The expansion of the war is not about protecting the state integrity of Ukraine for the "good guys" from the West, but on the contrary, about the extensive depopulation and buy-out of this important country in Central Eurasia. The Eurasian heartland is to become part of the Western bloc by hook or by crook and furthermore be removed from Russia's sphere of influence.
In addition, the US-led Western bloc wants to massively weaken the hated enemy Russia or destabilise it as much as possible.

Ukraine war is not just a proxy war against Russia - Ukraine is a victim

It remains to be seen whether the naivety of many Ukrainians will now gradually give way to realisation and disillusionment and whether this will translate into action.
This is not just a proxy war between the Western bloc under the direction of the USA and Russia, in which Ukraine is being used. Ukraine is intended to weaken Russia and is both a battlefield and a victim.
On the other hand, it is also a The West's war against Ukrainein which Russia - after endless provocations from the West for more than 10 years - is now doing the dirty work.

The thesis is that the aim of Western strategists is to seize control of Ukraine in the medium term. What better way to achieve this than with a fratricidal war between Russia and Ukraine that is fuelled from outside and in which both lose? And... some others are reaping the expected benefits. The Western defence industry and investment companies are the main beneficiaries, and the neo-conservative power elite in the USA - which is neither conservative nor liberal, as it likes to pretend - is improving its own position both geopolitically and domestically, at least that is the plan. It couldn't be more sophisticated and perfidious. Anyone who does not see through this game of the transatlantic Western bloc war alliance, at least to some extent, is struck with unheard-of naivety. This behaviour has been common for more than 100 years and is characteristic of unscrupulous US geostrategists, in alliance with Great Britain.

At the same time, indescribable sums of European money - taxpayers' money from several hundred million taxpayers - are benefiting defence companies and other industries as a result of this war. This is because most of the "Ukraine aid" is being channelled directly into Western arms companies, mainly in the USA, and shareholders are profiting - taxpayers are paying for it; soldiers, increasingly often forcibly recruited, are dying; Ukraine is increasingly becoming a field of rubble; Russia is increasingly confronted with major damage on its own territory, and the social systems of states that take in Ukrainian refugees are also paying for this diabolical business. The stooges from the European states and the EU institutions, who rarely serve the welfare of their countries and the European peoples, are playing along with this diabolical haggling.

NATO is no longer a defence alliance, but a geostrategic means to an end. Provocation is the method.

Where do honest peace efforts come from?

A so-called peace summit in Switzerland on 15 and 16 June 2024, which was not attended by Russia as a major party to the war, speaks volumes about how the leadership circles of the West assess the situation and where further developments should be directed: Continuation of war and destruction - a peace prevention summit met there. Military support one Consultation between the two parties is not the way to organise a peace summit. As has even been officially stated, the focus of the summit is not on a ceasefire or the desired end to the war, but on grain exports from Ukraine, the safety of a nuclear power plant and various humanitarian issues. These are undoubtedly important issues, but a peace summit should focus on something else.

Russia is not seen as a negotiating partner on the grounds that Russian ideas and demands are considered unrealistic and not worth discussing. In contrast, the united West is making maximum demands of Russia that brush aside Russian interests and sensitivities, which the Russian side is expected to accept. This undermines any peace efforts.
However, in the countries of Western Europe, anyone who looks at the context or points out developments and previous history is quickly branded a "Putin sympathiser", a "friend of Russia" or a "right-wing extremist". This primitive, unobjective framing and malicious stigmatisation is carried out hand in hand by the mainstream media and politicians from leading parties. The world needs understanding and every serious endeavour to bring about a peaceful solution, and yes: the West and Ukraine would certainly have to swallow some bitter toads. But the West is not prepared to do this from the outset. Concessions on the part of the united West would also mean admitting that the interference from the USA and the EU in Ukraine's internal affairs, which began before 2014 and included the coup against the then Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, has failed.

Strategy of US strategists and EU in Ukraine failed

Every bit of retreat on the part of the USA and its Western helpers in the direction of Russia's positions would reveal that the strategy of integrating Ukraine as a whole, including Crimea with the strategically important Black Sea port of Sevastopol and the Balaklava submarine bunker, politically, economically and socially into the Western bloc and removing it completely from Russian influence has failed. Russia, with President Putin at the helm, has already outmanoeuvred US strategies and its allies several times before, which is increasingly increasing their hatred towards it. With the Russian-initiated referendum in Crimea, which resulted in its incorporation into Russian territory - whether or not this was contrary to international law - both Ukraine and the strategic leadership from the USA have suffered a defeat.

The black and white polarisation in this war that is presented to us on a daily basis is a display of the narrative that has long been implanted in our minds: Russia is the villain and the only evil - Ukraine the innocent victim. The fact that there are other key players in the game is ignored. Equally insignificant is the fact that Ukraine was known as an extraordinarily corrupt country until the outbreak of war as a result of the Russian attack in February 2022, and that in the aftermath of the so-called Euro-Maidan in 2014, ultra-nationalist forces with hatred of Russia and even links to National Socialism were able to gain influence in society, politics and the military. These not unimportant facts have now been wiped away.

Hungarian President Orbán recently had to put up with public criticism because he travelled to Russia immediately after taking over the EU Council presidency to discuss the possibilities of finding peace with the Russian president. Orbán was not authorised or, as EU Council President, not authorised to hold such talks without consultation. Everyone should be keen to see a ceasefire and at least the possibility of peace negotiations, whether they are acting from a high-ranking EU position or as president of their own country.
Unless at least one major miracle occurs in the coming weeks, we will be driven into a major war that will possibly spread beyond Ukraine. But where could such a miracle come from?

We may be a long way from seeing Donald Trump, the US presidential candidate once again, as a saviour, but if there is at least some substance to his announcement and he is able to work towards ending the war and keeping NATO and the US out of international military adventures in the medium term, this year's US elections could bring about something of a miracle. After all, Trump is already working in this direction as a candidate in the beginning election campaign. In any case, his presidency could put an end to warmongering with greater Republican influence in both chambers.
Other actors from other countries could contribute to bringing a negotiated solution closer, against the Western European warmongers. Certainly, these are small rays of hope, but a chance for a miracle, perhaps even a big one.

• https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/hunter-bidens-geschaefte-werfen-neue-fragen-auf-19116368.html

• https://www.fr.de/politik/joe-biden-hunter-bestechung-vorwuerfe-ukraine-burisma-trump-usa-selenskyj-slotschewskyj-zr-92345578.html

• https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/joe-biden-und-die-ukraine-affaere-das-ist-hunter-bidens-gas-connection-a-1288590.html

• https://www.epochtimes.de/politik/ausland/spekulationen-ueber-orban-besuch-in-moskau-kiew-treibt-produktion-von-drohnen-voran-a4770904.html?utm_source=nl-breaking-subs&src_src=nl-breaking-subs&utm_campaign=nl-breaking_2024-07-05&src_cmp=nl-breaking_2024-07-05&utm_medium=email&utm_content=yoD986o2f~177

Der Beitrag Der Ukraine-Krieg ist ein Stellvertreterkrieg gegen Russland, und die Ukraine wird geopfert erschien zuerst auf Advocatus Veritas.

Part 1
"Conspiracy theory": origin of a term and its use
Where does the term "conspiracy theory" come from?
Who are conspiracy theorists and who are their enemies?
What is labelled a conspiracy theory today?
What favours the emergence of conspiracy theories

Part 2
Conspiracy theory, conspiracy theorists, fake news - origins, distinctions and significance
Today, the USA is often seen as the origin and hotspot of conspiracy theories - for obvious reasons
An example from the early days of the USA
Several examples from the recent past
"Conspiracy theories" arising from mistrust of the government, military and intelligence services
The mood in the USA

Part 3
Internationally disseminated or discussed "conspiracy theories"
Why conspiracy theories arise
A conspiracy theory fills a gap
Not only in the USA - mistrust and "conspiracy theories" are now becoming increasingly widespread throughout the Western world
Preliminary conclusion: The different types of conspiracy theories briefly categorised
Fighting words against the expression of opinion and free thinking
What this has to do with Donald Trump
Conclusion and evaluation

Internationally disseminated or discussed "conspiracy theories"

There are numerous topics and specialised areas that are either dismissed as conspiracy topics or conspiracy theories altogether. Or a large number of people are not convinced by the official accounts of some topics; many people question them.
These include some very controversial and significant topics. Some very different examples are listed here:

• New World Order - NWO
• Climate policy - man-made climate change and the impact of carbon dioxide
• "The German Question" - Consequences of the war, Germany's international legal situation since 1945
• Geoengineering, influencing the weather - HAARP and "chemtrails"
• Ukraine 2014 - "Maidan revolution" and war
• Blasting of the "North Stream" Baltic Sea pipelines, 2022
• CORONA pandemic and the mRNA vaccines
• Influence of large supranational organisations or non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such as the WHO, the World Economic Forum (WEF) and other, primarily transatlantic network organisations
• 9/11: The aeroplane attacks in the USA on 11 September 2001, in particular the collapse of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centres and the WTC7 building gave rise to much speculation.
• The assassination of the then US President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, November 1963 (However, in recent years it has gradually become apparent that this topic is increasingly being dealt with in detail in major, recognised media, decades later. This can be recognised as an indication that theories condemned as conspiracy theories can turn out to be a serious subject of research).

There is much more that could be mentioned in this series.
On all these topics there are several articles from established media, research by "alternative media", judgements by courts, statements by governments or politicians, documents, scientific research and studies, books, film contributions and so on. But nevertheless, all of these matters together are something like "mined terrain" - each in its own way. If you look into them in detail, you run the risk of being seen as a crank or extremist, losing your scientific reputation or even getting into serious legal trouble.

Why conspiracy theories arise

Why this mistrust, the questions and speculation, how did and do assumptions and theories come about that paint a different picture to the one officially proclaimed? Why do many people see matters and questions as important that are deliberately bypassed in the major media or, above all, by political actors?
Of course, there is no short and simple answer to these questions. Several factors must come together or a chain of events must be seen to explain how theories emerge that give rise to a conspiracy by certain circles against the masses of the population, against the country, the world public, against peace, against the truth itself, and finally solidify in a usually lengthy process.

There are several possible explanations:

• Lack of reliable and credible information, official statements are incomplete, flimsy and even seem contradictory.
• Official accounts contain obvious errors, disregard important sources and obscure connections because something is actually being concealed. (For example, the content of official protocols or similar documents is deliberately withheld from the public).
• Mistrust of sources or public representations per se, because they have proven to be deliberately misleading and false in the past and therefore have little credibility.
• Last but not least, certain individuals, institutions or companies associated with the event in question are generally regarded by the general public as dubious or not very credible due to numerous scandals or dishonesty in the past. This is a significant fact that gives rise to mistrust and speculation.

"Trust is a delicate plant; if it is destroyed, it will not come back as soon as possible."

• Otto von Bismarck. German Chancellor, Empire from 1871

In addition, several small or large events, processes and statements - apparently - go well together, complement each other:
If something that happened recently is linked to an event that happened a long time ago and makes (supposed) sense and a conclusive connection, and if the search for further connections reveals possible links that form a picture like a jigsaw puzzle, at least a basis for further assumptions and theories is created.
If people or groups repeatedly appear in comparable events, and if developments can possibly be categorised in a larger whole, the idea suggests itself that there is less chance involved and that there really are connections.

The systematic search for correlations and connections between events is justified, indeed imperative for free-thinking, critical people and scientific research. Whether this search leads to "the one truth" is initially irrelevant. What matters is whether this enquiry or questioning is legitimate. And yes, it definitely is. After all, having assumptions, theories or hypotheses that are then investigated is also a method of serious science, regardless of the discipline. And when it comes to war and peace, freedom, democracy and fundamental rights, health and important scientific explanations, then asking questions, researching and publishing must not be criminalised or denigrated in a free and constitutional society, even if it involves one-sided or ideological ideas.
In a free country, citizens must not be prohibited from critically questioning and making assumptions, whether they are academic journalists, non-academic journalists, media professionals, bloggers or YouTubers. Everyone has the right to ask questions and analyse facts. If politicians or the media do not recognise this right by denigrating and criminalising people, they are first and foremost demonstrating their own undemocratic attitude.

It can therefore be argued that discrediting and denigrating people and certain views serves to ensure that topics and contexts are not investigated and that the public is not prepared to do so.

This begs the question: "Who has a massive interest in this and what goals are being pursued to suppress theories on certain topics and the questioning of narratives?"
However, these questions will not be explored here, as it would go too far and a separate conspiracy theory would have to be created at this point.

A conspiracy theory fills a gap

Where mistrust prevails and, on top of that, representations do not appear conclusive, there is a credibility gap. If this is not just the case for one individual, but if this credibility gap arises among many people for similar reasons, then well-founded assumptions or theories of individuals fall on fertile ground and spread rapidly. Not only that: these assumptions or theories are further developed collectively through further evidence or research.

In the days before the internet, the leading circles were able to limit these unwanted questions and theses through simple measures. In addition, the possibilities for dissemination and, above all, the speed of exchange were limited anyway.
Today, in the digital age, with the internet and social media, it is of course much more difficult for governments, political parties or state institutions and their associated media to tone down uncomfortable opinions, assumptions and theories. Strictly speaking, it is impossible, unless very restrictive and diverse measures are taken. For this reason, the measures against free exchange on the Internet have been gradually tightened for several years, as we can observe in the Western world. The reason given for this is to combat hate comments or hate speech and various forms of cybercrime and to prevent "disinformation". However, this is only one side of the coin; limiting the free exchange of information is obviously another key objective.

Not only in the USA - mistrust and "conspiracy theories" are now becoming increasingly widespread throughout the Western world

So far, we have mainly been talking about the USA, where many people do not believe official accounts of major events.
But what is the situation in other countries; what is the situation in Europe? Well, a development can be recognised in some European countries. Also based on mistrust of the leading media and official statements from politicians, more and more "alternative" accounts and background research are coming to light. In many European countries, major media outlets and established politicians are complaining that large numbers of people are believing "conspiracy narratives". Those who condemn this development should be aware of one thing: Mistrust and an assumed lack of credibility lead to people no longer accepting accounts from certain sources. Those who complain loudly and condemn citizens for their "belief in conspiracies" should prioritise thinking about why an increasing number of people no longer believe the major, often pro-government media. Where does the loss of trust in established politics come from? Why do many people become so suspicious that they look elsewhere for connections, background information and explanations for events and developments, but not to the leading media and influential party politicians? These are the key questions that need to be investigated.

And no, it is certainly not the increasingly criticised and condemned internet or social media that are the cause of the emergence and spread of counter-narratives and theses that contradict the widespread representations. Modern digital media are not the sole cause; they merely amplify and accelerate like a catalyst. However, it is precisely this accelerated exchange that has a political effect.
It should not be forgotten that there is also a large and rapidly increasing number of printed books and journals that deal with certain topics in depth and, in many cases, with extensive research. It is not easy to determine whether the investigations and conclusions are correct or whether they always correspond to the truth, given the complicated questions and fields of investigation. However, this is also not possible with the evening news or articles and contributions in the leading media. And from our own experience, it must be stated here that misrepresentations, the purposeful dissemination of one-sided accounts or the dissemination of misleading narratives are part of the everyday business of the leading German media and, above all, the public service media.
But the fact that entire subject areas and issues are being suppressed and pushed aside with all their might, and their investigation and discussion loudly condemned, makes it clear to many people that these topics and issues, as well as research into them, are obviously indeed controversial and important, otherwise no such effort would be made to suppress them, according to the logical conclusion.

People who do not want to be deprived of free thought, free information and a free exchange of opinions are increasingly coming up against limits in the supposedly free, liberal Western world.

Preliminary conclusion: The different types of conspiracy theories briefly categorised

It is important to distinguish between different main categories of conspiracy theories
I. Conspiracy theories or narratives that are deliberately spread by governments, heads of state and circles close to the government or influential political parties with the help of the major media available to them in a country
The aim of these usually strategically developed and disseminated conspiracy claims is generally to influence and control the mood and opinion-forming in the country or sphere of influence concerned (communities of states, "Western world") in the best possible way. One-sided representation by omitting background information and contexts is mainly used here as an obvious method.

II. "Conspiracy theories" that arise among the population due to mistrust of published accounts. These are fuelled by the fact that statements by governments, leading politicians or the leading media are perceived as untrustworthy.

These conspiracy theories under II. must be divided into two further subcategories:

1. Conspiracy theories that can be argued and factually substantiated
   These are often accompanied by numerous references and a detailed review of official statements, documents and verifiable events and statements. Their written form and source-based elaboration often meet scientific standards. At the very least, they are valid and thus lead many people to look into them. In some cases, they are often produced by academics, other knowledgeable people, whistleblowers and well-informed journalists in a reputable manner through extensive research. This type of alleged conspiracy theory can be described as a theory in the best scientific sense and leads to tangible theses and provides a basis for further research in this area. Science thrives on the establishment and substantiation of theories, the creation of theses and their verification using scientific methods. A theory is a set of hypotheses.
   Seen in this light, the term 'conspiracy theorist' should not be an insult or a pejorative, but rather an expression of respect. As this is now apparently increasingly being noticed by those who use this term as a 'killer word', other terms are increasingly being constructed, as explained at the beginning.
2. Conspiracy theories to which the term "conspiracy myths" or "fantasy" actually applies or even "faith" as a substitute religion - a substitute for religion They are recognisably world views characterised by fantasy, religious and transcendental exaggeration, including embellishments with fantasy and mythical creatures or extraterrestrials. These tales bear the hallmarks of modern myth and religious sentiment and can even include messianic saviours from real life. The justifiability and verifiability of the content by means of comprehensible sources and factual research methods are not possible for these narratives and are not important to the followers. A basis in the "real world" can nevertheless be traced.
   "QAnon" is an example of this. There are other examples. However, this area will not be listed here as it is not the subject of the considerations. It is important to distinguish these two from 1. and 2.

The fact that these two forms of conspiracy theories are often mixed together and mentioned in the same breath in the leading media or by leading politicians and celebrities means that everything that does not correspond to the statements or narratives of the established media and politicians is systematically labelled as unobjective and dubious. Through this deliberately undifferentiated equalisation of completely different representations and forms of explanation and, above all, subject areas, everything that does not fit in with the zeitgeist and mainstream narratives is generally classified as irrational and crazy. However, this also gives more and more critical minds the impression that the mainstream, which systematically proceeds in this way, is first and foremost making itself untrustworthy.

Fighting words against the expression of opinion and free thinking

The serious, theoretical debate about conspiracy theories, "alternative truths", "disinformation" and "fake news" is proving to be complex. Delegitimisation using such terms can be seen as a perfidious, anti-democratic method directed against fundamental rights in order to banish people and their thoughts or research and theories from public discussion and brand them as despicable.
This is what is also known as "Cancel Culture" - i.e. Culture of exclusionMethod of amortisation.
The procedure of using terms and verbal stigmatisation to pigeonhole people and their opinions with derogatory labels is systematic exclusion (EXCLUSION). This exclusion involves two main steps:

1. Terms are used to create negative associations (e.g. "conspiracy theorist"), i.e. negative mental connections are generated in the recipient of the message, and
2. Negative portrayals (the devaluation of topics and people) mean that people no longer want to engage with a topic and the people who deal with it. They fear being contaminated to a certain extent.
   At the very least, this method easily catches on with people who are easy to manipulate. The term "cancel culture", which is now often used, is also appropriate for this method of exclusion. However, as this term and its use have now become a political issue, even after a few changes, it is better to Exclusion of topics and Exclusion Find use.

Whether the use of this method has actually been expanded and systematised in recent years or whether people are becoming increasingly sensitive and attentive in this regard is not the subject of discussion here. This is about the fundamentals.

In reaction to this, more and more people are asking themselves fundamental questions: Why are leading social groups aiming to exclude others from public discourse with such verbal defence?
Do we perhaps lack our own arguments and factual options to counter the content of "conspiracy narratives" and "fake news" and thus effectively refute them?
Are the alleged "conspiracy theories" so explosive and sensitive for the ruling elites because they are so close to reality that they have to be combated in this way?
Why are (opposition) groups hindered in their expression of opinion through conceptual stigmatisation?
Why do political parties, governments, media and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) go to increasing lengths to fend off certain views or criticism of conditions? Are they afraid that their own narratives, built up over the years, will easily fall apart; is it the concern that the statements and arguments of "conspiracy narrators" could dissuade many more people from "thinking correctly"?
If they are just talking nonsense, the mass of citizens should recognise it as such, shouldn't they?
This would make the "conspiracy narrators" insignificant per se.
And if these issues are being fought so resolutely, then there is probably something to them - they are obviously not so nonsensical, otherwise they would not be fought. This is considered further below.
One thing seems clear: this type of stigmatisation and exclusion is intended to deliberately narrow the corridor for publicly discussed topics and theses.
It is precisely the method, the determined and increasingly combative-aggressive way in which action is taken against statements, declarations and their authors, that gives rise to the suspicion that leading elites are very much afraid of losing their sovereignty of interpretation and opinion.

What this has to do with Donald Trump

The former US president and current presidential candidate, Donald Trumpis now seen by many, in the USA as well as in numerous other countries, as a fighter against the ruling elites, who are viewed with suspicion and mistrust. Donald Trump now has the nimbus of a fighter 'Alone against the system', against the established power structure and challenge him.
For taking on the aforementioned forces in their eyes, Trump is assured of hero status among some Americans, come what may. And it is precisely the attempts to make it impossible for Trump to run for president or to ruin his reputation through court cases and campaigns that are strengthening his support among large sections of the population. Indeed, these measures directed against Donald Trump confirm in the eyes of his supporters that a powerful system of established, ruthless power mongers is united against him.
Some go even further and see Trump as a saviour, a central figure in a change for the better.

Trump benefits considerably from the fact that he did not start any wars during his presidency and repeatedly emphasised that he wanted to end wars and prevent new ones. As president, he held talks with the heads of government of various countries instead of focussing on verbal and military armament. This strengthens his credibility, especially among pacifists. It is precisely Trump's desire for peace - whether apparent or real - that seems to earn him sympathy from large sections of the predominantly pacifist population. His campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again" expresses something that for the majority of Americans is a formula for restoring their country - a promising slogan for the future. US citizens want an end to the decades of impoverishment of the middle class, bankruptcies, deindustrialisation, drug misery, political instability, the funding of a global military apparatus with hundreds of military bases and an immeasurable over-expenditure on the military and war.

Donald Trump does not set great store by polished and well-chosen, politically correct language. He rumbles and often comes across as clumsy or fickle in his statements, but apparently few people blame him for this. For many, "Make America Great Again" expresses the hope of recreating and consolidating the USA and restoring order and justice in their own country. This also includes renewing the country's economy and industry instead of using globalisation and wars to help individuals achieve immeasurable wealth and impoverish the masses, as has been the case in recent decades under the ostensible liberals. It also expresses the desire to put the USA at the centre of things politically in a different way - not to present itself worldwide as the guardian of values and democracy while constantly waging questionable wars and destabilising other countries. Many would like to focus on their own country and the well-being of the US population.
Whether Trump will be able to hold his own as president if he is elected and whether he is serious about all his statements is, of course, unknown. In any case, the sympathy and trust that people place in him are understandable, provided that one is willing to take an honest look at the situation and developments in the USA and to analyse how citizens feel and the situation of the United States.
One thing must be emphasised: It is not clear whether Donald Trump has damaged democracy and divided society or whether, on the contrary, his success thrives on the US democracy that was damaged much earlier. Trump is accused of many things. However, the really big mistakes were made in the USA many decades earlier.

Conclusion and opinion

As explained above, the terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" are fighting terms that are used to specifically marginalise people, topics and theories. Various derivations of "conspiracy theory" are also used for this marginalisation, such as "conspiracy narrative", "conspiracy myth", "conspiracy ideology" and "conspiracy fantasy". Related stigmatising neologisms are also used. Furthermore, marginalisation is carried out in an undifferentiated manner.
In the same breath, supposedly "right-wing" critics of party or government action are regularly accused of hostility towards democracy or endeavours against the state. The fact that criticised politicians brand the rejection of their policies and opposition per se as hostile to the state and democracy in turn undermines democratic principles themselves. When one's own party and political goals are equated with the state, this reveals a mixture of megalomania and a tendency towards totalitarianism. This is how oppositional activity is damaged. Opposition is systematically penalised in this way. Fighting opposition groups is a characteristic of totalitarian endeavours.

There is a lot of talk about media literacy. It is essential for media literacy not to let those who are part of the media business and who are obviously defending their power and authority of interpretation lead the way when choosing a medium and sources of information.
Media literacy and maturity - in the sense of Immanuel Kant's definition of "enlightenment" - includes being able to search for information independently and not being dictated to.

Immanuel Kant (German philosopher, 1724 to 1804) explained:

"Enlightenment is man's exit from his self-inflicted immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's intellect without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-inflicted if the cause of it is not a lack of understanding, but a lack of resolution and courage to make use of it without the guidance of another.„

* * *

It is important for citizens who want to gain knowledge in order to form their own opinion to differentiate between fantasies, propaganda and serious theories. This applies regardless of whether it is an offer from the large, established media or so-called alternative media. There is one thing media consumers should never do: let politicians and the major mainstream media tell them what the right source of information and the truth is and which sources they should never trust. In doing so, they voluntarily surrender their maturity - they remain in self-inflicted immaturity. Obedience and maturity are mutually exclusive.

Anyone who uses grand gestures and strong words to devalue the representations and views of others is pursuing a goal. And when party politicians, government circles and leading media - especially state-affiliated media organisations - tell us what is right and what is wrong, we need to listen up.

Opposition that is convenient and manageable for those exercising power is not real opposition. If only the comfortable opposition is tolerated and other points of view are fought against, this is tantamount to Synchronisation. Dealing with opinions and opposition in this way is against democracy and the rule of law. But what then remains of a political and social system when only certain opinions freely expressed or customised scientific research published and only tamed opposition is tolerated? The answer must be: it remains Totalitarianism.

And if a conspiracy theory really is a conspiracy theory in the best sense of the word and presents a comprehensive conspiracy, how do we deal with it? Let's assume that, in extreme cases, such a conspiracy theory appears implausible due to its scope and far-reaching nature, because it goes beyond the imaginable.
Imagine that the circumstances and alleged conspiratorial events described in this way - if they are real - may have a negative impact on your own life, may have considerable detrimental effects on social freedom, self-determination, war and peace, health, security, modest prosperity, the future of coming generations - do you close your eyes to this just because others say so? Would it be sensible to look the other way? Or is it perhaps better to take a second look and then make your own judgement? - Vigilance is always important.

This is certainly not a call to chase after every pipe dream and every new fantasy. No, on the contrary: the aim is to acquire the maturity to take a look for oneself and to form a picture of what is probable, plausible and significant and what, on the other hand, is certainly nonsense. It's about the simple basic principle: if I allow the influential and opinion multipliers, who are lobbyists in their own right, to explain to me what I can and cannot regard as right and true, I voluntarily remain immature.

If a complex thesis is based on a large number of well-researched sources and is therefore comprehensible, you must not allow lobbyists and propagandists to persuade you that it is all nonsense. We should at least consider the possibility that there are connections, events and processes that we did not even suspect before. If we allow ourselves to be persuaded that we should not concern ourselves with such matters, then we are no more acting responsibly than a trained animal.

There are also other aspects. As we have seen in recent years, numerous supposedly nonsensical conspiracy theories have subsequently been confirmed as true or realistic and what we were told emphatically by the mainstream in politics and the media has turned out to be untrue.
Those who doubted these official accounts and paid attention to "stupid conspiracy theories" were on the right side more than once. This has become particularly clear in recent months in Germany (and in some other countries) in connection with COVID-19 and the extensive measures taken to prevent the spread of the virus. It is gradually becoming apparent that the measures were in fact disproportionate and mostly ineffective, that many of them caused more damage than the disease itself and that many of the images that were supposed to scare us were not taken in context or were incorrectly commented on and certainly deserved to be labelled "fake news". It is now apparent that the supposedly helpful vaccinations, which we were forced to receive by means unworthy of a state governed by the rule of law, were virtually ineffective. However, numerous terrible vaccine injuries were caused, which were previously recognised or even predicted by medical experts. These medical professionals and those who initiated and evaluated investigations into the consequences of vaccination were ridiculed, criminalised and censored wherever possible.

The situation is similar with face masks, which were initially labelled as unnecessary and ineffective by the political and scientific mainstream until around April 2020. The background to this was that there were very few face masks in Germany, and the few that were available were to be reserved for medical staff. The fact that there was a shortage was concealed by claiming that they were ineffective anyway, which was true.

Initially, it was said that face masks were ineffective (which was the most honest thing to say), then there were calls for people to make their own face masks, or small domestic companies switched their production to masks. However, there was no business to be made for key people. In the second half of 2020, we in Germany were suddenly bombarded with studies and supposedly new findings that face masks were absolutely essential to prevent infection (of others) and stop the spread of COVID-19. Laws and regulations were passed that forced us to wear masks everywhere in public spaces, even children and sick people... - first simple medical masks, which were sometimes distributed in public places, then FFP-2 masks, which are not suitable for meditative purposes.

And those who opposed this, who had previous explanations for the ineffectiveness in mind or knew of new studies that also emphasised the health risks of the prescribed masks, were ridiculed. People who suspected or proved fraud and deception were ridiculed. But that was not all: it turned out that parliamentarians from some parties and their relatives were making a considerable profit from the import and sale of face masks. "Mask deals" were raking in tens of millions. It doesn't take long to wonder who was on the right side here: the suspicious or the gullible.

People were maltreated with nonsensical, unscientific and inhumane measures. The considerable risks that these new vaccinations entailed for many were hushed up and minimised. Scientists and experts from various disciplines - virologists, epidemiologists, psychologists, paediatricians, mathematicians and others - warned and predicted in great detail that the state bans and coercive measures were pointless and what would happen and what would occur. They were ostracised, ridiculed, censored and in some cases legally and socially cornered, lost their reputation or even their jobs and - and this is crucial here - what these people said was either hushed up, censored away or dismissed as a conspiracy theory.

Now, with hindsight, these admonishers and critics have been proved right; it is gradually becoming clearer that the alleged conspiracy theories were correct on a number of key points. A large number of victims of this propaganda are now suffering from severe vaccine injuries. Many of these vaccine injuries go unreported because doctors do not recognise or do not want to see the links between the COVID vaccination and the illness that often follows months later. In addition, the reporting system for vaccination injuries in Germany is questionable. Those affected also do not want to recognise a possible connection between a serious illness and the COVID vaccination. And so, especially in Germany, possible suspected cases of vaccination damage are often not reported to the responsible authorities (e.g. in Germany Paul Ehrlich Institute: Notification forms / Online notification - Paul-Ehrlich-Institut (pei.de)) are not indicated. A high number of unrecognised vaccine injuries are to be expected. The fact that vaccinating doctors now have to reckon with legal consequences because they did not adequately inform patients about the possible risks of the new, only provisionally authorised vaccines is also leading to a certain reluctance to report suspected cases. The issue of serious vaccine damage is being dealt with by numerous courts in Germany; the lawsuits are usually dismissed. Alleged corona vaccination damage in court (deutschlandfunk.de); Duty of doctors to provide information for Covid-19 vaccinations with an mRNA vaccine (beck.de) and others. For the plaintiffs concerned and their lawyers, it is almost impossible to prove "causality giving rise to liability".

There is a German proverb: "Trust is good - control is better." This can serve as a guideline when it comes to dealing with the media and news. A responsible citizen does not trust blindly, but tries to obtain certainty as far as possible. This is especially true when it comes to health, freedom or the question of peace and war. Restricting information options by denigrating and marginalising opinions and people by using defamatory terms primarily deprives citizens of information options.

Click here for part 1

and here to part 2.

Der Beitrag „Kampfbegriffe gegen die Opposition“ – Teil 3 erschien zuerst auf Advocatus Veritas.

The terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" have been used frequently in the media and public debates in recent years. This is not equally the case in all Western countries. In some countries, these or similar terms are used with the aim of restricting the formation of opinion.
When a representation or an entire subject area is labelled a conspiracy theory, the intention is to express contempt and disdain for both the topic or viewpoint in question and the people who deal with it. It sends the message: "These people and their representations and views are dubious and nonsensical!"

Meanwhile, for those who want to use this term to stigmatise others or present a thesis as implausible, "theory" is too weak in its pejorative effect. So now terms such as "conspiracy narrative", "conspiracy ideology", "conspiracy fantasy", "conspiracy myths" or even "rubbish narrator" or similar are also used.
Leading media, leading politicians of the established parties as well as publicists, academics and non-governmental organisations (NGO: abbreviation of the internationally used English term) use these terms to devalue. Obviously, this method of stigmatisation is used to defend certain narratives or dogmas in order to prevent them from being questioned.
The topics and areas of life affected by this are becoming more numerous; the taboo zones for thinking and expressing opinions are being expanded by means of such methods.
This method is a modern form of censorship: citizens are allowed to say anything, but not with impunity. Increasingly, you have to expect consequences if you deal with or question certain issues in the "wrong way": citizens who step out of line sometimes have to reckon with blocked social media channels, loss of reputation, social, professional or even legal measures as consequences.

A serious examination of the history and origins of "conspiracy theories" and the use of this term requires that we go back into history. Only an examination of earlier events and methods can explain what is happening today. As is so often the case, it is necessary to go into the background in order to understand what is happening today.

Due to the scope of the topic, the article is divided into three parts.

Contents

Part 1
"Conspiracy theory": origin of a term and its use
Where does the term "conspiracy theory" come from?
Who are conspiracy theorists?
What is labelled a conspiracy theory today?
What favours the emergence of conspiracy theories

Part 2
Conspiracy theory, conspiracy theorists, fake news - origins, distinctions and significance
Today, the USA is often seen as the origin and hotspot of conspiracy theories - for obvious reasons
An example from the early days of the USA
Several examples from the recent past
"Conspiracy theories" arising from mistrust of the government, military and intelligence services
The mood in the USA

Part 3
Internationally disseminated or discussed "conspiracy theories"
Why conspiracy theories arise
A conspiracy theory fills a gap
Not only in the USA - mistrust and "conspiracy theories" are now becoming increasingly widespread throughout the Western world
Preliminary conclusion: The different types of conspiracy theories briefly categorised
Fighting words against the expression of opinion and free thinking
What this has to do with Donald Trump
Conclusion and evaluation

Part 1

"Conspiracy theory": origin of a term and its use

Where does the term "conspiracy theory" come from?

The philosopher Karl Popper (born 1902 in Vienna, died 1994 in London) used in his book 'The open society and its enemies' Volume 2, 'False Prophets: Hegel, Marx and the Consequences' (written in New Zealand, published in English 1945, in German 1958) the concept of "Conspiracy theory of society". In doing so, he largely gave the term conspiracy theory the meaning it has today. The term "Conspiracy Theory" (English for "conspiracy theory") has a different meaning and can be found in the 'Oxford English Dictionary' several decades before the publication of Popper's book, mainly in a legal context.

Following the reporting on the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy in 1963, the term "conspiracy theory" gained currency in the USA. At that time, the term was used to dispel mistrust and plausible doubts about the official accounts of the assassination and the perpetrators, which, as is well known, has not been fully successful to this day.
Since this time, explanations and interpretations of major events have been labelled as conspiracy theories, primarily in the USA, which identify a group or institution that may be acting in conspiracy for a specific purpose. These conspirators therefore have an interest in the event, which can be placed in a larger context if necessary, and they have the means to plan and implement conspiratorial behaviour in advance.

In the USA in particular, there had long been a considerable mistrust of politics and business groups as well as exceptionally wealthy families - i.e. the ruling elite.

Who are conspiracy theorists?

As will be explained below, these questions cannot be answered simply and in general terms. Conspiracy theorists can operate in different places or positions. For decades, the term "conspiracy theory" has been applied to critical citizens or publicists who doubt official accounts and who appear with counterstatements to government and media (officially disseminated) statements.

However, the authors and earlier creators of proven conspiracy narratives and similar claims can be identified elsewhere: Governments or Pro-government circles develop conspiracy theories (allegations, insinuations) and put them out into the world. And this has demonstrably been done many times.
In doing so, they make use of the various distribution channels available to them. In the past, these were media houses, large press publishers, press agencies, radio stations and, of course, press conferences, which can be used by influential politicians and lobbyists. Today, other dissemination options are being added.

Press, media companies in general can also be authors or at least spread conspiracy claims. These cases often existed in the past, in the time before the Internet.
Since the spread of the internet, the situation has obviously become more complex, more flexible, and the emergence and spread of conspiracy theories and counter-narratives to the official narrative is happening at breakneck speed. Bloggers, suspicious citizens, imaginative minds, investigative journalists, publicists, scientists, whistleblowers, opposition activists of various kinds, fraudsters and confused personalities... since around the year 2000, all these people and groups have been able to disseminate their research, findings, assumptions and attempts at explanation, insinuations, fantasies or even delusional ideas, discuss them with numerous others and inspire each other.

And if all this seems frightening, it doesn't necessarily have to be a disadvantage. However, on the one hand, the Internet makes the situation more confusing, much more diverse and more complex. On the other hand - and this is crucial: it is much more difficult for the ruling elites and the large media groups to spread their own narratives and stories and effectively consolidate them in the public sphere in order to manipulate the masses (almost without resistance). Counter-narratives and opposing opinions immediately emerge on the internet and various social media, with specific events often underlined by mobile phone videos and eyewitnesses. The concealment and omission of information or one-sided, manipulative representations also come to the attention of some citizens more quickly - leading media are thus put under pressure. We have noticed this more frequently in Germany in recent years. The digital media therefore also fulfil an important task.

As a result, these are Internet in general and various Social media in particular to the Enemy image of leading politicians and Media groups have become. For the established, large media companies, the digital media not only represent economic competition, but also incalculable competition in terms of content presentation and opinion-forming. The "old media" and the leading elites (of the Western world), who are often closely associated with them, are no longer getting through to a large number of citizens with their widespread dogmas and narratives in the way they used to. In many areas, the majority no longer follow them and increasingly distrust the previously dominant media.

What is labelled a conspiracy theory today?

Conspiracy theorists" or "conspiracy narrators" as well as "aluminium hat wearers" and so on are people who hold views that clearly contradict the explanations, representations and dogmas of the Western ruling elites and contradict their explanatory patterns. (The definition of the increasingly controversial term "elite" will not be discussed here). This will initially be considered irrespective of whether this view or representation is factual, logical, comprehensible and source-based or whether it is confused, irrational, contradictory and cannot be factually substantiated.

Views or even detailed, factual treatises that contradict the ruling elites and their spokespeople or reveal completely different backgrounds and contexts are labelled as conspiracy theories, conspiracy narratives or conspiracy myths ("disinformation", "hate speech"...) and so on. It does not matter how detailed, verifiable and well-founded this position is put forward.

For many of these controversial topics, which are dismissed by the Western media or leading politicians as conspiracy narratives, there are books with references and a systematic structure that meet scientific standards or have been written by experts. Detailed treatises in digital media, magazines, books and lectures are also increasingly being labelled with derogatory terms.
These are mostly topics from politics, society, power and domination structures and the economy. This form of marginalisation promotes the often lamented division of society.

In the case of the corona pandemic and the controversy surrounding vaccination, it is clear that, in a similar way, scientific observations and research are declared to be "correct" and "recognised" science on the one hand, while other professionally qualified scientific knowledge and explanations are dismissed as false, "fake news" or "conspiracy theory" and scientists are discredited in this way. It is even censored or criminalised. We are familiar with similar behaviour in the debate about climate change and its causes. An open approach to science and freedom of research looks different. Not to mention freedom of opinion or freedom of information. The systematic denigration of statements and people using such terms is in stark contrast to constitutional fundamental rights - indeed, it contradicts the principles of the rule of law.

Today, "conspiracy theory" is used almost exclusively as a pejorative term and verbal defence against oppositional views and publications. And as I said, even dissenting findings or explanations in specialised scientific fields can be seen as opposition. In the so-called Western world, we are experiencing less and less of an objective debate with opposition; instead, opposition is met with the will to destroy.

In this way, leading elites and their mouthpieces want to delegitimise and denigrate criticism of themselves in order to avoid a serious, substantive debate. It is naturally assumed that what is labelled a conspiracy theory has no truth content whatsoever and is to be regarded as fundamentally false.

The censorship scissors for thoughts and topics must be implanted in people's minds. This is what "fighting words" are for.
From time to time, the term "alternative truth" is used to dismiss and discredit views or reasoned representations.
These attributions, particularly in Germany, have been supplemented for several years by the discussion about "fake news", "hate speech" and "disinformation", whereby these terms are mixed together at will. Anything that contradicts the world view conveyed by state-run public media and leading party politicians is condemned and devalued. In addition, there are new laws from the EU and the state that serve as measures against the expression of opinions. State-organised and financed censorship forces are scouring certain social media. However, if you look at what is declared as "hate speech", for example, you realise that in many cases it is not really about hate messages, but about oppositional criticism or expressions of opinion that are displeasing to leading politicians and the media close to them.

"They don't ban hate speech. They ban the speech they hate."

• Author not known. This quote, which probably originates from a US Twitter comment, is often attributed to Elon Musk. Musk does not distance himself from the content of the statement, but is not the author. The original is said to read: "They don't ban hate speech; they ban speech they hate."

Another fighting term, mainly in Germany, has long been "right-wing" and various associations with it. For decades, everything that can be remotely described as politically right-wing has been deliberately demonised.

In the same breath, the outlawed conspiracy narrative (in Germany) is now often specifically labelled as "right-wing" or "right-wing extremist" at the same time. "Right-wing conspiracy theory" is now the oft-repeated term. Whether people with a right-wing political orientation are actually behind certain opinions or whether a right-wing orientation is assumed is recognisably irrelevant(1).
Two words declared to be negative are merged into one term. And makes it seem superfluous to deal objectively with content and arguments.

As opposition and dissent to the mainstream in politics and the media has increasingly been labelled as "right-wing" or "extreme right-wing" and even indiscriminately as "Nazi" in recent years, the aim is to create a subtle mental link between the "right-wing", which has been demonised for decades, and the "conspiracy believers". This easy-to-see-through method of denigration and marginalisation really does catch on with a large number of unsuspecting citizens.

(1) For example, countless demonstrations against the CORONA measures took place in Germany in 2020 and 2021. These protective measures were seen by many citizens as well as lawyers, doctors and other experts as a disproportionate restriction of fundamental rights. A colourful mixture of people took part in these demonstrations, as I was able to see for myself in several cases. Conversations with participants have clearly shown that this is not about "right" or "left", but about the cause itself - about resistance to new laws and government measures that undermine fundamental rights. Here, people demonstrated side by side regardless of their political orientation. Citizens with different voting behaviour and many who were previously apolitical have come together. The media and leading German politicians generalised that these demonstrators were right-wing and against the state.

What favours the emergence of conspiracy theories

When so-called conspiracy theories arise, the primary cause is deep-seated mistrust. Mistrust of politics, state institutions, the media and various lobby groups is also fuelled by such lies, which have a lasting effect over generations. Constructing conspiracy lies has always been a means of US policy, especially in foreign and war policy. This will be discussed in detail in Part 2 of this paper. Originally, this did not come from the population, but was devised and spread by governments, state agencies or large media organisations.

An increasingly growing proportion of the US population is no longer prepared to accept emotionalised propaganda lies from its government apparatus unquestioningly. What applies to US citizens in this respect is increasingly true for people in almost all countries of the Western world: a great many people trust the US government, presidents, government advisors, US intelligence agencies, think tanks and large corporations with everything, but little that is good. Instead, they are associated with lies, deviousness, war, destruction, arbitrariness, cold-heartedness and calculation, contempt for humanity and moral depravity.
These harsh but now widespread views of the USA and its leadership are the result of previous actions.
It is therefore hardly surprising that many of the various "conspiracy theories" and expressions of mistrust circulating around the world are linked to the USA and its ruling elites.

For some years now, there has been a loss of trust and rejection not only towards the leadership of the USA. In almost all Western countries, mistrust and rejection of their leadership elites is on the rise. This has already been explained here using Germany as an example. This is being countered with further restrictions on critical citizens. Social division is also increasing.

Some examples should in part 2explain in a comprehensible way how mistrust has arisen and why it is apparently on the rise.

Part 3 will also be online shortly.

Der Beitrag „Kampfbegriffe gegen die Opposition“ – Teil 1 erschien zuerst auf Advocatus Veritas.

A lecture in the wording

The following text reproduces a lecture given by the German author Wolfgang Effenberger at the aforementioned event "Peace without NATO" in Cologne in November 2023. The lecture is reproduced here with the consent of the speaker.

In brief about W. Effenberger:

Wolfgang Effenberger was born in Lohne in southern Oldenburg in 1946, a few weeks after his parents were expelled from Silesia. At the age of 18, he began officer training in the German army. After studying civil engineering, he became a pioneer captain. After 12 years of service, Effenberger studied political science and higher education (civil engineering and maths) in Munich and taught at the University of Applied Sciences for Civil Engineering until 2000.

Since then, he has published books and articles on recent US history and geopolitics. You will find a link to a detailed personal description and bibliography at the bottom of the page.

*

Note: The Highlighting have been inserted here, and the additions in square brackets [...] are explanations for easier understanding.

____

The speech

Article 42 of the Lisbon Treaty (ex-Article 17 of the EU Constitution) makes military missions "for the defence of the Union's values and in the service of its interests" a reality. For me, this means in plain language: wars of aggression to protect economic and strategic interests.

My conclusion at the time: the USA continued the Cold War because the fall of the Berlin Wall had only achieved one of its two geopolitical goals: The first goal was undoubtedly the victory of capitalism over socialism. But the second goal is only now becoming clear in the course of current US policy.

It is the unchallenged supremacy of the USA in Eurasia. The aim is to transform the world into a post-nation-state order under US hegemony. This goal still exists and is to be achieved with a FULL-SPECTRUM-DOMINANCE.

On 30 May 2000, the US Department of Defence published the Joint Vision 2020 strategy paper, which contains guidelines for "superiority on a broad front" of the US armed forces in order to be able to counter threats around the globe in 2020. This amounts to the status of a FULL-SPECTRUM DOMINANCE in an armed conflict. The fight against every possible enemy is to be achieved with all necessary forces and measures, either alone or together with allies. (1)

In addition to land, air and sea, this superiority on a "broad front" also includes space, the electromagnetic level and information warfare (cf. cyberwar).

Only if these conditions are met can "dominance across the entire spectrum" be realised in accordance with the Joint Vision 2020 military doctrine. This requires a gigantic military budget. The US military budget for 2023 has been increased by 90 billion dollars to 858 billion. But 12 billion to combat child poverty remains blocked. (2) By way of comparison, Russia will spend 86.4 billion euros in 2023 and 109 billion euros in 2024 (3)

"I have said before," said Harold Pinter in his speech when accepting the Nobel Prize in 2005, "that the United States is now laying its cards on the table with complete candour. That is the case. Its officially declared policy is now defined as 'Full Spectrum Dominance'. That's not my term - it's theirs. 'Full Spectrum Dominance' means control of land, sea, air and space and all accompanying resources."

I have subdivided my presentation:

The road to the Second World War
Setting the course from 1945-1950
Wolfowitz Doctrine
Strategy papers 1994-2022
Official statements 2023
Outlook

At the end of 1934, following the failure of US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal plans and the simultaneous start of the development of the "Rainbow" war plans, fears of a new war spread in the USA. Under the chairmanship of Senator Gerald P. Nye, an investigative committee under the innocuous name of the Munitions Investigation Committee began its work on the reasons for going to war in 1917.

In the course of the carefully conducted investigations, the influential US private banker J.P. Morgan Jr. and the US entrepreneur Pierre du Pont were also questioned.

In conclusion, the committee convincingly demonstrated that bankers and defence industrialists had exerted a strong influence on US foreign policy before and during the war, in addition to price fixing, and had thus "tricked" the country into the war. (4) Incidentally, in the 2008 US election campaign, the name Morgan appeared among Obama's biggest donors - just behind Goldman Sachs and ahead of Citigroup. (5)

So Obama's statement to the officer candidates at West Point in 2014 comes as little surprise: "I believe with every fibre of my being in American exceptionalism. But what makes us exceptional is not our ability to flout international norms and the rule of law; it's our willingness to affirm them through our actions." (6)

In his book Full Spectrum Dominance, published in 2009, the German-American author William Engdahl, founder of a consultancy firm for geopolitical strategic risks for companies, sheds light on an astonishing event in 1939, when a small elite circle of specialists came together in the New York Council on Foreign Relations in the utmost secrecy.

Quote: "With generous funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, the group set about sketching out the details of a post-war world. In their view, a new world war was imminent, from whose ashes only one country would emerge victorious - the United States. Their task, as some of the members later described, was to lay the foundations for a post-war American empire - but without calling it that. It was a skilful deception that initially led much of the world to believe American claims of support for "freedom and democracy" around the world." (7)

Developments after the end of the Second World War seem to confirm Engdahl's assertions: Already in the last year of the Second World War, the founding year of the United Nations [UN], the war plans of British and American generals against the Soviet Union began to take concrete shape.

On 1 July 1945, Prime Minister Winston Churchill wanted to push back the then Soviet Union militarily and re-establish an independent Poland. (8) To this end, he had General Hastings Ismay draw up the "UNTHINKABLE " plan of attack - he was to become the first Secretary General of NATO. However, under pressure from Stalin, the German soldiers were disarmed and taken prisoner on 23 May 1945. The German successor government residing in Flensburg was arrested. At the beginning of September 1945, US President Harry S. Truman commissioned General Eisenhower with "Operation TOTALITY". With 20 to 30 atomic bombs, 20 Soviet industrial cities were to be destroyed in one fell swoop. (9) Such plans were constantly refined.

    On 14 May 1947, Churchill spoke in the Albert Hall of a United Europe as a step towards world government

    On 15 May 1947, Truman announced his doctrine to contain the further expansion of the Soviet Union.

    The Marshall Plan followed on 6 June 1947.

The aim was to strengthen Western Europe against the Eastern Bloc and to open up sales markets for the American economy, which was still overheated from the war. By accepting the aid, the countries had to cede their financial sovereignty to Washington - this was the beginning of the economic colonisation of Europe, which did not cost the USA much. Between 1949 and 1952, West Germany received a loan of 1.4 billion US dollars worth around 6.4 billion DM [German marks]. This loan was repaid on the basis of the London Debt Agreement of 12 February 1953 with interest and repayment by 1962 in the amount of DM 13 billion. (10)

On 26 July 1947, the "National Security Act" was passed for the military penetration of the world, one of the most important laws in US post-war history. It is still the basis of global US military power today. The aim was to make Europe fit for war against the Soviet Union.

On 23 April 1948, William Fulbright founded the "American Committee for a United Europe". Former intelligence chief General William Donavan acted as executive director, and CIA director Allen Welsh Dulles became his deputy. Why two intelligence professionals at the helm? The Marshall Plan was intended as part of the preparations for war against the Soviet Union. The supposedly non-governmental committee was funded by the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and government-affiliated business groups. (11)

NATO was officially founded on 4 April 1949 as a defence alliance against the Soviet Union. The first Secretary General of NATO and chief planner of Unthinkable, Lord Ismay, casually formulated NATO's task: "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down". (12) The Alliance Treaty stated that economic reconstruction and economic stability were important elements of security - hence the Marshall Plan.

On 19 December 1949, the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff adopted the "DROPSHOT" war plan to enforce the war aims of the United States against the USSR and its satellites. Of course, it was intended to look as if there was no other way. The official threat scenario was therefore formulated as early as 1949: "On or about 1 January 1957, war has been forced upon the United States by an act of aggression by the USSR and/or its satellites."

However, when Sputnik orbited the earth in 1957, the war plans had to be revised and the date for Dropshot was postponed. In Moscow, however, the plan remains unforgotten. The noble goals proclaimed with the founding of NATO stood in stark contrast to the war plan for the nuclear annihilation of the Soviet Union that was drawn up at the same time. The four events of 1949 mentioned above must be understood as steps towards a NATO-orientated European Union, which was created in absolute secrecy. Only later propaganda campaigns presented the European project as a work of peace. And these campaigns continue to this day.

On 9 May 1950, the Schuman myth was born: the birth of the Coal and Steel Union. In 1953, Thomas Mann had recognised the tendency of the US administration to treat Europe as an economic colony, a military base, a glacis in the future nuclear crusade against Russia, as a piece of earth that was of antiquarian interest and worth visiting, but whose complete ruin they would not give a damn about when it came to the battle for world domination.

With the "National Security Directive 54" (NSDD-54) of 2 September 1982, an instrument was created with which the entire Soviet bloc could be subversively undermined.

Here, the sea eagle was first allowed to shoot its arrows and then wag its palm: In addition to destructive operations ("undermining the military capacities of the Warsaw Pact"), economic incentives were created, above all the prospect of loans and cultural-scientific exchange. (13)

In the Middle East, politics was made with the palm leaf. The Senator from Delaware announced on 5 June 1986: "It is the best investment of 3 billion dollars that we have made. If there were no Israel, the United States of America would have to invent an Israel to protect its interests in the region." (14)

On 31 December 1991, the Soviet Union was a thing of the past. Free market capitalism" had triumphed over "state socialism". Peace dividends, however, were rejected by the West.

Instead, every part of the US economy was linked to the future of this permanent war machine. For those parts of the US establishment whose power had grown exponentially through the expansion of the national security state after the Second World War, the end of the Cold War would have meant the loss of their raison d'être.

This elite rejected the possibility of gradually dissolving NATO, just as Russia had dissolved the Warsaw Pact, and fostering a climate of mutual economic co-operation that could make Eurasia one of the most prosperous and thriving economic zones in the world.

On 28 October 2014, Pope Francis declared thats: "We are in the middle of World War IIIbut in a war in instalments. There are economic systems that have to wage war in order to survive. So they produce and sell weapons. (15)

The neoconservative Paul Wolfowitz drafted the guidelines for defence planning as Deputy Secretary of Defence - the so-called Wolfowitz Doctrine. It became the trigger for NATO to be used as an instrument of bloody aggression against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya after the Cold War. The coup d'état prepared by the West in Ukraine in 2014 was also a product of the doctrine.

In August 1994, the "Training and Doctrine Command 525-5" emphasised the stringency and continuity of the American quest for hegemony under the title Full-scale operations for the strategic army in the early 21st century clearly defined. One of the high-calibre authors was Paul Wolfowitz, advisor to George W. Bush and deputy to Donald Rumsfeld, an important promoter of the "war on terror", with which Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan and Iran were to be subjected to the USA's claim to hegemony. All of this serves the goal of unipolar world domination and the "full spectrum dominance" of the US military, and much of it has been successfully implemented to date. This document describes a dynamic era, a world in transition.

Instead of fighting communism, in the 21st century we will have to take action against national and religious extremism. While we had permanent allies in the 20th century, in the 21st century they are only temporary allies.

The US army should adapt to this and take two premises into account: "rapid technological change and the reorganisation of geostrategy". The modern theatre of war relies on advanced technology such as combat robots and drones as well as on "non-nation forces" and mercenary armies that do not have to abide by any laws and are paid according to measured success. According to the strategy paper, the path to the intended war leads via the targeted destabilisation of the state, in which the aim is to bring about a "regime change" for one's own benefit.

An important instrument here is the "Operations other than War" (OOTW) - i.e. operations from the Financial and cyber warfare about the use undercover special units until Drone warfare and all facets of Shadow wars.

The stages of escalation described in the document can be clearly observed in Ukraine: Turmoil (Maidan), crisis (Slavyansk) and conflict (Crimea). The final stage would then be war, which became a reality on 24 February 2022.

In 1999, NATO waged a war of aggression against Yugoslavia without a UN mandate, in violation of international law and the UN Charter. From then on, the crisis intervention role was permanently anchored without a UN mandate.

Here too, geostrategic interests of the USA were the real reason! The War against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was conducted in order to revise a wrong decision made by General Eisenhower during the Second World War. According to representatives of the US State Department at the Bratislava conference on the Balkans and NATO's eastward expansion at the end of April 2000, the stationing of US soldiers there had to be made up for strategic reasons.

The aim was to transform the spatial situation between the Baltic Sea and Anatolia in line with US objectives for the upcoming NATO expansions. Poland was to be surrounded to the north and south by democratic states as neighbours, Romania and Bulgaria were to secure the land connection to Turkey and Serbia was to be permanently excluded from European development. (16) The US camp built shortly after the war in Yugoslavia Bondsteel secures the US military presence from Kosovo to Kashmir for 99 years.

The terrorist attack of 11 September 2001 empowered the American president to declare a permanent war against an enemy that was everywhere and nowhere, that supposedly threatened the American way of life, and to justify laws that destroyed that way of life in the name of the new global war on terror.

In 2003, when the Bush administration invaded Iraq with the false claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, this deception had had its day.

What was the real aim of the Pentagon's relentless wars? Was it, as some have surmised, a strategy to control the world's vast oil reserves at a time of future oil shortages? Or was there a completely different, even more grandiose intention behind the US strategy since the end of the Cold War?

Thomas Barnett's books provide insight into this: the touchstone for the question of whether the aggressive military agenda of the two Bush administrations was an extreme deviation from the core of American military foreign policy or, on the contrary, formed the core of the long-term agenda, was the presidency of Barack Obama.

After accepting the Nobel Peace Prize at the end of 2009, he expanded the wars and made drone terror his trademark. The coup on the Maidan in February 2014, which violated international law, was orchestrated by him and Biden.

A good six months later, the US strategy paper "TRADOC 525-3-1 Win in a complex world 2020-2040" (17) was presented.

It propagates the "full spectrum dominance" of the USA on land, at sea and in the air. As the most important Opponent the Rival powers China and Russia called. (18)

Russia is accused of acting imperially and expanding its territory. A grotesque accusation in view of the expansion of NATO and the "colour revolutions" in the former Soviet republics, which, however, is used to justify the necessity of stationing American ground troops in Central Europe. In second place are opposing "regional powers" - e.g. Iran.

Now it's all about what the enterprising longstanding US Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski as early as the end of the 1990s in "The only world power": The domination of the Eurasian landmass.

This goal has been achieved since 4 December 2014 with the US Resolution 758 official US state doctrine, which has been uncritically supported by the European vassals since 15 January 2015. Resolution 758 was passed with a speed that is unusual in the history of the American legislative process. After just 16 days, it was adopted by 411 votes to 10!

On the very day the resolution was passed, the veteran congressman Ron Paul described it on his homepage as "one of the most evil laws" and as Declaration of war on Russia. He saw this 16-page bill as pure war propaganda that would make even neo-conservatives blush.

This resolution has been supported by the European public since 15 January 2015, completely unnoticed. On this day, the European Parliament largely adopted US Resolution 758 with a 28-point resolution in which the EU Parliament condemns the "terrorist acts" in Ukraine and calls on the EU to develop a plan against the Russian "information war" and to help Ukraine expand its defence capacities.

Four weeks later Merkel [former German Chancellor], Hollande [former President of France], Poroshenko [President of Ukraine from 7 June 2014 to 20 May 2019] and Putin [Russian President] negotiated the Minsk peace agreement. And almost a year ago, former Chancellor Angela Merkel let the astonished world public know: "... the Minsk Agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time. It has also used this time to become stronger, as we can see today". In response, the Russian president was outraged in his New Year's address: "The West lied about peace, but prepared aggression and is now openly and shamelessly admitting it." Every basis of trust has been destroyed.

The dependence of the EU on Washington was ruthlessly exposed by the former Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts, one day after Brexit, on 24 June 2016: "The EU and NATO are evil institutions created by Washington to destroy the sovereignty of the European peoples." This statement made me "Black Book EU & NATO" has prompted. [Wolfgang Effenberger: "Black Book EU & NATO. Why the world cannot find peace"; first edition 2020]

At the end of October 2022, the Biden administration adopted the new National Security Strategy.

President Joe Biden wrote in the foreword: "Since the first days of my presidency, I have argued that our world is at a turning point. How we respond to the enormous challenges and unprecedented opportunities we face and confront today will determine the direction of our world and impact the security and prosperity of the American people for generations to come. The 2022 National Security Strategy lays out how my Administration will use this pivotal decade to advance America's vital interests and position the United States to outmanoeuvre our geopolitical competitors, overcome common challenges, and put our world firmly on the path to a brighter and more hopeful future." (19)

Many can only see these sentences as a declaration of war on the rest of the world - especially Russia, North Korea, Iran and China.

The top strategic priorities set out in the security paper are: "Reducing the growing multifaceted multidisciplinary threat from China, deterring the threat from Russia to Europe". This is followed by North Korea and Iran. This corresponds exactly to the requirements of the US long-term strategy TRADOC 525-3-1 "Win in a Complex World 2020-2040" from September 2014.

The realisation of these priorities includes

Integrated deterrence,
campaigning [propaganda, W.E.] and the
building a lasting advantage.

Furthermore, the USA explicitly rules out any renunciation of a nuclear first strike.

The bloody conflicts in Eastern Europe and the Middle East have catapulted humanity to the brink of a global nuclear war. De-escalation and diplomacy no longer seem to exist in the minds of the warring parties.

On 15 November 2022, senators and representatives received guidance from the US Congressional Research Service quoting from the new National Security Strategy: "The United States is a global power with global interests. We are stronger in every region because we are engaged in the other regions."

The congress paper continues: "...US policymakers are pursuing the goal of preventing the emergence of regional hegemons in Eurasia... US military operations in World War I and World War II, as well as numerous US military operations and day-to-day operations since World War II ... have apparently contributed in no small part to supporting this goal." (20)

For a century, it has primarily been about increasing the wealth of a group of tycoons in the City of London and on Wall Street. A look at current financial flows confirms this. The financial elites in the US and the UK appear to have little interest in resolving the Ukraine conflict.

The Senate hearing on 28 February 2023 regarding the war in Ukraine is extremely revealing in this context. Senator Rick Scott asked 3-star General Keith Kellogg: "But why hasn't Germany done its part to provide lethal aid?" "I don't think," the general said, "Germany is playing a role in Europe right now."

The general then enthuses to the senator: "If you can defeat a strategic opponent and not use US troops, you're at the height of professionalism; because if you let the Ukrainians win, a strategic opponent is off the table and we can focus on what we should be doing against our main opponent, and right now that's China.... It's China!!! if we fail, we might have to fight another European war, that would be the third time." (21) Well, the US is failing in Ukraine right now!

This hearing was broadcast by the US Senate. Here it can be felt again, America's allegedly God-ordained mission.

From the original philosophy of Manifest Destiny, the God-given mandate to conquer the land west of the former colonies, a natural right to expansion was derived. The us-American imperialism and the ascent to the The only world power seems to be an inevitable result of this ideology. (22)

Today, things are boiling in the Balkans, Ukraine, Armenia, the Middle East and Africa. These are the very fault lines that led to the catastrophe of the 20th century in 1914.

In the middle of the war, in May 1916, the governments of Great Britain and France in secret Sykes-Picot Agreement on Common colonial goals in the Middle East.

Borders were drawn without regard to ethnic and cultural structures. Great Britain was given what is now Jordan, Iraq and parts of Palestine. With a few strokes of the pen, the British and French destroyed the Ottomans' conflict defence mechanisms in the Middle East. This meant the end of peace and was a catastrophe for most Arabs. The roots of today's wars and terrorism in the Muslim-Arab tensions lie in this agreement

The prerequisite for a sustainable peace will be to come to terms with the path to the First World War and the war aims of the parties to the conflict at that time as truthfully as possible. The war in Yugoslavia also let the evil spirit of the Polish Marshal Pilsudski out of the bottle again. Pilsudski 100 years ago, the Polish-dominated area between the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea to.

On 21 July 2021, the USA and Germany committed to safeguarding Ukraine's sovereignty and energy security. And also to expand the Three Seas Initiative - The Adriatic Sea has now been added here. Poland is now the geostrategic anchor of the US aircraft carrier in Europe.

In his State of the Union address at the end of October 2023, US President Biden invoked war in a way that made many people in the world shudder. "We are at a turning point in history - one of those moments when the decisions we make today will determine the future for decades to come. "History has taught us," Biden said, "that terrorists who pay no price for their terror and dictators who pay no price for their aggression cause more chaos, death and destruction."

In this context, the Canadian economist Michael Chossudovsky recalls the number of deaths caused by the uninterrupted series of wars, coups and other subversive operations of the United States from the end of the war in 1945 until today - a figure estimated at 20 to 30 million. (23)

That is about twice as many casualties as in the First World War. And the two countries that are listed as enemies today were allied with the United States in the Second World War.

They paid the highest price in human lives for the victory over the National Socialist, fascist Berlin-Rome-Tokyo axis - about 27 million from the Soviet Union and 20 million from China, compared to just over 400,000 from the United States.

And at the end of his speech to the nation, Biden emphasised: "We are the United States of America - the United States of America. And there is nothing - nothing beyond our capabilities when we do it together. [...] May God bless you all. And may God protect our troops."

What kind of god is it that is supposed to protect the troops of a nation that wants to flourish on the bones of the murdered natives? Today, the same power elites as in 1914 want to turn us into a World War III lead.

And against this backdrop, [German] Defence Minister Pistorius called for a "change of mentality" among Germans in security matters on 29 October in the [TV] programme 'Berlin-direkt': "We have to get used to the idea again that the threat of war could loom in Europe". Could? War has returned to Europe since 1999! And fighting has been going on in Ukraine since May 2014! And now Pistorius is demanding: "We must become fit for war."

We are still facing the ruins and traumas of Germany's wartime prowess in the last century! Enough once and for all! "Let us be inspired by the will to serve the peace of the world", as it says in the Preamble of the Basic Law stands.

For 173 years, American hegemonic ambitions and Anglo-Saxon cohesive forces have prevented the vision of the French writer and politician Victor-Marie Hugo from materialising. He wrote in 1850: "A day will come when you France, Russia, you, Italy, England, Germany, all you nations of the continent, will unite closely into a higher community and establish the great European brotherhood. A day will come when there will be no other battlefields than the markets open to trade and the minds open to ideas." (24)

Yes, and that day will come! The Athenian strategist Thucydides has timeless advice for us: "But whoever wants to clearly recognise the past and thus also the future, which will once again, according to human nature, be the same or similar, may find it useful, and that shall be enough for me: It is written for permanent possession, not as a showpiece for one-off listening.“

Let us outlaw war, the brother of lies! Let us strive for truthfulness, the sister of peace!

____

Footnotes:

1 https://dewiki.de/Lexikon/Joint_Vision_2020

2 https://globalbridge.ch/

3 https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa/russland-etat-militaer-100.html

4 Report of the Special Committee on Investigation of the Munitions Industry (The Nye Report), U.S. Congress, Senate, 74th Congress, 2nd session, February 24, 1936,3-13

5 https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638

6 https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/05/28/remarks-president-unitedstates-military-academy-commencement-ceremony

7 https://ia800508.us.archive.org/12/items/engdahl/engdahl-full-spectrum-dominance.pdf

8 Daniel Todman, Britain's War: A New World, 1942-1947 (2020) p 744.

9 As early as autumn 1945, the plan called TOTALITY (JIC 329/1) envisaged a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union with 20 to 30 atomic bombs. Details in Kaku/ Axelrod 1987, pp. 30-31

10 http://www.geocities.ws/films4/marshallplan.htm

11 Extension of Remarks of Hon. Hale Boggs of Louisiana in the House of Representatives Tuesday, April 27, Appendix to the Congressional Record 1948 pp A2534-5

12 https://internationalepolitik.de/de/nordatlantische-allianz

13 https://alphahistory.com/coldwar/reagan-policy-soviet-bloc-nations-1982/

14 https://globalsouth.co/2023/11/12/why-does-the-us-support-israel-a-geopolitical-analysiswith-economist-michael-hudson/

15 Mette; Norbert: "We are in the middle of a third world war" https://books.google.at/books....

16 Reprinted in Effenberger, Wolfgang/Wimmer, Willy: "Wiederkehr der Hasardeure - Schattenstrategen, Kriegstreiber, stille Profiteure 1914 und heute", Höhr-Grenzhausen 2014, p. 547

17 ARMY TRAINING AND DOCTRINE COMMAND FORT EUSTIS VA at http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA611359

18 Wolfgang Effenberger: The "Military-Industrial Complex" (MIC) or the "Merchants of Death" among http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=23092

19 Biden-Harris-Administration-National-Security-Strategy-10.2022.pdf

20 https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/IF10485.pdf

21 https://www.congress.gov/118/crec/2023/02/28/169/38/CREC-2023-02-28-dailydigest.pdf; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmmPHvlbdwI

22 Wolfgang Effenberger: "Pillars of US power. Seafaring mentality and Puritanism". Gauting 205, p. 348

23 "From 1945 to today - 20 to 30 million people killed by the USA", by Manlio Dinucci, translation K. R., Il Manifesto (Italy) , Voltaire Network, 21 November 2018, www.voltairenet.org/article204026.html

24 Douze discours, 1850

____

Here you will find a short biography and the bookswritten by Wolfgang Effenberger.

Der Beitrag „Full Spectrum Dominance“ – Herrschaftsstrategien von USA und NATO erschien zuerst auf Advocatus Veritas.