The British Empire is “Not Militarily Significant” · Response to The Economist

by Dave Christie, registered candidate for US Congress in Washington State, and member of LaRouche National Candidates Slate

The nearly 170 years of opium smoking at “The Economist”, may have finally taken its toll. Either that, or there may be a faction within the British Empire that has gotten cold feet at the idea of trying to bluff the Russians with a thermonuclear holocaust. “The Economist’s” article, “Rethink the Reset: NATO Should Not Give In To Russian Aggression”, argues that “Russian sabre-rattling is not militarily significant”, and that “Russia is no military match for a united NATO”. If this were true, why would NATO give Russia’s R-36M 25 MT missile the nickname of “Satan”? The British Empire’s flagship publication’s writers may be evil, but they are not that dumb to deny the intensity of Russia’s thermonuclear arsenal.

We must never forget that it is the British Empire which is not militarily significant. In fact, it would not even exist, were it not for its tired old strategy of “divide et impera”. Like its Venetian forbear, the British Empire has no standing armies, but simply rules by pitting nations against each other in wars based on ethnic, religious or other ideological differences. Today, without the “American Brawn” to go along with the supposed “British Brains”, the British Empire would be extinct. Without the British control over Obama, and thus the thermonuclear arsenal of the United States, the “Blair Doctrine” would not be militarily significant. The “Blair Doctrine”, is the further elaboration of the policy he announced in Chicago in 1999, where he called for abolishing nation states through the end of the Treaty of Westphalia. This destruction of the sovereignty of nations is the foundation of the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine; where wars and regime change can be launched with no discussion in the international community under the guise of “humanitarian interventions”, like we see with Samantha Power’s “Atrocity Prevention Board”.

These “humanitarian interventions” were referred to directly by Medvedev at an International Legal Forum in St. Petersburg, where he enunciated the stance of the Russians that the defense of national sovereignty is the line in the sand, a stance shared by other major nations of Asia, and around the world.

Medvedev:

“Such actions, which undermine state sovereignty, can easily lead to full-scale regional wars even—I am not trying to scare anyone here—with the use of nuclear weapons.”

The British had intended to threaten Russia and China with thermonuclear annihilation in an attempt to get them to commit to the global monetarist policy of hyperinflation and zero growth economics, but now the Russians have called their bluff. This is what is behind “The Economist’s” ludicrous statement, which is also being repeated by Obama. Obama’s Alfred E. Newman “What Me Worry” lies have many patriots within our institutions more nervous than they already were. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Martin Dempsey, has taken the Russian warnings very seriously, and invited his Russian counterpart, General Nikolay Makarov, to the United States for discussions, knowing full well that Makarov was the first to have enunciated the danger of nuclear warfare, and had also called for a preemptive strike on NATO’s ABM Defense Shield in Eastern Europe. This shows the very clear rift in the executive branch; with Dempsey on the side of sanity, and Obama under the control of the Blair Doctrine. That should come as no surprise though, since we now know that Blair will stay in the United States to control Obama until Blair can secure Obama’s November election. At that point, Blair has plans to return to the London, where he will lead the Labor party in an attempt to become the Prime Minister. Then they will have their ultimate fantasy, combining their forces to rule the world with this so called “special relationship”.

The National LaRouche Slate has another plan: impeach Obama now. Then we will have another “reset"; ending the “special relationship” for good, and restoring a community of principle amongst sovereign nations, even with our brothers and sisters from the sovereign nations of the United Kingdom.

* Please follow the Commenting Guidlines.