Secretary General for
the United Nations, he asserts that “significant American interests are at
stake.” And so, he sees that the choice comes down to one of two possibilities.
Either a candidate that will reform a disorganized UN – now run on bloated
budgets by corrupt bureaucrats; or a candidate that will please “the
supranational globalists who want to restrain the U.S.”
This says Bolton wants to see an America that is free to do what it
wants, having to answer to no one. He then goes into the UN history during the
past quarter century. He says that the Egyptian Boutros Ghali was not allowed
to serve a second term as Secretary General because “the Clinton administration came to swords'
points” with him. Had Bolton stopped here, the
readers might have believed what he says. But he pushed his luck a little too
far, thus demonstrated that he'll lie like only John Bolton can lie. This is
what he went on to say: “His [Ghali's] disdain for Madeleine Albright was well
known. So out he went”.
That is totally false. The reality is that Ghali was the
victim of two pathologies acting in concert with each other. The first is the
Jewish pathology of sabotaging every progress or advancement that an Arab or a
Muslim makes in any field. The second pathology is that of the Americans
blindly executing the Jewish commands without question. They do so because they
are raised on the idea that a wish expressed by a Jew is a command that's
absolute as dogma. They must execute it no matter the cost to America or to
anyone else.
John Bolton then mentions two Secretaries General who were
allowed to serve a second term: Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-moon. In fact, both had
serious differences with America
– as acknowledged by Bolton – but neither was
hated by the Jews. For this reason, no legislator such as Jesse Helms was
drafted to work on ditching either of them the way that he did with Boutros
Ghali.
It must be said that Jesse Helms was the arch-enemy of Israel before
they accused him of antisemitism and blackmailed him. When they gathered enough
dirt on him, and let him know what they had, he made an abrupt reversal and
became the obedient servant of the Jews. In the style of the mafia which
requires new recruits to prove their allegiance by doing a serious hit on
someone, Helms was ordered to do a hit on the Egyptian Secretary General, and
he did. Madeleine Albright had nothing to do with any of that.
This is the history that Bolton ’s
lie was designed to hide. It is why we must conclude that he knows not what to
do now because his Jewish masters are themselves confused, and don't know what
they want.
What is certain, however, is that no matter who the UN
chooses to be its Secretary
General , America