Lordre: warmongering

Showing posts with label warmongering. Show all posts

Did anti-vaxxers destroy US germ warfare plans?

There is something insidious about the biological warfare warnings by the Russian and Chinese governments coinciding with acute geopolitical conflict, the Covid-19 pandemic, and the obsession of Western governments and elites with vigilant public health policy.

A US military paper described “public resistance to public health measures” as a military threat to the US preparedness to withstand a biological attack. It is also a threat to US preparedness to launch such a germ warfare attack on an adversary, because it impairs the ability to carry out necessary inoculations of US troops and civilians at home ahead of just such an attack, to avoid the viral weapon backfiring on America.

Inoculation against what, again?

The US government's supposedly defensive Project Bioshield includes the aim of developing vaccines. This makes no sense. Inoculation campaigns would require knowledge of the exact biological threat, both in terms of its identity and the timing of its deployment as a weapon. You would require samples of the specific viral threat to already exist in the lab, to even begin work.

What is Bioshield going to develop a vaccine against, if it doesn't know what the enemy-manufactured virus will be? Inoculations are by definition a preventative measure against a known threat. In a military sense, it is about protecting one's people and resources and preserving them for future action. The development of a military vaccine only seems to make sense if a military is developing an offensive viral weapon and wants to inoculate its own troops to stop the weapon infecting its own forces.

Winning the vaccination debate is a US military objective

The option to impose mandatory inoculations of the population, and especially military forces, is a necessary part of any preparation for biological warfare, whether the attack is to come from an adversary or your own military. The state would necessarily have to forcibly inoculate large parts of its own population, in order to make sure the lethality of its own weapons does not backfire on its people and resources and undermine victory.

Western societies would not simply accept mandatory inoculations without society undergoing the necessary debate over the issue, and we seem to be past that stage now. The intentional politicisation of Covid-19 and very forced attempt to have a public debate over the necessity of mandatory vaccinations (even though the situation was not serious enough for that) could have been preparation to help build offensive biological warfare options against Russia and China. In a way, it is like building nuclear bunkers.

Russians and Chinese spotted something

Then, we come back to the biological weapon claims of the Russians and Chinese, whether one trusts them or not as a source. They allege that the United States has a very aggressive biological warfare program, with facilities near both of these adversary states. They are clearly unnerved, even paranoid. This may be more to do with them noticing Western states apparently hardening themselves for a biological warfare situation at home, taking advantage of the pandemic to overcome any social and political objections to the idea of the sudden inoculation of entire nations on the state's command.

West seems sure of victory

Finally, there is the uncompromising warmongering of Western states, which is uncharacteristic of countries that are held in check by the traditional threat of mutual destruction in a nuclear war. Clearly, Western governments believe they can actually eliminate Russia and China as threats within a short timeframe. This is apparent in their triumphalist attitude, which exceeds their apparent capabilities, as if they intend to lean on indirect or covert means of attack. While many may see the threat in "colour revolutions" (staged uprisings and street violence led by staff at Western embassies), germ warfare also fits such a description. The West talks like it has an ultimate secret weapon, and that weapon could take the form of viruses.

Many of the individuals responsible for advising Western policies (World Economic Forum attendees, for example) have developed an obsession both with pandemics and with enemy regimes at the same time, as if both are certainly on their minds and considerable energy has gone towards both. They also hate alternate sources of information, and especially anti-vaxxers. Their vision is of a society that can live with very harsh public health policies, and also be resolute in its commitment against the "enemy". This is the ideal combination before launching a germ warfare campaign.

Germ warfare preparations failed?

Then again, we can just as easily go back to the US military paper's gloomy conclusion mentioned at the beginning of this post. It may be that anti-vaxxers have ruined everything for them and destroyed their plans.

The extent of rejection of vaccines in Western countries, and official frustrations with much of society's lack of acceptance of harsh health policies, suggest that Western preparations for germ warfare have failed, and our own societies are insufficiently controlled to allow our governments to wage this war. The truth may be that China has a much more compliant population, giving its regime the best capability to both resist biological attacks and launch them.

If Western governments think a biological attack is a viable way to get rid of Russia and China, they are playing with fire. Russia has taken a very aggressive tone since the war in Ukraine started, and would respond brutally to such an attack if it traced it (maybe going straight to nuclear weapons), while China would be able to withstand it and counterattack to deadly effect.

Pakistanis may be forced to choose between accepting the imported government that was imposed by the removal of PM Imran Khan, or setting a course into destabilisation as the West’s agents and local traitors use any trick to keep control.

Some commentators such as George Galloway (tweet deleted but I linked it when it was still live, anyway) seemed to suggest there could be some sort of conflict breaking out between the people and the imported government of Shehbaz Sharif. The demand of everyone concerned is just that there should be an election soon, rather than an acute political conflict, but how likely is a peaceful and valid election to happen in a country just recently subjected to US-led regime-change? It seems more likely that protesters would have to fight, just for this modest demand to be met. The question then is, is it really worth it?

State effective at suppressing the people

One must consider that any organised aspect of mass disobedience is always suppressed quickly if the state takes serious action to stop it (this applies in any country). The people themselves are never a sufficient force for regime change (or in this case, restoration), which is only ever orchestrated successfully by people with foreign backing or substantial state-like powers, regardless of how much support they have among everyday citizens.

When people, such as Donald Trump’s supporters in the United States, believe too much in American national founding myths and consequently think that popular disaffection alone can result in regime change, they are invariably disappointed. Real regime change, or even a successful movement, is coordinated by organised actors, whether for good or evil ends.

It is clear that the Shehbaz Sharif government (likely with the blessing of the Democrat-controlled White House) is okay with treating Imran Khan supporters in a repressive way via arrests, much the way Trump's supporters were treated after the Capitol Attack.

Even the most unpopular regimes are able to maintain their grip on power, only really losing it if they cannot maintain the living standards, food supply and necessities that keep the people indebted to their power.

If it were to happen, the only likely regime change or even guarantee of prompt elections in Pakistan would have to probably come from the intervention of the Pakistani Army, who are accused anyway of playing a big role in removing Imran Khan in the first place. And a scenario of the Army or security forces mutinying, even to side with the people, is dangerous, especially considering the possible foreign involvement of the US and its ability to sponsor violence if it does not like such a change of power.

First and foremost, the top concern should be that people of Pakistan should stay safe, even if it results in a puppet regime. It is a difficult moral choice between being a subservient nation for the sake of order and safety, or a defiant nation that could risk chaos and strife.

All stability is precious

Pakistan is by no means exceptionally vulnerable or contemptible, even as a US puppet. Britain is also not its own master, compelled by what are arguably pro-American and pro-European traitors into ignoring the national will or treating it with disdain, as seen with Brexit. It seems to be in our character that we make the choice for stability rather than for confrontation on an insurmountable issue, because people are just more worried about anarchy than injustice, and we have always been this way.

What marks good people apart from the kind of psychopathic warmongers who drive US foreign policy plotters and their coups is the view that stability is a precious oasis in a chaotic world. Order is invaluable to the lives of the vast majority of people, however suffocating the status quo may be to an idealist. US warmongers and Neocons cannot hold such a view, because their distorted morals hold that mass death and misery on any scale and for any duration are justifiable to satisfy their often crazed and anarchistic political demands (which are often based on propaganda and fakes anyway). They are uniquely evil among sentient beings for this reason (the only other faction like this being ISIS, which many Neocons were apologists for in Syria). Responsible players need not be like them, and should instead opt for stability and reconciliation even when their political wishes are not quite met.

Uprisings and acute political conflicts are tolerable only if the alternative is known to be worse. If the imported government in Pakistan creates intolerable conditions for the nation because it places Western masters over the people, then the time is right that the people and state must take risks to save themselves. Until then, everything should just be subjected to a risk-benefit assessment, with any sort of dramatic regime change or restoration being understood to be a dangerous course.

Liz Truss went too far in trying to take ownership of the war in Ukraine and proposing conditions that would never be acceptable to any administration in Moscow, threatening to further inflame and escalate the conflict, even according to The Guardian.

Truss had said that Britain should set a war aim of depriving Russia of Crimea, which Moscow considers core Russian territory and protects under its nuclear deterrent. This is such a delusional statement that it would be less absurd to have heard Russian generals talk of recapturing the Reichstag. Crimea is long gone, and Ukraine is about as likely to send troops there as it is to Vladivostok. Even pro-Western dissidents in Russia refuse to talk of Crimea as anything other than part of Russia.

In addition to her, we see Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces James Heappey eagerly justifying attacks by Ukraine into Russian territory using UK weapons. Apparently, he is unaware of the potential risk to British territory if we set ourselves a goal of destroying targets in Russian territory.

Total war, by proxy?

In the case of both politicians mentioned here, Britain possibly overestimates its power, having no grasp of how or where Russia could respond in kind or the kind of casualties British personnel could suffer if Russia were to begin maliciously handing out all modern armaments necessary to kill British troops worldwide. It seems some of our leaders just view the Slavic mind as dull, easy prey, incapable of the creativity to even copy what we do.

We also assume that our playing by a set of rules forbidding direct attacks on the other side confines the Russians to also abiding by these rules, when that is not the case if the rules only benefit us and not them. Would we ourselves keep playing by the rules if Russia was the only beneficiary under them, and the costs for us playing were severe? A country will only allow so much damage to them indirectly, before they hastily look for ways to retaliate, even if they are caught doing so.

Any plan that includes averting a nuclear war but still destroying Russia's cities and strategic objects, using Ukrainian troops to do so as encouraged by Heappey, would be folly. Britain's targeting of strategic objects and vital defences in Russia, even using a third country or fiddling with the command structure to hide responsibility for the attacks, would trigger Russian strikes on strategic targets in Britain. It would be no different than if we began attacking Russia directly, so Russia could see nuclear attacks as a proportionate response.

A brag too far

Liz Truss seems at some level to be aware that her foolish and rash warmongering cannot be walked back. She has tried to take full ownership of the Ukrainian war effort, declaring that a defeat in this war is unthinkable and would mean a profound loss of security for us.

In reality, there is an alternative course that keeps the country safe: just get rid of Liz Truss, James Heappey, and the others who displayed misplaced military swagger and tried to take ownership of the Ukrainian war effort. This would restore a level of calm, helping prevent escalation while benefiting still from whatever they had done, if any of it had any benefit.

It is okay for common soldiers to belittle their adversaries and brag. However, a serving government minister, who believes a continent-spanning nuclear hyperpower is some easy prey they will soon hang on their wall as a personal trophy, is an imbecile. That person should not be permitted to speak another word in any official capacity.

Should we believe extraordinary claims from government sources, such as the "Tic Tac" UFO encounter footage from the US government?

While extra-terrestrials may be a favoured explanation for some, for UFO sightings, a secret military technology is more plausible, because we are at least aware that military secrets are real. However, even that is far-fetched. A technology that is truly beyond anything known to science, for example, having the ability to fully neutralise g-forces, is also countered by a more likely possibility.

Extraordinary claims

The most reasonable explanation for any compelling video evidence of extra-terrestrial or truly unexplained UFO encounters, if they originate from a government source, will be that they are nevertheless fake. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence, so video and official endorsement of video is not enough. People also saying they saw it doesn't help, as testimony is unreliable.

In 2003, the American people believed their government's mere word about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. After waging the war, they learned it was not true. Many lost faith in the mainstream media, and now obstinately disbelieve even the more mundane claims of governments.

In 2022, prior to it happening, we had headlines and pictures in tabloids about a Russian invasion of Ukraine. Many believed it, because it came from government sources, namely the US government. Others disbelieved it for that very same reason. Unfortunately, the American warnings turned out to be true in the case of a Russian incursion into Ukraine, and the Russians seemed to begin the very operation they were insisting would not happen.

For many Americans, Russia's deceptions will vindicate the US government and they will be more likely to trust the US government's authority again, even when it is lying.

Distrust them

Despite the above change, governments still lie. The most effective lies are those that are mixed with confirmed reality by those telling the story. Many believe that if they can confirm some part of a story, the rest must be true.

In the case of formal, government-stamped evidence of the seemingly impossible, what we are looking at could be an experiment in the authority of the state. It could be a test of how credulous a citizen can be, if their government verifies something as true, or a sort of experiment in how far the militarisation of false information can go when pushed from government to journalists. How far do loyal citizens actually go in believing the state? Might they even believe in alien invaders if they are reported on the news?

Government authority lends credibility to a report, but it by no means confirms it to be accurate.

The word decolonisation is often thrown around by highbrow people. As if without realising that actual decolonisation (as in, dismantling the actual colonies) is far from complete, it is applied instead to things as innocuous as language.

The Western lifestyle, including the phone you may be using right now, is still dependent on exploiting colonised nations and preventing their development. Right now.

Child labour is still rampant in many parts of the world. Countries are still prey to exploitative Western multinational corporations that extract their rich mineral resources, returning very little to the people of the land. Despite this being a familiar trope in movies such as Avatar, it is very much a reality and those who tout their progressive leanings when they take power are doing nothing about it.

Hyper-aggressions of global exploitation

Western governments place sanctions on uncompetitive countries - a clear exercise of the vestiges of their colonial might when it comes to trade. Far from doing anything about this racism, self-styled liberals and prominent proponents of inclusivity who reach positions of power in government become complicit in the oppression.

While racial "micro-aggressions" are complained about in Western workplaces, the racial hyper-aggressions of those who exploit the African continent are what make those privileged workplaces possible at all. To strip countries of their mineral wealth is to steal from under the feet of colonised peoples, inflicting grave hardships upon them for the sake of our own comfort.

Ongoing struggles

Let us focus on the French, since they are probably the most blatant of the Europeans in their neocolonialism and seek to aggressively assimilate those who belong to other cultures.

In the Pacific overseas collectivity of New Caledonia, the French viciously hold the whole territory against the wishes of the indigenous Kanak people, as the local colonial French population serves to counter their repeated referendums for national independence. The desire to be a recognised sovereign nation was expressed by the Kanaks in a 2020 referendum, followed by another marred referendum in 2021 that was boycotted by many of them. France keeps the territory so its companies can rob the abundant nickel available there, ten percent of the world's total, with the mineral having electronic and military applications that serve to bolster France's retained imperial military might.

America is equally at fault. Elon Musk covets the nickel in New Caledonia for the production of electric cars. The same Elon Musk who openly expressed smug approval of the American-backed coup against Evo Morales in Bolivia so as to reach the country's rich lithium deposits. Like nickel, lithium is key to the batteries that make electric cars viable. Such interference at the expense of colonised people suggests a pattern of behaviour that could end up washing Western environmentalists eventually in neocolonial bloodshed.

In Mali, the the French showed an eagerness to maintain a military presence ostensibly to fight against terrorism, and later issued harsh criticisms of the government, but many suspect their real motives lie in their desire to control its rich uranium. A country where that is certainly the case is Niger, where, despite continued poverty, the country's uranium is shipped to France.

The UK's neocolonialism is not quite so blatant, as the UK is invested in the United States as a successor to the British Empire and consequently tends to just interfere wherever the United States interferes and join it as its lackey. While it is rarely talked about in any formal sense, this is understood to include secretly undermining certain fellow Commonwealth countries where the US has an interest in destabilisation and disorder, and this includes Pakistan.

Unequal exchange

As well as plundering lands of the resources that are the God-given property of the colonised people, the economic core located in Western countries and societies prospers at the expense of poorer nations through unequal exchange. Expensive products are created in the economic core in Western countries and societies, whereas the mineral resources that go into them are merely extracted in the impoverished periphery or Global South.

The maintenance of the economic core at the expense of the economic periphery is the very reason we have the lifestyle we maintain, so there is no incentive to change it. And it is directly the result of colonialism, which turned these nations in Africa into mere mines and sources of raw materials that often offer little of any competitive nature compared with the finished products created in the West. The resulting trade, in which undeveloped countries merely produce coffee beans, fruit or raw materials and ship them off to the West, while the developed core is able to sell cars and electronic goods, is unfair and perpetually sustains the place of one side as exploited while the other is the exploiter.

Western leaders are unable to extend condemnation of racism or colonialism to include the injustice on the international and economic levels today, because the very prominence and strategic military advantage that allows them to exercise dominance over other states is derived from it. Even as they speak of aiding other nations selflessly from their podiums, they are nothing without this vestige of racist exploitation and slavery.

If we are to be opposed to racism, this cannot be separated from supporting all those who resist Western government and corporate theft of other countries' resources. It cannot be separated from resistance to the warmongers and interventionists, who have the same moral character as racists.

It is no accident that the opponents of racism are also often the opponents of war. That's because war causes racism, racism causes war, and warmongers have the moral character of the most violent racists.

Anti-Asian hate crimes in New York City rose by well over three hundred percent, in December. In San Francisco, they rose by over five hundred percent. Such attacks are taking place after Donald "the China virus" Trump left office.

Is this a random occurrence, or could it be tied to the that hate-filled rhetoric against China - or, to use the preferred term - "the Chinese"? Could it be the work of those who want us to believe we live on the verge of some great and imbecilic call to arms for the nation? 1914, repeated as farce?

Jingoism and violence

The endless, riotous war talk against "the Chinese" and "the Russians", portraying people's nationality as an inherently negative feature, deliberately peddled by politicians in the US and the UK, whips up paranoia and hate. Ironically, it will engender bigotry towards Eastern European people as much as the Russians, and towards Pacific Islanders as much as the Chinese.

Jingoistic hate speech, protected by things like parliamentary privilege in the UK, is typical of political discourse one might expect a hundred years ago. Skeletons are crying out to us to shut up and learn something from the past.

The disease of warmongering

If the purpose of democracy is to elect moral representatives, it has proven to be an ineffective filter in the US and UK, instead collecting some of the most vile specimens who can be summoned in human form. Those we flatter as "hawks" are better characterised as boils on the flesh of humanity.

Many of the warmongers in the US Senate and Congress have stocks in American defence contractors and are essentially war profiteers. Those who don't, yet still pursue the militarist rhetoric of interference and domination in foreign conflicts, are more contemptible. They, for the sake of the flaws of their own narcissistic personalities, perpetuate suffering and prejudice for nothing more than personal glory and machismo.

Pages