🔥Lindsey Graham Betrays Trump as Putin Readies MASSIVE ATTACK!

The Abolition of Humanity - J.R. Nyquist

Posted on March 15, 2022 The Abolition of Humanity

 Four reformers met under a bramble bush. They were all agreed that the world must be changed. ‘We must abolish property,’ said one.

‘We must abolish Marriage,’ said the second.

‘We must abolish God,’ said the third.

‘I wish we could abolish work,’ said the fourth.

‘Do not let us get beyond practical politics,’ said the first. ‘The first thing is to reduce men to a common level.’ 

‘The first thing,’ said the second, ‘ is to give freedom to the sexes.’

‘The first thing,’ said the third, ‘is to find out how to do it.’

‘The first step,’ said the first, ‘is to abolish the Bible.’

‘The first thing,’ said the second, is to abolish the laws.’ 

‘The first thing,’ said the third, ‘is to abolish mankind.’ Robert Louis Stevenson, “The Four Reformers” ⚔️

 What a devil wants, in the greater scheme of things, is to destroy. There is, in the cosmos, a creative principle. There is, opposing it, a destructive principle. Thus we find, two opposing tendencies behind everything. And you cannot have one without the other. Look at the policies of any leader and ask if these policies tend towards creation or destruction. Will his policies bring prosperity or bankruptcy? Will they bring peace or war?

Now let us consider, again, the socialists and their New Religion. The first socialist country (the motherland of socialism] was the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, otherwise known as the Soviet Union. Was this country a destructive or creative formation? Under its founder, Vladimir Lenin, millions were killed in the Russian Civil War and the Red Terror. We don’t even have an exact death count. What was then built? Everyone was poor. There was no money. So Lenin embraced “state capitalism” under the New Economic Policy (NEP). In other words, he destroyed the country for the sake of his power, then he rebuilt it with capitalism.

Of course, Lenin died in 1924 and Stalin took over. And once Stalin had built something, he began selectively destroying again; first, destroying elements of the Communist Party itself; second, by destroying the more prosperous farmers (the “kulaks”); third, by instituting a terror famine in Ukraine; fourth, by preparing a massive military buildup in advance of World War II. Stalin killed between 30 and 60 million human beings. Again, we do not know the exact number. 

Then, to unleash Hitler on the world, Stalin signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. That begin what Stalin called the Second Imperialist War. Moscow and Berlin partitioned Poland. The West declared war on Hitler and the communists under Stalin gloated. They said to themselves. “The fools have given us Europe. All we have to do is wait for the combatants to exhaust each other while we build an arsenal of 30,000 tanks.” 

Hitler was too successful in this early phase, defeating France in 1940. Hitler then realized what Stalin was up to and turned on his “partner,” attacking the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941. Tens of millions died. But Stalin was saved by the West. And he invaded what is now China and helped the communists come to power there. And once this was accomplished, he contemplated a war with the West. But then he died, or perhaps was murdered by his associates.

These associates developed a long range strategy that involved re-enacting Lenin’s New Economic Policy. They wanted access to technology and money. They wanted to build in order to have a better means of destroying. They wanted also to subvert the West by becoming the West’s partner. And China would play a special role in this.

Now let us consider where we are today. Like Lenin, Gorbachev began a New Economic Policy back in the 1980s. The USSR gave up its empire for the sake of rebuilding itself, for the alleged sake of creation. Thirty years later, President Vladimir Putin has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. In other words, creation was placed in the service of destruction.

Despite what people are saying, Putin has a potent military. And we have only seen a small part of it. Naturally, it is not perfect. As Viktor Suvorov has argued, Moscow’s army is paradoxically strong and weak, effective and ineffective. With every apparent defeat it will move forward. It will win hard-fought battles. This is the pattern. This is already the way Russian history works. 

And in this current military scenario, Putin has aligned his country with China and the other communist countries. He has not done this because he is a Christian. Oh no. He is a fake Christian even as he was a fake democrat. Putin is a communist, and his goal has always been to paste the Soviet Union back together – which is why he invaded Ukraine. 

Putin stated in his pre-war speech that the breakup of the Soviet Union was illegal. That means he is not actually the leader of Russia, but the leader of the Soviet Union. His objective, therefore, is to lead the communist bloc to victory over the imperialists and capitalists. Therefore, the war in Ukraine is part of a much larger project. 

Of course, Putin says he is liberating the Ukrainian people from American imperialist control. But everyone can see that the Ukrainian people are already free, and they are willing to fight and die for that freedom – because they do not want to be ruled by Moscow. And so, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has met stiff resistance. The weather in February was warmer than usual. The Russian tanks and vehicles have been largely road-bound and limited in their ability to maneuver. So Russian casualties have been higher than expected. 

So what does Putin do?

He bombards Ukraine’s cities. He destroys and he destroys. Last week the mayor of Kharkiv said one third of the city – Ukraine’s largest city – was rubble. Mariupol has been besieged and its 400,000 residents are said to be without running water or heat. Kiev faces the greatest offensive of all. Elements of four Russian armies are gathering to the north and east of the city. Their objective is to surround it, to bombard it, and to wipe out Ukraine’s center of government. The suffering in Ukraine is unimaginable. Yet the people bravely fight on against difficult odds.

President Zelensky, addressing the British Parliament, received a standing ovation when he said, “Ukraine has not wanted to become great, but we have become great in the course of this war. We are the country that is saving people despite having to fight one of the biggest armies in the world. We have to fight the helicopters, the rockets. The question for us now is, ‘To be or not to be.’ Oh no, for the last ten days this question could have been asked. But now I can give you a definitive answer. It is definitely ‘yes, to be.’ And I would like to remind you, and the world, what you have already heard, again: We will not give up. And we will not lose. We will fight to the end, at sea and in the air. We will continue fighting for our land whatever the cost. We will fight in the forests, in the fields, on the shores, in the streets…. We will fight on the banks of different rivers … and we are looking for your help, for the help of the civilized countries. We are thankful for this help, and I am very grateful to you, Boris [Johnson, Prime Minister of the U.K.]. Please increase the pressure of sanctions against this country. And please recognize this country [Russia] as a terrorist state. And please make sure that our Ukrainian skies are safe. Be sure that you do what needs to be done, and what is stipulated by the greatness of your country. Best of all to Ukraine and the United Kingdom.” 

How can the West resist this plea? Can the civilized world stand by and merely watch? The alternative, of course, is to risk nuclear war. The Russian government has sternly warned the world to stay out. They have put their nuclear forces on alert. They are ready to launch their missiles. And here is a moral dilemma. Does the West remain comfortable and safe as it watches an entire nation destroyed? 

I am afraid there is no happy answer here. If we do nothing, I must tell you my honest opinion. We will be bombed and attacked when our turn comes. This is something I came to understand long ago. Putin and his communist allies are destroyers, and they seek America’s destruction even more earnestly than they seek Ukraine’s. 

Putin has shown that he is a destroyer, not a creator. The destruction we are now witnessing appears quite insane to us. Yet Putin is not a madman. Destruction is a choice open to all. It is the choice, I believe, of all the totalitarian countries. And we have refused to recognize this. War with these countries has always been in the cards. And if by some miracle we avoid a great war now, it will yet come. 

And for that matter, we have communists right here in America, facilitating the work of destruction, aiding and abetting our enemies in Beijing and Moscow.Watch the death and destruction unleashed on Kiev. There are even more destructive Russian weapons aimed at New York and Washington. If the leaders in Moscow are willing to level the cities of their brother Slavs, do you think they will fail to level our cities?

We have no idea how much danger we are in right now. And we have no idea how much our own survival may depend on the survival of Ukraine. 

Quarterly Subscription (to support the site) JRNyquist.blog $15.00

Would Putin use nuclear weapons by Robert 'Bob' Maginnis

· I'm not a prophet but my sources say: "Yes, Putin would use tactical nuclear weapons against NATO." My 2018 book, Alliance of Evil: Russia, China, the United States and a New Cold War, outlines 16 indicators of our new cold war. 

Indicator #9 addresses Putin's threat to use nuclear weapons especially against the Baltics. Below are excerpts from Indictor #9: In 2015, at the Lennart Meri conference, then Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves asked a panel of experts addressing the topic “Thinking the Unthinkable” an important question: Should the barrage of recent Russian nuclear threats be taken seriously or dismissed as mere posturing? A US diplomat named Alexander Vershbow, who was then NATO’s deputy secretary general, responded: “Yes: a short answer is yes.” 

 Russia maintains a giant strategic (nuclear) force. Under the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), it is limited to no more than 1,500 deployed warheads on 700 triad platforms. Those platforms include a fleet of bombers (mostly Tu-95 Bear and Tu-160 Blackjack), intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) (SS-18, SS-19, SS-25, and expect newer, road-mobile and silo-based systems by 2020) and 10 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines. Moscow plans to invest $28 billion by 2020 to update its triad. This nuclear triad has until recently been Russia’s post-Cold War security guarantor, only to be used in a last resort. However, that view seems to be changing, which makes nuclear war more likely. After all, Russia’s new military doctrine anticipates a first use of nuclear weapons “in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.” 

Nuclear war also seems to be more likely with President Putin in the Kremlin. Every recent Russian large-scale exercise (such as the 2017 Zapad, “West” along the East European frontier) includes a scenario of a limited nuclear strike against NATO, dubbed Moscow’s “escalation to de-escalate” concept. Instances of simulated nuclear strike exercises are reported to have targeted Warsaw, the Stockholm archipelago, and the Danish island of Bornholm. Moscow’s “escalation to de-escalate” doctrine seems more credible when one considers that Russia has in recent years acquired an edge over NATO in tactical nuclear weaponry, apparently another violation of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, as well as the means to deliver small nuclear payloads aboard highly accurate cruise missiles. 

That combination of tactical nuclear weapons and greater range, accurate delivery systems makes Russian talk about limited nuclear war scenarios worrisome and believable. The Baltic region of Europe is especially concerned about Russia’s growing regional superiority in conventional forces, anti-access/area denial platforms, and the threat of limited nuclear use. The problem for the West in this region is it relies on a strategy of deterrence, but Russia already has sufficient military posture in place to quickly overwhelm, seize entire small countries (like Estonia and Lithuania), and then defend them against a slow NATO response by issuing credible nuclear threats. 

This is a repeat of an old Cold War confrontation strategy—but worse, if the Russians expect they can limit the use of nuclear weapons. The problem, as former US Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work testified in 2015, “Anyone who thinks they can control escalation through the use of nuclear weapons is literally playing with fire. Escalation is escalation, and nuclear use would be the ultimate escalation.” But Russia appears to believe it has the upper hand and is ready to use its nuclear arsenal under the right circumstances. A veteran Russian politician indicates that the Kremlin will use nuclear arms if the US or NATO moves against the Crimean Peninsula or eastern Ukraine and, likely, against any future Russian move on the Baltics or other former Soviet satellites. Vyacheslav Alekseyevich Nikonov, a member of the Duma, Russia’s lower house of parliament, told attendees of the 2017 GLOBSEC Bratislava Global Security Forum in Slovakia that “Russian forces would need to utilize some form of nuclear warfare to deter US or NATO forces from invading Russia should they decide to enter Crimea or eastern Ukraine.” “On the issue of NATO expansion on our borders, at some point I heard from the Russian military—and I think they are right—if U.S. forces, NATO forces, are, were, in the Crimea, in eastern Ukraine, Russia is undefendable militarily in case of conflict without using nuclear weapons in the early stage of the conflict,” Nikonov said.

 This view is supported by the Military Doctrine of Russia, which was last updated in 2014. That doctrine states Moscow reserves “the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.”

It is important to understand that Russia developed nuclear capabilities far beyond what is necessary to protect the state and in some rather unexpected ways. Specifically, the Kremlin created an underwater nuclear drone capable of carrying a 100-megaton nuclear warhead, a discovery announced in a leaked draft of the Pentagon’s Nuclear Posture Review. That draft reported by the Huffington Post indicated that the weapon, an autonomous underwater vehicle officially known as Ocean Multipurpose System Status-6 and nicknamed “Kanyon,” was reportedly tested in 2016 after being launched from a Sarov-class submarine. The Kanyon reportedly has a range of 6,200 miles, with a top speed in excess of 56 knots and can dive to 3,280 feet below sea level. Moscow’s growing nuclear arsenal and its evident willingness to do the “unthinkable,” employ that arsenal in a future war, explains the Trump administration’s desire to substantially increase the US’ nuclear stockpile and match some of Russia’s new nuclear capabilities.

Guerra na Ucrânia – Boletim #11 – A conquista russa do Mar de Azov