They are NOT democrats, but are instead the worst sort of liars, who are endangering the entire world. This is referring to the leaders of the U.S. and of its allied countries — they say that they are “democrats,” in order to claim a ‘justification’ to continue and expand NATO (their anti-Russia military alliance) after 1991. This claimed ‘justification’ for NATO is based upon this lie of their being “democracies,” and it increasingly threatens the entire world. NATO is actually profoundly evil and intrinsically totalitarian, as will here be documented in the links within the present article.
There is by now well-established scientific proof that the U.S. Government is no democracy but instead an aristocracy of (what other scientific analyses find to be) the 57.16% of the total dollar-value of U.S. political-campaign funding that comes from only the wealthiest 0.01% or richest ten-thousandth of the U.S. population — in other words, it’s been proven that there is control over the U.S. Government by the richest ten-thousandth of the U.S. population — but, nonetheless, that Government and its media around the world assert that America is a democracy, which can be true only if an aristocracy of pure wealth can be referred-to as being “a democracy,” which would remove that term (“democracy”) from all of its traditional meaning (of being a government that has become empowered by, and that honestly reflects, the will of the nation’s entire public). A vast propaganda-operation, by deceitful ‘news’-media and similarly prostituted academics, constantly pumps the lie (disproven by all of the evidence) that today’s America is a ‘democracy’.
U.S.-allied countries — EU, England, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea — “The West” — call America (the country that imprisons a higher percentage of its residents than any other in the world) “a democracy,” though not only the scientific studies but also a wide range of other data show calling it that to be blatantly false. (Anyone who disagrees with this statement who fails to click onto the links here to see and to consider the documentation on it, isn’t even interested in knowling the truth about these matters and in correcting one’s own misconceptions about them — misconceptions that falsely guide that person’s thinking and beliefs — and votes.)
They, The West’s leaders, now are declaring both Russia and China to be NOT democracies but dictatorships, as in the old days of the Cold War, and they are increasingly forcing those ‘enemies’ (who have thus been placed into that defensive position by The West) toward a World War III over this demonstrably false characterization of themselves as being, and as supporting, “democracy” — a nefarious lie that thus is now endangering the entire world, with nuclear annihilation.
Here is how that danger now increasingly exists:
The great geostrategist, and former U.S. Marine, and Chief U.N. Inspector for Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq (who found them all and oversaw the destruction of them all), Scott Ritter, certainly knows about nuclear weapons and understands them from both a technological and a geostrategic standpoint, and he is so honest as an American as to have antagonized, with the truth, just about every U.S. President since the turn of the present Century, on account of his courageous patriotism and his stunning honesty, which is totally bipartisan (neutral) as to political Party. Right now, he is especially worried about the danger of global nuclear annihilation in a global nuclear WW III, and he makes clear that the U.S. Government and its allies are the ones who are endangering the world this way, and that Russia (and, increasingly, China) is only responding to their threats, especially the threat to bring into NATO the one Russia-bordering nation whose border, at its nearest point to Moscow, is by far the closest of any nation’s: only around 300 miles, or 5 minutes of missile-flying time, away from (an American missile launched from there) possibly blitz-nuking Moscow so as to decapitate Russia’s central command and thus maybe enable the U.S. to conquer Russia so fast (within five minutes) so that Russia won’t have enough time in order to recognize that missile-launch and respond to it in time to be able to launch its own retaliatory weapons. America has replaced the mutual Cold War doctrine of “Mutually Assured Destruction” (MAD), of nuclear weapons ONLY in order to DETER an attack, by its own unique new doctrine, of “Nuclear Primacy” — the goal of supposedly becoming able to win a nuclear war.
Here is Scott Ritter, speaking in a video interview on January 17th, about this matter:
17 January 2023
3:47 The artillery rounds
3:50 today are as powerful as the
3:53 bombs that were dropped on Nagasiki and
3:56 They have the same nuclear fallout. That
4:00 destroys life and property well beyond
4:04 the area that they strike. Some of the
4:07 smaller weapons are designed — we
4:09 called them back in the in the 70s and
4:11 80s Neutron bombs — basically to generate
4:15 a lot of neutrons which will kill people
4:17 through radioactivity but minimize the
4:20 fallout so that in theory, you
4:23 know, hours or days after the device, you
4:25 could drive through there without fear
4:27 of dying of radioactivity, but the big boys,
4:29 the ones that are the 150 to 300 Megaton
4:33 bombs that are sitting on most of our
4:36 these are city killers, and when I say
4:38 city killer I mean the entire city — not
4:40 just the heart of the city like Nagasaki
4:42 Hiroshima — the entire city and the
4:44 fallout from these will make the area
4:47 uninhabitable for thousands of
4:52 and if you drop enough of them
4:54 then the Earth becomes uninhabitable for
4:56 thousands, which means Mankind’s gone.
4:58 Q: So, I would imagine that whoever uses
5:04 having designs on the real estate
5:07 whether it be Putin who wants to make it
5:11 return to Russia or whether it be NATO
5:14 that wants it to be a country beholden
5:17 to NATO would use the lowest yield that
5:20 they have so as to cause the least
5:22 amount of permanent damage. Is that fair
5:25 and sensible reasoning on my part if
5:29 this was going to be a
5:31 a limited nuclear conflict using
5:33 tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine for
5:38 A: It’s reasonable, but Russia has said
5:39 straight up we’re not dropping nuclear
5:41 weapons on Ukraine. If we use nuclear
5:43 weapons we’re dropping them on London
5:45 Berlin Paris Washington DC. The world
5:47 will end. See: Russia doesn’t play limited
5:50 nuclear war — doesn’t play these
5:51 games. This is purely a construct in the
5:54 Western mind, that somehow you can limit
5:56 nuclear conflict. Russia’s made it clear
5:58 we won’t be the first to use nuclear
6:00 weapons. Vladimir Putin
6:02 also said it won’t be the second, and
6:04 what that means is once you fire them at
6:06 us, we’re not waiting for them to hit,
6:08 we’re launching everything we got at you
6:10 and we’ll all die.
In other words: the moment that America’s missile gets launched from Ukraine to annihilate Moscow in 5 minutes, Russia will unleash against all of The West all thousands of its nuclear warheads. The world will then virtually end in around 30 minutes. It won’t be, like planners used to fear, a nuclear exchange that produces a nuclear winter, which will slowly eliminate all life on the planet. Instead, the entire planet will, within 30 minutes, become so blasted, and intensely nuclearly contaminated, so that even in remote places, the die-off will be complete within just a few days, or maybe even within hours. But our Government keeps all of this information secret, and refuses even to say, about it, the little that Ritter describes in that interview.
The origins of this acute stage of the neoconservatives’ (or U.S. imperialists’) threats to the entire world’s existence, go back to the Nobel Peace Prize winning, super-deceitful (and all-time slickest) U.S. President, Barack Obama’s February 2014 coup that grabbed Ukraine, which had been a neutral nation on Russia’s border, and immediately installed there rabidly racist-fascist anti-Russian leaders who promptly began an ethnic-cleansing operation against cultural Russians there, so as to solidify and make permanent that Cuban-Missile-Crisis-in-reverse danger to Russia’s national security — an “existential” crisis for Russia, as many Russians now refer to it. Obama had secretly started planning for this by no later than 2010; detailed planning started by no later than 2011.
Before Obama, was G.H.W. Bush privately telling the leaders of America’s ‘allied’ or vassal nations, starting on 24 February 1990, that the Cold War was to continue secretly on the U.S. side even after Gorbachev would free the Soviet peoples from communism; and, before that, was Truman, starting on 25 July 1945, making the determination — upon the advice from his hero Dwight Eisenhower, and also from the Rhodesist Winston Churchill — that if America wouldn’t conquer the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union would conquer America, thus starting the Cold War ‘against communism’ but actually in order to create the world’s first-ever all-encompassing global empire, for the U.S./UK — or, as Cecil Rhodes had called it, in his first draft of the plan, in 1877, “the English-speaking race”, which he said must take over the world. After that start of the UK/U.S. empire (the start, really — on 25 July 1945 — of the flowering phase of Rhodes’s plan), came the likewise super-deceitful President Eisenhower, who, along with Truman, set up America’s MIC or military-industrial complex; but, then, just three days before leaving office, warned the nation against it, so that only his successors would get the blame for it.
The common term that is used in order to refer to supporters of U.S. imperialism is “neoconservatism,” which refers to only its advocates after its creation in 1877, and even after its flowering on 25 July 1945, and even after that, to American ideologues in the 1950s and 1960s, so that its real sources won’t be publicly understood; but that is just more of their deceit, and of their deceitfulness, to claim their ‘movement’ to have started long after it actually did start — in fact, after it had already been in full flower for a decade. If the source of an evil is misunderstood, then any plan to overcome it is likely to be based upon that misunderstanding, and thus to fail.
Currently, my studies of the voting-records of the members of the U.S. Congress, both House and Senate (such as in the voting on the bill, or proposed legislation, that is described here) indicate that around 98% of its members (in each of the two houses) are neoconservatives (i.e., Rhodesists). So: in the imperial capital, U.S. imperialism is the most bipartisan issue that exists, virtually unanimous, despite the intense partisan splits in almost every other issue-area. (Furthermore, though that bill, in the U.S. House, is for increased U.S. imperialism in Africa, 100% of the House’s 46 African-Americans voted for it. It’s almost as-if Jews were voting for Nazis — which, in a sense, most Israelis do, but against Palestinians instead of against Jews. Those 46 Blacks were instead voting for America’s billionaires, against Africans, and even against America’s own Blacks.)
In any case, the aggressors here are clear; the danger they pose to the world in all countries is also clear; and all of these people should consequently be overthrown and replaced by individuals who aren’t nearly so evil. Whether it’s possible to do that — or to do it in time to prevent a nuclear Armageddon — has now become the chief question in our era.
Someone has objected to the usage in the present article’s title, and in its text, of the word “evil,” by saying: “I have never liked the phrase Good and Evil. What’s wrong with Good and Bad?” However, “bad” would be an evasive term to apply. It would, in fact, be false. I therefore responded by explaining: In ethics, there is an opposition between “good and evil,” and likewise between “good and bad”; however, “good and bad” is more commonly employed in order to distinguish between “What I like” and “What I dislike,” without any ethical connotation, but simply as a matter of personal taste. That’s not so with “good and evil.” What I am discussing in this article is ethics; not preferences. I am saying here that, objectively speaking, not merely as a matter of personal taste, the Western leaders are the opposite of good; they are not merely bad — they are evil, in the same way that an aggressor is “evil” and not merely “bad.” This distinction is recognized both in national and in international criminal law. It is not MERELY a matter of personal taste. To treat it as being such (the latter, just a matter of taste) would be like saying that rape belongs in the same category as consensual sex. And that’s false. The West’s leaders aren’t merely not good; they are evil. Furthermore: evil that if continued will lead to the destruction of all life on this planet, is the most evil thing that one can imagine. Those people need to be overthrown.
Moreover: this is the reason why ONLY the aggressor in a war should be blamed for it. The damages in any battle are separate and distinct from the rights and wrongs in the battle. And THIS is the reason why Russia will be blameless if, in order to retaliate against The West’s ceaseless aggressions in violation of Russia’s sovereignty and independence —its right to exist — Russia will unleash everything to annihilate The West (even though that would destroy the world). ONLY The West would be to blame for the consequences. That is important to keep in mind.