CIA, MI6, and Mossad Own Europe's Political Class | Col. Lawrence Wilkerson

I take a grim satisfaction from knowing exactly what we did. I know how painstakingly the CIA, MI6 (SIS), and to a certain extent Mossad worked to shape today's Europe. Though Mossad was not initially a willing partner, they eventually joined in once they saw the money involved. To borrow a phrase from certain Asian scholars, we "taught the dogs to bark." 

 

» We bought entire countries' political apparatuses. «

 

We bought newspaper editors, labor union heads, and parliamentarians. We purchased two NATO Secretary-Generals—Jens Stoltenberg and Mark Rutte. We bought entire countries' political apparatuses, starting in earnest around 2002, when billions of CIA dollars began flowing. USAID was the instrument; we weaponized liberal democracy.
 

2022: Biden, with Reich Governor Scholz at his side, promised to

terminate Nord Stream 2. And the perfect lackey just kowtowed.

In that respect, I supported what Trump and Rubio did to the extent that they purged the lower-level operatives who executed these policies—though I did not support their removal of top bureaucrats. But we created the Europe that exists today, on purpose. And now we are paying the piper. It will take another six to eighteen months to root out many of these figures, and God knows how long to cleanse the parliaments. We painstakingly crafted Europe in our own image.

From Anti‑War to Neo‑Con

I recall the anti-war fervor of 2003, when the US invasion of Iraq was seen as outrageous, aggressive, and counterproductive across Europe. The hawks—figures like Colin Powell and Dick Cheney—were despised and ridiculed. Those days are gone. Today's European leaders are indistinguishable from the US neoconservatives of that era. The reaction to George W. Bush back then was a call to battle for that administration, and they set all this in motion.

1965: Humberto Delgado, Portuguese Air Force General, prominent opposition leader against the Estado

Novo dictatorship of António de Oliveira Salazar; assassinated by NATO/CIA/MI6 stay-behind operatives.

 

 

1978: Aldo Moro, leader of the Christian Democracy party, Prime Minister of Italy, and chief architect

of the "Historic Compromise", a coalition government that would bring the  Communist Party (PCI)

into the ruling cabinet; assassinated by NATO/CIA/MI6 stay-behind operatives.

 

1986: Olof Palme, Swedish Prime Minister, leader of the Social Democratic Party, staunch promoter

of the welfare state and Third World liberation movements, condemned the US war in Vietnam and

the apartheid regime in South Africa; assassinated by NATO/CIA/MI6/Mossad stay-behind operatives.

1989: Alfred Herrhausen, Chairman of Deutsche Bank, visionary leader, active promoter of

German-Russian economic relations, and highly influential advisor to Chancellor Helmut Kohl; 

assassinated by NATO/CIA/MI6/Mossad stay-behind operatives. 

  

1991: Detlev Karsten Rohwedder, president of the Treuhandanstalt, the German government agency

tasked with privatizing East German state-owned enterprises, was considered insufficiently flexible

toward certain foreign demands; assassinated by NATO/CIA/MI6/Mossad stay-behind operatives.

 

2003: Jürgen Möllemann, prominent German politician from the Free Democratic Party,

 president of the German-Arab Society, outspoken critic of Israel and promoter of the

Palestinian cause; assassinated by NATO/CIA/MI6/Mossad stay-behind operatives. 

 

2008: Jörg Haider, Austrian right-wing populist politician, governor of Carinthia and

harsh anti-Zionist; assassinated by NATO/CIA/MI6/Mossad stay-behind operatives.

 

Et cetera et cetera et cetera:

 murder, slaughter, genocide: children, women, heads of state; terrorism; intimidation; weapon, drug, organ, 

child trafficking; well poisoning; pedophilia; hijacking; torturing; counterfeiting; looting; piracy; bribery...

 

Forging the CIA

The CIA had never before operated on such a scale. Harry Truman greatly objected to the agency's formation, initially, but he was eventually sold out by William "Wild Bill" Donovan and J. Edgar Hoover—despite Hoover's hatred for Donovan. It is a strange history, but the agency bought this new mission lock, stock, and barrel because it knew billions would pour its way. And indeed they did. They set about changing the European attitude. When the largest anti-war rally in British—and possibly European—history erupted in London in 2003, we did not like that at all. We set out to reverse it.

» NATO's purpose is: Keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down. «
Lord General Hastings Lionel Ismay, 1st Baron Ismay, NATO's first Secretary General, 1952.

1952: Stalin proposed reunifying Germany as a demilitarized, neutral state. Chancellor Adenauer rejected it as "Soviet ruse," prioritizing West Germany's US/British/French occupation regime
over national sovereignty and unity; remained in power and lived to 91. 

Cultivating Stoltenberg

How close was I to this? I was up close and personal in getting Jens Stoltenberg to his position. We saw what he did within his own government, recognized how malleable and susceptible he was to our messaging, and used him as a center pole from which to extend our influence into other governments. He was willing because he knew we had promised him the NATO Secretary-General post. I did not see the infection of the EU up close, but I am sure it followed chapter and verse alongside our manipulation of NATO leadership.

 

» We purchased two NATO Secretary-Generals. « 

 

NATO's Top‑Heavy Bloat

That effort was not difficult. You must understand the history of NATO's top-heavy flag structure. Every time we built a headquarters and placed a three- or four-star general there, the Europeans felt compelled to match us. We built this incredible overhead of flag officers—Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps—across Europe, and they were so influenceable that all you had to do was whisper in their ear. Suddenly, you had this pliant NATO military leadership doing your bidding. The CIA merely had to whisper about Russia, building up the threat as needed.

» We taught the dogs to bark. « 

Russophobia as Propaganda

This Russophobia began early—with Boris Yeltsin's disappearance and Vladimir Putin's arrival on the scene. That is when we started using fear of Russia as a propaganda instrument. In the Dutch media, it was exposed that Mark Rutte, while Prime Minister, would excuse Israeli actions and adopt extra-hawkish positions on Russia and Yemen, all to look good on his job application for NATO. They knew exactly what the Americans would reward.

Since 1871, the US/Anglo prime geopolitical doctrine for Europe:
"Keep Germany and Russia separate and in conflict."
[Or, as Victoria Nuland put it in 2014: "Fuck the EU!"]

 

2026: Pete Blaber, former US Delta Force Commander, on the truth

about the NATO/CIA/MI6/Mossad war against Russia in Ukraine.

  

Weaponizing Historical Guilt

We were also acutely aware—particularly in Germany, but elsewhere too—of how deeply the Holocaust lingered over European consciousness. With Mossad's assistance, we exploited that guilt to the maximum. This is why Germany has the laws and regulations it does regarding anti-Semitism today; we helped build them.

 

Reference: 

Lawrence Wilkerson (August 19, 2026) - Buying Europe's Political Class. (video)

 

» They lose their jobs if there is peace. «  

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson (b. 1945) is a retired US Army colonel and former senior government official. A 31-year Army and Vietnam veteran, he became closely associated with Colin Powell in 1989, serving as his assistant as Powell completed his tenure as President Reagan’s National Security Advisor. Wilkerson remained with Powell through his tenure as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, into civilian life, and, when Powell became Secretary of State under George W. Bush, as his Chief of Staff from 2002 to 2005. He later became a prominent critic of the Iraq War, expressing particular regret over his role in preparing Powell's infamous 2003 UN Security Council presentation on Iraq's alleged weaponized anthrax. Since retiring in 2005, Wilkerson has held academic posts at the US Naval War College and College of William and Mary. He is a fellow of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, and regularly comments on US foreign policy, the Middle East, and national security.

Debt Trap: Western Finance Replaced Productive Capitalism | Michael Hudson

In an in-depth discussion, American economist Michael Hudson and Norwegian political and international relations scientist Glenn Diesen examine the historical and economic roots of the financial instability currently confronting Western economies. Hudson argues that the Western financial system is unsustainable because debt grows faster than the economy's capacity to service it.  

 

Cuneiform tablet on debt and loan quittance.

Historical Debt Relief Traditions

Unlike ancient Mesopotamia, where rulers from the third millennium BC onward periodically proclaimed "clean slate" debt cancellations, known as andurarum or misharum, which wiped out agrarian debts, freed people in debt bondage, and restored land to cultivators, the modern West has never institutionalized such resets. Similarly, the biblical Jubilee tradition echoed these practices by mandating the periodic release of debts and restoration of property. 

Levites sounding the trumpets of Jubilee.

 

Jesus cleansing the temple of the money-changers. 

If it is difficult for someone to repay a debt,

postpone it until a time of ease.

Islamic tradition likewise established a clear obligation to grant debt relief: the Quran (2:280) requires creditors to grant a debtor in genuine hardship a postponement until a time of ease, while encouraging creditors to forgive all or part of the debt as a superior act of charity. These ancient and religious practices helped preserve a viable productive population and limited creditors’ ability to monopolize the means of production. 

From Industrial to Finance Capitalism

The absence of comparable mechanisms today has contributed to extreme polarization of wealth and power. Western economies have shifted from industrial capitalism, which directed investment toward factories, machinery, research, infrastructure, and productive employment, to finance capitalism. 

 

Early modern wage-rent-tax slaves at Ford's assembly lines.

 

The latter prioritizes wealth accumulation through leverage and debt, corporate takeovers, real estate speculation, and asset-price inflation rather than tangible capital formation. This transition has contributed to deindustrialization and concentrated gains among the top holders of financial claims. 

 

Western Central Banking and Creditor Power

Western central banks reinforce this dynamic further: rather than acting as public authorities empowered to cancel or suspend debts that have become unpayable, as Bronze Age rulers did or as Islamic traditions of debt respite prescribe, they primarily support commercial banks and asset markets, enforce creditor claims, and resolve crises by expanding their own balance sheets—thereby protecting the financial sector while leaving household and productive-economy debt intact.  

 

The development of European banking was deeply shaped by the Crusades, when the Church and later secular states used debt to finance warfare. Over time, fiscal policy became increasingly subordinated to banking interests, reversing earlier anti-usury traditions and embedding institutions designed to enforce debt collection rather than protect debtors.

Brokers at the New York Stock Exchange in 1963.

Without an authority comparable to the ancient "divine king," whose duty was to keep debt within the population's capacity to repay, Western constitutions historically concentrated political and economic power in the hands of a creditor oligarchy. Contemporary central banks, rather than reversing this concentration, operate within the same creditor-oriented framework. 

China’s Public Credit Model

By contrast, China treats credit as a public utility under state control through the People's Bank of China. The state limits the emergence of an independent financial class capable of operating outside state priorities and channels credit creation toward national development—factories, machinery, and infrastructure—rather than speculative bubbles.

  

People's Bank of China Headquarter, Beijing.

Because the central bank remains a public instrument, China retains greater practical capacity, analogous to the debt-relief practices of ancient Mesopotamia and the Islamic principle of relieving hardship, to restructure or write down debts that threaten productive capacity and social stability. This approach supports industrial growth and limits the systemic polarization seen in the West.

 

The Ponzi Dynamics of Western Debt

Hudson describes the Western system as a Ponzi scheme: new debt is continually required simply to service interest on existing loans. Because a large share of bank lending fuels asset inflation rather than productive investment, more income is diverted into debt service, domestic demand weakens, and the economy stagnates.   

 

Mug shot of Charles Ponzi.

 

The resulting reliance on continually expanding debt, combined with geopolitical pressures surrounding the dollar and the oil trade, leaves Western economies increasingly vulnerable to financial and economic instability.

Reference:
Michael Hudson (August 20, 2026) - Debt Trap: Western Finance Replaced Productive Capitalism.

The US Will Go Bankrupt, Collapse, and Break Up | Andrew Napolitano

The greatest threats to America come not from abroad but from internal overreach: a permanent surveillance state, secret executive militarism, congressional impotence, judicial passivity, and catastrophic debt. The formal structure of the Constitution remains, but its functional authority is evaporating. This points toward systemic failure.

 

 The Course of Empire, painting by Thomas Cole, 1836

Congress has abdicated its legislative role, the judiciary selectively enforces constitutional norms, and the executive rules increasingly by decree. Meanwhile, lobbying power from defense contractors and pro-Israel groups locks Congress into perpetual military spending—now over $1 trillion annually, more than the next ten countries combined.

 Map of the 2nd American Civil War, July 2025.

 

Domestically, the unchecked growth of executive power is matched by economic instability. The federal debt, nearing $40 trillion, carries annual interest exceeding $1 trillion—an unsustainable burden that threatens systemic collapse. Tariffs, imposed unilaterally and used as political weapons, drive up consumer prices while violating constitutional limits, which vest taxing authority solely in Congress. Courts may soon invalidate these executive-imposed tariffs, but political gridlock makes corrective legislation unlikely.

 

» Collapse—not through revolution, but insolvency. «

 

If unchecked, these dynamics will lead to the federal government's collapse—not through revolution, but insolvency. Unable to service its debt, pay salaries, or borrow, Washington could cease functioning. The likely outcome is regional fragmentation: a dozen or so independent republics forming along ideological and geographic lines—e.g., New England, Texas, and the Southeast. This breakup, though gradual and nonviolent, will mark the end of the United States as a unified federal entity.

 

Reference:
Andrew Napolitano (August 19, 2025)  - The US Will Go Bankrupt, Collapse & Break Up. (video)

 

 

» Decadence is a moral and spiritual disease. «

Lieutenant-General Sir John Bagot Glubb, 1978.

See also:

Neema Parvini (2025) - The "Iron Law of Oligarchy" and the Delusion of Democracy. 

Lieutenant-General Sir John Bagot Glubb (1978) - The Age of Decadence. 

Ray Dalio (2025) - Don't Think That What's Now Happening Is Mostly About Tariffs.

Serge Bernard (2016) - From Conquest to Affluence to Collapse: The 250 Year Empire Life Cycle.
Martin Armstrong (2024) - The Five Stages of the Revolutionary Cycle.

TPR (2024) - How fast Superpowers can Collapse.

 

了解你的敌人
Know your Enemies. 

500 Years of Western Dominance - What Comes Next | Glenn Diesen

Felix Abt: A great European religious war and the first pan-European conflict over superpower status came to an end in 1648. After 30 years of devastating wars and chaos, especially on German soil, with millions of deaths and shattered economies, the Peace of Westphalia brought a new, rules-based order to Europe, as the Western political class would call it today. This included the inviolability of borders and non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign and equal states; it is regarded as a milestone in the development toward tolerance and secularization. How did this affect the new powers that emerged afterward and their quest for hegemony?

Glenn Diesen: The lesson from the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) was that no one power could restore order based on hegemony and universal values, as the other states in Europe would preserve their own sovereignty and distinctiveness by collectively balancing the most powerful state. This was evident when Catholic France supported Protestant Sweden to prevent the dominance of the Catholic Habsburgs. The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 gave birth to the modern world order, in which peace and order depend on a balance of power between sovereign states. The Westphalian system prevents hegemony as other states collectively balance the effort of an aspiring hegemon to establish economic and military dominance, and universal values are rejected to the extent they are used to reduce the sovereignty of other states.

» The Westphalian system prevents hegemony. « 

The 1648 peace treaty between the parties in the Thirty Years' War established the Westphalian system.

 

The principle, known as the Westphalian principle of sovereignty, prohibits interference in the internal affairs of another state, and every state is equal before international law, regardless of its size. Thus, every state has sovereignty over its territory and its internal affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers. But when the European colonial powers used violence to impose their will on other continents, they violated this ideal. Was this the beginning of this principle’s demise?

 

The Westphalian system should in principle be based on sovereign equality for all states. However, it originated as a European security order that later laid the foundation for a world order. Under the original Westphalian system, the Europeans claimed special privileges and the principle of equal sovereignty for states did not apply to everyone. Sovereignty was deemed to be a right and a responsibility assigned to “civilized peoples”, a reference to the Europeans as white Christians. The international system was divided between the civilized and the barbarians. There was one set of rules for the Europeans in the civilized “garden”, and another set of rules when the Europeans engaged with the so-called despotic barbarians in the “jungle”. The interference in the internal affairs of other peoples and the development of vast empires was framed as the right and the responsibility of civilized states to guide the barbaric peoples towards universal values of civilization. This responsibility to govern other peoples was termed the “white man’s burden” and the “civilizing mission”.

 » The gardeners have to go to the jungle. «

Josep Borrell's universal mission.

In our current era, we have abandoned the civilized-barbarian divide, but we have replaced it with a liberal democracy-authoritarian divide to legitimize sovereign inequality. The West can interfere in the domestic affairs of other states to promote democracy, invade countries to defend human rights, or even change the borders of countries in support of self-determination. This is the exclusive right and a responsibility of the West as the champions of the universal values of liberal democracy. As the EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell explained: “The gardeners have to go to the jungle. Europeans have to be much more engaged with the rest of the world. Otherwise, the rest of the world will invade us”.

International law in accordance with the UN Charter defends the principle of sovereign equality for all states. The so-called “rules-based international order” is based on sovereign inequality, which introduces special privileges under the guise of universal liberal democratic values. For example, the West’s recognition of independence for Kosovo was a breach of international law as it violated the territorial integrity of Serbia, although it was legitimized by the liberal principle of respecting the self-determination of Kosovo Albanians. In Crimea the West decided that self-determination should not be the leading principle, but territorial integrity. The US refers to liberal democratic values to exercise its exclusive right to invade and occupy countries such as Iraq, Syria and Libya, although this right is not extended to countries in the jungle.  

» The so-called “rules-based international order” is based on sovereign inequality, 

which introduces special privileges under the guise of universal liberal democratic values. «

In 1945 fifty countries established the United Nations System. With the help of this supra-national governance

system the Anglo-Frankish-Zionist-Dönmeh-Wahhabi-Takfiri elites of the UK, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the US and

some others, expected to secure their hegemonies beyond the foreseeable demise of traditional colonialism. 

The Bretton Woods conference, World Bank, IMF, nuclear bombing of Japan, dividing Korea 

and creating the State of Israel in Palestine are early show cases of what Pax Americana and UN are all about.

[...] The Ukrainian conflict is essentially an extension of American geopolitics, which aims to carry out Mackinder’s aforementioned stanza, “He who rules Eastern Europe rules the world.” What are your thoughts about it?

Preventing Germany and Russia from controlling Eastern Europe means that much of the Eurasian continent becomes landlocked. US control over Eastern Europe implies that Russia can not bridge Europe and Asia, but rather becomes an isolated land-locked region at the dual periphery of Europe and Asia.

Brzezinski outlined the strategy for developing and preserving US global primacy, which relies on the age-old wisdom of divide-and-rule. Brzezinski wrote that the US must “prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and keep the barbarians from coming together”. Historically, the British and the Americans have worked to prevent Germany and Russia from coming together as it would form an independent pole of power. Hegemony requires conflict between Germany and Russia, as Germany becomes a dependent ally and Russia is weakened. This logic is also applied to why it is beneficial to perpetuate tensions between the Arabs and Iran, or between China and its neighbors. The US has been very concerned about the economic integration between the Germans and Russians, which is why the US was so hostile to the Nord Stream pipelines and most likely was behind the attack on these pipelines. 

 

 Anka Feldhusen, a fine example of a German Neonazi apparatchik of the 21st century.

March 22, 2023.

 

 Wehrmacht 2.0 south of Kiev. 

There will be hell to pay.

March 22, 2024.

The problem is that the world is no longer Western-centric and by pushing Russia away from Germany, the US has pushed Russia towards China – a technological and industrial power much greater than Germany. In the mid-19th century, the British fought against Russia in the Crimean War with the explicit purpose of pushing Russia back into Asia, where it would remain technologically and economically backward and stagnant. NATO’s war in Ukraine is a repeat of the efforts to push Russia back into Asia, although this time Asia is much more dynamic than the West. The failure of the West to adjust our grand strategy to this new reality has been a mistake of immeasurable proportions. We have not subordinated Russia, rather we ended Russia’s 300-year-long Western-centric policies in which Moscow looked to the West for modernization.

What is driving this stunning anti-Chinese obsession in the United States against a country that upholds the principle of non-interference in other countries, that used its mighty navy only for trade and not for gunboat politics when it was a superpower in the past, and that follows the millennia-old concept of “Tianxia” (天下), which literally means “everything under heaven”, that is, an inclusive world full of harmony for all?

China does not threaten the US, but it threatens US dominance as the foundation for the unipolar world order established after the Cold War. The US is currently attempting to weaken China through economic warfare, convincing its allies to decouple from the Chinese economy, and knocking out Russia in Ukraine as a vital partner of China. If the US fails to achieve its objectives, then it will likely stoke conflicts between China and its neighbors to make the neighbors more dependent and obedient, and also create instability for the Chinese that will bleed it of resources. The ideal would be greater tensions between India and China, as India would have to make itself more reliant on the US and it would be an important ally to weaken China. If all fails, then the US could also fight an indirect war through a proxy similar to the way they are using Ukrainians to fight Russia – by for example pushing for Taiwan’s secession. Besides securing its supply chains and building a military for deterrence, China should prioritize resolving its disputes with India as any friction with China can be exploited.

» This is a Westphalian system with Eurasian characteristics. « 

Since 2009 BRICS is establishing a Multipolar World Order based on Westphalian principles and controlled by the 

Eurasian great powers China, India and Russia. Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates joined BRICS

on January 1, 2024. To date 15 more countries have formally applied to join.

Finally, in your new book you say that a new Westphalian world order is reasserting itself, albeit with Eurasian characteristics. Can you explain this in more detail?

We are returning to a Westphalian system based on a balance of power between sovereign states. However, the former Westphalian system was based on sovereign equality among the Western powers while the “barbarians” or “despots” outside the West were not deemed to be qualified for the responsibility of sovereignty. It was a dual system of collective hegemony of the West, with sovereign equality between the Western states. In the new Westphalian system, there are several powerful states that are not Western, with China as the leading economy in the world. The Eurasian powers such as China, Russia, India and others are developing the economic foundations for this system with new technologies, transportation corridors and financial instruments. The Eurasian powers are more prepared to include the Global South as sovereign equals. The Eurasian powers reject the so-called “rules-based international order” based on sovereign inequality, as Western dominance should not be legitimized by a civilized-barbarian or liberal democracy-authoritarian divide.

The Western powers over the past centuries have had an inclination for dominance and empire by controlling limited maritime corridors. Russia’s Eurasianism in the 19th century was a hegemonic strategy by dominating the Eurasian landmass through land corridors, although under the multipolar distribution of power the Russians do not have the capability or intentions to pursue hegemony. Instead, Eurasian integration entails moving from the dual periphery of Europe and Asia, to the center of a new Eurasian construct. Even China as the leading power does not have the capability or intention to pursue hegemony. Countries like Russia are content with China being the leading power, although they would not support China if it demanded dominance and hegemony. The Chinese demonstrate that they are not attempting to limit Russia’s economic connectivity with other states to make itself the only center of power. In the Global Civilization Initiative, the Chinese are also advocating for respecting civilizational differences and that all states have their own path to modernity, which implies that China is not claiming to represent universal values that legitimizes interference into the domestic affairs of other states. The West assumed that the Russia-China partnership was a “marriage of convenience” and that they would clash over influence in Central Asia, but this never happened because neither side demanded hegemony. Instead of sabotaging each other’s relations with the region, China and Russia harmonized their interests in Central Asia. China, Russia, India and other Eurasian powers have different visions and interests in terms of Eurasian integration, but they all need each other to realize their goals and pursue prosperity. Hegemony is not an option. This is a Westphalian system with Eurasian characteristics.

Quoted from:

500 Years of Western Dominance: Is it Coming to an End and What Comes Next?

Felix Abt talks with Glenn Diesen. In: Eastern Angle - March 22, 2024.

 

See also:

Glenn Diesen (2024) - The Ukraine War & the Eurasian World Order. 

Zbigniew Brzezinski (1997) - The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives.

Carl Schmitt (1950) - The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum.