My point is to emphasize the analogy with today’s U.S. sanctions against all countries not following its own diplomatic demands. Trade sanctions are a form of excommunication. They reverse the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia’s principle that made each country and its rulers independent from foreign meddling. President Biden characterizes U.S. interference as ensuring his new antithesis between “democracy” and “autocracy.” By democracy he means a client oligarchy under U.S. control, creating financial wealth by reducing living standards for labor, as opposed to mixed public/private economies aiming at promoting living standards and social solidarity.
Germany has become an economic satellite of America’s New Cold War with Russia, China and the rest of Eurasia. Germany and other NATO countries have been told to impose trade and investment sanctions upon themselves that will outlast today’s proxy war in Ukraine. U.S. President Biden and his State Department spokesmen have explained that Ukraine is just the opening arena in a much broader dynamic that is splitting the world into two opposing sets of economic alliances. This global fracture promises to be a ten- or twenty-year struggle to determine whether the world economy will be a unipolar U.S.-centered dollarized economy, or a multipolar, multi-currency world centered on the Eurasian heartland with mixed public/private economies.
President Biden has characterized this split as being between democracies and autocracies. The terminology is typical Orwellian double-speak. By “democracies” he means the U.S. and allied Western financial oligarchies. Their aim is to shift economic planning out of the hands of elected governments to Wall Street and other financial centers under U.S. control. U.S. diplomats use the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to demand privatization of the world’s infrastructure and dependency on U.S. technology, oil and food exports.
By “autocracy,” Biden means countries resisting this financialization and privatization takeover. In practice, U.S. rhettoric means promoting its own economic growth and living standards, keeping finance and banking as public utilities. What basically is at issue is whether economies will be planned by banking centers to create financial wealth – by privatizing basic infrastructure, public utilities and social services such as health care into monopolies – or by raising living standards and prosperity by keeping banking and money creation, public health, education, transportation and communications in public hands.
The country suffering the most “collateral damage” in this global fracture is Germany. As Europe’s most advanced industrial economy, German steel, chemicals, machinery, automotives and other consumer goods are the most highly dependent on imports of Russian gas, oil and metals from aluminum to titanium and palladium. Yet despite two Nord Stream pipelines built to provide Germany with low-priced energy, Germany has been told to cut itself off from Russian gas and de-industrialize. This means the end of its economic preeminence. The key to GDP growth in Germany, as in other countries, is energy consumption per worker.
These anti-Russian sanctions make today’s New Cold War inherently anti-German. U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has said that Germany should replace low-priced Russian pipeline gas with high-priced U.S. LNG gas. To import this gas, Germany will have to spend over $5 billion quickly to build port capacity to handle LNG tankers. The effect will be to make German industry uncompetitive. Bankruptcies will spread, employment will decline, and Germany’s pro-NATO leaders will impose a chronic depression and falling living standards.
Most political theory assumes that nations will act in their own self-interest. Otherwise they are satellite countries, not in control of their own fate. Germany is subordinating its industry and living standards to the dictates of U.S. diplomacy and the self-interest of America’s oil and gas sector. It is doing this voluntarily – not because of military force but out of an ideological belief that the world economy should be run by U.S. Cold War planners.
Sometimes it is easier to understand today’s dynamics by stepping away from one’s own immediate situation to look at historical examples of the kind of political diplomacy that one sees splitting today’s world. The closest parallel that I can find is medieval Europe’s fight by the Roman papacy against German kings – the Holy Roman Emperors – in the 13th century. That conflict split Europe along lines much like those of today. A series of popes excommunicated Frederick II and other German kings and mobilized allies to fight against Germany and its control of southern Italy and Sicily.
Western antagonism against the East was incited by the Crusades (1095-1291), just as today’s Cold War is a crusade against economies threatening U.S. dominance of the world. The medieval war against Germany was over who should control Christian Europe: the papacy, with the popes becoming worldly emperors, or secular rulers of individual kingdoms by claiming the power to morally legitimize and accept them.
Medieval Europe’s analogue to America’s New Cold War against China and Russia was the Great Schism in 1054. Demanding unipolar control over Christendom, Leo IX excommunicated the Orthodox Church centered in Constantinople and the entire Christian population that belonged to it. A single bishopric, Rome, cut itself off from the entire Christian world of the time, including the ancient Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Jerusalem.
This break-away created a political problem for Roman diplomacy: How to hold all the Western European kingdoms under its control and claim the right for financial subsidy from them. That aim required subordinating secular kings to papal religious authority. In 1074, Gregory VII, Hildebrand, announced 27 Papal Dictates outlining the administrative strategy for Rome to lock in its power over Europe.
These papal demands are strikingly parallel to today’s U.S. diplomacy. In both cases military and worldly interests require a sublimation in the form of an ideological crusading spirit to cement the sense of solidarity that any system of imperial domination requires. The logic is timeless and universal.
The Papal Dictates were radical in two major ways. First of all, they elevated the bishop of Rome above all other bishoprics, creating the modern papacy. Clause 3 ruled that the pope alone had the power of investiture to appoint bishops or to depose or reinstate them. Reinforcing this, Clause 25 gave the right of appointing (or deposing) bishops to the pope, not to local rulers. And Clause 12 gave the pope the right to depose emperors, following Clause 9, obliging “all princes to kiss the feet of the Pope alone” in order to be deemed legitimate rulers.
Likewise today, U.S. diplomats claim the right to name who should be recognized as a nation’s head of state. In 1953 they overthrew Iran’s elected leader and replaced him with the Shah’s military dictatorship. That principle gives U.S. diplomats the right to sponsor “color revolutions” for regime-change, such as their sponsorship of Latin American military dictatorships creating client oligarchies to serve U.S. corporate and financial interests. The 2014 coup in Ukraine is just the latest exercise of this U.S. right to appoint and depose leaders.
More recently, U.S. diplomats have appointed Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s head of state instead of its elected president, and turned over that country’s gold reserves to him. President Biden has insisted that Russia must remove Putin and put a more pro-U.S. leader in his place. This “right” to select heads of state has been a constant in U.S. policy spanning its long history of political meddling in European political affairs since World War II.
The second radical feature of the Papal Dictates was their exclusion of all ideology and policy that diverged from papal authority. Clause 2 stated that only the Pope could be called “Universal.” Any disagreement was, by definition, heretical. Clause 17 stated that no chapter or book could be considered canonical without papal authority.
A similar demand as is being made by today’s U.S.-sponsored ideology of financialized and privatized “free markets,” meaning deregulation of government power to shape economies in interests other than those of U.S.-centered financial and corporate elites.
The demand for universality in today’s New Cold War is cloaked in the language of “democracy.” But the definition of democracy in today’s New Cold War is simply “pro-U.S.,” and specifically neoliberal privatization as the U.S.-sponsored new economic religion. This ethic is deemed to be “science,” as in the quasi-Nobel Memorial Prize in the Economic Sciences. That is the modern euphemism for neoliberal Chicago-School junk economics, IMF austerity programs and tax favoritism for the wealthy.
The Papal Dictates spelt out a strategy for locking in unipolar control over secular realms. They asserted papal precedence over worldly kings, above all over Germany’s Holy Roman Emperors. Clause 26 gave popes authority to excommunicate whomever was “not at peace with the Roman Church.” That principle implied the concluding Claus 27, enabling the pope to “absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked men.” This encouraged the medieval version of “color revolutions” to bring about regime change.
What united countries in this solidarity was an antagonism to societies not subject to centralized papal control – the Moslem Infidels who held Jerusalem, and also the French Cathars and anyone else deemed to be a heretic. Above all there was hostility toward regions strong enough to resist papal demands for financial tribute.
Today’s counterpart to such ideological power to excommunicate heretics resisting demands for obedience and tribute would be the World Trade Organization, World Bank and IMF dictating economic practices and setting “conditionalities” for all member governments to follow, on pain of U.S. sanctions – the modern version of excommunication of countries not accepting U.S. suzerainty. Clause 19 of the Dictates ruled that the pope could be judged by no one – just as today, the United States refuses to subject its actions to rulings by the World Court. Likewise today, U.S. dictates via NATO and other arms (such as the IMF and World Bank) are expected to be followed by U.S. satellites without question. As Margaret Thatcher said of her neoliberal privatization that destroyed Britain’s public sector, There Is No Alternative (TINA).
My point is to emphasize the analogy with today’s U.S. sanctions against all countries not following its own diplomatic demands. Trade sanctions are a form of excommunication. They reverse the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia’s principle that made each country and its rulers independent from foreign meddling. President Biden characterizes U.S. interference as ensuring his new antithesis between “democracy” and “autocracy.” By democracy he means a client oligarchy under U.S. control, creating financial wealth by reducing living standards for labor, as opposed to mixed public/private economies aiming at promoting living standards and social solidarity.
As I have mentioned, by excommunicating the Orthodox Church centered in Constantinople and its Christian population, the Great Schism created the fateful religious dividing line that has split “the West” from the East for the past millennium. That split was so important that Vladimir Putin cited it as part of his September 30, 2022 speech describing today’s break away from the U.S. and NATO centered Western economies.
The 12th and 13th centuries saw Norman conquerors of England, France and other countries, along with German kings, protest repeatedly, be excommunicated repeatedly, yet ultimately succumb to papal demands. It took until the 16th century for Martin Luther, Zwingli and Henry VIII finally to create a Protestant alternative to Rome, making Western Christianity multi-polar.
The demand for universality in today’s New Cold War is cloaked in the language of “democracy.” But the definition of democracy in today’s New Cold War is simply “pro-U.S.,” and specifically neoliberal privatization as the U.S.-sponsored new economic religion. This ethic is deemed to be “science,” as in the quasi-Nobel Memorial Prize in the Economic Sciences. That is the modern euphemism for neoliberal Chicago-School junk economics, IMF austerity programs and tax favoritism for the wealthy.
Why did it take so long? The answer is that the Crusades provided an organizing ideological gravity. That was the medieval analogy to today’s New Cold War between East and West. The Crusades created a spiritual focus of “moral reform” by mobilizing hatred against “the other” – the Moslem East, and increasingly Jews and European Christian dissenters from Roman control. That was the medieval analogy to today’s neoliberal “free market” doctrines of America’s financial oligarchy and its hostility to China, Russia and other nations not following that ideology. In today’s New Cold War, the West’s neoliberal ideology is mobilizing fear and hatred of “the other,” demonizing nations that follow an independent path as “autocratic regimes.” Outright racism is fostered toward entire peoples, as evident in the Russophobia and Cancel Culture currently sweeping the West.
Just as Western Christianity’s multi-polar transition required the 16th century’s Protestant alternative, the Eurasian heartland’s break from the bank-centered NATO West must be consolidated by an alternative ideology regarding how to organize mixed public/private economies and their financial infrastructure.
Medieval churches in the West were drained of their alms and endowments to contribute Peter’s Pence and other subsidy to the papacy for the wars it was fighting against rulers who resisted papal demands. England played the role of major victim that Germany plays today. Enormous English taxes levied ostensibly to finance the Crusades were diverted to fight Frederick II, Conrad and Manfred in Sicily. That diversion was financed by papal bankers from northern Italy (Lombards and Cahorsins), and became royal debts passed down throughout the economy. England’s barons waged a civil war against Henry II in the 1260s, ending his complicity in sacrificing the economy to papal demands.
What ended the papacy’s power over other countries was the ending of its war against the East. When the Crusaders lost Acre, the capital of Jerusalem in 1291, the papacy lost its control over Christendom. There was no more “evil” to fight, and the “good” had lost its center of gravity and coherence. In 1307, France’s Philip IV (“the Fair”) seized the Church’s great military banking order’s wealth, that of the Templars in the Paris Temple. Other rulers also nationalized the Templars, and monetary systems were taken out of the hands of the Church. Without a common enemy defined and mobilized by Rome, the papacy lost its unipolar ideological power over Western Europe.
The modern equivalent to the rejection of the Templars and papal finance would be for countries to withdraw from America’s New Cold War. They would reject the dollar standard and the U.S. banking and financial system. that is happening as more and more countries see Russia and China not as adversaries but as presenting great opportunities for mutual economic advantage.
The broken promise of mutual gain between Germany and Russia
The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 promised an end to the Cold War. The Warsaw Pact was disbanded, Germany was reunified, and American diplomats promised an end to NATO, because a Soviet military threat no longer existed. Russian leaders indulged in the hope that, as President Putin expressed it, a new pan-European economy would be created from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Germany in particular was expected to take the lead in investing in Russia and restructuring its industry along more efficient lines. Russia would pay for this technology transfer by supplying gas and oil, along with nickel, aluminum, titanium and palladium.
There was no anticipation that NATO would be expanded to threaten a New Cold War, much less that it would back Ukraine, recognized as the most corrupt kleptocracy in Europe, into being led by extremist parties identifying themselves by German Nazi insignia.
How do we explain why the seemingly logical potential of mutual gain between Western Europe and the former Soviet economies turned into a sponsorship of oligarchic kleptocracies? The Nord Stream pipeline’s destruction capsulizes the dynamics in a nutshell. For almost a decade a constant U.S. demand has been for Germany to reject its reliance on Russian energy. These demands were opposed by Gerhardt Schroeder, Angela Merkel and German business leaders. They pointed to the obvious economic logic of mutual trade of German manufactures for Russian raw materials.
The U.S. problem was how to stop Germany from approving the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Victoria Nuland, President Biden and other U.S. diplomats demonstrated that the way to do that was to incite a hatred of Russia. The New Cold War was framed as a new Crusade. That was how George W. Bush had described America’s attack on Iraq to seize its oil wells. The U.S.-sponsored 2014 coup created a puppet Ukrainian regime that has spent eight years bombing the Russian-speaking Eastern provinces. NATO thus incited a Russian military response. The incitement was successful, and the desired Russian response was duly labeled an unprovoked (sic) atrocity. Its protection of civilians was depicted in the NATO-sponsored media as being so offensive as to deserve the trade and investment sanctions that have been imposed since February. That is what a Crusade means.
The result is that the world is splitting in two camps: the U.S.-centered NATO, and the emerging Eurasian coalition. One byproduct of this dynamic has been to leave Germany unable to pursue the economic policy of mutually advantageous trade and investment relations with Russia (and perhaps also China). German Chancellor Olaf Sholz is going to China this week to demand that it dismantle its public sector and stop subsidizing its economy, or else Germany and Europe will impose sanctions on trade with China. There is no way that China could meet this ridiculous demand, any more than the United States or any other industrial economy would stop subsidizing their own computer-chip and other key sectors.[1] The German Council on Foreign Relations is a neoliberal “libertarian” arm of NATO demanding German de-industrialization and dependency on the United States for its trade, excluding China, Russia and their allies. This promises to be the final nail in Germany’s economic coffin.
Another byproduct of America’s New Cold War has been to end any international plan to stem global warming. A keystone of U.S. economic diplomacy is for its oil companies and those of its NATO allies to control the world’s oil and gas supply – that is, to reduce dependence on carbon-based fuels. That is what the NATO war in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine was about. It is not as abstract as “Democracies vs. Autocracies.” It is about the U.S. ability to harm other countries by disrupting their access to energy and other basic needs.
Without the New Cold War’s “good vs. evil” narrative, U.S. sanctions will lose their raison d’etre in this U.S. attack on environmental protection, and on mutual trade between Western Europe and Russia and China. That is the context for today’s fight in Ukraine, which is to be merely the first step in the anticipated 20 year fight by the US to prevent the world from becoming multipolar. This process, will lock Germany and Europe into dependence on the U.S. supplies of LNG.
The trick is to try and convince Germany that it is dependent on the United States for its military security. What Germany really needs protection from is the U.S. war against China and Russia that is marginalizing and “Ukrainianizing” Europe.
There have been no calls by Western governments for a negotiated end to this war, because no war has been declared in Ukraine. The United States does not declare war anywhere, because that would require a Congressional declaration under the U.S. Constitution. So U.S. and NATO armies bomb, organize color revolutions, meddle in domestic politics (rendering the 1648 Westphalia agreements obsolete), and impose the sanctions that are tearing Germany and its European neighbors apart—[without official acknowledgement of such acts].
How can negotiations “end” a war that either has no declaration of war, or is a long-term strategy of total unipolar world domination?
The answer is that no ending can come until an alternative to the present U.S.-centered set of international institutions is replaced. That requires the creation of new institutions reflecting an alternative to the neoliberal bank-centered view that economies should be privatized with central planning by financial centers. Rosa Luxemburg characterized the choice as being between socialism and barbarism. I have sketched out the political dynamics of an alternative in my recent book, The Destiny of Civilization.
See Guntram Wolff, “Sholz should send an explicit message on his visit to Beijing,” Financial Times, October 31, 2022. Wolff is the director and CE of the German Council on Foreign Relations.
About the author
Michael Hudson is an American economist, Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri–Kansas City and a researcher at the Levy Economics Institute at Bard College, former Wall Street analyst, political consultant, commentator and journalist.
Print this article
The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience.
Unfortunately, most people take this site for granted. DONATIONS HAVE ALMOST DRIED UP… PLEASE send what you can today! JUST USE THE BUTTON BELOW
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS
Finian Cunningham Interview: An Objective Look at U.S. Foreign Policy
Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.
John Rachel interviews Finian Cunningham
"What about if Americans in greater numbers boycotted elections with the explicit reason being that they don’t recognize the process? I mean total boycott...."
Finian Cunningham Interview: An Objective Look at U.S. Foreign Policy
Events continue to unfold at a quickening pace. Facing an alarming escalation in tensions around the world, we asked Finian Cunningham for his current thoughts.
Finian Cunningham has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. He is a Master’s graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20 years, he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Second-time recipient of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromising Integrity in Journalism (December 2020). His prolific output of excellent political analysis and commentary can be accessed at Strategic Culture Foundation, Sputnik News, and RT.
We focus on the realities of the international power struggle unfolding in real time, specifically addressing the role of the U.S. in the tensions and its capacity to reduce them. We are looking for paradigm-shift ideas for improving the prospects for peace. His responses below of are exactly as he provided. Here is what Finian had to say.
Q. We hear a lot of terms and acronyms bandied about. ‘Deep State’ … ‘MIC’ … ‘FIRE sector’ … ‘ruling elite’ … ‘oligarchy’ … ‘neocons’. Who actually defines and sets America’s geopolitical priorities and determines our foreign policy? Not “officially”. Not constitutionally. But de facto.
FC: All of the above terms can be used interchangeably to convey different facets of the power structure in the United States, and other nations. The ruling class comprises primarily corporate and financial interests of Wall Street and the military-industrial complex as well as combines of accumulated wealth. This nexus of power is nothing mysterious. It is the apex of the political and economic power of a social minority – the 1% is another term – that is the norm for capitalist society, as is explained in conventional class analysis. Writers like Michael Parenti and the late William Blum, among others, have described it well. The term “deep state” is a useful one because it conveys the continuity of power and powerful interests that remain entrenched regardless of which political party or personage is in the presidential or congressional office. The politicians do the bidding of the ruling class to serve their economic and political interests. This condition of permanent entrenched power accounts for why policies change little from one administration to another, whether Democrat or Republican. That’s why foreign policies change little, if at all. The unspoken foreign policy of the US is to serve the imperialist interests of its ruling class (Wall Street banks, commodity multinationals, overseas investors) and to maximize militarism for the financial benefit of the big and ancillary corporations that comprise the military-industrial complex.
The political party labels are irrelevant. The ship of state is charted for a collision course with perceived global rivals. Those rivals are of course portrayed as “enemies” and “threats”. That narrative or propaganda is required to “justify” (legitimize) the policy of antagonism and militarism, which is essentially a criminal warmongering policy.
For example, if we look back over the last decade from the Obama administration, through Trump to the present Biden one, there is fundamentally no difference in foreign policy. Even though we went from Democrat to Republican back to Democrat and despite differences in presidential personalities. Obama launched the “Pivot to Asia” with its keynote policy of antagonizing China. Obama also unleashed the policy of confrontation with Russia. Of course, Obama didn’t originate these policies. The antagonism towards perceived geopolitical rivals goes back decades to the Cold War. But certainly under Obama, there seemed to have been a step-change in pursuing more conflict with China and Russia. From Obama through Trump to Biden, the foreign policy of aggression has not only continued but has also been intensified. This is an illustration of the “deep state” at work. The objective of the ruling class's interests is to confront China and Russia in order to project US imperial power or hegemonic ambitions of global dominance for the capitalist advantages of its de facto governing corporate structure. The political party labels are irrelevant. The ship of state is charted for a collision course with perceived global rivals. Those rivals are of course portrayed as “enemies” and “threats”. That narrative or propaganda is required to “justify” (legitimize) the policy of antagonism and militarism, which is essentially a criminal warmongering policy. This, in my view, explains why the United States aided and abetted by subordinate “allies” are drumming up war with China over Taiwan and with Russia over Ukraine. The collision course is set by the ruling class in accordance with their interests, not by the majority of American citizens. This speaks of the fundamentally undemocratic nature of the US and its allies. More accurately, the US and its Western vassal states are acting like fascist powers because the policies are fixed by corporate power and reinforced with immense militarism. There is no democratic accounting for the war fixation.Citizens are held hostage by the warmongering deep state.
Q. We’ve had decades of international tensions. Recent developments have seen a sharp escalation in the potential for a major war. The U.S. apparently cannot be at peace. “Threats” against the homeland are allegedly increasing in number and severity. The trajectory of our relations with the rest of the world appears to be more confrontations, more enemies, more crises, and more wars. <> Is the world really that full of aggressors, bad actors, ruthless opponents? Or is there something in our own policies and attitudes toward other countries which put us at odds with them, thus making war inevitable and peace impossible?
FC: The United States in its capitalist formation as described above needs conflict and ultimately war like a drug addict needs a narcotic fix. The US cannot function without militarism because of the nature of its corporate capitalist economy and in particular the dominance of the military-industrial complex. The US economy is a hyper-militarized one befitting a fascist state. In order to justify this totally abnormal and undemocratic functioning, which is also criminal by the way, then there is the imperative need for a propaganda cover of legitimizing narrative about “enemies and threats”. This illusory narrative is dutifully sustained by the corporate-controlled media which reinforces, and never questions, nostrums about “foreign enemies” and “foreign threats”.
China, for example, is continually portrayed as a national security threat, an expansionist power and a threat to Taiwan in particular. The US claims to “defend” Taiwan from a Chinese threat. Under international law and US own domestic law, China has sovereignty over Taiwan in what is known as the One China Policy. Since Obama, through Trump and Biden, the US has increased sales of strategic weapons to Taiwan. This so-called US policy of “strategic ambiguity” is really more accurately called the “strategic destabilization” of China with the aim to antagonize Beijing. Beijing has repeatedly said it aspires to peaceful reunification with the island of Taiwan, but Washington relentlessly militarizes the situation by massively arming Taiwan, inciting separatist politics and inciting Beijing to react with military measures, which arguably are a legitimate response to defend its sovereignty. Can you imagine if the shoe was on the other foot?
The summit called for a challenge to “authoritarian regimes”. In other words, a CIA front organization (NED) is fomenting sedition and secession on Chinese sovereign territory. And yet in the US media, this week all we heard about were unsubstantiated warnings that Chinese President Xi Jinping is going to take China in a more aggressive direction over the next five years of his third term in office.
Meanwhile the Chinese foreign ministry this week urged the United States to stop demonizing China as a global threat and for Washington to work together in a mutual partnership for world development and peace. So it is clear who the aggressor is here.
In relation to Russia, in the months before the war in Ukraine blew up in February this year, Moscow had set out a detailed proposal for a comprehensive security treaty in Europe. The proposed treaty called on the US-led NATO military bloc to stop expanding eastwards towards Russia’s borders, as it has done relentlessly since the supposed end of the Cold War in 1991 following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Moscow’s security treaty proposals were simply trashed by the United States. No negotiations were conceivable for Washington. It insisted on NATO expansion and the “right” to continue arming a radical anti-Russian regime in Ukraine which Washington has bankrolled with weapons and military trainers since the CIA-backed coup in Kiev in 2014. That US deep state policy of antagonism, militarism, and aggression (regardless of who is in the White House) has led to the current war in Ukraine with Russia which the US and its NATO allies are doing everything to escalate, even if it runs the risk of a nuclear cataclysm.
As with Taiwan and China, the United States is on a fixed course of confrontation with Russia using Ukraine as the conduit. It is blatantly obvious who the aggressor is. And it should be blatantly obvious that the motive for this aggression is the paramount need to keep the US capitalist economy and its fascist power structure functioning through hyper-militarism.
Q. Our leaders relentlessly talk about our “national interests” and our “national security”, warning that both are under constant assault. Yet, we spend more than the next nine countries combined on our military. Why does such colossal spending never seem to be enough?
FC: Because American capitalism is a war-driven economy. The military-industrial complex is so embedded and prevalent that US capitalism would not function without conflict, tensions, and ultimately war. No other nation comes close to the warmongering record of the United States. Five years after World War II, it was bombing millions of Korean civilians to death. William Blum puts the number of wars and conflicts the US has engaged in since World War II at dozens and scores. What for? To “defend democracy and law and order?” How ridiculous and obscene! The entire power structure of the US would collapse without war – or its latent version of tensions and conflict with “foreign enemies”. That power structure equates to deadly serious vested interests. It’s what President Eisenhower warned about in 1961 and two years later his successor John F Kennedy was assassinated because he threatened the militaristic power structure from growing peace talks with the Soviet Union. JFK’s assassination – a president’s head blown off in broad daylight during a motorcade watched by millions of citizens – is perhaps the single most horrific example of the fascist deep state made manifest, which is the brutal, sickening reality beneath the patina of “American democracy”.
Q. It’s evident that you, and the many individuals who follow you and support your work, believe that America’s direction in both the diplomatic sphere and in the current conflict zones represents exercise of government power gone awry. Can you paint for us in broad strokes the specific changes in our national priorities and policies you view as necessary for the U.S. to peacefully coexist with other nations, at the same time keeping us safe from malicious attacks on our security and rightful place in the world community?
FC: The United States needs to be democratized. Its power structure and economy need to be demilitarized and made to work for the benefit of the majority of citizens. In short, I believe a socialist society is the best solution. But the fight for genuine democracy and peace comes with a hard struggle because of the vested interests of the status quo. However, with the evident collapse of US capitalist society (and other Western states), the task is being made more necessary and in some ways easier because it is becoming starkly evident that the existing system is bankrupt, corrupt, criminal, and unsustainable for the majority of working people – who really do want peaceful societies and peaceful international coexistence.
I believe that peaceful international relations with China, Russia and the United States and other nations are very possible. The primary threat to our human existence comes from the United States under its prevailing system. If that system can be transformed into a peaceful, democratic, socialist economy by a mass movement of Americans then the world will be likewise transformed. The key is the demilitarization of the US requiring a social change that goes way beyond its present oligarchic capitalist system. That is the biggest historic challenge the whole world wants to see being achieved. It won’t happen unless American citizens get organized politically. If they don’t then a world war is in danger of happening. If a war happens, and the planet survives it, then the best we can hope for is the defeat of the US deep state and an opening for democratic transformation by the American citizens. The peaceful option is of course desired but the US oligarchy is making violence almost inevitable.
Q. The general public, especially when it’s aware of the self-sabotaging results of our current foreign policies and military posturing, clearly wants less war and militarism, preferring more peaceful alternatives on the world stage and greater concentration on solving the problems at home. As peace activists, we are thus more in line with the majority of citizens on issues of war and peace, than those currently in power. What happens if we determine that those shaping current U.S. policy don’t care what the citizenry thinks, are simply not listening to us? What if we conclude that our Congress, for example, is completely deaf to the voice of the people? What do we do? What are our options then? What are the next concrete steps for political activists working toward a peaceful future?
FC: What about if Americans in greater numbers boycotted elections with the explicit reason being that they don’t recognize the process? I mean total boycott. And for the citizens to be organized and conscious about what their objectives are: they will only engage with politics, voting, and form-filling, when a party is on the ballot sheets that genuinely represents their class needs as workers and aspirations for peaceful foreign relations. Maybe Americans should go on strike and bring the system to a crash. And the same goes for Europeans, by the way.
• • •
We are grateful to Finian Cunningham for sharing his valuable and thought-provoking views. The interview was arranged by John Rachel, Director of the Peace Dividend Project. The Peace Dividend strategy is not a meme or a bumper sticker. It is an end-to-end methodology for challenging the political establishment and removing from power those compromised individuals who work against the interests of the great majority of U.S. citizens. The only hope for our hyper-militarized nation is each and every one of us having a decisive voice in determining the future we want for ourselves and our children.
Print this article
an>[/su_animate]
Unfortunately, most people take this site for granted. DONATIONS HAVE ALMOST DRIED UP... PLEASE send what you can today! JUST USE THE BUTTON BELOW
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS
Read it in your language • Lealo en su idioma • Lisez-le dans votre langue • Lies es in Deiner Sprache • Прочитайте это на вашем языке • 用你的语言阅读
[google-translator]
Keep truth and free speech alive by supporting this site. Donate using the button below, or by scanning our QR code.
Political Indoctrination
Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.
LARRY ROMANOFF OPEDS
China debuts its 21DF anti-ship missiles, a weapon capable of neutralising the US navy well before it can effectively strike.
Americans don’t believe China should adopt US-style multi-party politics because it’s a good system, or even because they believe it’s a good system. Most Americans aren’t sufficiently educated to know if a system is good or bad. Instead, they are deluded that their entire belief system and set of values is held in their minds as the world’s default position, representing the natural order of the universe. And they presume to measure the world according to this political religion.
One American wrote: “I’m really tired of hearing about democracy. Time and again, people are saying, maybe the Western style isn’t right for this country, or maybe the country isn’t ready for democracy. Well, when, pray tell, is a country finally ready for democracy?” We can’t help but pity this pathetic fool. You can feel his frustration. To him, it is self-evident that American-style multi-party politics [actually one party rule posturing as a twosome—Ed] is the natural human condition, the inexorable result of human evolution, and it is beyond the limits of his shrunken intellect to imagine that the correct answer to his question is “Well, maybe never.” Here’s another American, this one with a kind heart. He is tolerant and counsels patience. I like this guy. “We need to recognize that our ideology is not for everybody. The Chinese are still evolving upward, and without an educated society, US-style democracy will not work.” Now we know. The Chinese cannot adopt democracy because they are still primitive, having only just taken their first baby steps from apehood to Americanism. Those who reject our system do not do so because it’s unsuitable, dysfunctional and corrupt, but because they aren’t sufficiently educated.
If we blow away the smoke, it is self-evident that there are no absolutes in systems of government. A monarchy could be a perfectly acceptable system; there is nothing inherently wrong in having a king. Granted, it’s better if that king is wise, benevolent and responsible because if he is evil, corrupt and interested only in waging war on borrowed money, then the country would be shit. But then this is the main reason the US is shit today – because it’s government and leaders are evil, corrupt, and interested only in waging war on borrowed money. Whether in government or commerce, the critical feature is the character of the leaders.
Other forms of government or social organisation, the theories of socialism, were never presented to the American public in impartial or even in intelligent terms. There were no discussions of relative strengths or weaknesses or comparative records of accomplishments, nor were these permissible. The perspective offered was exceedingly narrow and any shade of socialism was presented with images of excessive government control, dictatorships and a form of evil. Any part of the world not firmly in the US camp or under American control was displayed to American children and adults in terms of socialist subversion, brutality and desire for world domination.
Virtually the entire socio-political landscape consisted of politicised rhetoric created by the US media in concert with the government. In contrast to idyllic images of the average American family with their 2.4 children living in their house with the little white picket fence and a yard with green grass, books and TV programs depicted the world outside the US as consisting of “wretched and terrifying places, with photos of malnourished children and bombed-out cities”. Other nations were savage and brutal, their citizens living hopeless grey lives in a hopeless grey world, portrayed as godless and deceitful, evil drones inciting unrest and revolution. There was never a presentation or fair discussion of issues; the intent was never to educate or inform, but to indoctrinate, media and publishing content all pulled from the same political-religious agenda. TV programs and history books read more like jingoistic sermons than facts of history or current affairs: “From island to island, continent to continent, the children of free peoples move the forces of tyranny from the face of the earth”. American religions were riding this wagon with as much eagerness as was the government, the people being taught that anti-communism or anti-socialism was an alliance with God himself, and that America was destined to be the savior of the world by divine appointment.
Former US Senator William Fulbright wrote that Americans not only misinterpreted their power as virtue, but further misinterpreted the imaginary virtue as a sign of God’s favor, giving America the unique responsibility to make the world wiser, happier and richer. In other words, remaking everyone as Americans. Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell said the US was “a country that exists by the grace of a divine providence”. Herman Melville wrote, “We Americans are the chosen people, and God has predestined – and mankind expects – great things from our race.” It was impossible for young children, and indeed for entire generations of uninformed and simple-minded Americans, to develop a realistic and healthy world view under the onslaught of this incessant propaganda war. While contrary political philosophies were summarily banished as godless, brutal and warlike, the American experience was portrayed in terms of altruism, humanity, morality and rule of law. American children were taught their government’s repeated military travesties were divinely inspired, America riding to the rescue like the cowboys in the Western movies, so when the US military went out on yet another war of liberation to kill yet another 3 million civilians, the citizenry acquiesced, strengthened by their faith in their own virtue.
History, of course, was one of the casualties of this generations-long domestic propaganda war, since the Americans freely excised the often-barbaric unpleasantness of their actions and reduced historic events to simplistic sound-bytes, caricatures of real events, creating countless popular myths to captivate their domestic audience and shield Americans forever from the truth of their own existence.
Christopher Columbus is today venerated throughout the US with a Columbus Day holiday and even Washington’s ‘District of Columbia’ is named after him. To support their narrative, the Americans created the myth of Queen Isabella of Spain pawning her crown jewels to finance his voyages of exploration, but none of that is true. Columbus, whose real name was Cristobol Colon, was a Jewish slave trader financed by wealthy Jewish businessmen, whose discovery of the new world set in motion a program of genocide that covered all the Americas, exterminating countless millions of people including the entire Maya, Inca and Aztec civilisations, as well as the Carib Indians and 98% of American aboriginal peoples. To celebrate a national holiday in his name is an unparalleled obscenity, but not for the Americans. To them, Columbus created “freedom”.
American presidents as a class constitute some of the most shameless myths of US history, always presented in glowing terms of wisdom, humanity and greatness when they were mostly racist genocidal thugs. It was the great George Washington who instructed his troops to skin the bodies of natives “from the hips downward to make boot tops or leggings”, and Theodore Roosevelt, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, was worse, telling Americans that the lives of aboriginal natives were “as meaningless, squalid, and ferocious as the wild beasts”, and that America’s extermination of them and the theft of their land “was ultimately beneficial as it was inevitable”.
Davy Crockett, an American frontiersman beloved by generations of small boys, was built into the epitome of a moral role model for emulation, the kids being taught he died fighting “an enemy of freedom” at the Alamo. The hell he did. Crockett was little more than a murderous goon expanding the American empire, and died trying to kill thousands of Mexicans, just as he had previously done with the natives. There were many of these so-called American heroes, mostly created from the corpses of resurrected non-descript gangsters and infused with a sudden excess of Christian morality, becoming part Christian soldier and part typical American.
In order to ease the penetration of the mythical narrative into the fertile and innocent little minds of the people, America invented jingoism, the fervent if pathologically false conviction that you, your nation, your systems, values and beliefs are vastly superior to all others. US President Calvin Coolidge told his people “To live under the American Constitution is the greatest political privilege that was ever accorded to the human race”. American Journalist Michael Hirsh wrote that American global domination was “the greatest gift the world has received in many, many centuries, possibly all of recorded history.” Ann Coulter, an extreme Right-Wing US columnist, called US soldier Pat Tillman (whom you will meet elsewhere in this Series) “an American original: virtuous, pure and masculine like only an American male can be”. Most people want to throw up after reading much of this stuff, but to Americans this is reality.
When a society substitutes political fairy-tales and myths, nationalistic slogans and religious rhetoric for historical fact, it distorts much of the historical reality of a people and a nation, and that is the truth of America today. We have generations of people who have adopted a vast library of false imagery and political-religious myths as a substitute for factual knowledge of their nation. Hollywood has been one of the worst sinners. Movies have served as one of the most effective and widespread disseminators of political propaganda and misinformation, leading generations of Americans to believe the fictitious caricatures. American movies and TV programs that do not reflect reality, nor do any historical references mirror history.
It is commonly known that the reason countless American war movies are so realistic and well-done is due to the free availability to Hollywood of the entire US military apparatus, at often astonishing expense to the military. Hours of scenes shot on aircraft carriers at sea, with dozens of take-offs and landings, are not cheap, but the only cost to a movie producer is the surrender of the script to the military censors who sacrifice historical accuracy by converting portions of the nation’s history into political-religious morality fables. Movie-goers are misled into believing they are watching a documentary film, the producers assuring their public of a faithful representation of reality where “only the names have been changed”, but this has always been nonsense. Perhaps other nations do this, but the Americans perfected the process to the point where historical movies bear virtually no relation to real events and are essentially false propaganda films. Among many prominent myths is that the US saved the world by single-handedly winning the war in Europe whereas the truth is that most of the burden was borne by Russia and the US entry was notable primarily for its looting of the carcass.
Another myth heavily propagated by America’s establishment is that the US is “the world’s Arsenal for Democracy” and has been paying for the defense of Europe (and Canada) since the Second War, evidenced by the maintenance of US military bases everywhere. Of course, the US has never paid for the defense of anybody because neither Europe nor Canada have ever been in the slightest danger of attack from anyone other than the US itself. The proliferation of American military bases was forced onto Europe to ensure US domination and never in any sense to defend anyone. Americans firmly believe the propaganda that US bases in places like Taiwan, South Korea and Okinawa are to protect local people rather than to enforce American control. This immense ignorance persists because the American propaganda machine provides only myths and sound bytes; It never gives facts, information or detail.
When a society substitutes political fairy-tales and myths, nationalistic slogans and religious rhetoric for historical fact, it distorts much of the historical reality of a people and a nation, and that is the truth of America today. We have generations of people who have adopted a vast library of false imagery and political-religious myths as a substitute for factual knowledge of their nation. Hollywood has been one of the worst sinners. Movies have served as one of the most effective and widespread disseminators of political propaganda and misinformation...
When movies and television embed religious nationalism and political rhetoric in their offerings for the masses, the entire population becomes misinformed (as intended), and both historical and current reality are twisted and distorted. As one author emphasised, we expect politicians or religious figures to present their personal values and positions, but when this political-religious ideology with all its attendant values is buried in entertainment, viewers seldom recognise the propaganda and tend to believe its accuracy. They also tend to unconsciously adopt the moral principles being preached. For decades, this is one major way the American mind was molded, and the process continues in even more elaborate form to this day, as with the recent foolish movie-myth about the killing of Osama bin Laden, and the many entertaining but historically false tales of Pearl Harbor and the Vietnam war.
Another recent example is Steven Spielberg’s unforgivably distorted portrayal of Lincoln and slavery and the American civil war. It was the Rothschild’s Barings Bank that financed the slave trade, and a great many if not most of the slave traders were Jewish. Furthermore, we have adequate documentation that it was European Jewish bankers who stimulated the slavery-related rift in American society to instigate the civil war. In this context, Spielberg’s movie is an especially offensive. false. and mythical portrayal of the true facts. As one columnist noted, Spielberg’s movie “had too many negroes and too few Jews”. The upshot is that tens of millions of gullible Americans will take with them to their graves a totally and absolutely false understanding of a critical period in their nation’s history. This uniquely American process has always been obvious to citizens of other nations, and many have expressed concern that the targeting and exposure of young children to this pervasive political indoctrination would be detrimental to their development – as it has proven to be.
Schoolbooks were the same. American author James Loewen wrote an interesting book titled “Lies my teacher told me”, based on his review of leading textbooks of American History, which he concluded were “an embarrassing amalgam” of foolish optimism, blind patriotism, and misinformation. The titles are sufficient to guess the tone of the propagandised content. “Land of Promise, The American Way, Rise of the American Nation, Life and Liberty, the Challenge of Freedom, The Triumph of America, The Great Republic”, and many more, all covered with American flags. To paraphrase someone’s cute expression: In China, a chemistry text is titled “Principles of Chemistry”; in America it’s “Battling Electron Tyranny: the Rise of the Molecule”. This juvenile political-religious ideology pervades everything in America.
FitzGerald: "According to these books, the United States had been a kind of Salvation Army to the rest of the world..."
I have examined many American textbooks on many subjects, and have concluded that elementary school literature books and storybooks may be the most deserving of condemnation for their shameless proselytising of the same political and religious propaganda that exists throughout the US in all media. Stories where only Americans exhibit virtue and heroism, where only they display righteousness and generosity, all while overcoming ignorance and evil throughout the world. American author Frances Fitzgerald did a similar study of American history textbooks and concluded, “According to these books, the United States had been a kind of Salvation Army to the rest of the world: throughout history, it had done little but dispense benefits to poor, ignorant, and diseased countries. The United States always acted in a disinterested fashion, always from the highest of motives; it gave, never took.” One author noted that “It would be better not to know so many things than to know so many things that are not true”.
The Americans have done this with nations and cultures in addition to their own. Their first major attempt at colonisation was with their first invasion of the Philippines, after which they forced their language onto that nation and immediately followed with a carefully-chosen selection of American history, literature and propaganda. They spent years and countless thousands of hours in determining the best way to propagandise an entire nation of people to forget their own past, venerate their present colonial status, and learn to worship the Americans. The US did the same with many Central and South American nations, as did the UK with Hong Kong, rewriting the domestic history books to erase from consciousness those nations’ heroes, traditions and hopes of freedom from American imperialism.
You have read the story of Iraq and will not be surprised at the hatred the Iraqis hold for their American occupiers, but the US propaganda machine has not been idle here. For the past decade the US government has spent millions in writing propaganda and indoctrination articles and paying local media to run them. American soldiers are given what William Blum called “talking points” to help them spread the American Christian gospel to the natives. “We are not an occupying force. We are a values-based, people-focused team that strives to uphold the dignity and respect of all. We are moving forward together with the Iraqi government as partners in building a future for the sons and daughters of Iraq. We will help our Iraqi partners as they build their new and independent country and take their rightful place in the world community.” Given the brutal truths of Iraq, this kind of propaganda is reprehensible and those propagating it should be shot.
Most American education and entertainment, and even TV commercials, followed the same pattern of religious politicisation, indoctrination and propaganda. Americans were always moral and superior, battling for God in a world with no shades of grey. And it was rather worse than this, because the manipulation of public opinion on such a grand scale in any society requires the cooperation of government, the military, business, the media, advertising, publishing, entertainment and other industries. The controlling elite must all be single-mindedly reading from the same script to make this work and, with all these players, the temptation for mission creep was irresistible.
One of the natural and planned results of the incessant programmed propagation of these totally false historical mythologies, as per the preachings of Lippman and Bernays, was the destruction of intellectual independence. Americans were propagandised and programmed to see the world through the same pair of eyes – the pair their masters wanted them to look through. Contrary to American claims of free and independent thinking, ideological uniformity became paramount, where independent thinkers, dissidents and those with dissenting opinions most often found themselves immediately ostracised. One of the best examples of this is Noam Chomsky, a former MIT professor, prolific author and outspoken critic of much of the US system. Chomsky has been blacklisted by the US government and the media. One writer noted that his name appears almost nowhere; reviews of his books are nowhere to be found; his widely-attended public speeches apparently never occurred. The man has been ‘disappeared’ for daring to criticise the ideological narrative. In America, praying to the wrong god is dangerous.
Americans would never be so foolish as to permit foreign intellectuals to teach at their universities and promote other systems of government or economics. Freedom of speech in America means staying within the prescribed narrative. Stray from that, and you will quickly find yourself ostracised, unemployed and unemployable. To seriously propose the superiority of a political religion different than that of the US, to present its advantages without apology or back-tracking, is to disappear from the intellectual world. To factually present to American university students the multiple advantages and overall superiority of China’s one-party government is to beg for dismissal. Similarly, you can criticise capitalism all you like, but if you stray very far from praising the American predatory gospel of free markets, deregulation and lack of oversight, you will be gone. You are free to decry government intrusions into matters of civilian privacy, and the increasingly frightening US domestic surveillance, but you will at the same time continue to praise the (increasingly non-existent) freedoms and human rights so precious to the narrative.
As someone noted, the government may not show its hand, and indeed it may not have to do so; the institution itself will recognise the inherent danger and will remove you. The reasons for your dismissal will never be forthrightly discussed. The university will claim there was “little student interest in his class”, or it will make veiled accusations about your lack of professionalism, or question your competence, but you will definitely be dismissed and no other institution will hire you. In America, you do not stray from the narrative and survive. The channel for dissent does indeed exist, but is heavily circumscribed and must adopt an approved format. It is permissible in America to criticise democracy, and even to do it harshly, but one must end with a statement that in spite of all its faults it is still the world’s best system. It is only manipulated dissent that is permitted. True protest in America has always been presented as subversive, unpatriotic and seditious; witness the Vietnam war protesters, especially the university students, many of whom were simply shot by the authorities.
This censorship of dissent is even stronger today. Historical evidence demonstrates conclusively that single-party governments are far more successful in creating rapid development than are electoral democracies, witnessed by Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, China and Hong Kong. In 1998, John Wenders wrote an article from which I will quote here: “The Harvard Business School invited a prominent Hong Kong businessman, Philip Tose, to speak. After his speech, Mr. Tose was asked why he thought Hong Kong has prospered and India had languished. Mr. Tose replied, “One word: Democracy”. The faculty, of course, was aghast, and scrambled to disassociate itself from Mr. Tose’s questioning of the democracy icon. The dean of the faculty, Kim B. Clark, issued a statement declaring the businessman’s remarks as “totally at odds with my own views and those of the Harvard Business School faculty”.” So much for independent thinking and freedom of speech. In America, you can say whatever you want, so long as you don’t stray from the narrative. Actually, that’s not quite true. You can stray, but you can kiss your life good-bye in doing it.
A strident nationalism is an integral part of this pervasive, inescapable and perpetual indoctrination, which is why the American flag is everywhere. It is in churches, at home entrances, in offices, in storefronts, in schools and on university campuses, as a silent but incessant ideological reinforcement. Only in American supermarkets can you buy Freedom toilet paper plastered with American flags. The American national anthem is sung everywhere, the Pledge of Allegiance recited daily. David Kertzer, from Brown University, wrote, “Pledges of allegiance are marks of totalitarian states, not democracies. I can’t think of a single democracy except the United States that has a pledge of allegiance.” It is not a comforting experience to see ranks and files of automatons with their hands on their hearts, paying respect to a flag and mindlessly swearing allegiance to what is essentially a criminal enterprise. Nationalism, patriotism, faith, freedom and democracy are all part of the one American religion. The media for this national religion are everywhere. At ballgames, and in hundreds or even thousands of places, people listen to a prayer and sing their national anthem, an important reinforcement of their political religion, expressing a conviction that their nation and its system of values are blessed by God.
Patriotism and political-religious indoctrination and reinforcement of the American so-called values are even in the streets, literally. We have Independence Avenue, Freedom Boulevard, Democracy Road, Liberty Lane. Nowadays there may even be a Dictatorship Drive, just North of the Torture Turnpike. We have Freedom shopping malls, Liberty Parks and so much more. Virtually all American advertising takes advantage of this brainwashing propaganda. The Germans sell excellent cars on the basis of quality, dependability and good engineering. The Americans sell crappy cars based on freedom and taking control of your life. Perception is everything and substance nothing. Escape from the narrative is impossible. No other nation in the world has engaged in political-religious brainwashing propaganda on such a massive scale. Patriotism in America is neither natural nor spontaneous; it has been planned, programmed and instilled in all Americans from birth, at least all white Americans. It is often so foolish as to be comical and open to ridicule, but simultaneously rather frightening. Consider this example:
The media topic is that fewer Americans are buying live Christmas trees in favor of artificial ones that are less bother and are re-usable. The live tree industry feels a long-term threat to its survival. No politics here, no religion. But then this is America and things are different here. The problem, according to the US media, is not the change in consumer tastes but rather is China, specifically “China’s cheap, fake Christmas trees”. China is “threatening our authentic American trees” and, even more importantly, China is also threatening “the patriotic Americans” who supply the authentic American trees. The media article therefore advised all these threatened freedom-loving Americans to go out into the forest and find “a God-grown tree”. When you read this, do you laugh or cry?
The ideological uniformity created by their extensive programming resulted in Americans becoming the least adaptable of all peoples. European hotels offered an “American plan” because accommodation differing from that at home was too challenging for Americans to deal with. Every coffee shop was forced to offer Café Americano because Americans couldn’t bring themselves to drink repulsive concoctions called espresso or cappuccino, though these became suddenly popular after being re-invented by Starbucks and were then American. The list is long. Locals and expats in other countries have no shortage of stories about the pathetic failure of Americans to fit into a foreign environment, helplessly demanding that everything be delivered to them the way it is at home.
Beijing, China. 25th May, 2020. The second plenary meeting of the third session of the 13th National People's Congress (NPC) is held at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, capital of China, May 25, 2020. China's Communist Party has almost 100 million members, the largest organised party in the world, with a complex structure designed to insure the tramsmission of popular will from bottom to top. But most chauvinist and propagandised Americans are completely unaware of this unique historical accomplishment. (Credit: Ju Peng/Xinhua/Alamy Live News)
Even in Shanghai, many Americans will gather in what are essentially foreign compounds where they associate only with each other in what appears to be a desperate attempt to re-create an American environment with as little Chinese contamination as possible. For them, life is not different than living on the edge of Chinatown in Boston or New York, where they can have Chinese food if they want it but return home to their white lifestyle after dinner. But mostly they frequent Hooters and Malones and the American bars, and take the kids to KFC and McDonald’s to celebrate their foreign experience in China. American firms in China naturally expect all their Chinese employees to be fully fluent in English because no American can learn Chinese, and they constantly bellyache about laws or policies that are “backward” only in the fact that they differ from those in the US.
This same ideological uniformity not only prevents Americans from adapting but also renders them culturally color-blind, living in a one-dimensional American-colored world in which they misinterpret most of what they see. I was once walking on a Shanghai street with an American acquaintance when he commented on the numerous ‘wheelchair ramps’ that appeared on the curbs of most street intersections in both large and small cities. He then proceeded to enlighten me with his views on Chinese culture and attitudes, based on conclusions drawn from his observations of accommodation of the handicapped. I had to interrupt my education to inform him that those were not ‘wheelchair ramps’ but had instead been inserted for bicycles. The shrunken American mentality sees something foreign it often does not understand, interprets that misunderstanding in the light of what the events would mean if they occurred in the US, then draws a flurry of conclusions which are almost always nonsensical in their irrelevancy. In another case, “a world-famous psychology professor” at UCLA noted in a treatise that the Chinese need to lose their natural (or conditioned) “shyness and lack of confidence”. It was beyond both the imagination and the intellect of this stellar Harvard Ph.D. to realise that she was witnessing not shyness but modesty, one of the most charming and sincere of all Chinese characteristics, and certainly not one to be replaced with in-your-face American ‘confidence’.
And of course, it is the same at home. With all the immigration to the Promised Land of America, the US became – as Americans even today are proud to tell us – a “melting pot”. And this wasn’t a fake one. It was the real kind of melting pot, where the people at the bottom get burned and all the scum floats to the top. We often see articles or programs in the Western media about ethnic differences and the problems of cultural assimilation, for which the US coined the term “cultural melting pot”, and which has always been promoted to us as one of the great benefits of ‘freedom and democracy’. But in truth, this melting pot is precisely what we call cultural genocide. Americans talk glibly about how they treasure all the cultures that form their society, but that is bitterly false propaganda.
My ancestors emigrated to Canada from Eastern Europe a long time ago, and my parents still tried hard to maintain their cultural background, the language, the traditions, festivals and so on. But for my generation, that was almost impossible. There was great pressure on us to conform to North American cultural standards, which is to say, to a lack of a culture of any kind. I can recall in elementary school being ridiculed because of my parents’ accent, because of their sometimes-funny ways, because we ‘ate potatoes for breakfast’, because of the funny foreign languages we spoke. It was pervasive, incessant, inescapable, and often brutal. A US politician recently proposed that all Chinese and other Asians in the US should have to renounce their foreign names and adopt English ones because the Asian names were too difficult to pronounce. American adaptability at its finest.
As youngsters, we had no way of dealing with this except to renounce our heritage and try to become like everyone else – which mostly meant adopting the white, Anglo-Saxon model. That pressure was on everyone from every ethnic group from every country, with schools and government responsible for much of this assimilation pressure to renounce your ‘foreign’ cultural heritage and become truly white. However much the US (or Canada) preach about respecting minorities, the real-life experience is that you can succeed only by escaping your minority and becoming, if you can, part of the majority. And you can do that only by renouncing your heritage, your language, culture and traditions. And that really constitutes a cultural genocide. The overwhelmingly ideological political-religious fabric of North American society will not permit anyone to be very different. To enter this ‘melting pot’ is to emerge as some kind of homogenised nothingness. The only real freedom that exists in America – and the only “freedom” that Americans will grant the world, is the freedom to be like them.
You cannot maintain a separate cultural or political identity because the hive forces you to conform, forces everyone to think the same things, to see the world through the same pair of eyes and focused through the same distorted lenses of patriotism, religion and free-market capitalism. Appearance and mythology are everything; truth is nothing. The result of all the deafening marketing noise and generations of propaganda meant to hide the truth from everyone including the Americans themselves, the US is one of the least individualistic of all countries, with 300 million people all reading from the same script, all thinking and believing the same things, and all equally desperate to convince you of their individuality. To a foreigner, Americans often fit the dictionary definition of a hive mind so perfectly that in critical areas like international relations, they are frightening for the threat their ignorance and binary mentality pose to the rest of the world.
By contrast, Europe is impressive in that many geographically small countries in such close proximity still maintain 100% of their individual cultures. European countries do not ‘melt’ into each other. You will see a bit of fuzziness near the borders, but when you’re 5 Kms. inside Italy, you know absolutely that you are no longer in France. That is the result of a human cultural tolerance – “live and let live” – and that is precisely what Americans lack. Living in Rome, I enjoyed the charming coffee shop sign boards containing the price of coffee in about 15 different currencies. In the US, you can pay in American dollars or go back to your own stupid country. In terms of humanity, the Europeans do everything better than do the Americans. And so does China: With its 56 ethnic groups, you’d think there would be great pressure to assimilate, but all evidence points in the opposite direction. China’s government jealously protects and defends these people precisely to prevent their being assimilated, and has even created semi-autonomous provinces for their cultural benefit. When we experience the humanity and tolerance on other continents, we cannot avoid concluding that American promulgations of ethnic equality and respect are just rubbish.
The American inability to adapt was only a small part of the political and religious ideological programming, this inability being the sibling of a marked intolerance for all other peoples and cultures, and both being the offspring of their supremacist Christian racism, which is inherent in American ideology to a shocking degree. Americans are, and have always been, repugnantly and unapologetically racist. In an Al-Jazeera article, the writer, describing the US, wrote, “… the land is soaked with religiosity and racism [and] has been soaking in them for about 400 years. The result is that religion and racism are completely natural features in the landscape of public affairs – and to notice it would be like noticing the air you breath and the water you drink, and doing that is to stand outside of the normal patterns of political life”. One of the many telling signs of the deep and frightening racism embedded in the US psyche is that the only public debate on the issue of government-sponsored extra-judicial executions centered on the question of killing white Americans. No discussion arose, or was even necessary, on the murders of people of other races in other countries: “They’re not really humans, you know?”
Americans, individually and in their media, exhibit no reluctance to disparage or bash other nations and cultures, to mock, ridicule and condemn attitudes or practices that conflict with their political-religious narrative, yet they react with a surprising sensitivity to criticism directed at them. The US media feature a daily barrage of negative commentary on China and other nations, but when Americans in China or elsewhere experience any blowback or negative remarks they are offended and often become belligerent. They are so steeped in white colonial supremacy that they claim the trashing of other cultures as a right, with no apparent awareness of the repulsiveness of their own conduct or attitudes.
One American complained that as a geologist working for a Chinese company, his Chinese exploration manager told him that it was no business of his how many people died in the Cultural Revolution. His reaction was one of disbelief and offense, and of his being the victim of a great moral wrong. He said he felt “like a Judas Iscariot” – a despicable traitor to his God and his religion, for not forcing the issue with his manager. But if I take a job with an American company and question my manager about how many people his government tortured to death in Guantanamo Bay, what would he say? He would tell me to shut up, mind my own business, and do my work. But it’s not like that for the Americans because, steeped in the supremacist racism of their twisted Christianity, they have not only a right but a holy obligation to challenge other nations on any wrongs real or imagined, saddling every individual American with a God-given mission to ensure that all individuals in all other countries confess their mistakes openly to him. After all, he’s an American.
Their religious-political ideology has endowed them with a kind of superiority cloak which they drape on themselves as a natural order of things, sitting in their democratic, freedom-loving homes and offices, soaking in their human rights while brutalising most other populations on the planet. These attitudes of intolerance, inability to adapt, and superiority are all part of racism, all stemming from the same twisted Christian heresy, then blended with their particular dysfunctional version of multi-party politics and topped with a flag to form the American religion. All these and more are part of the same whole encompassed by the American definition of “democracy”.
Through the artifice of fabricated mythology, the indoctrination machine has successfully implanted in the American collective consciousness the conviction that the US is above all other nations in its ideals, values, political principals and moral character. This idea that America is morally “better”, has been so deeply embedded in the American psyche that it naturally extends itself to being above all man’s laws, including international law and those of other nations, to say nothing of being exempt from accepted norms of moral human behavior. Through generations of media exposure, the US has more or less successfully proselytised these notions to most Western countries as well, the problem with countries like China and Russia being their lack of such indoctrination and consequent lack of enthusiasm to accept these false superiority myths.
When Americans conduct their extensive meddling and interference in the internal affairs of China or Russia, these actions are justified by this superior scaffolding of principles and values. “It may not be really nice of us to do these things, but we’re doing it for their own good and they will be better off and happier afterward.” With this rationalisation process, typical Americans will agree that it wasn’t very nice to hijack Hawaii or Puerto Rico, but will then add, “and so what? Today they have American values and government, and they’re happier and more prosperous. We did them a favor.” They will agree that it wasn’t nice to destroy Iraq and cause such enormous loss of life, but “they’re better off now with our democracy, and besides, we removed a dictator and set the people free”. All the meddling in China and Russia, the attempts to destabilise the current order, are seen through the same pair of eyes. “Maybe it’s not very nice, but it’s good for them. We’re offering them “freedom”, and they will be better off because of us.”
This overpowering fog of moral superiority that envelops almost everything American, serves as a shield to protect by rationalisation and justification virtually the entire gamut of American misbehavior, sins, crimes and atrocities. It also functions as blinders, as for a horse, preventing Americans from seeing other than the restricted narrow view directly ahead of them. Of course, this moral superiority is heavily supported by the uniquely flaky and belligerent American theology with its cornerstone of racism applied to most of the world’s peoples. Europe is safe because it’s white. The Americans do their best to disparage European culture and traditions on the basis that “the old world” is backward and outdated, but effective political slander requires racism to gain any real traction, and racism isn’t a realistic weapon against most Europeans.
Reinhold Niebuhr once said that what promised no end of grief was Americans’ arrogant conviction that “Providence has summoned America to tutor all of humankind on its pilgrimage to perfection”. It is this same warped moral superiority that prompts the US State Department to produce its annual reports that presume to evaluate and judge the behavior of the world’s nations on areas like human rights and freedoms. As the years pass, these politically-driven evaluations have increasingly become so transparently hypocritical that the US is becoming the laughingstock of the world. A nation that tortures people by the tens of thousands, many to the death, is in no position to scold others for what are by comparison trivial acts. A nation that has virtually eviscerated its entire framework of civil freedoms in only a few years, is in an unsuitable position to point fingers at the many other societies that are now in fact and reality much more “free” than is America – and this list certainly includes China. The little moral capital the US still possessed was squandered on its delusional espionage ambitions beginning with Hillary Clinton’s UN DNA-collecting fiasco followed by the lies and cover-ups on the NSA revelations.
There is one other major part to the American political religion that isn’t often identified as being an integral feature but has nevertheless been embedded in the forced indoctrination of generations of Americans, this portion being their predatory ‘law of the jungle’ capitalism. Many years ago, US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles claimed, “There are two kinds of people in the world: Christians who believe in free enterprise and the other kind”. That says it all. Anyone wanting to be a member of the team, in fact anyone wanting an American identity, was expected to adhere to the capitalist mantra of big business and of the elites whose only aim was to eviscerate the middle class and gather all wealth to itself. Americans have been so brainwashed by generations of commercial propaganda that they now almost unanimously support their own headlong rush into poverty, because to object to it is to defy God’s will.
For a century, US corporations and government agencies filled the minds and hearts of Americans with fear of socialism and, once that fear was stoked, defined for them the signs of socialism that had to be avoided at all costs. These signs included the government doing its job by providing for its citizens in areas like electricity, communications, transportation, health care, social security, now even including education, presented to the people as “giving up your life and letting the government run it for you”. Any government involvement in any segment of society or industry where big business and the elites could make a profit was defined as either socialism or communism and therefore treasonous to the basic religion of multi-party political Christianity. The propaganda was so powerful that it became virtually impossible for an average American to be a Christian socialist or a believer in both democracy and social security, or to be any of these and simultaneously against big business. To have an American identity is to accept all chapters of the Bible of Freedom. One cannot pick and choose which of God’s laws he will follow. Ideological uniformity is a prerequisite for those living in a black and white world and practicing an all-or-nothing religion.
From wide reading of American news and often of the commentary made by numerous readers, it is abundantly clear that the fabricated historical myths have been so deeply impressed into the average American mind that intelligent discussion becomes impossible. As an example, one online commenter on a US news site is typical of the tragic disparity between myth and reality, in this instance claiming the US had immeasurably improved life for inhabitants of most nations. In his arguments in favor of a positive American contribution to the post World War II world, he listed Korea and the Korean war, apparently ignorant of all the facts of this fabricated war and the immense human tragedy of US involvement. In the same breath, he listed the blockade and separation of Taiwan from China as a world benefit. He proudly quoted US support of Israel, “the only democracy in the Middle East”, apparently unaware that Iran had been a democracy long before Israel existed and that Israel was more recognisable as a brutal and genocidal apartheid fascist state than a so-called democracy.
He stated his widely-shared, but false, belief that the US liberated most of Europe in the Second War. He listed the stationing of hundreds of thousands of US troops in post-war Europe as a world blessing, apparently ignorant of the underlying policies of US military bases. He listed the US “Fighting the cold war all over the world, directly and through proxy” as a positive, ignorant of the cold war having been a manufactured contrivance for American hegemony and of the tally of lives and misery contained in his “proxies”.
He ended his commentary with this question: “Tell me what the world would look like today if the US had demilitarized after WW2 the way Canada did”. To respond to his query is to struggle for a sensible place to begin. For one thing, there would have been no war to destroy Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, no loss of 5 million lives nor the tragedies of Agent Orange and napalm. Indonesia would have avoided one of the largest mass exterminations in history. There would have been no Afghanistan, no Iraq, no Libya, nor dozens of other military travesties. There would have been no Cold War. There would have been no brutal puppet dictators enthroned in 50 nations on three continents. The world would not have witnessed dozens of national leaders assassinated; dozens of nations plundered of their resources. There would have been no vast network of torture prisons covering the world. In short, we would have had peace instead of war, tens of millions of people would not have died and another several hundred million would not have suffered so bitterly. But these facts contradict the propaganda and challenge American historical myths, and cannot be permitted to assume credibility. Debate or discussion become pointless when confronted with stubborn ideology and myth. This man, like countless millions of Americans, believes what he has been told and taught. He has his teachers and professors, his history books, his movies and TV programs, all confirming his beliefs. His convictions are reinforced daily by his news media, by his government and military leaders, his priests and ministers. His support system is permanently in place. Why would he pay heed to unpleasant external contradictions? Michael Parenti expressed the situation perfectly when he wrote “The enormous gap between what US leaders do in the world and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the dominant political mythology.”
Another part of this fabricated mythology to which American adhere tenaciously is that of the US subsidising the “defense” of the Western world, with many insisting that the US government demand other nations “pay their fair share” for their defense. It is astonishing anyone could possess a mind so illogical as to believe this story, but believe it they do. In what way does the world’s “defense” require more than 1,000 American military bases spread around the world? Against whom is the world being defended with the US filling the South Seas with naval vessels and staffing the world’s largest military base in Guam? Against whom is the world being defended with NATO’s missiles ringing Russia? There is no nation in the world threatening wars of aggression except the US and Israel. There is nothing against which to defend, except the constant military aggression of the US itself. Without the US and Israel, and the Khazar Jews in the City of London, without the CIA and Mossad, there would be no wars other than perhaps minor local skirmishes. The US is not ‘bearing the burden’ of defending anyone, but is spending its own money on imperialist dreams of global domination. Yet Americans foolishly persist in the fiction that the world isn’t paying its share of the military determined to dominate it.
There is much material added to this basic programming on a daily basis, false information offered without evidence but fitting the narrative, especially involving the demonisation of people and other nations, as can be seen with the US media onslaught against China. A great many Americans “know” – because their narrative has told them – that China stole all their jobs, that China cheats on trade, that the Chinese have no “freedom” and, of course, that “all Chinese are brainwashed”. Likewise, historical myths about Tibet and Xinjiang have been impressed onto gullible minds with an inflammatory emotional narrative and are now unlikely to change. In late 2013 most Chinese learned of the American TV program where a small child advised that the best way to deal with the US foreign debt was to kill everyone in China. The child of course obtained these attitudes from his parents, but there were no repercussions; the program director offered a casual and oblique apology and the network ignored the issue. It was not accidental; the program had been pre-recorded and the offensive comment could have been cut. But it wasn’t cut; it was there because the network wanted it there.
The US government and media promote hatred and racism toward China for its unwillingness to become a subservient American colony, with Canada and other Right-Wing countries following in lock-step, dehumanising an entire civilisation of people for cheap political gain. On a daily basis, Americans are taught to hate. In these Western nations that so self-righteously claim superior morality and anti-hate legislation, all is hypocrisy. In the mythical narrative, you will forgive whom you are told to forgive and you will hate whom you are told to hate.
About the author
Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 32 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chapt. 2 — Dealing with Demons).
The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience.
Unfortunately, most people take this site for granted. DONATIONS HAVE ALMOST DRIED UP… PLEASE send what you can today! JUST USE THE BUTTON BELOW
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS
The ‘War of Terror’ may be about to hit Europe
Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.
by Pepe Escobar, posted with the author’s permission and widely cross-posted. With a special addendum byNafeez Ahmed
AND SELECT COMMENTS FROM ORIGINAL THREAD
The ‘War of Terror’ may be about to hit Europe
Never underestimate a wounded and decaying Empire collapsing in real-time.
Imperial functionaries, even in a “diplomatic” capacity, continue to brazenly declare that their exceptionalist control over the world is mandatory.
If that’s not the case, competitors may emerge and steal the limelight – monopolized by US oligarchies. That, of course, is absolute anathema.
The imperial modus operandi against geopolitical and geoeconomic competitors remains the same: avalanche of sanctions, embargos, economic blockades, protectionist measures, cancel culture, military uptick in neighboring nations, and assorted threats. But most of all, warmongering rhetoric – currently elevated to fever pitch.
The hegemon may be “transparent” at least in this domain because it still controls a massive international network of institutions, financial bodies, politicos, CEOs, propaganda agencies and the pop culture industry. Hence this supposed invulnerability breeding insolence.
Panic in the “garden”
The blowing up of Nord Stream (NS) and Nord Stream 2 (NS2) – everybody knows who did it, but the suspect cannot be named – took to the next level the two-pronged imperial project of cutting off cheap Russian energy from Europe and destroying the German economy.
From the imperial perspective, the ideal subplot is the emergence of a US-controlled Intermarium – from the Baltic and the Adriatic to the Black Sea – led by Poland, exercising some sort of new hegemony in Europe, on the heels of the Three Seas Initiative.
But as it stands, that remains a wet dream.
On the dodgy “investigation” of what really happened to NS and NS2, Sweden was cast as The Cleaner, as if this was a sequel of Quentin Tarantino’s crime thrillerPulp Fiction.
That’s why the results of the “investigation” cannot be shared with Russia. The Cleaner was there to erase any incriminating evidence.
As for the Germans, they willingly accepted the role of patsies. Berlin claimed it was sabotage, but would not dare to say by whom.
This is actually as sinister as it gets, because Sweden, Denmark and Germany, and the whole EU, know that if you really confront the Empire, in public, the Empire will strike back, manufacturing a war on European soil. This is about fear – and not fear of Russia.
The Empire simply cannot afford to lose the “garden.” And the “garden” elites with an IQ over room temperature know they are dealing with a psychopathic serial killer entity which simply cannot be appeased.
Meanwhile, the arrival of General Winter in Europe portends a socio-economic descent into a maelstrom of darkness – unimaginable only a few months ago in the supposedly “garden” of humanity, so far away from the rumbles across the “jungle.”
Well, from now on barbarism begins at home. And Europeans should thank the American “ally” for it, skillfully manipulating fearful, vassalized EU elites.
Way more dangerous though is a specter that very few are able to identify: the imminent Syrianization of Europe. That will be a direct consequence of the NATO debacle in Ukraine.
From an imperial perspective, the prospects in the Ukrainian battlefield are gloomy. Russia’s Special Military Operation (SMO) has seamlessly morphed into a Counter-Terror Operation (CTO): Moscow now openly characterizes Kiev as a terrorist regime.
The pain dial is incrementally going up, with surgical strikes against Ukrainian power/electricity infrastructure about to totally cripple Kiev’s economy and its military. And by December, there’s the arrival on the front lines and in the rear of a properly trained and highly motivated partial mobilization contingent.
The only question concerns the timetable. Moscow is now in the process of slowly but surely decapitating the Kiev proxy, and ultimately smashing NATO “unity.”
The process of torturing the EU economy is relentless. And the real world outside of the collective West – the Global South – is with Russia, from Africa and Latin America to West Asia and even sections of the EU.
It is Moscow – and significantly not Beijing – that is tearing apart the hegemon-coined “rules-based international order,” supported by its natural resources, the provision of food and reliable security.
And in coordination with China, Iran and major Eurasian players, Russia is working to eventually decommission all those US-controlled international organizations – as the Global South becomes virtually immune to the spread of NATO psyops.
The Syrianization of Europe
In the Ukrainian battlefield, NATO’s crusade against Russia is doomed – even as in several nodes as much as 80 percent of the fighting forces feature NATO personnel. Wunderwaffen such as HIMARS are few and far between. And depending on the result of the US mid-term elections, weaponization will dry out in 2023.
Ukraine, by the spring of 2023, may be reduced to no more than an impoverished, rump black hole. The imperial Plan A remains Afghanization: to operate an army of mercenaries capable of targeted destabilization and or/terrorist incursions into the Russian Federation.
In parallel, Europe is peppered with American military bases.
All those bases may play the role of major terror bases – very much like in Syria, in al-Tanf and the Eastern Euphrates. The US lost the long proxy war in Syria – where it instrumentalized jihadis – but still has not been expelled.
In this process of Syrianization of Europe, US military bases may become ideal centers to regiment and/or “train” squads of Eastern Europe émigrés, whose only job opportunity, apart from the drug business and organ trafficking, will be as – what else – imperial mercenaries, fighting whatever focus of civil disobedience emerges across an impoverished EU.
It goes without saying that this New Model Army will be fully sanctioned by the Brussels EUrocracy – which is merely the public relations arm of NATO.
A de-industrialized EU enmeshed into several layers of toxic intra-war, where NATO plays its time-tested role of Robocop, is the perfect Mad Max scenario juxtaposed to what would be, at least in the reveries of American Straussians/neo-cons, an island of prosperity: the US economy, the ideal destination for Global Capital, including European Capital.
The Empire will “lose” its pet project, Ukraine. But it will never accept losing the European “garden.”
ABOUT THE AUTHOR / SOURCE
SPECIAL ADDENDUM
Pentagon study declares American empire is ‘collapsing’ Report demands massive expansion of military-industrial complex to maintain global ‘access to resources’. This study is notable for its high quality, typical, in fact, of many Middle -East native analysts.
Anew Pentagon study has concluded that the US-backed framework of international order established after World War II is “fraying” and may even be “collapsing,” leading the United States to lose its position of “primacy” in world affairs.
The solution proposed to protect US power in this new “post-primacy” environment is, however, more of the same: more surveillance, more propaganda (“strategic manipulation of perceptions”) and more military expansionism.
The document concludes that the world has entered a fundamentally new phase of transformation in which US power is in decline, international order is unravelling, and the authority of governments everywhere is crumbling.
Having lost its past status of “pre-eminence,” the US now inhabits a dangerous, unpredictable “post-primacy” world, whose defining feature is “resistance to authority.”
Danger comes not just from great power rivals like Russia and China, both portrayed as rapidly growing threats to American interests, but also from the increasing risk of “Arab Spring”-style events. These will erupt not just in the Middle East, but all over the world, potentially undermining trust in incumbent governments for the foreseeable future.
The report, based on a year-long intensive research process involving consultation with key agencies across the Department of Defense and US Army, calls for the US government to invest in more surveillance, better propaganda through “strategic manipulation” of public opinion, and a “wider and more flexible” US military.
The report was published in June by the US Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute to evaluate the DoD’s approach to risk assessment at all levels of Pentagon policy planning. The study was supported and sponsored by the US Army’s Strategic Plans and Policy Directorate; the Joint Staff, J5 (Strategy and Policy Branch); the Office of the Deputy Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Force Development; and the Army Study Program Management Office.
Collapse
“While the United States remains a global political, economic, and military giant, it no longer enjoys an unassailable position versus state competitors,” the report laments.
“In brief, the status quo that was hatched and nurtured by U.S. strategists after World War II and has for decades been the principal ‘beat’ for DoD is not merely fraying but may, in fact, be collapsing.”
The study’s description of this order subtly recognizes its imperial nature as one underpinned by American dominance, in which the US and its allies literally “dictate” the terms of how the system operates, to further their own interests:
The order and its constituent parts, first emerged from World War II, were transformed to a unipolar system with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and have by-and-large been dominated by the United States and its major Western and Asian allies since. Status quo forces collectively are comfortable with their dominant role in dictating the terms of international security outcomes and resist the emergence of rival centers of power and authority.
But this era when the US and its allies could simply get their way is over. Observing that US officials “naturally feel an obligation to preserve the U.S. global position within a favorable international order,” the report concludes that this “rules-based global order that the United States built and sustained for 7 decades is under enormous stress.”
The report provides a detailed breakdown of how the DoD perceives this order to be rapidly unravelling, with the Pentagon being increasingly outpaced by world events. Warning that “global events will happen faster than DoD is currently equipped to handle,” the study concludes that the US “can no longer count on the unassailable position of dominance, supremacy, or pre-eminence it enjoyed for the 20-plus years after the fall of the Soviet Union.”
So weakened is US power, that it can no longer even “automatically generate consistent and sustained local military superiority at range.”
It’s not just US power that is in decline. The US Army War College study concludes that:
[A]ll states and traditional political authority structures are under increasing pressure from endogenous and exogenous forces… The fracturing of the post-Cold War global system is accompanied by the internal fraying in the political, social, and economic fabric of practically all states.
But, the document says, this should not be seen as defeatism, but rather a “wakeup call.” If nothing is done to adapt to this “post-primacy” environment, the complexity and speed of world events will “increasingly defy [DoD’s] current strategy, planning, and risk assessment conventions and biases.”
Defending the “status quo”
Top on the list of forces that have knocked the US off its position of global “pre-eminence,” says the report, are the role of competing powers—major rivals like Russia and China, as well as smaller players like Iran and North Korea.
The document is particularly candid in setting out why the US sees these countries as threats—not so much because of tangible military or security issues, but mainly because their pursuit of their own legitimate national interests is, in itself, seen as undermining American dominance.
Russia and China are described as “revisionist forces” who benefit from the US-dominated international order, but who dare to “seek a new distribution of power and authority commensurate with their emergence as legitimate rivals to U.S. dominance.” Russia and China, the analysts say, “are engaged in a deliberate program to demonstrate the limits of U.S. authority, will, reach, influence, and impact.”
The premise of this conclusion is that the US-backed “status quo” international order is fundamentally “favorable” for the interests of the US and its allies. Any effort to make global order also work “favorably” for anyone else is automatically seen as a threat to US power and interests.
Thus, Russia and China “seek to reorder their position in the existing status quo in ways that—at a minimum—create more favorable circumstances for pursuit of their core objectives.” At first glance there seems nothing particularly wrong about this. So the analysts emphasize that “a more maximalist perspective sees them pursuing advantage at the direct expense of the United States and its principal Western and Asian allies.”
Most conspicuous of all, there is little substantiation in the document at all of how Russia and China pose a meaningful threat to American national security.
The chief challenge is that they “are bent on revising the contemporary status quo” through the use of “gray zone” techniques, involving “means and methods falling far short of unambiguous or open provocation and conflict.”
Such “murkier, less obvious forms of state-based aggression,” despite falling short of actual violence, are condemned—but then, losing any sense of moral high-ground, the Pentagon study advocates that the US itself should “go gray or go home” to ensure US influence.
The document also sets out the real reasons that the US is hostile to “revolutionary forces” like Iran and North Korea: they pose fundamental obstacles to US imperial influence in those regions. They are:
… neither the products of, nor are they satisfied with, the contemporary order… At a minimum, they intend to destroy the reach of the U.S.-led order into what they perceive to be their legitimate sphere of influence. They are also resolved to replace that order locally with a new rule set dictated by them.
Far from insisting, as the US government does officially, that Iran and North Korea are threats mainly due to nuclear weapons, the document makes clear that actually they are considered threatening to the expansion of the “U.S.-led order.”
Losing the propaganda war
Amidst the challenge posed by these competing powers, the Pentagon study emphasizes the threat from non-state forces which are undermining the “U.S.-led order” in different ways, primarily through information.
The “hyper-connectivity and weaponization of information, disinformation, and disaffection,” the study team observes, is leading to the uncontrolled spread of information. The upshot is that the Pentagon faces the “inevitable elimination of secrecy and operational security.”
“Wide uncontrolled access to technology that most now take for granted is rapidly undermining prior advantages of discrete, secret, or covert intentions, actions, or operations… In the end, senior defense leaders should assume that all defense-related activity from minor tactical movements to major military operations would occur completely in the open from this point forward.”
This information revolution, in turn, is leading to the “generalized disintegration of traditional authority structures… fueled, and/or accelerated by hyperconnectivity and the obvious decay and potential failure of the post-Cold War status quo.”
Civil unrest
Highlighting the threat posed by groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda, the study also points to “leaderless instability (e.g., Arab Spring)” as a major driver of “a generalized erosion or dissolution of traditional authority structures.” The document hints that such populist civil unrest is likely to become prominent in Western homelands, including inside the United States.
“To date, U.S. strategists have been fixated on this trend in the greater Middle East. However, the same forces at work there are similarly eroding the reach and authority of governments worldwide… it would be unwise not to recognize that they will mutate, metastasize, and manifest differently over time.”
The US homeland is flagged-up as being especially vulnerable to the breakdown of “traditional authority structures”:
The United States and its population are increasingly exposed to substantial harm and an erosion of security from individuals and small groups of motivated actors, leveraging the confluence of hyperconnectivity, fear, and increased vulnerability to sow disorder and uncertainty. This intensely disorienting and dislocating form of resistance to authority arrives via physical, virtual, and psychological violence and can create effects that appear substantially out of proportion to the origin and physical size or scale of the proximate hazard or threat.
There is little reflection, however, on the role of the US government itself in fomenting such endemic distrust, through its own policies.
Bad facts
Among the most dangerous drivers of this risk of civil unrest and mass destabilization, the document asserts, are different categories of fact. Apart from the obvious “fact-free,” which is defined as information that undermines “objective truth,” the other categories include actual truths that, however, are damaging to America’s global reputation.
“Fact-inconvenient” information consists of the exposure of “details that, by implication, undermine legitimate authority and erode the relationships between governments and the governed”—in other words, facts that reveal how government policy is corrupt, incompetent or undemocratic.
“Fact-perilous” information refers to basically to national security leaks from whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden or Bradley Manning, “exposing highly classified, sensitive, or proprietary information that can be used to accelerate a real loss of tactical, operational, or strategic advantage.”
“Fact-toxic” information pertains to actual truths which, the document complains, are “exposed in the absence of context,” and therefore poison “important political discourse.” Such information is seen as being most potent in triggering outbreaks of civil unrest, because it:
… fatally weakens foundational security at an international, regional, national, or personal level. Indeed, fact-toxic exposures are those likeliest to trigger viral or contagious insecurity across or within borders and between or among peoples.
Mass surveillance and psychological warfare
The Pentagon study comes up with two solutions to the information threat.
The first is to make better use of US mass surveillance capabilities, which describes as “the largest and most sophisticated and integrated intelligence complex in world.” The US can “generate insight faster and more reliably than its competitors can, if it chooses to do so.” Combined with its “military forward presence and power projection,” the US is “an enviable position of strength.”
Supposedly, though, the problem is that the US does not make full use of this potential strength:
That strength, however, is only as durable as the United States’ willingness to see and employ it to its advantage. To the extent that the United States and its defense enterprise are seen to lead, others will follow…
The document also criticizes US strategies for focusing too much on trying to defend against foreign efforts to penetrate or disrupt US intelligence, at the expense of “the purposeful exploitation of the same architecture for the strategic manipulation of perceptions and its attendant influence on political and security outcomes.”
Pentagon officials need to simply accept, therefore, that:
… the U.S. homeland, individual American citizens, and U.S. public opinion and perceptions will increasingly become battlefields.
Military supremacy
Having mourned the loss of US primacy, the Pentagon report sees expanding the US military as the only option. The bipartisan consensus on military supremacism, however, is not enough. The document demands a military force so powerful it can preserve “maximum freedom of action,” and allow the US to “dictate or hold significant sway over outcomes in international disputes.”
One would be hard-pressed to find a clearer statement of imperial intent in any US Army document:
While as a rule, U.S. leaders of both political parties have consistently committed to the maintenance of U.S. military superiority over all potential state rivals, the post-primacy reality demands a wider and more flexible military force that can generate advantage and options across the broadest possible range of military demands. To U.S. political leadership, maintenance of military advantage preserves maximum freedom of action… Finally, it allows U.S. decision-makers the opportunity to dictate or hold significant sway over outcomes in international disputes in the shadow of significant U.S. military capability and the implied promise of unacceptable consequences in the event that capability is unleashed.
Once again, military power is essentially depicted as a tool for the US to force, threaten and cajole other countries into submission to US demands. The very concept of ‘defense’ is thus re-framed as the capacity to use overwhelming military might to get one’s way—anything which undermines this capacity ends up automatically appearing as a threat that deserves to be attacked.
Empire of capital
Accordingly, a core goal of this military expansionism is ensuring that the United States and its international partners have “unimpeded access to air, sea, space, cyberspace, and the electromagnetic spectrum in order to underwrite their security and prosperity.”
This also means that the US must retain the ability to physically access any region it wants, whenever it wants:
Failure of or limitations on the ability of the United States to enter and operate within key regions of the world, for example, undermine both U.S. and partner security.
The US thus must try to minimize any “purposeful, malevolent, or incidental interruption of access to the commons, as well as critical regions, resources, and markets.”
Without ever referring directly to ‘capitalism,’ the document eliminates any ambiguity about how the Pentagon sees this new era of “Persistent Conflict 2.0”: “… some are fighting globalization and globalization is also actively fighting back. Combined, all of these forces are rending at the fabric of security and stable governance that all states aspire to and rely on for survival.”
This is a war, then, between US-led capitalist globalization, and anyone who resists it. And to win it, the document puts forward a combination of strategies: consolidating the US intelligence complex and using it more ruthlessly; intensifying mass surveillance and propaganda to manipulate US and global popular opinion; expanding US military power and reach to ensure access to “strategic regions, markets, and resources.”
Even so, the overarching goal is somewhat more modest: to prevent the US-led order from collapsing further:
…. while the favorable U.S.-dominated status quo is under significant internal and external pressure, adapted American power can help to forestall or even reverse outright failure in the most critical regions.
The hope is that the US will be able to fashion “a remodeled but nonetheless still favorable post-primacy international order.”
Narcissism
Like all US Army War College publications, the document states that it does not necessarily represent the official position of the US Army or DoD. While this caveat means that its findings cannot be taken to formally represent the US government, the document does also admit that it represents “the collective wisdom” of the numerous officials consulted.
In that sense, the document is a uniquely insightful window into the mind of the Pentagon, and how embarrassingly limited its cognitive scope really is.
Launched in June 2016 and completed in April 2017, the US Army War College research project involved extensive consultation with officials across the Pentagon, including representatives of the joint and service staffs, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM), U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM), U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM); U.S. Forces, Japan (USFJ), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the National Intelligence Council, U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM), and U.S. Army Pacific [USARPAC] and Pacific Fleet [PACFLT]).
The study team also consulted with a handful of American think-tanks of a somewhat neoconservative persuasion: the American Enterprise Institute, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the RAND Corporation, and the Institute for the Study of War.
No wonder, then, that its findings and conclusions are so myopic. The research methodology manages to systematically ignore the most critical evidence surrounding the drivers that are behind the myriad forces the study pinpoints as undermining US primacy: such as, for instance, the biophysical processes of climate, energy and food disruption behind the Arab Spring; the confluence of military violence, fossil fuel interests and geopolitical alliances behind the rise of ISIS; or the fundamental grievances that have driven a breakdown in trust with governments since the 2008 financial collapse and the ensuing ongoing period of neoliberal economic failure.
In this context, the study’s conclusions are less a reflection of the actual state of the world, than of the way the Pentagon sees itself and the world. Indeed, most telling of all is the document’s utter inability to recognize the role of the Pentagon itself in systematically pursuing a wide range of policies over the last several decades which have contributed directly to the very instability it now wants to defend against.
The Pentagon frames itself as existing outside the Hobbesian turmoil that it conveniently projects onto the world—the result is a monumental and convenient rejection of any sense of responsibility for what happens in the world.
It is no surprise then that even the Pentagon’s apparent conviction in the inexorable decline of US power could well be overblown.
According to Dr. Sean Starrs of MIT’s Center for International Studies, a true picture of US power cannot be determined solely from national accounts. We have to look at the accounts of transnational corporations.
Starrs shows that American transnational corporations are vastly more powerful than their competitors. His data suggests that American economic supremacism remains at an all-time high, and still unchallenged even by an economic powerhouse like China.
This does not necessarily discredit the Pentagon’s emerging recognition that US imperial power now faces a new era of decline and unprecedented volatility.
But it does suggest that the Pentagon’s sense of US global pre-eminence is very much bound up with its capacity to project American capitalism globally.
As geopolitical rivals agitate against US economic reach, and as new movements emerge hoping to undermine American “unimpeded access” to global resources and markets, what’s clear is that DoD officials see anything which competes with or undermines American capitalism as a clear and present danger.
About the author
Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed is a British investigative journalist, author and academic.
That phrase was not coined by Mr. Z. That came directly from the mouth of the US neo-cons in D.C. We needn’t mention their names as they are well known.
As to Pepe’s reference to the plight of the EU, he should have noted that the economist Dr. Michael Hudson referred way back in February of 2022, specifically noticing that the US Financial Hegemon is out to rape the lands of both the UK and in particular, Western European nations. He stated that the chief target was Germany as it is the powerhouse of all EU nations in terms of industry, and trade. This pertains, especially, to Italy.
To go from using biochemical weapons on “the battlefield” to “dirty bombs (or tactical nuclear weapons), is a natural progress of a terrorist hegemon — that should be named and be named always. We all should be asking what comes next after tactical nuclear weapons have been deployed, because it’s always something.
“This is actually as sinister as it gets, because Sweden, Denmark and Germany, and the whole EU, know that if you really confront the Empire, in public, the Empire will strike back, manufacturing a war on European soil. This is about fear – and not fear of Russia.” Are they finally beginning to wake up? They look out from their tarnished and crumbling towers and see the spectre of what they have enabled, a monster of deluded entitlement not living in Kiev, but alive and threatening all from within the Beltway in Washington, D.C. It is too easy to say they deserve their fate, although indeed they do. But do the people of Europe deserve this fate, to be so callously lead, or is it herded, off the cliff of a dying and Godless hubristic folly?
Yes they do deserve that. No one else to blame but themselves for allowing psychopaths in Brussels place interests of nazis in Ukraine before their own interests. Winter is coming.
I agree with you. Europe has depleted their stocks of natural resources needed to power what passes for a modern industrialized society — natural gas, oil, coal, minerals, and rare earths — which Russia has in “shameful abundance.”
Interesting is how the fully owned mainstream media of the Hegemon is predicting a mild winter in Europe. All thanks to Greta and Climate Change? “Control the weather and you control the world.” — US President Lyndon Johnson in 1962.
Most likely the Zionist-Nato clown Zelinski, seeing how the entire world is focused on the Donbass situation, makes terrorist threats and apocalyptic announcements such as the use of dirty bomb to keep everyone fixed on the Ukraine. Now that the Europeans have decided to commit suicide then it would be appropriate just before the official arrival of the winter season, somehow all oil/gas shipments from the Middle East and North Africa to Europe be stopped right away. That should teach them a good lesson. The US and the European still think they are number 1. A nice freezing experience without imported energy should make them think straight. Wonder where all those Ukrainians would be emigrating to when they see their host countries in Europe are not doing any better than their own.
But this comes from very far thanks to the Bronze Law of Wages (or Iron Law of Wages) is an economic theory that many classical economists have proposed between the 18th and 19th centuries. This theory states that real wages have a natural tendency towards a minimum level that corresponds to the minimum subsistence needs of workers. According to this theory, any increase above the subsistence level in minimum needs causes families to have a greater number of children and increase in population, therefore an increase in competition for a job and wages will be reduced again to the minimum . We can name several main authors who dealt with this topic, but without a doubt one of the most important was David Ricardo.
An interesting piece as usual. But I disagree that the reason Sweden and Germany are keeping mum about the NS1 and NS2 sabotage is because of the fear that the empire would cause a war in Europe. The European elites don’t care what becomes of Europe as long as they can find a place for themselves and their families across the Atlantic.
I think the reason might be that, one: Sweden played a role in the sabotage (that would be in character. From collaborating with Nazi Germany during the second world war to being the errand boy of the CIA ever since then, Sweden has remained a trusted fixer. Betraying Julian Assange is just one of the recently known services to the empire.).
And secondly, the EU leadership is totally corrupt and morally bankrupt, most probably the empire has all the incriminating evidence in hand. So these corrupt elites have no other choice than to obey the master.
Trust me most of these people are pedophiles and worse.
An interesting piece as usual. But I disagree that the reason Sweden and Germany are keeping mum about the NS1 and NS2 sabotage is because of the fear that the empire would cause a war in Europe. The European elites don’t care what becomes of Europe as long as they can find a place for themselves and their families across the Atlantic.
I think the reason might be that one: Sweden played a role in the sabotage (that would be in character. From collaborating with Nazi Germany during the second world war to being the errand boy of the CIA ever since then, Sweden has remained a trusted fixer. Betraying Julian Assange is just one of the recently known services to the empire.).
And secondly the EU leadership is totally corrupt and morally bankrupt, most probably the empire has all the incriminating evidence in hand. So this corrupt elites have no other choice than to obey the master.
Trust me most of these people are pedophiles and worse.
Print this article
The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience.
Unfortunately, most people take this site for granted. DONATIONS HAVE ALMOST DRIED UP… PLEASE send what you can today! JUST USE THE BUTTON BELOW
Pleasurable excitement ripples through the usual boredom of Washington, and the resident curiosities enjoy exquisite frissons, over the possibility of nuclear war over the Ukraine. Some official of the EU, or maybe it was the mediocrity in the White House with the truculence problem, but anyway, one of the geniuses ruling the planet’s fate, has said that if Russia used nukes, the Russian army would be destroyed, grrr, bowwow, woof. Exactly how it would be destroyed, the sayer didn’t say. Anyway, the threats and counter threats swirl around the idea that a nuke war between Russia and the West might occur. Maybe, with tactical nukes in the Ukraine, about which nobody gives a rat’s nether region. The world is full of damned fools.
But: The general staffs of both Russia and China are, whatever else you may think of them, sane. They know of America’s massive nuclear forces. They are not going to launch an atomic war. Sane behavior cannot be relied on with Washington’s second-rate lawyers, but the generals in the Pentagon are not crazy. They like hobbyist wars and big budgets, but if Biden ordered a nuclear strike, they would be likely to suddenly remember that Congress has to declare war and, seeing that their radar screens were empty of incoming missiles, say, “Mr. President, we are not authorized to do that.” And recommend a committee.
What would such a war be like? Let’s guess.
America is fragile. We don’t notice because it works smoothly and because when a local catastrophe occurs—earthquake, hurricane, tornado—the rest of the country steps in to remedy things. The country can handle normal and regional catastrophes. But nuclear war is neither normal nor regional. Very few warheads would serve to wreck the United States beyond recovery for decades. This should be clear to anyone who actually thinks about it.
Defense is impossible. Missile defenses are meaningless except as money funnels to the arms industry. This is not the place to go into decoys, hypersonics, Poseidon, maneuvering glide vehicles, bastion stationing, MIRV, just plain boring old cruise missiles, and so on. Coastal cities are particularly easy targets, being vulnerable to submarine-launched sea-skimming missiles. Washington, New York, Boston, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle for starters— all gone.
A modern country is a system of systems of systems, interdependent and interconnected—water, electricity, manufacturing, energy, telecommunications, transportation, pipelines, and complex supply chains. These are interconnected, interdependent, and rely on large numbers of trained people showing up for work. Modern warheads are not the popgun squibs of Hiroshima. Talking of repair any time soon after the nuclear bombing of a conurbation is foolish because the city would have many hundreds of thousand of dead, housing destroyed, massive fires, horrendously burned people with no hope of medical care, and in general, populations too focused on staying alive to worry about abstractions like supply chains.
The author paints a picture that even idiotized populations can use to understand the danger hanging over all of us. And all of it, let's make that clear, is criminally unnecessary.
The elimination of transportation might cause more death than the bombs. Cities, suburbs, and towns cannot feed themselves. They rely on a constant, heavy influx of food grown in remote regions. This food is shipped by rail or truck to distribution centers, as for example Chicago, whence it is transshipped to cities like New York. Heavy megatonnage on Chicago would disrupt rail lines and trucking firms. Trains and trucks need gasoline and diesel which come from somewhere, presumably in pipelines. These, broken by the blast, burning furiously, would take time to repair. Time is what cities would not have.
What would happen in, say, New York City even if, improbably, it were not bombed? Here we will ignore the likelihood of sheer, boiling panic and resultant chaos on learning that much of the country had been flattened. In the first few days there would be panic buying with shelves at supermarkets being emptied. Hunger would soon become serious. By day four, people would be hunting each other with knives to get their food. By the end of the second week, people would be eating each other. Literally. This happens in famines.
Most things in America rely on electricity. This comes from generating plants that burn stuff, usually natural gas or coal. These arrive on trains, which would not be running, or in trucks, not likely to be running. They depend on oil fields, refineries, and pipelines unlikely to function. All of the foregoing depend on employees continuing to go to work instead of trying to save their families. So—no electricity in New York, which goes dark.
This means no telephones, no internet, no lighting, and no elevators. How would this work out in a city of high rises? Most people would be nearly incommunicado in a lightless city. Huge traffic jams would form as people with cars tried to leave—to go where?—as long as gasoline in the tank lasted.
Where does water come from in New York? I don’t know, but it doesn’t flow spontaneously to the thirtieth floor. It needs to be pumped, which involves electricity, from wherever it comes from to wherever it has to go. No electricity, no pump. No pump, no water. And no flushing of toilets. River water could be drunk, of course. Think of the crowds.
In all likelihood, civil society would collapse by the end of the fourth day. The more virile ethnics would surge from the ghettos with guns and clubs to feed. Police would have disappeared or be either looking after their families or themselves looting. Civilization is a thin veneer. The streets and subways are not safe even without a nuclear war. The majority would be unarmed and unable to defend themselves. People who had never touched a gun would suddenly understand the appeal. If you think this would not happen, give my best to Tinker Belle.
Thus it would not be necessary to bomb a city to destroy it, only to cut it off from transport hubs for a couple of weeks. An attacker would of course destroy many cities in addition to the necessary infrastructure. Those who plan nuclear wars may be psychopaths, or just insular geeks fiddling with bloodless abstractions, but they are not fools. They have carefully calculated how to most seriously damage a target country. In no more than a couple of months, perhaps two hundred million people would starve to death. Do you think this fantastic? Tell me why it is fantastic.
Parenthetically, in my days of walking the E-ring in the Pentagon, I read manuals on how to keep soldiers fighting after they had received lethal doses of radiation. They don’t die immediately and, depending on dosage, might be administered stimulants to keep them on their feet, or so the manuals said. These manuals also discussed whether these walking dead should be told that they were about to die. The authors used the evocative phrase “terrain alteration” to describe landscapes with all the trees lying on their sides, and we have all heard of “overkill.” After a nuclear war, millions would slowly die of radiation—read up on Nagasaki and Hiroshima—and burned corpses would rot in the streets, too numerous for burial by survivors with other things on their minds.
How would the next season’s crops be planted? Answer: they wouldn’t be. Where would fertilizer come from? Parts for tractors, trucks, harvesters? Making these requires functioning factories which require electricity, raw materials, and workers. If the attacker chose to hit agricultural lands with radiation-dirty cobalt bombs, these regions would be lethal for years. Nuclear planners think about these things.
Among “defense intellectuals,” there is, or was when I covered such things, insane talk of how America could “absorb” a Russian first strike and have enough missiles in reserve to destroy Russia. These people should be locked in sealed boxes and kept in abandoned coal mines.
Note also that Biden, Blinken, and Bolton, bibbety bobbety boo, and their families, live in DC, the priority target. While the rats are aboard the ship, they won’t sink it. If they are discovered boarding a Greyhound out of Washington at three a.m., dressed as washerwomen, it will be time to worry.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR / SOURCE
Fred Reed, who has referred to Oprah Winfrey as looking "like five hundred pounds of bear liver in a plastic bag," takes a jaundiced and highly irreverent view of all things sacred-journalism, marriage, affirmative action, federal scams, governmental uselessness, women, men, fellow reporters, and popular culture. On the other hand, he has a kind word for drunks, bar girls, and children. Neither a liberal nor a conservative-he describes these as "twin halves of the national lobotomy"-he is just Fred. He figures it is enough. Anything more would be multiple-personality disorder. Fred has spent many years doing things your mother wouldn't want you to do, such as living in alleys in Taipei, Bangkok, and Saigon, with some of the strangest people ever to crawl this weary earth. Once a war correspondent in Viet Nam and Cambodia, then for years a police reporter in places the media don't admit exist, he spent most of a decade writing a syndicated column on matters military.
There is a difference between passivity and assessment, though I understand your angst.
I worked for many years on various government committees, etc, and eventually became aware of the hidden movements that control political decisions. If you touch on these power circles, even a passing mention of taboo subjects will see you ostracized. If you don’t know what I mean, try talking sense with some wokies (ie the woke crowd) for a somewhat analogous situation.
People talk about the Deep State, but it is so much deeper than you can imagine with secret societies, vows of silence, etc. Machiavelli was a piker by modern standards.
My efforts lately are directed towards individuals rather than trying to change the system. Partly because I am out of political world. I find it appalling that people believe either a) that nuclear war will never happen, or b) that if it does, no one will survive.
Better to have at least some moderate knowledge of how the world works. For example, how many people know that nuclear fallout radiation decays to 10% in 2 hours, and 1% in two days? And then to 0.1% in two weeks. That simple knowledge can easily save your life.
@perspective:
” I find it appalling that people believe either a) that nuclear war will never happen, or b) that if it does, no one will survive”
I find you even more appalling, saying that
a) nuclear war will definitely happen and that
b) if it does, plenty of people will survive.
Nobody knows how things will unfold, but we know for damned sure that if global nuclear war happens it will not be worth surviving (unless you, ‘Perspective’, believe you can live well in you luxury bunker, to later emerge after radioactivity has decayed).
Nuclear war will be horrific beyond anybody’s worst imagination, it will be the end of civilisation and huge numbers of initial survivors, with the flesh falling off them, will envy the dead. Later survivors will face starvation and also envy the dead.
It is far better, indeed IMPERATIVE to assume that nuclear war is NOT an inevitability (it is being provoked by people hence can be prevented by people) and that it CAN cause human extinction (you cannot argue that it cannot), so that we are motivated to prevent it. There is only one option, prevention.
Perspective, you seem to be either
a) intimidated by fear of the deep state into passivity, which is fine. Most people are that, or simply disinterested. But why try to infect your cowardice and passivity on others, unless you are
b) a psychopathic instrument of the deep state trying to convince others to be cowardly and passive, in which case you need to be locked up and the key thrown away. You are appalling.
Are you a tool of the deep state “elite” aiming for a massive population cull? What else could explain your appalling attitudes?
“Among “defense intellectuals,” there is, or was when I covered such things, insane talk of how America could “absorb” a Russian first strike and have enough missiles in reserve to destroy Russia.”
There are many preppers that think they’ll survive as characters in a mel gibson movie, when in reality, rural preppers will be the first targets. 82% of US population lives in cities. Thats about 280 million headed out to the rural areas after cities collapse. There will be no survivors, and an algamation of chinese/north korean/middle eastern armies will come in and start removing what natural resources not radiated, ie coal mines in east coast mtns, oil wells in dakotas/texas, etc, lumber, and so on.
Everyone would like to take over US, not destroying it like Germany, US is the most resourceful nation on Earth. People may believe Alaska is what is valuable of US, but that is not true. There are a trillion mosquitos in Alaska.
– Thats about 280 million headed out to the rural areas
With the car full bed madrasses and cooking gears? It is not that easy to survive off-grid. One need a ton of gears and tools and knowledge about how to use it
you missed my point. Most of the rural areas throughout the US, are private property and already off limits to the 280 million starving US citizens fleeing the defunct cities. Do you think the farmers are going to allow their farms to be over run and destroyed? Outside of state and federal parks, which will be quickly over run, the only thing that waits urban people fleeing to rural areas in search of food/shelter will be more conflict, which is why there will be no survivors. jew social programming has seen to this.
@appdom2
Your comment makes sense until you go racist with your fantastical claim that “an algamation of chinese/north korean/middle eastern armies will come in.” First, how would they get here in a nuclear-blown world? Second, why would they go to such trouble when they have resources of their own close to hand? Third, why not Mexicans, rural Blacks, Native Americans ‘coming in’. I mean if your fear of the “Other” is so intense, look close to home.
@appdom2
Your comment makes sense until you go racist with your fantastical claim that “an algamation of chinese/north korean/middle eastern armies will come in.” First, how would they get here in a nuclear-blown world? Second, why would they go to such trouble when they have resources of their own close to hand? Third, why not Mexicans, rural Blacks, Native Americans ‘coming in’. I mean if your fear of the “Other” is so intense, look close to home.
Yeah, Appdom is displaying a core American value where he projects what America is actually doing around the world onto its Official Enemies.
America has invaded multiple nations to steal their resources like Iraq (oil) or Syria (oil and wheat) or Libya (oil)–or wishes to invade if it could like Russia (natural gas and other resources) or China (rare earth minerals).
This is not to mention how the Anglo American colonizers stole the entire continent (Turtle Island and Aztlan) from Native Indians or Mexicans and currently occupy it today.
The American ruling class is a class of paranoid genocidal sociopaths, who will likely be responsible for bringing on the Apocalypse–but their are only an organic reflection of Americans themselves, who share the same values.
Psychological projection is a defining pathology of America as a nation.
Looking more like a false flag tact nuke in Ukraine followed by an American first strike. Even the generals will go along with it because they won’t know about the false flag. This strange feeling we all have now is the one that occurs right before civilizations suddenly collapse.
We are learning to except our fate.
Empire has a first strike doctrine, it also believes that tactical nukes can be used in a conventional conflict. It being declared that a Russian victory in Ukraine threatens “the rule based order” will probably suffice to consider it.
We also know that Empire has stated that a rival to hegemon will not be allowed to arise (exist ?).
The critical question is if the decision makers understand that it has already happened, that the rival has supremacy in critical military areas and that MAD still applies ?
Print this article
The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience.
Unfortunately, most people take this site for granted. DONATIONS HAVE ALMOST DRIED UP… PLEASE send what you can today! JUST USE THE BUTTON BELOW