Understanding the Cold War Should Not Be Necessary
Understanding the Cold War Should Not Be Necessary
Tim O’Connor – Center for the Preservation of Humanity – 1/6/2023
I was listening to The Alex Jones Show while I labored at my full-time job just before the New Year and the guest who was on was Dr. Francis A. Boyle. Boyle mentioned Herman Kahn and the steps of escalation he developed in 1965. Having never really been introduced to this escalation ladder, I went and looked it up. It fascinates me that there is a playbook for how to escalate any tension into a nuclear war in 44 steps. Boyle’s point hit something within me; however, as he made me realize that without understanding the United States’ mentality towards the USSR during the Cold War, no one can really understand the United States’ actions during the Russia/Ukraine war.
Boyle pegged the current conflict at rung 20 of Kahn’s escalation ladder. I can agree with that. I argue that several of the higher rungs have also been accomplished. I believe that Ukraine, with their NATO/US/EU and globalist institutional backings, have successfully stepped upon rungs “26. Demonstration attack on zone of interior”; “27. Exemplary attack on military”; “28. Exemplary attacks on property”; and even “35. Constrained force reduction salvo”. Thankfully no nuclear weapons have been detonated, yet.
In my opinion, which is completely black-pilled, the entire war is being fought to achieve that eventuality. The west’s intentions seem to be getting Russia backed so far into a corner that they deploy tactical nuclear weapons followed by retaliation from the western powers. As Russia uses more general, non-tactical nuclear weapons in additional zones (such as London, Berlin, New York, and Washington DC) Ukrainian ‘allies’ will begin to use more generalized nuclear weapons on Russia (such as Moscow and St. Petersburg, Kazan, Omsk, and Krasnoyarsk).
And while my opinion is allowed, what is not an opinion is that the Cold War has not yet ended for the western entities still fighting the war. On December 14, 2022 Luke Coffey, a senior fellow of the Hudson Institute, published, “Preparing for the Final Collapse of the Soviet Union and the Dissolution of the Russian Federation” The title kind of sums up my point – these people are still fighting the Cold War.
Coffey’s article starts off, “The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the resignation of Mikhail Gorbachev as president of the Soviet Union in 1991 marked the start of the USSR’s collapse—but not the collapse itself. While the USSR ceased to exist as a legal entity after 1991, the collapse of the USSR is still happening today.” After this the article proceeds to lay out the goals, planning assumptions, and questions which should be asked and answered as soon as possible by ‘leaders’ in the United States.
These goals include, among others, to make the US military presence in Europe even larger after the actual collapse of Russia. Coffey suggests that in accordance with this goal, the US should focus on other goals such as making sure to account for all of Russia’s mass-destruction weapons and containing Russia’s domestic uprisings. Coffey wants to see Russians, and Russians only, held accountable for “atrocities committed in Ukraine.” The people of Russia are to be absolutely ignored and attempts at democratization in Russia should not be supported by the United States according to Coffey.
The goal that is most poingant; however, is the one that is being effected currently. Coffey writes, “Spread stability on Europe’s periphery by expanding Euro-Atlantic integration and deepening bilateral relationships. Euro-Atlantic integration has been one of the greatest drivers of stability in Europe since 1949. When the Russian Federation dissolves, NATO and the European Union should take advantage of Moscow’s weakness and push for a “big bang” enlargement for remaining candidate and aspirant countries. Planning for this, including the preparatory work for any institutional reforms needed to add new members, should start now. Where NATO or EU membership is not appropriate, the US should pursue stronger relations on a bilateral or multilateral basis—especially by leveraging regional groupings like the GUAM or the Organization of Turkic States.”
“When.” Coffey uses the terminology of “when.” That means that the destabilizing efforts taking place between the west and Russia are not going to stop unless Russia collapses. There are no plans for peace there are only plans for the complete destruction of Russia in order to integrate the 6.6 million square miles of its territory into the globalist New World Order. Coffey’s ideal is to destabilize Russia to the point it collapses, carve up Russia’s carcass, and integrate the smaller territories one by one into the global world order – if it means catastrophic global nuclear war, that is apparently a trade Coffey and his ilk find acceptable.
The assumptions which Coffey operates under involve much violence occurring in a fractured Russia. He envisages roving bands of former Russian military personnel fighting in independence and insurgent movements throughout Russia. Turkey and China, like Coffey suggests NATO and the United States are to do, are expected to try to fill the Russian power vacuum. Coffey, who does not have any lack of hubris, assumes that Russia will be completely fractured, occupied by the US, NATO, Turkey, and China and be engaged in widespread civil war. But he also assumes that “Russia will be back. Regardless of how bad Russia’s defeat in Ukraine might be, and regardless of how degraded the Russian economy and military will become as a result, Moscow will never abandon its imperial designs on Eastern Europe. Even if rearming and rebuilding take several decades, Moscow will be a threat to its neighbors. The US and NATO have to base their force posture and strategies on this assumption.”
Not only is Coffey’s idea to decimate the Russian Federation, occupy the remains, and force global government down the people’s throats, it is imperative to never end the Cold War. Russia, to these people will always exist, even after it is destroyed and dissected, to destabilize Europe. Thus, since Russia will always exist, the Cold War will never end. Coffey’s calculations reveal the real goal behind the west’s involvement with the Ukrainian war – global nuclear holocaust. That is the only sure way for there to be no more functioning Russia.
Coffey then poses several questions about what the United States should do with the disintegration of Russia. How should the US deal with independence movements arising from the ashes of the Russian Federation? How to contain armed conflict to within the borders of Russia? What to do about the WMD’s in Russia? Should NATO and the EU immediately pounce upon Eastern European nations to have them join? What will economic and reconstruction aid look like? How will border disputes between Russia and it’s neighbors be resolved? How will Russian influence be decreased?
Not destroying Russia in the first place is noticeably absent from those questions. The conclusion of Coffey’s article cements the idea that destroying Russia is the only option. To that effect Coffey writes:
“Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has changed the security situation in the North Atlantic region in a way not seen since World War II. The Eurasian landmass will not fully feel the consequences of Russia’s invasion, especially if Ukraine is victorious, for years. Policymakers need to recognize the historical magnitude of the situation and start preparing accordingly.
“The success of Ukraine on the battlefield against Russia could offer a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to put Russia back inside its geopolitical box for a generation. This would create a new geopolitical reality not seen in a generation. As policymakers plan for this new geopolitical reality, they should learn the lessons from the 1990s when Western decision-makers naively hoped for democratic governance and economic reforms in Russia that never materialized. If Moscow’s behavior on the world stage since 1991 has shown anything, it is that Russia is unlikely to become a responsible global actor in the foreseeable future. Instead of focusing on the unachievable, American decision-makers should pursue pragmatic and realistic policies that advance the national interest of the US.”
Russia didn’t go along with the global government well enough. Coffey hinted at this notion most directly in his conclusion. When Coffey mentioned that “Russia is unlikely to become a responsible global actor” he said the quiet part out loud. That quiet part is that the global government has not gained a solid enough foothold in Russia to implement enough of its designs. Those involved with global government despise Russia and it’s leaders for displaying sovereignty. Sovereignty may or may not be aligned with global goals, they hate the idea that any nation even has the intention of choosing their own way.
Another article, this one titled “By Arming Ukraine We Arm Ourselves,” written by Arthur Herman, another senior fellow at Hudson Institute, notes the massive amount of material assistance the US has sent to Ukraine. “America has committed more than 104 million rounds of small-arms ammunition, at least 1 million rounds of 155-millimeter artillery shells, 8,500 Javelin anti-armor missiles, 46,000 other anti-tank weapons, more than 1,600 Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, and 1,200 Humvees, according to the Pentagon’s own count.”
It also suggests that the United States should continue to give these types of support as well as build the capacity to do even more for Ukraine. The reason, Herman claims, “These are also the weapons that will be critical for our own defense in conventional conflicts.” Wonderful – let’s send them to Ukraine so we cannot use them for our own defense. The only way this makes rational sense is if the United States has plans to put boots on the ground in Ukraine and overtly battle Russian forces there.
In order accomplish that stupid human trick Herman suggests that the fascist relationship between the US federal government and defense contractors like Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and BAE Systems are expanded. “All in all the Pentagon has awarded $6 billion to military contractors to resupply these and other items sent to Ukraine—for the Ukrainians, of course, but eventually also for us.” The Pentagon wasted US tax dollars on Ukraine’s border security and preservation while paying it’s own border agents to basically engage in human trafficking. But that’s not all, Herman thinks this should be expanded as well. Why, you may ask. It’s because Herman may be letting the cat out of the bag as well, the US is going to overtly enter Ukraine’s civil war. Herman describes exactly how you start World War III, “The key is to absorb the lesson we learned in World War II: By arming allies to fight the wars we don’t have to, we also increase our own readiness to fight wars that inevitably come our way.”
RAND Corporation also never ceases to amaze when dealing with this topic. On January 5, 2023 Raphael Cohen published a lengthy article, Ukraine and the New Two War Construct, looking at the idea of the US fighting two wars simultaneously. He decided the best way to go forward would be for the US to build up its military contractors to produce armaments for Ukraine. Cohen identifies five threats – Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, and everywhere else under the ruse of terrorism. Cohen identified China as the primary threat, so, at least he correctly assessed that situation. But what he didn’t assess correctly is that the Ukraine war should be used as a model moving forward. Cohen wrote:
“Still, the Ukraine war offers a potential model of how the United States could deal two conflicts as once, especially if one of those conflicts is against one of America’s secondary adversaries — the Russias, Irans, and North Koreas of the world. Even if the United States is tied up with one conflict in one theater, then at the very least, the United States can offer its allies and partners the military wherewithal to win if they choose to fight. In this sense, the United States might not look at its support of Ukraine as a one-off response but rather as a potential model for future defense strategy — and as a way to hedge against the simultaneity problem.”
Basically, the moment that China believes US capacity to hit a certain tipping point, as the Chinese calculate, they will go warring into any area they see fit without any real possibility of effective resistance. Apparently the United States should be responsible for funding all of this. Cohen figures this is cheaper than fielding a military capable of fighting two wars at one time. What if there were no wars to fight? Cohen never considers this possibility.
Cohen didn’t have to consider peace as a possibility because the Club of Rome already did it for them. The solution was to divide the entire earth up into 10 regional blocks. The idea was to have the United States act as the global police force. There can be no peace under such an arrangement. As the global police force, the military leaders of that police force – the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as the US President – would all have to be under the thumb of the globalist government. The Club of Rome and, more relevantly, the United Nations, World Economic Forum as well as several other prominent global governance platforms have these individuals under their thumb at present. It’s a race to not have to take the blame for destroying the entire planet through nuclear, thermonuclear, neutron bomb, or other massively destructive kinetic, biological, or chemical means.
Most of the world is already following the global government’s decrees. Anywhere which has adopted the insane demands of demented ecoterrorists, such as the United Nations Environmental Programme, Club of Rome, and many others is already invested heavily in complying with global decrees. The ecoterrorists are terrified that this truth be exposed because man-made climate change mitigation has only ever been addressed as a global problem demanding a unified global response. Local governments didn’t dream up their sustainability plans demanding that their residents walk or bike in negative 50 degree wind chills – globalists did – and the locals just adapted the plan to their own situations.
And this environmental aspect which is seemingly at odds with the promise of catastrophic and ecologically debilitating total war involving nuclear weapons is really all in the same vein. This global government wants to eradicate as many people as possible. While they liquidate about 95% of humanity, they want us as passive about our extinction as possible. Herman Kahn also suggested this would be achieved, albeit with unspecified intentions. In September 1974, Kahn, along with Leon Martel, authored Research Memorandum #5.
While this entire document is interesting to read as it foreshadowed many events between 1975 and the 2000’s thus far, it almost seems as it was used as a blueprint of how the global government would quietly manipulate the populations of the world. How do we end up with 8 billion people on the planet yet there are less than 1 in 1000 of those people who recognize what is actually going on with the ecoterrorist uprising and the nuclear catastrophe looming larger everyday and demanding both cease now? Kahn and Martel explained exactly how to pacify the populations to sit idly by and accept their fate on page 29 and 31 of Research Memorandum #5 in “Erosion of “13 Traditional Societal Levers””.
Those levers are, in order, “Religion, tradition, and/or authority […] Biology and physics […] territoriality […] earning a living […] Defense of vital strategic and economic interests […] Defense of vital political, moral, and morale interests […] Other appeals to economic and/or technological rationality and efficiency and/or economic and survival type interests, community or national […] the manly emphasis […] “The Puritan Ethic” […] A high (perhaps almost total) loyalty, commitment and/or identification with nation, state, city. clan, village, extended family, or secret society […] The “martial” virtues – duty, patriotism, honor, heroism, glory, courage, loyalty, and pride […] Other sublimation and/or repression of sexual, aggressive, aesthetic and/or “other instincts” […] Other “irrational” and/or restricting taboos, rituals, totems, myths, customs and charismas.”
Which of these are not present in western societies? In the United States sexual promiscuity is promoted while the Bible is shunned. Masculinity has an adjective in front of it – toxic – while transsexualism and gender fluidity is peddled to 5 year-olds. No one wants to work it seems – many of those who do punch in don’t seem very motivated to do a whole lot while they are getting paid. Heroism and glory come from PS5 awards and who had the most kills in Fortnite. No one is loyal to anything including the ideals upon which this nation was founded. Kahn warned us this is where we were being directed in 1974. I’d say that if that was the intention, as I believe it was, it was a smashing success. That success has come with a devastating cost – the creation of a situation which is intended to result in the annihilation of a now pacified humanity.
How do we wake up? We read the Bible and pray for discernment. We get ready to hold on tight through the bumpiest ride of all times. We don’t lose faith. We understand what must happen before the Messiah returns and we are not afraid but emboldened in our belief and reliance upon God. His grace is unlimited yet fear Him for His wrath is great as well.
In order to understand any of what we are seeing in Ukraine between the entire western world and Russia is to remember or learn the way the Cold War was fought. If we hope to understand the man-made climate change phenomena the way the west fought the Cold War is imperative here as well. The ecoterrorists reframed those who are resistant to having a comfortable life (due to their work ethic, traditional values, and avoidance of indulgences) stolen from them and cast them as enemies in a new front of the Cold War – global civilian populations were cast as Russians. The United States as a nation was once a roadblock to this idea. No longer is that true – the government we have today is serving no interests of any US citizen because they are beholden to global government interests. There are still huge pockets of resistance within the United States – those “clinging” to believing in God, hard work, self defense, and private property – which is why those groups are marginalized, censored, and were recently given the moniker “terrorists.” Russia is a bit different; however, that nation still stands in the way of global government. The US is seeking to remove that impediment through the destabilizing effects of war. Nuclear war is their goal. Even the ecoterrorists have been assured that nuclear bombs detonating would be good for the climate.
Take it to the Lord in prayer. Do not be afraid.
Bless God and God bless.