Thursday, October 25, 2012

A Lesson in Empire Building: The Use of "Foreign Aid"

By, Chris Rossini
Email | Twitter

It's one thing the hear, or read about, the staggering number of U.S. dollars that get doled out to foreign nations. It's another to actually see it visually on a map.

As you can see, with very few exceptions, just about every single nation in the world receives U.S. taxpayer money.

How can this be?

How can a nation that is $16 Trillion in debt possibly hand out even a dime?

Imagine going up to the average college kid with a student loan debt of $26,600 and asking him/her for a large amount of money. They'd look at you like you were crazy.

So why does the craziness exist on a national level? Has Black turned into White? Day into Night? Does Up now equal Down?

A printing press, and the ability to create as much money as you want, sure makes the world look that way...

The non-thinkers among us, who diligently studied their government school books, will look at the above foreign aid map and conclude that the U.S. is just so darn generous. We are the "exceptional" nation, who are not only spreading freedom around the globe, but copious amounts of money as well.

Those who go beyond the government civics books know better.

W.H. Hutt said it best about foreign aid:
"Foreign aid is taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries."
In other words, foreign aid is not about helping the poor in foreign lands, who see very little (if any) of the cash. On the contrary, it's about bribing foreign governments. Payoffs, if you will.

Now why would the U.S. want to payoff foreign governments?

That brings us to the next map, which shows U.S. military presence around the world:

Almost a perfect match!

You can't have a world empire without cooperation. Harry 'I dropped the big one' Truman said so in his Inaugural Address:
"In addition, we will provide military advice and equipment to free nations which will cooperate with us in the maintenance of peace and security."
Jacob Hornberger has eloquently written:
The objective of the Empire is to impose its will around the world through influence, money, domination, and force. Foreign regimes, including dictatorial ones, who play ball with the Empire and remain loyal to it, inevitably receive foreign aid, which comes in the form of cash or weaponry. Those who remain recalcitrant by refusing to submit to the will of the Empire or who subject the Empire to criticism are subject to being targeted for a regime-change operation, either through the funding of opposition groups, military coups, embargoes, sanctions, assassination, invasions, and occupations.
So the above maps say it all!

They also make it very clear that when it comes to the game of global domination, the "Land of The Free" has shown itself to be the champ.

But, if there's one thing that history has taught us, it's that empires never last. Here's Ron Paul:
"Empires always end, not because another military power comes along, but for economic reasons."
As each year passes, it becomes ever more visible that economics is finally catching up with The American Empire. Who knows how long it can last? It may be several years; or, if the elites manage to pull more rabbits from their hats, decades.

In any case, if you want to help break this sick cycle that keeps repeating itself (only with different faces) then dive in further here on EPJ, and also at Immerse yourself in understanding sound money and how central banking destroys it; paving the way for massive wars and empires.


  1. Nice article, cool graphics!
    Quick questions:
    I've always been told that "foreign aid", esp "military aid" is simply crony capitalism. The money has to be spent on US goods, which benefits a few large companies. The money is being spent wastefully, but not simply given away. True?
    Is it true that a lot of the countries shown as having US troops and bases actually have only a handful of US guys? Not just the US, but many (most?) countries have programs where you send a few people at time to other countries to schmooze. They train, they learn stuff about the other country's geography, they meet people who may be influential some day, they learn languages and customs, and on and on. Sure, it can be an enabler for future aggression is not really THAT sinister.

    1. Good point about the actual number of "troops" in the various countries in the graphic above. For instance, it shows US "troops" in China. Clearly this is not the same as troops in military bases.

  2. You write:

    "In any case, if you want to help break this sick cycle that keeps repeating itself (only with different faces) then dive in further here on EPJ, and also at Immerse yourself in understanding sound money and how central banking destroys it; paving the way for massive wars and empires."

    To which I add:

    Stop using their money. Use gold, silver and bitcoin instead.

  3. False. The money is both being given away, and spent wastefully. In general, government can only waste the money it spends, because it has no feedback mechanism through profit or loss.

    Armed forces overseas help create monopolies through political and military force. That is why they are there. We are attempting to perfect the system of slavery. It is a higher-tech, and far more sophisticated form of slavery than existed in the past.

    It is sinister. Take Henry Kissinger's words: Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy. Check out his depopulation Memorandum 200 of 1974. The way these people think hasn't changed. Except for Ron Paul and the internet, these people have become more emboldened by their government successes (to us, failures; remember that government programs fail and get more funding, more staff, more power; it is the opposite in the real private sector)

  4. Anon@3:44, this is Anon3:04.
    When you say "false" do you mean the money is given no-strings, or that the money gets fed back into a crony-section of the US economy?
    (Or "don't know"). Just curious.
    We agree that the money is not used productively. I would consider "no-strings" money to be more awful, but of course crony-money is also bad.

    1. You're overthinking this (but, if you are "curious" about the details, this info is easy to find). None of the $$$ is given "no strings" but whether there are strings or not is moot. The strings are ALWAYS bad. There are no "good" strings. Some strings say you have to spend some of the money to prop up the most destructive part of the US economy (military industrial complex). Some strings say you have to interrogate and torture prisoners when the US government requests. Some strings say you have to brutally repress your population to protect US interests. Etc. Etc. Hopefully, you get the point.

      The $$$ isn't just used non-productively, it's used destructively. If the money has to be stolen from Americans, it would be much better for 99.999% of the world's population if the money was just burned in a fire.