Cold War
 Cold War, 1980 | |
| Date | 1947 - 26 September 1991 |
|---|---|
| Description | The official narrative had 2 diametrically opposed systems locked in combat with one another since soon after WW2. Each of the "superpowers" and its team of allies needed to outdo each other by creating ever more and deadlier weapons, creating a kind of perpetual war for perpetual peace, with the warring parties engaging mainly in covert/proxy wars. Deep state interests blossomed in the climate of fear and paranoia. |
The Cold War was a polarising perspective that divided the world into two spheres of influence, each dominated by a "superpower" (the USA and the USSR). This was used in the 1950s and beyond to justify increased military expenditures in many countries, including those not at war.
Official Narrative
The official narrative was of diametrically opposed systems locked in combat with one another since soon after WW2. In the blue corner, the US led NATO, in the red corner, the USSR led Warsaw Pact. Both of these so-called "superpowers" (and their allies) were locked in an arms race, needing to outdo each other by creating ever more and deadlier weapons of war and/or effective defenses against the other superpower's new weapons. National Security therefore meant that the welfare of citizens could not be the top priority.
The rapid fall of communist governments in the nations of Eastern Europe around 1989 and subsequent end of the USSR brought the cold war to a sharp and - for Western policy analysts at least, unexpectedly rapid end.
Problems
The cold war was undoubtedly real in the minds of many people, and the basic ideology behind it was more or less unquestioned by the commercially-controlled media. However, an examination of some of the less explored corners of history - for example, Operation Gladio and the activities of certain members of Le Cercle - would reveal that the notion of two ideologically opposed superpowers locked in opposition was a convenient yarn to spin for both the US and the USSR governments. Anthony Sutton has exposed that these 'enemies' did engage in more mutual assistance than was publicly admitted.[1]
Origins
Social scientist G. William Domhoff named Robert A. Lovett as an "architect of the Cold War" in his 1970 book, The Higher Circles: The Governing Class in America.[2]
"Peace Dividend"
For a brief period after the end of the cold war, there was talk of a "peace dividend", i.e. a sharp decrease in military spending and a consequent increase in spending, worldwide, of benefit to humanity. This might logically have been presumed, if the military expenditures during the cold war were really a response to a communist threat. However, the exact opposite actually occurred - military spending increased, most notably after the "war on terror" was launched with the 9/11 attacks.
Polarising Nature
Echoing as it does the illusion that is 21st century party politics, the simplistic narrative of the Cold War polarised thought into an us/them, left/right perspective, narrowing thought and discourse about possible political systems. Many nation states, particularly in Africa chose not to align themselves with either "superpower". In the USA, the Soviet military threat was vastly exaggerated, so the need to maintain "parity" with the enemy was a fiction, albeit widely believed.
Mutually Assured Destruction
In his farewell speech as US President, the first commander of NATO, Dwight Eisenhower notably warned that "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex." This was not successfully guarded against, and the M.A.D. policy (Mutually Assured Destruction) presented no obstacle to the spiralling of military budgets (and hence profits) of the military contractors. The perpetual threat of nuclear destruction (which remains to this day) is a form of strategy of tension which can be exploited to render people more submissive.
National Security
- Full article: National Security
- Full article: National Security
The ensuing climate of fear and paranoia provided a toxic environment in which the clandestine intelligence agencies thrived and the deep state using proxy wars to rapidly extend their power. Doctrines of "national security" were developed and refined to cloak wrongdoing and obscure the deep political significance of events.
Conclusion
On 26 December 1991, Russia formally recognised the end of the Soviet Union, which is treated as the close of the Cold War.[3]
Peace dividend
- Full article: Peace dividend
- Full article: Peace dividend
The "Peace dividend" was a promoted improvement in living due to a conclusion of the cold war, which turned out to be vaporware. In practice, military expenditures went up, not down, exposing the truth of the importance of permanent war to the deep state and the MICC.
Cold War II
- Full article: Cold War II
- Full article: Cold War II
Cold War II is a 21st century phenomenon promoted by deep state milieu such as the Integrity Initiative. In Europe and the Americas this is manifested by Russophobic reporting of world events, and possible by the used of false flag attacks to try to assist in this process (e.g. the Skripal Affair.
"Russian Propaganda"
- Full article: Russian Propaganda
- Full article: Russian Propaganda
The agents of the Deep state are paid millions of pounds to warn people about "Russian Propaganda" - a charge that has been levelled against this website (by PropOrNot) notwithstanding the fact that it has no known connection with Russia. This appears to be a projection of misinformation (and political subversion) by the Integrity Initiative.
References
- ↑ http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/676
- ↑ Domhoff, G.W. The Higher Circles: The Governing Class in America; Random House; New York; 1970, page 252.
- ↑ https://www.historyonthenet.com/the-cold-war-timeline-2