Joe Biden is a Clear and Present Danger To The Continued Existence of Civilization
Biden appears to be the demented fulfilment of decades of US decline.
This piece is a deep but clear dive into the intersection of Biden’s political career with disastrous US foreign policy. I recommend passing it along to friends who are yet to learn just how deceptive the media has been on all things covid, all things Ukraine, and all things Obama/Biden/Trump.
This past week the US government has had to backtrack on two insanely incendiary statements by their apparent leader, Joe Biden.
The first one was to his troops when he described what they would see once they arrived in Ukraine:
Implying that troops are about to be sent into a war zone to confront a nuclear power is shocking to say the least. This was not contemplated when the Soviets sent tanks into Eastern European states such as Hungary and Czechoslovakia, let alone Russian border states such as Ukraine!
Later, he seemed to declare his intentions to overthrow Putin, using rhetoric previously reserved for the likes of Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi:
The White House and the media quickly tried to explain away these horrifically reckless statements. But what does Putin thinks as he watches this?
Yesterday, Biden accidentally showed to cameras the child-like talking points his handlers had given him when faced questions from the press after other leaders had criticized his lack of tact and diplomacy:
The US and its leaders have seemingly not learned anything from its disastrous foreign policy over the past three decades.
If they want to topple Putin, or they so desperately want to ensure continued Zelensky rule over all of Ukraine, including its Russian-speaking regions, then they need to make sure they are willing to pay the price, which could well be the nuclear incineration of men, women, and children all over Russia, Europe, and the US - including those of Ukraine’s population.
As for Putin, he has watched the tapes of Gaddafi being sodomized by bayonets after US intervention there, which turned Libya from an authoritarian but stable country, into a slave-house dominated by Islamic radicals. (And this happened after Gaddafi gave up his weapons programme and pledged to assist NATO in their war on terror.)
Putin has seen Hussein going from trusted US ally against Iran, being armed with chemical weapons to that end, to being executed by his former allies, in an invasion which led directly to the rise of ISIS, and, ironically, an Iranian-dominated Iraq in opposition the Sunni radicals.
Do you think Putin would hesitate to use nuclear weapons if he believed the same fate awaited him?
Is it worth the risk? Is it worth risking human existence to keep Putin out of Ukraine, in a military action which kills, on average, fewer civilians a day than are murdered in South Africa?
The Zelensky regime is not so innocent either.
After Russian-speaking territories broke away from the government put in power and hand-picked by US diplomats (a government which had just banned their language from public life), the western-backed Ukrainian regime declared the new governments terrorists, and did not hesitate to use deadly force even against their civilians, killing thousands, according to the UN. Remember, the US bombed Serbia when they did not recognize the breakaway state of Kosovo.
Biden equally has zero credibility calling Putin a war criminal. Global media has openly reported on deliberate US killing of women and children in Afghanistan and Syria, only a matter of months before Putin’s invasion.
NATO bombing of Yemen, Somalia and Ethiopia continues daily. Obama himself authorized strikes in Yemen to support the Saudi aggression which has seen bombing and mass starvation of women and children.
This is why Africa, the Middle East, and Asia do not sanction Russia now and simply do not care anymore what the western media says. The hypocrisy is so over the top, so in your face, it puts the lie to any western claims of international law or a rules-based global order.
Perhaps the most damning thing of all is that Biden keeps on repeating to everybody his old campaign line that nobody on the global stage can match his level of foreign policy experience.
He is referring to not only his eight years as Vice President - during which he had responsibility for Ukraine even while his son was collecting huge paychecks from a leading Ukrainian gas company merely to sit on their board - but also his years in or as chair of the US Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee.
Biden was elected Senator for Delaware almost fifty years go, in 1973, and his record over five decades has been nothing short of terrible. When he touts his experience, he is unwittingly admitting to being at the centre of decades of disasters for the US and thus for the greater world. In our media whirlwind, it is all too easy to forget this history. We must, however, do our best to remember.
Biden loves war. So much of the world fell for the lie that he represented some kind of decency and healing after Trump. Trump started no wars. He was the lone Republican candidate in 2016 willing to say America’s foreign interventions had been disastrous. He is the only major US politician who has gone on record saying the US is not so innocent even compared with Putin.
Biden is tainted with decades of corruption and lies. This is why he got so trounced in all his prior presidential campaigns.
One of Biden’s first acts in the Senate in 1973 (!) was to criticize Nixon’s withdrawal of troops from Vietnam. Yes, that Nixon, and that Vietnam.
Yes, Biden did criticize the first Bush’s war against Iraq in Kuwait, but he would later say he was wrong to do so, after he pushed relentlessly for US bombing of Serbia in the late 90s.
He made his passion for foreign adventurism even more obvious by being fanatically supportive of the second Bush’s far more ambitious and disastrous invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Afghanistan intervention was ostensibly launched against Sunni radicalism in the shape of Al Qaeda. The Iraq invasion targeted a secular leader opposed to Al Qaeda. The sheer stupidity of these action happening at the same time is not often discussed, and it shows the mental caliber of the likes of Biden and his Washington ilk.
Before invading Afghanistan, Sunni power had previously been armed and supported by the US in their rivalries with Shiite Iran and Soviet Russia, who had invaded Afghanistan. It is well-known Bin Laden was originally supported by the CIA.
(Remember, the two great Islamic sects are Sunni and Shiite Islam. A split that emerged within the first few decades after Muhammad, and of which the US was entirely ignorant when they invaded Iraq. The split is important in politics in the Islamic world, but not always decisive.)
The ironies continue when you consider that by toppling Saddam Hussein, the US opened the door for Shiite control of that country (Shiite Muslims are the majority in Iraq) who were to be backed by Iran, their previous great enemy.
The US had armed Hussein during the 80s to fight Iran after the Iranian Islamic Revolution toppled the Iranian Shah who had been put in power by the US, after they overturned an Iranian election. When Bush and Blair would complain of Hussein’s atrocities against Kurds and Shiites in his Iraq, they neglected to mention that Hussein had been previously armed by the US to do those very things.
Of course, Biden, when he pushed for Iraqi invasion as the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in support of Bush, neglected to admit this. Instead he, like all of Bush’s acolytes in the Republican party, knowingly told utter lies about Hussein’s alleged links with Al Qaeda and his possession of ‘weapons of mass destruction’. People have forgotten the destruction the US wreaked in Iraq predicated on a lie, but it is worth remembering in the current, hyper-moralistic, pro-NATO climate of today:
The US then brutally put down Sunni insurgencies against Iraq’s new US-backed Shiite government, until their old allies, Saudi Arabia and Israel, both of whom are opposed to Iran and its great ally, Syria, protested. (Syria is majority Sunni but is ruled by Assad, who is largely a secular nationalist, protective of the various religious minorities in his country, including Christians, but is strongly allied with Iran.)
The US then switched back to their traditional support of Sunni Muslims opposed to Iran and Syria, and, in short, found themselves supporting Al Qaeda in Iraq and Syria, otherwise known as ISIS!
When ISIS grabbed Iraqi territory, they switched again and started bombing ISIS. But at one stage in Syria, there were rebel groups in Syria firing on each other, the one with CIA-provided weapons, and the other with US military-provided weapons.
Biden subsequently supported, alongside Obama, the Islamic radicals who would brutally murder Gaddafi, after which Hillary Clinton arrived for photos with said thugs, famously declaring, ‘We came, we saw, he died.’
In Syria and Iraq, the world’s oldest Christian communities would be destroyed, who had previously been tolerated and even protected by the secular strongmen, Assad and Hussein. The Blair-Bush-Clinton-Obama-Biden-Romney-McCain nexus of neo-conservative simply did not care. Their god is some kind of demented money-hungry liberalism, not Jesus Christ or even Allah.
If all of this madness had in anyway benefitted the US, at least they would have the excuse of looking after their own interests, as all world powers have done throughout history.
Instead they have watched millions die, hundreds of thousands of their own soldiers either die in battle or return home physically and mentally broken, mercenaries they hired previously, like Al Qaeda, turn viciously on them, all while going bankrupt and setting the world on fire.
And for what? So an LGBT flag can fly in Ukraine? So a George Floyd mural can be painted temporarily in Kabul? And how much help has US support been to citizens of Kiev? None at all.
Even Zelensky is increasingly bewildered by US support:
Zelensky should have known better than put his people in harm’s way so the US and NATO could play their ‘poke the bear’ game. But we should not expect too much from this strange actor, previously famous for wearing drag whilst singing some kind of anti-Russian song, and for his comedy routines which display a weird affinity for Obama, homosexuality, and Nazism.
But back to Biden’s saber-rattling.
It is important to note that the chief reason why Biden’s statements are so dangerous and bizarre, is that they confirm what Putin has been saying for decades regarding US action against Russia.
Putin has long maintained that Russia is being encircled by NATO, the US extension of its empire in Europe, in order to bring down his regime which in its alleged traditional nationalism threatens the liberal order.
Putin believes that after the Soviet Union collapsed, the West betrayed the new nation which had overthrown Communist rule by empowering the vultures who circled as Boris Yeltsin wandered around the Kremlin drunk, snapping up privatized assets for pennies on the dollar.
Mark Weisbrot, the then director of the respected US Center for Economic and Policy Research, wrote in 1999:
Washington’s money mandarins, on the other hand, descended upon Russia with enormous wealth and power already in their possession. They have used both to colonize Russia, turning a once developed economy into a Third World country.
The results have been devastating. Over the last eight years, the economy has shrunk by more than half. Russian men can now expect to die in their fifties. The chief economist of the World Bank, Joseph Stiglitz, has noted that the number of Russians living in poverty climbed from two million to sixty million in just a few years.
This was not controversial to say in 1999. Today Weisbrot would be ‘cancelled’ and hounded out of his polite, liberal society. But back then, it was just simple honesty to say that post-Soviet Russia was beginning to resemble Weimar Germany and the Russians were not entirely to blame.
The persecution of the new non-Communist Russia occurred in the military sphere too. After the USSR agreed to East Germany re-uniting with West Germany and joining NATO, despite the collapse of the target of NATO - East European communism - it was understood NATO would go no further. That was not to happen.
The first sign of trouble for a weakened Russia came with the NATO bombing of Serbia, as mentioned above. Before the US sent troops to invade Middle Eastern countries, the neo-conservatives who now dominated their post-Cold War foreign policy had already run the same playbook in Serbia, in which wildly exaggerated crimes of the Serbian government were used as excuses to fund radical Muslims in Kosovo, who then broke away and formed their own country. (Putin frequently cites this as precedent for the breakaways from Ukraine.)
Biden himself was a great supporter of Bill Clinton’s decision to bomb Serbia, including its civilians, and, here again, the US had no compunction in supporting Al Qaeda in the region, who were fellow enemies of the Serbs and Croats.
Biden had even called for Clinton to send in ground troops during the non-UN approved action. Serbia would be bombed for 78 days. Many civilians were killed and the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was blown up by mistake. (An 11-year-old Novak Djokovic would spend those 78 days sheltering himself from American bombs there too.)
In 2000, the Serbian regime fell and its former leader, who had negotiated and guided Serbia out of one-party socialist rule would die in prison.
This would become known as the first of many western-backed colour revolutions, all targeting nationalist, or non-western-aligned governments in the sphere of Russian influence.
After Serbia, there was the Rose Revolution in Georgia (2003), the Orange Revolution in Ukraine (2004), the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan (2005), and the attempted Denim Revolution in Belarus (2006). Another attempt on Belarus was made in 2020, and we all know about the second US-backed revolution which occurred in Ukraine in 2014. All of these revolutions had the same pattern - US funding and support of liberal regimes opposed to Russia.
All of these countries are closely connected to Russia, sharing religious and ethnic ties. Russia had entered World War I to protect Serbia, their little cousin in the Orthodox faith. What was Russia to make of this, after the Cold war had ended and the Communist threat had faded? Putin had been the first to call Bush after 9/11. He had asked to join NATO. After he co-operated with Condoleezza Rice, Bush security advisor in 2001, she noted in her diary that the Cold war was indeed really over.
Yet NATO kept moving further east. To get a sense of how shocking this was, imagine China shook off its Communist yoke and the US response was to create a military encirclement around it and point missiles at Beijing, only minutes of flight time away. No, China remained Communist after crushing their uprising in 1989 and the west invited them in to every developed economy to sell their goods.
Meanwhile, a Russia re-permitting economic freedom and active Christianity, albeit in chaos and crisis, got the iron ring treatment. One has to wonder, on some level is the west more comfortable and approving of atheist regimes?
In 1999, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic joined NATO. This despite a broken Russia offering no threat to them at all.
In 2004, after they supported US in Iraq, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia joined too.
In 2008, NATO declared that Georgia and Ukraine would one day join too. Georgia, governed by the Ivy League-educated Mikheil Saakashvili, decided to increase the pressure by seizing disputed territory between itself and Russia. Russia would kick it out, and later Saakashvili, who had been the beneficiary of a colour revolution himself, would somehow convert his nationality to Ukrainian after their revolution in 2014, and become the Odessa Governor, where Russia had kept a naval base for centuries.
As per US intervention in the Middle East, it is hard to see any advantage for the US in all of this. When Bill Clinton kicked off the expansion, the most respected diplomats and foreign policy experts all criticized him and warned of provoking Russia.
Whatever you think of Putin, it is simply the truth that ANY Russian leader would respond to this treatment aggressively, just as ANY American leader would not tolerate Mexico and Canada joining Russian or Chinese military alliances. If that were to happen, the US would more than likely respond far more aggressively than Putin has.
So what gives?
Who has been pushing this NATO expansion?
One answer comes from a New York Times 1997 article, entitled ‘Arms Makers See Bonanza In Selling NATO Expansion’:
At night, Bruce L. Jackson is president of the U.S. Committee to Expand NATO, giving intimate dinners for Senators and foreign officials. By day, he is director of strategic planning for Lockheed Martin Corporation, the world's biggest weapons maker.
Mr. Jackson says he keeps his two identities separate, but his company and his lobbying group are fighting the same battle. Defense contractors are acting like globe-hopping diplomats to encourage the expansion of NATO, which will create a huge market for their wares.
Billions of dollars are at stake in the next global arms bazaar: weapons sales to Central European nations invited to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Admission to the Western fraternity will bring political prestige, but at a price: playing by NATO rules, which require Western weapons and equipment.
After the Cold War ended, the weapons makers needed a new cash cow.
Instead of Soviet Russia, they just decided to start a weapons race against the new Russian Federation.
This Bruce Jackson creature would come to the fore again in 2002, this time starting a different committee, the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.
Former US President and former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in World War II, Dwight Eisenhower, had warned of the rising influence of the military-industrial complex, in 1960 as he handed office over to John Kennedy, in a speech in which he warned even of the spiritual influence a permanent, massive armaments industry, embedded in government, would have on a formerly limited government federal republic:
(It is important to note that this military-industrial complex would quickly subsume the worlds of technology, media, and public health, as evidenced by the various links between Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft to public health agencies and military agencies.)
But a figure like Biden does not have the seriousness of a Kennedy or an Eisenhower, for all their faults. Such men fought in wars and thought seriously about world affairs and questions of peace and war.
Biden has done nothing but lie about his student life, lie about his wife’s death, lie about his family life, and spent fifty years in Washington DC, shilling for credit card companies and pleading for more US bombing of faraway countries.
And if you thought Biden had learned anything or regretted anything from his central role in American mistakes and crimes, you would be absolutely wrong.
Never was this made more visible than in his eulogizing of Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, who died last week.
Biden described her as “a force for goodness, grace, and decency -- and for freedom.”
Strange then that when Albright was questioned whether the deaths of over half a million Iraqi children to malnutrition, lack of medicine and violence owing to her policies and sanctions regarding that country, she simply replied that those deaths were worth it:
Back in 1996, when she was serving as Bill Clinton’s ambassador to the United Nations, she was asked by the 60 Minutes news show whether she could justify devastating sanctions imposed by the US on Iraq following the 1991 Gulf war.
The policy had starved Iraq of medicines and food. As the interviewer pointed out, by the time of their conversation at least 500,000 Iraqi children had been killed. Notably, Albright did not try to dispute that figure.
When asked “Is the price worth it?”, she responded: "We think the price is worth it." Albright’s decision to press on with sanctions during her years as secretary of state resulted in Denis Halliday, a senior UN official, resigning from his post. Later, in summer 1999, he concluded that as many as 1.5 million Iraqis had died from the sanctions, either from malnutrition or inadequate healthcare. He characterised the policy as genocidal.
This is Biden’s definition of goodness and grace.
Albright has been touted for her championing of the bombing of Serbia, thereby reinvigorating NATO, from its former role as an office for collating western military potential against Communist threats in Eastern Europe, into a force for global liberal humanitarian military intervention.
Incidentally, that gave rise to another of the tragic ironies of the era of US dominance:
Albright, Clinton, Bush, Biden. The actors change but the script remains the same.
Deceitful, weak leaders, prone to sickly moralizing, find their niche in an American system which does not privilege seriousness, honesty, and realism.
We saw the same at the end of the Roman Republic, as senator after senator, and their families, were bribed by foreign leaders and brought down by their tastes for decadent and perverted luxury, until a Caesar emerged…
Finally, it is worth remembering that Biden apparently received more votes for President in 2020 than any other politician in history. That somehow he received more votes in black counties in swing states than Obama did - despite receiving less votes than Obama anywhere else. That there was nothing strange about seeing Trump win every bellwether county, the most predictive of states in US elections (Florida, Ohio, and Iowa), seeing him far in the lead in all the other swing states, only for voting to mysteriously stop in only those swing states for a few hours, observers booted out of polling stations, and to see Biden emerge in the lead in all of them.
Yet now, Biden is less popular than any other president at a similar stage of their presidency, since they started tracking such data in 1945!
For all his faults, and putting aside whatever you may think of him, was Putin wrong when he described the US as an empire of lies? It is a simple question.
And how long can such an empire survive, an empire which does not know what a woman is, which is run by weapons makers and not real leaders, and which feels no inhibition in casually threatening fellow nuclear powers with regime change?
No, America cannot last. The only question is how much destruction they will unleash as their empire crumbles.
I read you carefully. Thank you for writing this. A lot of work goes into your writing and that is something I appreciate.
I'm sending you a warm greeting from Ibiza.
hardest thing is getting anyone to read anything bar whats the msm view
so many are still carrying the ussr russian 50s etc view
they dont even realise its NOT ussr anymore(facepalm)
but yeah even if biden carks it we then have cackles and the puppetmasters to contend with
and wars are such a nice moneymaker...always a handy war to cover their screwups in the nation isnt it?