Obama veut-il la guerre nucléaire ?

Obama veut-il la guerre nucléaire ?

Cela fait maintenant près d’un an que le spectre de la guerre nucléaire est évoqué, – depuis que la crise ukrainienne est entrée dans sa phase active et dans une situation où il est devenu possible que les USA et la Russie se retrouvent face à face. Ce qui est remarquable, c’est non seulement la redondance du propos, mais également la façon dont cette évocation est devenue ne partie assez naturelle du débat sur la crise ukrainienne et la crise avec la Russie ; c’est-à-dire que la guerre nucléaire, événement si extrême qu’il en fut toujours considéré comme irrationnel, est devenu un élément rationnel de la réflexion, du commentaire et de la polémique. C’est bien un signe, non pas de l'extrême ou hyper-rationalité de notre époque mais d’une fausse rationalité née de la raison-subvertie et correspondant par conséquent à une profonde subversion de la pensée que nous impose cette même époque.

Ici, on lira une supputation de Eric Zuesse, du Washington’s blog. Cet excellent site a acquis la collaboration de Zuesse, historien qui a sa place aux USA, depuis à peu près un an. Que Zuesse évoque l’hypothèse d’un Obama décidant éventuellement de lancer une guerre nucléaire est aussi le fruit intellectuel de cette époque qui pousse, par la terrifiante situation qu’elle a installée, à des réflexions catastrophiques et à tendance eschatologique. Zuesse évoque d’abord le comportement d’Obama vis-à-vis de l’Ukraine, puis vis-à-vis de la Corée du Nord. Puis c’est la présentation de l’hypothèse d’un Obama désespéré, prêt à la guerre nucléaire pour sauver l’élite-Système des USA, l’hégémonie en lambeaux de la “nation exceptionnelle” et ainsi de suite. (Dans The Washington’s blog, le 6 janvier 2015.)

«The background of President Obama’s efforts to provoke a nuclear war has been presented in a succinct 14-minute video by the superb documentarian Aaron Hawkins, and also in an article that I wrote (which is to the same effect as that documentary, but cites different documentation). Basically, it has to do with something that is of intense concern to the U.S. aristocracy: continuation of their domination over all other nations’ aristocracies. It’s like the buildup to World War I was, which war likewise was aristocratically sponsored in order to achieve global aristocratic dominance.

»Unfortunately, this time, that war would have to be nuclear. Obama is doing everything he can to win it, but he is hoping to be able to achieve this win by something called “Prompt Global Strike,” which would eliminate Russia’s ability even to respond to a nuclear attack. Scientists are virtually unanimous that, with the current generation of vastly more-powerful nuclear bombs, even if only a few nuclear weapons are involved in an exchange, this planet will experience nuclear winter and massive starvation, so that if the nuclear exchange goes beyond that, then life as it has existed on this planet will essentially be ended. However, a doctrine of “U.S. Nuclear Primacy” was introduced by the U.S. aristocracy in 2006, which concludes that, “If Washington continues to believe such preeminence is necessary for its security, then the benefits of nuclear primacy might exceed the risks.” The authors ignored nuclear winter, because their article was addressed to America’s aristocrats, not to the public (whose concerns and especially their priorities are very different).

»A historical analogy to President Obama’s thinking might be found in the thinking that guided the Japanese Government during World War II. According to the 1999 book by Richard B. Frank, Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire (p. 230): during 17-21 July 1945, Japan’s leaders were considering U.S. terms of their surrender in which no atomic bombs would be dropped, and Japan would even be able to “retain the Emperor” (something that their aristocracy were extremely determined to do), but their response still was: “We are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever.” The U.S., which then was an authentic democracy, nonetheless reluctantly went the next step, and President Harry S. Truman ordered it.

»The aristocracy have different concerns, and very different priorities, than does a democratic public. U.S. President Obama, like his predecessor George W. Bush, embodies those aristocratic concerns and priorities, though his public rhetoric frequently expresses the opposite (for political reasons, to fool voters). Perhaps the only way for the U.S. aristocracy to continue its global dominance will entail a nuclear war. It would be the final tragedy, the ultimate crime by the aristocracies, against the publics everywhere. Anyone who would say that it’s insane doesn’t get the point, which is that, for aristocrats, status is more important than everything else: dominance is everything, to them.

»Here are some statements from Obama that seem to reflect his actual feelings as those have been reflected in his policies as President (so they’re worth quoting):

»At West Point, on 28 May 2014: “Russia’s aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China’s economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us. … So the United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed [properly spelled ‘past,’ but this is his text] and it will be true for the century to come.” He wasn’t only saying that the graduating cadets would be facing an enemy that consists of America’s economic competitors and so these soldiers would fight and kill and die for America’s aristocracy and should accept and honor such a commitment, but that Russia’s resistance to subordination to America’s aristocracy and to America’s actual aggression is itself “aggression” that they must wage war against.

»On p. 234 of Ron Suskind’s 2011 book Confidence Men, Obama tells assembled megabank CEOs in a private meeting with them (as was leaked): “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks. [The public are here analogized to the KKK; and the banksters, whose looted-by-themselves-from-the-inside banks are being bailed out by the U.S. taxpaying public, are instead being portrayed as the Blacks whom the KKK are trying to lynch] … I want to help. … I’m not out there to go after you. I’m protecting you [against the public].”

»Obama does not represent the American public. He has fooled the American public, just as his predecessor did. If the only way to preserve the international dominance of America’s aristocracy will be a nuclear attack, he will probably do it. He represents fascist, pro-aristocratic and anti-public, values. He sees the public as the enemy. Think of Tojo, Hirohito, Hitler, and other fascists and nazis; and then consider Obama and Bush in that light, and ask yourself: What other intelligent and well-informed way is there to understand Obama, except in this type of historical context? Retaining the illusions (which are spread by agents of the aristocracy) could turn out to be extremely dangerous. The direction in which things are actually heading is horrific.»

Mis en ligne le 6 janvier 2015 à 08H55