In November 2016 I wrote of the Trump victory as having the possibility of being an ‘epochal event’, while not underestimating the entrenched spiritual, cultural, political and economic forces that were likely to make this stillborn. [1] Trump himself was fundamentally flawed, although not to the extent of the opposition. He did not have an ideological basis, and while he has been lauded as being able to speak to the ‘common man’, his lack of a worldview around which to base his actions meant that he would be swept to-and-fro by factions, historical forces and entrenched interests, while lacking a coherent movement, including an alternative media which would assist in countering those forces. For a president of the USA to be reduced to ‘Twittering’ to get his message out, albeit frequently censured, indicates the besieged character of Trump’s presidency. Fox News, owned by globalist Rupert Murdoch, was not going to fill the role of an ‘America First’ media, nor the Zionist project, Breitbart. This lack of an ideological direction also leaves open the question as to whether the more than 70,000,000 Trumpites will forge a real movement of change or be submerged back into the Republican mainstream.

Despite the opposition ranging from the oligarchy to their useful idiots of the Left, Trump managed to temporarily scuttle several key globalist projects, such as the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement. In contrast to the war-mongering Russophobic Hillary Clinton, he managed to pursue a reasonable dialogue with Russia, calm matters with North Korea, and refrain from escalating local conflicts, stating his intention to pull back the USA as the world’s policeman. As late into his presidency as June 2020 he told West Point cadets at their commencement ceremony:

‘The job of the American soldier is not to rebuild foreign nations, but defend, and defend strongly, our nation from foreign enemies. We are ending the era of endless wars. In its place is a renewed clear-eyed focus on defending America’s vital interests. It is not the duty of US troops to solve ancient conflicts in faraway lands, that many people have never heard of. We are not the policeman of the world. But let out enemies be on notice. If our people are threatened we will never ever hesitate to act. And when we fight, from now on, we will only fight to win’. [2]

One would think that the Far Left, which postures as the opposition to globalisation, would be delighted with a President that repudiated ‘neo-imperialism’. But no. The Left supported Hilary Clinton, whose foreign policy was one of international belligerence and support for global free trade, just as they now backed Biden.  The Left claimed to be against TPPA, and Trump scuttled that. The Left is mere posture at the behest of the globalisers.

Funding for Biden

At the time of the Trump victory, I pointed out the funding discrepancy between the Trump and Clinton campaigns: Among Clinton’s coterie of billionaire donors, Soros was by far the largest, giving over $11,000,000. Trump’s largest donor was American rental homes businessmen Bradley Wayne Hughes, who gave less than half a million’. [3]

The Left have dogmatically held to an imaginary scenario whereby the billionaire Trump and his few billionaire supporters are the ‘Establishment’, which they are not. Indeed, they are on the ‘outer’. In 2016 Trump’s advertising campaign, which was smeared as ‘anti-Semitic’, indicated that he and his advisers understood what they were up against: ‘It’s a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities’. [4]

In 2016 Trump relied on his own money, and on numerous small donations. Bloomberg commented:

‘He didn’t win the money race, but Donald Trump will be the next president of the U.S. In the primaries and general election, he defied conventional wisdom, besting better financed candidates by dominating the air waves for free. Trump also put to use his own cash, as well as the assets and infrastructure of his businesses, in unprecedented fashion. He donated $66 million of his own money, flew across the country in his private jet, and used his resorts to stage campaign events. At the same time, the billionaire was able to draw about $280 million from small donors giving $200 or less. Super-PACs, which can take contributions unlimited in size, were similarly skewed toward his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Ultimately, Trump won the presidency despite having raised less than any major party presidential nominee since John McCain in 2008, the last to accept federal funds to pay for his general election contest’. [5] In 2020 Trump faced the same money onslaught: President Trump entered the final weeks of the campaign at a severe financial disadvantage to Democratic nominee Joe Biden, according to fundraising disclosures filed Tuesday night with the Federal Election Commission. Biden’s campaign ended September with $180.6 million in the bank, while Trump’s committee reported $63.1 million’. [6] Among Biden supporters were James Murdoch, and his wife Kathryn, son and daughter-in-law of Fox News owner Rupert.  CNBC reported:

The powerful Murdoch family is often linked to conservative politics, particularly through its control of Fox News. Yet James Murdoch, one of billionaire media mogul Rupert Murdoch’s sons, and spouse Kathryn Murdoch are working to create their own legacy by supporting causes across the political spectrum. They have used their cash and influence to become a political power couple in a fractured Washington.  A list from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics showing the 2020 election cycle’s top donors ranks James and Kathryn Murdoch 13th among a group of 100 contributors from both parties. Data shows that the Murdochs have contributed over $11 million to political causes, with over $2.5 million going to Democrats. They have also focused some of their efforts on opposing President Donald Trump. …  The two combined in June to contribute over $1.2 million to the Biden Victory Fund … [7] Fox News was the first to call Arizona for Biden, while even the anti-Trump Establishment media remained cautious. Trump supporters have been suddenly disabused in their assumptions about the Murdoch media and have vented their outrage at pro-Trump rallies. [8] One of the primary backers of Biden was Israel Firster, entertainment mogul Haim Saban. Los Angeles Magazine reported:

‘Well-known Hollywood philanthropists and pro-Israel political activists Haim and Cheryl Saban entered the 2020 fundraising fray in a big way on Monday, hosting a virtual event for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden that pulled in a whopping $4.5 million. … Sabans recently gave a $50 million gift to L.A.’s forthcoming Academy Museum of Motion Pictures, which was meant to open at the end of this year. And for every dollar the Sabans give in this country, they match with a dollar for Israel’. [9] Saban also gave $1.5 million to Democrat candidates in the Senate races. [10] Most of the big contributions from the globalist tech giants went to Biden and Democrat Senate candidates. Asana CEO Dustin Moskovitz,  Facebook co-founder, donated $24 million; Twilio (cloud communications) CEO Jeff Lawson and his wife, Erica, $7 million; Google CEO Eric Schmidt, $6 million, to Future Forward USA, a PAC that backed Biden and the Democrats. Reed Hastings, of Netflix, and his wife, Patty Quillin, donated more than $5 million, mainly to the Senate Majority PAC, a group backing Democrat candidates in the close run races. Reid Hoffman, a partner at venture capital firm Greylock Partners, contributed $14 million, including $2 million to the Senate Majority PAC and $1 million each to Unite the Country and American Bridge 21st Century. Vinod Khosla, co-founder of Sun Microsystems and Khosla Ventures, donated $1 million each to the Senate Majority PAC and American Bridge 21st Century. Michael Moritz of Sequoia Capital contributed over $3 million, including $1.5 million to Pacronym, which backs Democrats in closely-contested states. Jessica Livingston, co-founder of Y Combinator, donated $5 million to Tech for Campaigns, which provides digital and technical assistance to Democratic Party groups. [11] Forbes reported in August: ‘The billionaires seem to love Joe Biden. With less than 100 days until the election, Joe Biden has received donations from 131 members of the upper crust, while Donald Trump has gotten donations from just 99 of his fellow tycoons, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission filings’. [12] Other Biden donors listed by Forbes include: Mark Pincus, CEO, Zynga (mobile social gaming) $626,200; Barry Diller, Chairman, InterActiveCorp (online media), $626,200; Jeff Skoll, eBay, $620,600; George Soros, $505,600; Ev and Sara Williams, Twitter, $250, 500; Nicole Systrom, wife of Kevin Systrom, Instagram, $250,000; Sean Parker, Facebook, $100,000; Nicole Shanahan, wife of Sergey Brin, Google, $25,000; Merryl Zegar, wife of Charles Zegar, Bloomberg LP, $12,000; et al. [13]

Strategy of Tension

A strategy of tension was maintained throughout the Trump presidency to make the USA ungovernable.  It is analogous to the New Left riots backed by the oligarchy during the 1960s to push the USA leftward while being able to claim that this was the path of ‘moderation’ and ‘reconciliation’, or of bringing ‘unity back to the USA’ as it is now termed,  in comparison to the New Left and Black riots of that era. BLM emerged in 2016, the year of Trump’s inauguration, as it happens. Initial funding came from the Ford Foundation, which had backed the New Left during the 1960s. Ford announced: ‘By partnering with Borealis PhilanthropyMovement Strategy Center, and Benedict Consulting to found the Black-Led Movement Fund, Ford has made six-year investments in the organizations and networks that compose the Movement for Black Lives’. [14]

The accidental death of George Floyd by a combination of drugs and the covid virus, while resisting arrest, was the pretext needed for escalating the BLM/Antifa riots, while the news media portrayed these as something noble and measured. CNet, a techno–news portal, announced:

The killing of George Floyd last month while in the custody of Minneapolis police officers has set off a wave of protests and dialogue on racial injustice that has continued unabated for weeks. And many corporations, big and small, have joined the conversation, issuing statements vowing to stand with the Black Lives Matter movement. Some tech behemoths — like Apple, Amazon, Microsoft and others — have followed up on their supportive words with major donation pledges, too. [15] Among other corporations donating to BLM are Coca Cola, Facebook, Nike, YouTube, et al. [16] Stephen B. Heintz, CEO and President of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, wrote in the aftermath of the Floyd fiasco, placing it in a broader globalist context:

‘The events of the last two weeks have reawakened many in our country to the injustice that has persisted over centuries for others. Against the backdrop of a deadly pandemic, increasing international isolationism, and rising authoritarianism globally, George Floyd’s death marks a hinge moment in history: Our actions now will determine whether we swing back into a dark past or press forward toward a brighter future, with peace and justice for all’. [17] According to Heintz’s profile, he was engaged in the undermining of states that do not conform to the globalist agenda:  On the international stage, Heintz served as executive vice president and chief operating officer for the EastWest Institute during the 1990s. Based in Prague, he helped propel civil society development, economic reform, and international security as the bedrock of Central and Eastern Europe’s burgeoning democracies’. That is to say, he specialised in incorporating the sates of the former Soviet bloc into the global economy, detaching them from the Russian sphere, and pushing them into the U.S. globalist sphere, behind the façade of ‘democracy’ and the supposed benefits of international free trade. [18] Rockefeller money was prominent during the 1960s in funding the New Left and Black riots, including the guru of ‘revolution’, Saul Alinksy. [19] Were the oligarchs backing another nihilistic movement in the USA to keep a dagger at the throat of Trump, and even to mobilise a ‘colour revolution’ in the USA should ‘regime change’ become necessary? The riotous mob was funded for a reason, and one would have to be very naïve to believe the reason is one of pure humanity on the part of the world’s greatest exploiters. One might be reminded of the way the Duc d’Orleans used his wealth to fund the street mobs of France that heralded the Jacobin Revolution. That Trump was expecting mass disruption in the event of his re-election is indicated by his sacking of defence secretary Mike Esper, who opposed the use of American troops to quell riots, under the Insurrection Act. [20]

Confronting the Interventionists

In November 2016, I stated that the ‘Establishment’ Trump will be confronting goes beyond the halls of Congress and Senate, its tentacles reaching far and wide, and asked whether Trump will attempt to deal with the deeper ramifications?

‘Wall Street will continue to exist and so will Hollywood. However, under Trump will the U.S. State Department continue to sponsor multiculturalism throughout the world, including Hip Hop concerts in Europe, as a means of breaking down traditional cultures, in tandem with the programmes of the Soros network, Freedom House and many others, listed as undesirable NGOs by Russia? One hopes not. Will U. S. Congress continue to provide funds for the privately run National Endowment for Democracy to continue sponsoring subversive organisations to create “colour revolutions”, and interfere in the domestic politics of sundry nations; Russia in particular? Trump has questioned the USA’s mission to “police the world”, and the wisdom of having overthrown Gaddafi and Saddam, charging the global power structure, fronted by Clinton and Obama, with having “created Isis”. The question occurs as to whether the Trump Administration can or will reign in the mostly U.S.-based NGOs that have created what globalist strategist Ralph Peters has lauded as “constant conflict”’. [21] Trump did indeed attempt to curb the interventionism of the National Endowment for Democracy and the myriad organisations that are part of a global network perpetuating a world revolution in the interests of the globalist oligarchy and in the name of the ‘democracy’. He tried to stem this internationalism, and failed. In 2012 a ‘foreign agents’ registration law was passed in Russia against foreign NGOs, and USAID was expelled. In 2015 Putin expelled NED, Open Society Foundation, and other globalist NGOs that were interfering with the internal politics of Russia.

Despite NED being Congressionally funded, Trump failed to prevail against the globalists within Congress. The Washington Post, the primary mouthpiece for the globalist Establishment, stated in 2018: ‘Speaking to the British Parliament in 1982, President Ronald Reagan called on the United States “to foster the infrastructure of democracy” to help ensure that people around the world were empowered to determine their own fates. Now, at this increasingly fraught moment for freedom around the world, the Trump administration wants to dismantle that infrastructure’. [22]

The ‘infrastructure of democracy’ is a euphemism for ‘regime change’ on the basis of an international order of one-size-fits-all political institutions, culture, society and economy; the ‘new world order’; ‘globalisation’.  Founded in the midst of the Cold War to take over from discredited Congress for Cultural Freedom, which had served as an arm of the CIA with funding from Rockefeller, Ford, et al, like the CCF NED was established by ex-Trotskyites and Mensheviks whose hatred of the USSR made them the most avid of Cold Warriors.  A primary factor in the deconstruction of the Soviet bloc, NED rather than dismantling after the demise of the USSR continued apace, with post-Soviet Russia remaining the perennial bugbear, working in conjunction with the Soros network, Freedom House, and a seemingly endless array of other ‘NGOs’. Trump attempted to end this meddling in the affairs of other states:

‘Buried in the State Department’s fiscal 2019 budget request is a proposal not only to slash the budget of the National Endowment for Democracy but also to disassemble its relationships with its core institutes, including the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute. For the NED and those institutes, the proposal is an assault not only on their organizations but also on the pro- ­democracy mission they are dedicated to.

‘“If implemented, the proposal would gut the program, force crippling layoffs and the symbolic meaning would also be shattering, sending a signal far and wide that the United States is turning its back on supporting brave people who share our values,” said NED President Carl Gershman’. [23] Note the references to the USA’s world ‘mission’, to its self-perception as the leader of a world revolution. Gershman, president of NED, is one of those veteran Leftists, co-founder of Social Democrats USA, a faction of the Trotskyist Socialist Party USA, who saw the USA as the custodian of the world revolution when the USSR turned sour on them. Of note is that the first honorary president of Social Democrats USA was Professor Sidney Hook, Menshevik dean of American Cold Warriors, who had run the CIA’s Congress for Cultural Freedom during the Cold War, and who had with John Dewey headed up the American committee that sought to exonerate Trotsky during the Great Purge of the Stalin epoch. A founding director of NED was Albert Glotzer, who had served a Trotsky’s bodyguard and secretary in 1931, and had also been a director of Social Democrats USA. NED had been established at the instigation of Tom Kahn, international affairs director of the AFL-CIO labour union, active in destabilising the Soviet bloc. Kahn was a protégé of Max Shachtman, a notable Trotskyite factionalist who led the Independent Socialist League.  From this Trotskyist and Menshevik milieu came the so-called ‘neoconservatives’, whose ideology is neither ‘neo’ nor ‘conservative’ but a revamping of Wilsonian interventionist internationalism that forms the ideological basis of both the Republican and Democratic Parties. [24] NDI President Kenneth Wollack stated that, ‘USAID, the State Department and the endowment are a three-legged stool. Dismantling one of those legs would undermine a fundamental pillar of U.S. foreign policy – a policy that represents a convergence of our interests and values.’ [25] It is interesting that USAID is included as a mainstay of a trinity serving U.S. foreign policy when that has always been vehemently denied. How then can it be claimed that Putin was going too far when USAID, working behind the façade of humanitarianism, was expelled from Russia?

Senator John McCain, chairman of the International Republican Institute, one of the NGOs expelled from Russia in 2015, told Rogin that ‘The work our government does to promote democratic values abroad is at the heart of who we are as a country’.  Again there is the reference to American’s ‘world mission’.

Not only did Trump fail to thwart the globalists of NED et al, but Congress increased the funding in 2019. NED announced the triumph:

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its four core grantees, the National Democratic Institute (NDI), the International Republican Institute (IRI), the Solidarity Center, and the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) are deeply gratified that the U.S. Congress has shown strong bipartisan support for our work with a substantial increase in NED’s annual appropriation. On Tuesday, December 17, the House of Representatives approved a spending package that increases annual funding for the National Endowment for Democracy from $180 million to $300 million.  The Senate approved the measure on December 19 and it was signed into law by President Trump on Friday, December 20. [26]

Foreign Policy in the Washingtonian Tradition

Ironically the internationalists objected that Trump’s ‘America First’ is ‘un-American’, yet this was the doctrine that George Washington gave to the American people in his Farewell Address, at a time when he had been bitterly opposed by Thomas Jefferson and the American Jacobins who even then saw America as having a world revolutionary mission in alliance with Jacobin France.  The foreign policy that Washington advised for America was one of strict neutrality and non-interference:

‘… The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. …

‘So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.  …

‘As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. …

‘The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. … [27] In foreign policy Trump sought to withdraw from foreign entanglements both political and economic, in the tradition of George Washington.

Biden to end ‘America First’

Biden promises to return the USA to all the global meddling that has occurred since 1918. A CNN article described how Biden would promptly initiate the death of ‘America First’:

‘After four years of norm-bending, treaty-disrupting and alliance-shaking foreign policy from the Trump administration, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden is promising to return the US to its more traditional role on the world stage. … “Trump’s ‘America First’ has been ‘America Alone,’ said Brian McKeon, a Biden foreign policy adviser and a former White House and Pentagon adviser in the Obama administration. “On his first day in office, [Biden] will get on the phone to key allies and say that America is back and America has your back.” Trump has “poked his finger in the eye of all our friends and allies, and he’s embraced every autocrat in the world … we have lost all our friends,” Biden told CNN’s Jake Tapper in September.           ‘Trump has publicly questioned and denigrated the value of the US’ most longstanding alliances, including with NATO, Germany, South Korea and Japan. He has also pulled the US from the Iran nuclear deal, the Paris climate accord, the World Health Organization and a slew of other United Nations agencies. [28] During his first day in office Biden will again be laying down the law to foreign governments. He will be gathering foreign leaders for a ‘summit’ to re-establish an imposed consensus for the euphemistically named ‘world community’. NED and the multitude of other NGOs will be reinvigorated to enhance their activities against targeted states.  Biden has reassured the international oligarchy, outlining his foreign policy in Foreign Affairs, the house organ of the Council on Foreign Relations, where Wilsonian internationalism was incubated a century ago:

‘Biden will convene a “Summit for Democracy” in the first year of his presidency to “bring together the world’s democracies to strengthen our democratic institutions, honestly confront nations that are backsliding, and forge a common agenda,” the former vice president wrote in a Foreign Affairs essay. Corruption, human rights and the fight against authoritarianism will be major themes’. [29]

‘The incorporation of China into ‘the world system’, a long-time dream of the globalist oligarchy, remains a primary goal. [30]

‘In public comments, Biden has reflected the Obama administration view that incorporating China into the world system is the most effective way of ensuring it adheres to international rules and norms. In the past, Biden supported most favored nation status for China and allowing it into the World Trade Organization. “We wanted China to grow. We don’t want to have a war with China,” Biden said in a recent interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper when asked about his support for those initiatives in the past’. [31] If the globalists are applying pressure on China via for example the Hong Kong riots, which have all the hallmarks of NED/Soros interference, to instigate reform, the attitude towards Russia is quite different. In Russia there is an existential difference that can only be resolved when Russia has not just ‘reformed’ but has been totally deconstructed and subjugated to the rot of liberalism.  Biden stated that Moscow will ‘pay the price’, ‘declaring Russia the biggest threat to America’s security’, reports Atwood and  Gaouette [32]


The Trump regime was an interregnum, an aberration in the modern epoch impelled by a mass of Americans who feel that this is not their America, but the creation of a far-off elite that is difficult to define and pinpoint. Trump was a small player who broke ranks with this elite, having previously aligned with the Clintons and the same Establishment that he spent four years confronting as President. [33] The more than 70,000,000 Trumpites lacked ideological cohesion and depth, and the organisational discipline of a movement to maintain what could have been a national revolt. The roots were not sunk far enough, especially metapolitically. Trump seemed to have an instinct of what was needed, presumably informed by his own background within the Establishment. He knew that he was not merely taking on a political and economic Establishment, but one whose tentacles are embedded in media and culture, and have defined for generations what it is to be an ‘American’ in ways far –removed from the vision of George Washington in his Farewell Address of 1796, which forms a succinct and coherent foundation for American Nationalism.  The potential of a mass populist movement remains. An ideological and cultural foundation needs to be constructed, and there needs to begin a ‘march through the institutions’ at multiple levels beyond the party political. The globalist elite and their pundits wait nervously to see whether the brief populist revolt under Trump will assume more coherent form, or whether it will dissipate and dissolve into the mainstream of the Republican Party.

Kerry Bolton

[1] K. R. Bolton, Trump victory: an epochal event?,,

[2] Nick Allen, Donald Trump tells West Point cadets: we are not the policeman of the world, The Telegraph, 12 June 2020,

[3] Hillary is outraising tump 20-to-1 among billionaires, Bloomberg, Sept. 26, 2016;

[4] Donald Trump’s final ad evokes ‘centuries-old anti-Semitic dog whistles’, Nathan Guttmann, Forward, November 6, 2016;

[5] Bill AllisonMira RojanasakulBrittany Harris and Cedric Sam, Bloomberg, 9 December 2016,

[6] Biden campaign had three times more money than Trump’s as they entered the final phase, L.A. Times, 20 October 2020,

[7] Brian Schwartz, How James and Kathryn Murdoch became a political power in the Trump era, CNBC, 9 September 2020,

[8] Is Rupert Murdoch dumping Trump?, Japan Times, 7 November 2020,

[9] Merle Ginsberg, Joe Biden just brought in $4.5 million with the help of a Hollywood mogul, Los Angeles Magazine, 15 September 2020,

[10] Merle Ginsberg, ibid.

[11] Ari Levy, Here’s the final tally of where tech billionaires donated for the 2020 election, CNBC, 2 November 2020,

[12] Michela Tindera, Biden pulls away in race for billionaire donors, with 131 to Trump’s 99, Forbes, 8 August 2020.

[13] Michela Tindera, ibid.

[14] Why Black Lives Matter to Philanthropy, Ford Foundation, 19 July 2016,

[15] Mercey Livingston, These are the major brands donating to the Black Lives Matter movement, CNET, 16 June 2020,

[16] Want to know where all those corporate donations to #BLM are going? NBC News, 6 June 2020,

[17] S. B. Heitz, A hinge moment in history, RBF, 4 June 2020,

[18] Stephen B. Heintz,

[19] Saul David Alinsky, RF Illustrated, Rockefeller Foundation, Vol. 1, No. 1, October 1972, p. 3.

[20] Katrina Manson, Donald Trump sacks defense secretary Mike Esper, Financial Times, 10 November 2020.

[21] Bolton, Trump victory: an epochal event?, op. cit.

[22] Josh Rogin, The Trump administration wants to dismantle Ronald Reagan’s ‘infrastructure of democracy’, Washington Post, 5 March 2018.

[23] Josh Rogin, ibid.

[24] K. R. Bolton, Revolution from Above, Arktos Media, London, 2011, pp. 218-219.

[25] Rogin, op. cit.

[26] National Endowment for Democracy (NED), NDI, IRI, CIPE and Solidarity Center welcome increased funding from Congress, National Endowment for Democracy, press release, 21 December 2019.

[27] George Washington, Farewell Address to the American People, 1796.

[28] Kylie Atwood and Nicole Gaouette, How Biden plans to undo Trump’s ‘America First’ foreign policy and return US to world stage, CNN, October 31, 2020,

[29] Atwood and Gaouette, ibid.

[30] Bolton, Revolution from Above, pp. 42-44.

[31] Atwood and Gaouette, op. cit.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Maureen Dowd, When Hilary and Donald were friends, New York Times Magazine, 2 November 2016,