The American Colonial Office

A few weeks ago it was reported that Natalie Jaresko, Ukrainian finance minister, was “in talks” to become the next Prime Minister of Ukraine. This produced a predictable hubbub even in the edgy part of the mainstream, as even seasoned readers of The New York Times found it a little uncomfortable and suspicious that Jaresko — a U.S. citizen from birth, among other more egregious things I will note below — was being considered for the top government post of a far-off ex-Soviet country that suffered a coup, annexation, and civil war in the last one thousand days.

After all, wouldn’t this be great ammunition for Vladimir Putin and his propaganda outlets that Ukraine is being taken over by foreign imperialists from half-way across the globe? While  the mainstreamers who veer somewhat off the path raised a fuss about Jaresko and tut-tutted about American imperialism, they seemed to miss the grander point of Jaresko’s consideration. Ukraine is not an example of American imperialism in the tradition of Iraq, Vietnam, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan.

Ukraine is an example of American imperialism in the tradition of Europe.

Natalie Ann Jaresko was born and raised in the leafy suburbs of Chicago, Illinois. She graduated from DePaul University in urban Chicago proper, then received a master’s degree in public policy from Harvard. A couple of years later she got her first job in Ukraine as the chief of the economic section at the U.S. embassy in Kiev. She left that post and became, among other things, an investment banker.

Based on what I’ve read, she didn’t set foot in Ukraine with the intention to live there until she was a good 27-years-old, and by then, I have little doubt she was less a diaspora Ukrainian than a diaspora American Brahmin. Jaresko, along with two other total non-Ukrainian foreigners, received citizenship by decree from President Poroshenko in 2014 and became a powerful government cabinet minister the very same day.

The other two foreigners were Alexander Kvitashvili, an ethnic Georgian who was born and raised in Georgia, has a master’s degree in public service from New York University and is a former employee of the UN and various other NGOs, and Aivaras Abromavicius, an ethnic Lithuanian who was born and raised in Lithuania, who got his bachelor’s degree at a branch of Concordia International University Wisconsin in Estonia. Kvitashvili became Minister of Healthcare and Abromavicius became Minister of Economy and Trade. Abromavicius made no attempt to hide the fact he spoke absolutely no Ukrainian, although he was fluent in English.

Out of 20 openly listed Ukrainian cabinet ministers, 3 were foreigners until the day they were appointed, 8 were educated abroad in the West and 4 are ethnically non-Ukrainian. While all 20 are not American-born ethnic Jews educated at Harvard, all 20 are not Ukrainian-born Ukrainians educated in Ukraine either. What is the point of calling a country independent if it cannot independently produce 20 people to run its own government? Out of some 45 million people living in Ukraine, the vast majority of whom are ethnically Ukrainian or Russian, there was apparently a terrible shortage of government ministers, or the skills and facilities necessary to train locals for the job.

This contradictory situation is the reality in a large swathe of Europe and the rest of the world, and underscores the hegemony of what can variously be called USG, the Blue Empire, the “International Community,” the State Department Empire, the Harvard Empire, or the Cathedral.

I derive endless joy from browsing the notable alumni sections of prominent American universities and discovering that apparently the leaders of 191 out of 193 supposedly independent and sovereign nations on Planet Earth all learn how to lead, govern, and administrate countries in a handful of homogeneous and conformist American schools, all within a few hundred miles of each other on the northeastern end of the North American continent.

Natalie Jaresko may soon be a Harvard JFK grad and Prime Minister of a foreign country, but she is far from being the first. Taking a look at the list, we find that current or former Presidents/Prime Ministers of Liberia, Mexico, Mongolia, Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Singapore, Canada, Tanzania, Bhutan, etc. all learned governance in the same little graduate school in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The same farce is repeated if you browse the notable alumni of Yale (Italy, Turkey, Germany, the Philippines, etc.), Princeton (South Korea, Bangladesh, Senegal, Peru, etc.) Georgetown (Lebanon, El Salvador, Lithuania, Bosnia, etc.) or any other fancy American university. The only two countries that seem to be excepted from this trend are Russia and China.

In Croatia, the President is a woman with a hyphenated last name who graduated from high school in New Mexico, attended George Washington University in DC as a Fulbright scholar, and completed a fellowship at (you guessed it) Harvard Kennedy School of Government. The Prime Minister is a Canadian who spent most of his life there and graduated from McMaster University. In Estonia, the President grew up in New Jersey and studied at Columbia and Penn.

Here’s a video of an old professor from America lecturing the European Parliament on why accepting millions of unchecked migrants from the Middle East is a moral duty, in a kindly mid-Atlantic accent to boot. Wait, that’s actually the President of Estonia, a tiny country of one million people speaking a Finno-Ugric language and nestled between Helsinki and St. Petersburg. That’s St. Petersburg, Russia, not Florida. Estonia, supposedly, is sovereign and independent.

The current president of Lithuania, Dalia Grybauskaite, studied at the school of foreign service at Georgetown University, which, remember, is located in Washington, D.C. It is bizarre that a head of state of any country, let alone a tiny Eastern European country, studied how to serve the interests of one’s own country while abroad in a foreign capital, while abroad in a foreign capital.

Why should anyone believe the best ways to serve the interests of Lithuania were taught at Georgetown? Probably what was taught at Georgetown’s school of foreign service was the best way to serve the United States, and there is no reason to believe Grybauskaite learned anything else, or stopped doing so when she became Lithuania’s president. In fact, two years before she went to Georgetown, she was defending her PhD thesis in Moscow, the then-capital of the Soviet Union, which was, by all accounts, a foreign occupier of Lithuania. After 1990, she didn’t continue her studies in Lithuania’s capital, but in Washington, DC. What does that say about America’s relationship with Lithuania?

Antonis Samaras and George Papandreou are former President and Prime Minister of Greece, respectively. The two of them were roommates at Amherst College in Massachusetts, from where they both graduated. Samaras later got an MBA at Harvard. Papandreou followed a similar path. Papandreou was born in Minnesota, not Greece. Greece is a Mediterranean country of ten million people several thousand miles away from Massachusetts or Minnesota and primarily concerned with the doings of Turks and Albanians, not New Yorkers or Canadians. Greece, much like Croatia, Estonia, Lithuania and Ukraine, is supposedly independent and sovereign.

Some readers may be inclined to argue that there is nothing malicious or deceptive going on here; it is simply a fact that the best schools for politics, economics, and government are all located in New England and the surrounding area, and the leaders of these multitudes of countries inferior to the United States in population and power are doing themselves and their countrymen a great favor by studying in America. They will return home with new knowledge and enrich and improve their homelands.

At this time, I will spare the reader arguments about the stupidity of the American higher educational system, and simply point out that, if this were true, Harvard and Yale would have the profiles of Area 51 or unnamed CIA black sites, not of celebrated brands with marketing and PR firms, to prevent this high-value economic and political knowledge from falling into the hands of Russian or Chinese spies.

Instead, it looks like Russia and China have zero interest in the intellectual output of America, except when it concerns nuclear engineering or cybersecurity, and America’s supposed intellectual powerhouses share their thoughts and insights with as many people as possible through books, newspaper columns, conferences, initiatives, advocacy, lecture tours, etc. Not only are they not hesitant about or restricted from sharing their ideas in Russia and China, they are supported and encouraged by governmental and quasi-governmental institutions to do so. These are the behaviors of institutions spreading a kind of quasi-religious ideology, not of institutions safeguarding powerful wisdom.

When Ivy-educated intellectuals and their followers begin advocating their ideas in Moscow or Hong Kong, they don’t get kidnapped and locked up in secret Sino-Russian political science research labs, they get surreptitiously assassinated or loudly deported and denounced.

Let us return to the tragicomic mess of lies that is today’s Ukraine, which is considering putting the former economic section chief of the U.S. embassy in Kiev in the position of Prime Minister, being a little more obvious about the colonial empire than usual. The FT article with which I introduced Natalie Jaresko mentions that she is “the candidate most likely to stand up to Ukraine’s oligarchs.” This is one of the most bizarre lines I’ve ever read in my life. A little cursory research and reflection reveals beyond any doubt that Jaresko is not just not likely to stand up to Ukraine’s oligarchs, she is likely to stand up for them.

Who made Jaresko a Ukrainian citizen and gave her her current job? Petro Poroshenko, one of 27 Ukrainian billionaires who became President of Ukraine following the coup of 2014 that ousted the previously elected pro-Russian President. This, at the very minimum, suggests Jaresko is already on the side of the oligarchs, seeing as she owes her current status and position to one of them. And the rest of those 27 Ukrainian billionaires? Shortly following the coup, one of them became President and four others were immediately appointed governors of Ukrainian regions.

One more (Dmitro Firtash) became (based on analysis of mouthy bureaucratic titles) deeply involved as an advisor in the government. The four who became governors include Ihor Baluta, Serhiy Taruta, Ihor Palytsia, and Ihor Kolomoisky, who has triple Cypriot-Israeli-Ukrainian citizenship and personally spent more than $10 million on anti-Russian militias. What oligarchs, exactly, is Jaresko going to stand up to? The ones in Russia?

Between the foreigners appointed to cabinet positions and billionaires appointed to governorships, Ukraine wasn’t doing a very good impression of an independent and sovereign country before Poroshenko appointed Mikheil Saakashvili to the position of Governor of Odessa oblast. If the name seems familiar, it may be because Saakashvili is an ethnic Georgian who was born and raised in Georgia and educated at Columbia, George Washington University, and the International Institute of Human Rights in France (an institution named with such nauseatingly pious progressive gusto I put its name in scare quotes before I looked it up to double-check if it was real) before becoming President of Georgia from 2004 to 2013, during which time he led Georgia into a short war with Russia in 2008. Needless to say, Saakashvili also got day-of citizenship from Poroshenko.

Why on Earth is this man running Odessa oblast, and not one of the 2.3 million local Ukrainians in the region? Ted Cruz had to renounce his Canadian citizenship to assure his constituents in Texas he was on their side. Apparently, there is no comparable pressure in Ukraine. Yours truly is no believer in democracy or the will of the people, but the overlords running Ukraine from abroad need not be hypocrites, too. If the State Department plans to replace the government of Ukraine with people friendly to U.S. interests, it might as well be honest about it and stop trying to pretend that this is all in the name of democracy, or human rights, or the people, or that Poroshenko and Jaresko are going to protect Ukrainians from oligarchs and foreign meddlers, and aren’t the oligarchs and foreign meddlers themselves.

If it did that, it might as well formalize its relationships to Croatia, Estonia, Lithuania, Georgia, etc., and at that point it might as well do the same with the litany of other Third World countries, from Mexico to Bangladesh, that depend on the Ivy League and State Department for competent administrators. I will be the first to recommend the new American colonial office holds its ribbon-cutting ceremony in Cambridge. Or perhaps the Georgetown campus is a better place? With 191 countries to take care of, there will probably be a need for more than one office anyway, and, well, there are plenty of millennials with degrees in gender studies to teach Ukrainians about why gay parades strengthen democracy and anal sex promotes economic growth.

There is no sovereignty and independence without intellectual and administrative sovereignty and independence. A country unable to produce or secure its own leaders and administrators is not an independent country. It is, by definition, a highly and fundamentally dependent country. The word for such countries used to be vassal state or puppet state. Maybe colony or protectorate.

For all intents and purposes, there are only three sovereign countries on the planet in 2016: Russia, China and the “International Community.” The four most important Russian leaders were all educated in Russia. The seven most important Chinese leaders were all educated in China, with the exception of one person. Did he get a master’s degree in public service in DC or Boston?

The one exception studied at Kim Il-Sung University in North Korea. How would a degree from Kim Il-Sung University look on a resume for a government job anywhere else but China?

Now that’s what I call sovereignty!

Mark Yuray is verified on Gab. Follow him there and on Twitter.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All

22 Comments

  1. “For three hundred years since Queen Anne defeated Louis XIV Anglos and Americans have been “containing” the entire Eurasian Landmass. Along the way we smashed France and Germany into rubble and occupation repeatedly. Europe has been laid waste at least three times. The Global Stability we offer does give most some decades of peace and prosperity and avoids smaller wars at the exchange of ending in Global Wars and prosperity turned into rubble and mountains of corpses.

    In my own America we are now given the counsel and provocations that the new enemy is China. We deploy ships to guard rocks in the Pacific and risk war doing so…a war we of course wouldn’t be allowed to win.

    Enough. Let nations find their own path and enough globalism, universalism and enough indeed of global stability. All these global systems end doing is making the inevitable problems cascading systems failures and catastrophe. We are living through that cascading catastrophe now.

    It’s as if one designed a global power system all wired in series and one light-bulb burning out anywhere causes the entire system to sputter and fail. ”

    Cross posted from Outside In on subject of global systems.
    I think you should actually follow the entire thread.
    http://www.xenosystems.net/quote-note-234/

  2. We now have government of the globalists, by the globalists, and for the globalists. If, or should I say when, it perishes it will bring us all down with it.

    1. Avoiding that fate by throwing down the last bastion in the West that doesn’t bow to the Empire – The muricans – is both our core political conflict and our duty.

      We throw them off the world – not that I care a shit for it – is also free.

      The core American political conflict is US Government has the world bowing to them but their own people will not kneel.

      As for the distaste for the people that runs through these pages you’d better work with what you’ve got – in particular as yes…we’re coming.

      Cheers.

  3. Mark Yuray deconstructs the web of obscurity surrounding USG’s neo-colonialism masterfuly. I truly had no idea the extent of this ‘US educated cabal’, but it really is everywhere. States like Ukraine are as much puppet states as Poland was during the Cold War.

  4. I notice a country missing from this analysis: Iran.

    It doesn’t appear on The List. A quick perusal of Wiki states that Ahmadinejad was educated in Iran. His successor was too, but completed his Masters and PhD in Scotland. This might explain his moderate tendencies.

    However, the Guardian Council is meant to keep the elected power in check and the US undoubtedly opposes its desired role as Guardian of the Shia World. That said, there are powerful people desiring Westernization in the country and the rich children of the elite seem to be fully Westernized.

    1. Also worth pointing out: the children of today’s Chinese middle and ruling classes are filling international spots in every Western university from Harvard down to the smallest state schools.

      We’ll see how much China realizes what it’s doing to itself.

      1. In my experience it’s because Chinese and Russian parents back home are signalling to each other how much money they can spend on education and Western lifestyles for their kids (and therefore how rich and high-status they are). In my experience these Russian and Chinese kids do not get SJW’d as much as others, especially nowhere near as much as locals/natives.

  5. I think you don’t understand the region (or what happened to it) and that’s why you’ve come to the conclusion that you have.

    In the “old days”, Western Europe extended to the boundaries of the Austro-Hungarian empire. Many of the countries that you mentioned were former constituents of said empire or their equivalent. i.e Lithuania. These countries have always been culturally “Western”.

    Their incorporation into the Russian-Communist empire resulted in a decapitation of their leadership class, and more importantly, a total destruction of their middle or “bourgeois” class. This middle class was both economically and financially destroyed and the cultural memory of its norms erased. When you now go to Eastern Europe, there is very little of the bourgeois values that are the foundation of Western administrative class. Many of the bureaucrats have either gotten their position as a result of political patronage or ‘technical ability”. Many of the latter are really “proles” with advanced technical training. Middle class values such as punctuality, honesty, diligence and the work ethic are lacking and it’s the lack of these “intangibles” which is seriously hampering the growth and functioning of these societies.

    The importing of foreign trained “leaders” is because the locals recognise that what they have is substandard. The rape of Russia by Harvard in the early 90’s, for example, was because the leadership of ex-communist Russia wanted to rebuild its economy on the basis of the “best” advice it could get. Since Harvard was the “best” University in the worlds richest country, they thought they would get their advice from them. We all know how that turned out.

    In Croatia’s instance, the current Prime Minister, an ex Canadian business executive, was a consensus choice. Both sides of politics there are seeking a way of the economic malaise that has paralysed the country and recognise that there is no endogenous solution to the problem. They’re looking for outside help. Serbia did the same thing.

    In nearly all instances, the “import” failed to produce the goods. The locals think that the problem is one of “know how”. i.e. find me a good economic manager and the problem will be fixed. They’re looking for the “best managers” and hence their courting of the talent from American universities(a mistaken view in my opinion). However that analysis is flawed since the primary problem in these countries is a moral one, there is total lack of bourgeois values in these places, and these values are the foundations of a well functioning capitalist economy.

    1. As Ukrainian I believe youre wrong. Eastern Europe is indeed bourgeois, where society lives in a mix of cleptocracy and anarcho-capitalism. State apparatus was always weak, yes even in Russia who are being portrayed as semi-totalitarian in the West. Theres saying there that harshness of Russian laws is mitigated by optionality of obedience to them. Those values you speak of are liberal, post-Christian values. And liberalism, as readers of this site know, is socialism-lite. So no, exc-USSR is as agressively bourgeois as it could be,

      1. You have an unusual definition of bourgeois. The middle class values that are loosely called “the Protestant Ethic” are totally absent in Eastern Europe. Instead, there is a whole bunch of highly technically educated “mass-men”. You just don’t see the corruption in Denmark or Holland that you see in the Ukraine or Croatia.

        Mitteleuropa’s cultural flowering prior to WW1 was as result of the incursion of these values into the governing class, pushed primarily by the Hapsburgs. The destruction of the Hapsburgs plus the inclusions of these countries into the former Orthodox/Communist sphere resulted in the economic and physical destruction of this class. The vacuum still remains.

        As for Russia, Putin is carrying on in the tradition of Stolypin.

        http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/reformer-stolypin-held-up-as-model-for-putin/467173.html.

        That model would never work in the West and is foreign to the West. Stolypin’s benevolent paternalism is still paternalism none the less. The self-actuating Christian bourgoeis were the foundation of the West.

        1. Whats your problem with corruption as non-liberal I assume you are? Are you statist? I totally dont see it as a problem, maybe you could change my mind.

          Protestant Ethic is indeed source of liberalism, socialism-lite. Havent you read Moldbug? With all bad things that happened during communist rule, it produced resentment of Christian values which is good, and which is why Russians(in a broad sense) in the West usually seen as ultra-libertarians(which is good).

          What Putin tries to achieve, is to lessen the need for regulations and laws. Basically, you only need to be loyal to regime, be powerful, and you can do anything you want – from poisoning your enemies without repercussions, to having mansions with serfs and sex slaves. Isnt this what we as neo-feudalists on resources such as these aspire to, a complete freedom from Cathedral and its moralizations under Lord-Protector?

          1. Uhmm. No.

            Moldbug’s analysis of Protestantism is incomplete. The religious liberty afforded under Protestantism meant that in weak minds (i.e the majority) it lead to socialism and it’s variants, however amongst superior minds it fostered a Classical Liberalism (in the European Sense) that knew where to draw the line. Protestantism+Democracy is a disaster but a Protestant aristocracy could develop Christianity in a way that was both truthful to its teachings and avoided that ossification that was present in the Catholic Church (I’m Catholic btw.)

            As for freedom, it needs to be understood as a tool rather than an end. Freedom does not stop you from going to hell, or choosing liberalism for instance. Russia’s present standing is contingent on the quality of its leadership. Shitty leaders, shitty Russia; there is no defence “in depth” as there are in the European states.

    2. While I didn’t quite phrase it that way, I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, and in fact your comment supports my point that these countries are dependent.

      1. Sorry Mark, but they’re not.

        They’re in the same trap that that U.S. is in the moment, thinking that their problems can be solved by a technical solution instead of a moral one. Prole drift is occurring en-masse in the U.S Middle class as well.

        The U.S. enjoyed enormous prestige as a result of its battle against communism in Eastern Europe and hence its appeal. But since then, many Eastern Europeans have reevaluated their position. The Centre-Right parties in most of Eastern Europe are assuming a far more independent stance than they did in the past. Orban’s “fuck you” attitude is a case in point.

        1. You’re assigning agency to abstract entities (ethics and morals) instead of people. Whether the solution is moral or technical it will come from people, and these dependent countries have no one to direct them to a person who may fix their problems except from abroad.

          1. Disagree again. Fidez in Hungary is drawing from its strength from Christian Humanism, not the U.S. State Dept which seems quite happy to see Christianity dead.
            A Nordic on a white horse will not be saving Eastern Europe. I have this funny feeling it will go the other way though.

          2. Hungary is obviously an exception, as are Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. Notice I didn’t mention any of those in my article.

  6. An unexpected consequence of the American global empire would be the brutality that comes after.

    According to Spengler’s theory on civilizations, the virulence of present day Islam is in large part due to Rome having smothered the nascent middle eastern civilization.

    I personally think the violence of the cultural revolution and the fanaticism of the Mao years in China were similarly due to the actions of the East India Company at a time when China was beginning to interact more with the outside world.

    Now imagine that times 191.

    1. He also said the same about Russia, it was smothered by the Khans, thus was never able to fully bloom till later. Thus extending its lifespan. Spengler Viewed Russia as a virulent up and comer.

      His interpretation of the Russian revolution, was a revolt of a Russian soul against a forced Westernization instituted by the Romanovs. One could argue that Mao was a similar phenomenon. The Chinese throwing off foreign domination after a 100 years of humiliation.

  7. This is actually a good discussion. How does NRx (a movement seeking a return to some kind of aristocracy) feel about the “bourgeois” class? I’m not sure I know. Thing is there seems to be an inherent historical tension between the bourgeois class and the aristocracy. As long as the bourgeois were small in number and confined mostly to small cities and towns they weren’t numerous enough/powerful enough to cause much of a threat (as was the case in the middle ages). However with the Bourgeois population explosion (caused by the discovery of the new world/commerce etc etc blah blah blah) they then set their sights on overthrowing the aristocracy. This is what the French Revolution was about, the bourgeois class grabbing it’s piece of the pie from the aristocracy. They also have a generally pernicious effect on the life and culture of a society

    How does one prevent this from happening? Especially when NRx is premised on techno commericalism. Can Techno-commercialism function without the “Protestant Work Ethic”? Or can we somehow get the good parts (economic vibrancy) without the bad (Liberalism, Iconoclasm, terrible philosophy, religious decay etc ).

    And this: “The self-actuating Christian bourgoeis were the foundation of the West” is a highly dubious assertion. Is this really the case? It’s one thing to say this in reference to the English speaking world, but the “West”?

    1. I think the cathedral had a good solution to this quandary till the 50s by catering to both bourgeois and aristocracy with the ’empire of embassies and empire of bases’ system. The system got shot to hell when the bourgeois created their own empire of bases in the Soviet union and disrupted the fine balance maintained till then.

      The best system dynamics for NRx would be the bourgeois ruled over by an aristocracy, probably by tying power to family owned property. People displaying too much holiness can be packed off to a hermetic university like in Neal Stephenson’s Anathem, the same way people were sent to monasteries in more civilized times

  8. I’m definitely pro bourgeois. With qualifications.

    Wilhelm Rhopke, Konrad Adenauer, Charles DeGaulle. All examples of the haute bourgeois which need to be emulated.

Comments are closed.