Date: Wednesday, 22 March 2023
The Evilness of America’s Foreign Policy
On 3 May 2017, I headlined “America’s Top Scientists Confirm: U.S. Goal Now Is to Conquer Russia” and opened:
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists published a study, on 1 March 2017, which opened:
The US nuclear forces modernization program has been portrayed to the public as an effort to ensure the reliability and safety of warheads in the US nuclear arsenal, rather than to enhance their military capabilities. In reality, however, that program has implemented revolutionary new technologies that will vastly increase the targeting capability of the US ballistic missile arsenal. This increase in capability is astonishing — boosting the overall killing power of existing US ballistic missile forces by a factor of roughly three — and it creates exactly what one would expect to see, if a nuclear-armed state were planning to have the capacity to fight and win a nuclear war by disarming enemies with a surprise first strike.
Because the innovations in the super-fuze appear, to the non-technical eye, to be minor, policymakers outside of the US government (and probably inside the government as well) have completely missed its revolutionary impact on military capabilities and its important implications for global security.
This study was co-authored by America’s top three scientists specializing in analysis of weaponry and especially of the geostrategic balance between nations: Hans Kristensen, Matthew McKinzie, and Theodore Postol. Their report continues:
This vast increase in US nuclear targeting capability, which has largely been concealed from the general public, has serious implications for strategic stability and perceptions of US nuclear strategy and intentions.
Russian planners will almost surely see the advance in fuzing capability as empowering an increasingly feasible US preemptive nuclear strike capability — a capability that would require Russia to undertake countermeasures that would further increase the already dangerously high readiness of Russian nuclear forces. Tense nuclear postures based on worst-case planning assumptions already pose the possibility of a nuclear response to false warning of attack. The new kill capability created by super-fuzing increases the tension and the risk that US or Russian nuclear forces will be used in response to early warning of an attack — even when an attack has not occurred.
The authors explain why an accidental start of World War III or global annihilation would be likelier from Russia than from the U.S.:
Russia does not have a functioning space-based infrared early warning system but relies primarily on ground-based early warning radars to detect a US missile attack. Since these radars cannot see over the horizon, Russia has less than half as much early-warning time as the United States. (The United States has about 30 minutes, Russia 15 minutes or less.) …
The United States now clearly has the objective ultimately to get that “15 minutes” down to 5 minutes or less, by stationing its missiles in Ukraine only around 300 miles away from Moscow, in order to be able to blitz-nuke Moscow so fast as to make impossible for Putin to double-check that a missile was launched against him and then for him to launch against the U.S. and its allies its thousands of nuclear weapons in retaliation. The American idea — called “Nuclear Primacy” — is to behead Russia’s military command before retaliation will even be physically possible.
A physicist who had been a friend of mine for nearly 60 years, who no longer communicates with me because he believes U.S. propaganda against Russia and for Ukraine, peremptorily rejected that study, by saying that it wasn’t written by “real” scientists. When I responded that its lead author was America’s most-respected physicist who specializes in the analysis of (most-especially, but not exclusively, nuclear) weapons-systems, MIT’s Dr. Theodore A. Postol, my friend had no response, but said simply that: “Russia is a police state with no pretense of human rights and freedoms. I do not begrudge Europe from being afraid and joining together to strengthen NATO no matter what past agreements were made after the breakup. Those are not police states and share many of the noble values that parts of America strive for. The US is wrong in bullying NATO to oppose a negotiated settlement of the current war. Ukraine is not going to defeat Russia. There is no other alternative except WWIII.”
He ceased communicating with me.
On 13 March 2023, Gallup headlined “Americans’ Favorable Rating of Russia Sinks to New Low of 9%”, and reported that the steepest and longest decline in Americans’ acceptance of Russia was from 50% “favorable” in February 2012 — when President Obama (who had actually been planning to grab Ukraine via a coup ever since at least 2011) was promising America’s voters (and privately Putin himself) that in a second term Obama would seek a “reset” away from America’s existing hostility and toward mutually cooperative relations with Russia — down to only 24% “favorable” in February 2015 (exactly a year after Obama’s coup in Ukraine succeeded). Then, during Trump’s four years, this approval-rating stayed essentially flat while America’s President Trump talked warm and cold on Russia and on Ukraine, and hired extreme neoconservatives such as Mike Pompeo and John Bolton to carry out his self-contradictory actual policies. And, then, during Biden’s Presidency (Obama’s third term), that approval-rating of Russia by Americans declined in a straight line from 28% “favorable” in February 2020, down to only 9% “favorable” in February 2023. What had happened was a very partisan U.S. political split: Democrats’ fear and hatred against Russia (nominally against Putin, but as always the U.S. regime’s urgings for foreign regime-change end up destroying the country and not MERELY its leader) skyrocketed after Trump left office, but this fear and hatred stayed pretty much unchanged among Republicans, on account of the waffling Trump.
Both of America’s political Parties are determined for the U.S. Government to conquer (via invasions, coups, sanctions, subversions, and/or any other way) both Russia and China, but whereas the Democratic Party’s billionaires aim primarily to conquer Russia, the Republican Party’s billionaires aim primarily to conquer China. What both Parties agree on (since all of its billionaires do) is to conquer the world.
On 9 July 2015, the Medill News Service bannered "Now Would Be a Pretty Good Time To Launch a Nuclear Attack on Russia”, and Ezra Kaplan wrote that, because “Russia’s space-based early warning system, designed to alert the nation to an inbound nuclear missile attack, is offline, leaving Moscow partially blind to potential intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) attacks,” he and the ‘experts’ he cited concluded that, “‘If you are going to do a first strike, you want be able to take out as much of the Russian nuclear force as you can so that you reduce the prospects of retaliation,’ Steven Pifer, director of the Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative at the Brookings Institution, told VICE News. ‘Nobody has the capability to execute that.’ It’s also highly unlikely that the US would be willing to make the first move against the former Soviet republic.” Why did Kaplan say it’s “unlikely” that “no matter how effective the early warning systems, neither Russia nor the United States is capable of defending itself against an all-out missile attack from the other”? Maybe he knew nothing of America’s imminent achievement of super-fuses? However, the entire “Nuclear Primacy” meta-strategy is directed at building that capability — and Mr. Kaplan’s article ignored it, didn’t so much as even just mention it (including the super-fuse technology part).
Honest discussion of such matters in the U.S.-and-allied press is effectively forbidden.
On March 21st, I headlined “Reader-Comments at Russia’s RT News, And Censorship in America”, and discussed the much more pervasive censorship of news-reporting in the U.S.-and-allied countries than in Russia. It’s something that I, as a news-person in America, have personally experienced in many different aspects, such as the one that I described here (in which a main website that formerly had published many of my submitted articles became forced, by agents of the U.S. Government that work in conjunction with Google and other news-filters in order to prevent news-sites from publishing Government-disapproved writers, so that that site banned me and removed all of my articles there, to protect his — the owner’s — substantial investment in his site). The basic censorship decisions are made at the very highest level in the U.S. power-structure — America’s billionaires (whom America’s Government serves). The Government is controlled by its super-rich, not by the voters (who are merely duped by them, via such censorship, etc., to vote for the candidates whom the billionaires have approved). As a consequence, the public blame anyone but the billionaires. In the reader-comments to that March 21st “Reader-comments …” article, a “JarnoP” attributed The West’s pervasive censorship to what that person assumed to be a stranglehold control by Jews over the news-media, which is a common bigoted trope. I responded to that comment by pointing out that whereas perhaps 30% of the controlling owners of the news-media that are reaching almost all Americans are Jews, all of the controlling owners of the news-media that have any significantly large audience are billionaires, and that what enables these individuals to control and hire and fire the journalists, is that these individuals are billionaires. What religion (if any) they adhere to is irrelevant to those individuals’ ability (by means of hiring and firing) to filter out of America’s news-reporting and commentary the types of facts and opinions that no billionaire wants the public to have any easy access to. It’s these individuals’ wealth, and not their religion (if any), that enables them to censor-out what is systematically censored-out from America’s news-reporting and analysis. A certain “charles smith” replied to my reply to “JarnoP” by saying: “the founder of an online publication The Online, Joshua Topolsky, asked Musk: ‘Do you think it’s in the interest of powerful people to A: support a free press that exposes their lies, or B: tear it down so their lies are easier to tell?’ Musk responded: ‘Who do you think *owns* the press? Hello.’ The entrepreneur was non-specific and opted not to answer dozens of follow up questions. Just more of jarno’s sick mind making fallacious associations. Facts don’t matter, only his sickness is important to him.” That comment from him caused me to search to find out whether the billionaire Elon Musk really is such a bigot as that. I found a CNN article dated 27 May 2018, “Elon Musk has more to say about the media”. Not only did it document what “charles smith” had said, but CNN’s reporter promptly then abandoned the issue in order to go onto other things that had nothing to do with it — thereby seeming to constitute, from CNN, censorship by this Democratic Party news-site. Neither Democratic Party billionaires nor Republican Party billionaires want the public to pay attention to the possibility that the ultimate source and cause of bigotry in any society is the super-rich themselves. However, my latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL, devotes its Chapter Two to documenting that — and to explaining why — it is actually the case: each form of bigotry (against Blacks, Jews, Russians, or any other amorphous mass of people) was created by the given society’s super-rich.
Specifically regarding Musk: on 5 August 2022, I headlined “How Bolivia’s 2019 coup exemplified millennia of global history”, and documented that not only was Musk behind the then-recent coup that had occurred in Bolivia, but that he was proud of it. He apparently despised the native-Indian common people of that land, and to feel that he, and people like himself, have a right to steal control over their Government away from them.
Unlike any form of bigotry, this theory of bigotry does NOT attribute evil to any shapeless mere category of persons — such as Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Russians, Blacks, Whites, Chinese, or any other — but instead to a specific small group (under a thousand individuals in any nation, their most super-wealthy), who are small enough actually to be able to intercommunicate with one-another, and rich enough to hire and fire the key agents, including enough lobbyists and news-people, and other operatives, so as to control which politicians will become elected and which ones don’t. This is an empirically confirmable (and now confirmed) theory of how and why the various forms of bigotry become created, and funded, and promoted. Apparently, those super-rich dominate in forming and imposing America’s foreign policies. The evilness results from them — NOT from “the Jews,” “the Blacks,” “the gays,” “Russians,” or any such bigotry-targeted mass.
The way that three of the world’s leading political scientists headlined, on 31 October 2018, their definitive study of America’s power-structure, was “Big Money — Not Political Tribalism — Drives US Elections”, which found that 57.16% of the money donated to U.S.-Government political campaigns came from merely the richest 1% of the richest 1% — the richest one-ten-thousandth — of the U.S. population. Those individuals purchase control over the U.S. Government. They apparently have found this to be the most profitable way to invest their money.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.