Reality Check - My message to the American (US) society (1/3)

Greetings my beloved Americans. Growing up in post Soviet era Czech republic, I believed the USA to be a metaphorical knight in shining armor, always in the first line, protecting and standing up for the weak against the evils of our world. Defending democracy, freedom, human rights and international law based order. It's quite understandable, since I was exposed to so many American propaganda movies and other art, portraying USA in such light, similarly to any of you. The news I had access to and would consume only strengthened this opinion, so I can see where many supporters and deniers of American imperialism come from. Since those early days, my opinion on the US slightly shifted, but before we get to that, let's focus on that image of the US that I grew up with, since it is an image that I know many Americans still believe it to be true.

Land of the free, land of opportunity, melting pot or (benevolent) world police are just a few nicknames that one hears when talking about America. The oldest existing democracy having a constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech, equal rights and opportunity to all of its citizens regardless of their origin. Country thanks to whom Czechoslovakia was established after the first World War, country that saved Europe from Nazis and who through radio, art and it's fight against Soviet Union forces helped Czechia get rid of the Soviet occupation, as well as to get democracy with similar constitution to yours.

Many things for which I am still very grateful, even thought looking at it now with more information, I see that it wasn't completely true and it wasn't so much to our benefit, as it was rather for the benefit of the American empire's war machine and it's ruling class. And while many Americans for sure cared about the people overseas, your government never did, just as they don't really care about you either. Instead of truly helping Czechia to develop as claimed, it was all just a make believe, while economically and politically we have been vassalized, just like many others before us.

Similarly to any other country that American empire pretends to help, your mega corporations (together with companies of your 1st degree vassals like Germany or Italy), who are financially closely intertwined with your government through tools like subsidies, state/federal contracts or your version of “lobbying” (in any other civilized country it is called bribery), immediately started to take advantage of our labor and our companies, who lacked capital after the revolution, and were sold to them for peanuts (and later often dismantled completely to, in my opinion, decrease the competition for your own companies and companies of your 1st degree vassals), sapping our wealth and strengths, just like any other oppressor, because that's what the US in reality is to the rest of the world. Behavior not much different to the Soviet Union and in many ways, I would even say much worse, due to its shady tactics, that often look (to not well educated person on the subject) like positives, due to US great propaganda and its disgusting version of capitalism that in reality is nowadays closer to feudalism or slavery than anything else. Similar situation of buying up country for next to nothing is currently being prepared in Ukraine, who is just another victim in your long history of never ending wars and exploitation.

In the end it's no wonder since the US is being run by pretty much completely fascist governments with nazi foreign policies for at least half a century and before that, it was ran by pretty much fully nazi/colonial mindset governments. Governments that only pretend to be democratic (even thought, in my opinion, you had politicians like the president Kennedy, who tried to move US closer towards democracy). Democracy in which many Americans believe to live in, due to the system's great propaganda machine (Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 only made legal what has been happening for ages before, as US criminal governments never had issue with breaking its own laws).

In Czech language we have a word for your system: "Demokratura" (in English I would use the word “Democratorship”) which means dictatorship that pretends to be a democracy, while people living there believe it to be a democracy. This happens due to the system creating an illusion of political choice and real possible change (which is only extremely rarely obtainable through real struggle and fight of its citizens against the system), as well as illusion of freedom of expression due to leaving quite a wide range of topics that can be discussed thoroughly (system even feeds you many emotional [often almost irrelevant] topics to divide you on), except for the topics that would go against the imperial or totalitarian agenda. Discussing those topics would get you ostracized from the society, financially and reputationally ruining you (until Spotify and X - 2 big MVPs for freedom of speech around the world - stood up against the deplatforming of content creators and later others like Youtube followed) and in extreme cases, even gets you killed. Doesn't that sound like the US to you? Alright, let me introduce my arguments.

First let's focus on what it means to be a fascist country. Fascism is defined by multiple markers that in general, based on their actions, both republicans and democrats fit perfectly. These are the main markers of fascism (I judge by actions rather than speech, as talk is cheap):

- Social darwinism is a worldview belief, where it is impossible for different (not necessarly all) nations/ethnicities/cultures to coexist in peace, as in their philosophy, there will always be a life or death competition between them, that will eventually crystalize into military conflicts. That is why it is better to either subjugate, decimate, critically weaken or straight up enslave such different populations. Social darwinists always look for an enemy, often not only outside of their borders but also within, and in general, they don't believe in diplomacy apart from absolute forced defeats or victories. We can see that the US had social darwinism in its DNA ever since its foundation and it never really got rid of this mentality. This is obvious not only due to your dark past of slavery or genocide of native American population, but it is also easy to spot in your more recent foreign policies. Just to name a few, ever since the Soviet Union fell, while on the surface USA pretended trying to grow closer (especially during the Obama years) to Russia, its actions were clearly to antagonize it, at least ever since the American puppet Yeltsin, who was selling out Russian people and their industries (similarly to what has happened in Czechia and our puppet governments), was out of the office and Putin came into office and started looking out for Russia's own interests, as any sovereign country should. The US supported coup of 2014 in Ukraine through western paid NGOs and media, and everything that followed there since, is just a pinnacle of this behavior, where US tried to weaken Russia, because it didn't want to become American vassal. Ukraine and it's people became sacrificial pawns for the American geopolitical games, while the puppet Zelensky does exactly the opposite of what he said he would do before and right after the election.

Similar things could also be said about the US relationship with China, who immediately became an enemy number one, ever since it started becoming economically successful. The antagonizing behavior is seen not only in the way your politicians, “experts” and other personalities speak about China in legacy mainstream media, but also f.e. in US foreign policies towards Taiwan. Even thought the US recognized People's Republic of China in 1979 as the only legal government of China, also acknowledging Taiwan to be a part of China, it keeps on arming Taiwan and threatening China over it. I am also almost certain that the reason why Taiwan has pretty much all of the world's production of the most advanced computer chips (even thought, if US really wanted it, it could easily force their companies to build the chip factories inside of the US and Europe long time ago) is, because it is much easier this way, to sell the need of going to war over Taiwan to the American society. All of this while China rarely had any expansive policies throughout its whole history, apart for reclaiming its historical borders after colonial powers stripped it naked during the opioid wars, after their many civil wars and now, I would argue, aggressive expansion into China sea with the man made islands, which are however (in my opinion), built largely as a reaction to US trying to contain China with its military bases all around them. Even if you look at the historical tributary system Chinese empire used to run just a few centuries ago, you will find out that it was often very reasonable. Some tributes that Chinese emperors gave back to its tributaries were even (economically speaking) more valuable than the ones they collected. So we can see that even thought they ran an empire on exploitation, it was much more reasonable and not “all or nothing” empire based on complete submission and full exploitation, like the empire that the US is running currently. And don't take me wrong. I am far from a fan of Chinese policies towards it's population, but it is hilarious to me to hear Americans playing such a moral card here, when we see the way you treat your own population and populations of other countries all around the world.

Another great recent enemy of the American empire are of course the “Islamists”. Let's ignore the fact that most of them were, and I am almost certain still are, funded by the US and other western secret services. If you look at the reasoning of Bin Laden, looking at his own words, you will find out that his arguments are more than reasonable. Wouldn't you fight against a foreign nation, if it invaded US, instated a puppet government and started forcing on you their way of living by brutal force, with disregard for opinion of the US population, while also stealing the wealth of your country, in much worse way than the way you are doing it currently to my own country? (I guess Czechia can thank god for being white and not having way too much natural resources, otherwise who knows what would happen, if we didn't want to sell it to you for peanuts) And imagine that this invading country would also murder millions of Americans, while it would start giving away Canadian land to to their new and aggressively expansionist colonizing client state? I don't know about you, but I would surely start defending my homeland and my neighbors by any means necessary and that also means civilian targets, since the American soldier deaths and the economic downsides of your wars didn't change the US imperial foreign policies, civilians targets seem like a logical progression of defending my country. Come to think of it, I realized that I don't actually need to wait for your answer, as we see American empire murdering millions of civilians wherever it goes and you were never even invaded by any of those countries. So I agree with Bin Laden that, if you really claim to be a democracy (which you never were), by not stopping these wars through voting or otherwise, even the American civilians are to blame and are completely fair target. Can you use such argument for the millions of civilians that the American empire murdered around the world and tens of millions who died later or suffered immensely, due to destroyed living conditions, you left in your wake in just past few decades? Yes, here I am completely team Bin Laden and it is not even close!

Then of course we have here the enemies within the US borders which for Democrats were in recent years f.e. “deplorables”, “conspiracy theorists“ (also true for Republicans but overall Democrats have been more brainwashed in trusting the government than their counterparts, so it rang much truer for Dems), “racists”, “fascists”, (while often true, when used by other fascists, who pretend not to be fascist, it is still hilarious to hear this term used) or “far right” and for Republicans it was mostly “progressives”, “antifa“ and “LGBOTQI+”. Throughout your history of course there were (and some still are) same enemies to the Democrats and Republican alike.Those are of course extremely important for the fascist empire under a democratorship system not to fall apart (due to the need for its own population to be constantly infighting, to hide its dictatorship policies, not escalating into a civil war), as it gives both parties a common enemy that they can agree upon. Those would be mostly “communists”, “socialists” on the economic side of things and “negroes”, “hippies”, ”revolutionaries” and other cultural enemies, who change with times and are often just forces that want to change the system in a meaningful way against the wishes of the empire ruling class.

- Corporatism is mostly economic policy that has effect on our society on many different layers, where the state is not only financially intermarried with manufacturers, banks and other bigger size corporations through state contracts, subsidies, grants, bailouts and regulating bodies, but corporatistic countries try to control (often very succesfully) or heavily curve the whole information space through many "NGOs", news outlets, think tanks, academia and recently even through social media and of course many other parts of civil society. So much that it is often very hard to differentiate between the two, as the civil society does the state's bidding and it is just another cog in its propaganda machine. This becomes especially obvious, once you see through the non nuanced opposing information released by these organizations only to radicalize (or keep it radicalized) the population and pit the voters of each party camp against each other. This can be done through already mentioned economic means but it is also often done through laws like FISA, NSLs or CLOUD in the USA giving FBI access to pretty much (not only) any internet communication (encrypted included) on apps developed at least partly in the US without even judicial oversight, or the DSA in EU giving its commission president almost unchecked censorship powers on the internet, but also through plain backdoor channel communication with government officials and intelligence agencies, just like we saw with f.e. Twitter files and Facebook with the recent censorship of social media during Covid or the first Biden-Trump election rodeo.

I think it is safe to say that throughout almost entirety of our official millennia old western history, what we now call English legacy mainstream media (New York Times, CNN, BBC, Fox news etc.), who are currently the ones setting the official state narratives for almost entirety of the western world, and its predecessors, were almost always completely controlled by the ruling empires (currently US) that totally dominated public discourse within their borders and their sphere of influence, except maybe for a few short periods around inventions of new communication or transportation technologies and moments of once in a while display of personal courage of a few honorable men and women like Edward Snowden, Julian Assange or John Kiriakou. This control was ranging from almost an absolute domination of the public debate (like it was just the two decades ago) to now being more or less just a reactionary mouthpiece of the dying system that some people still take seriously. We can see the compliance of such government controlled “civil society” organizations with the system, not only by their (often silent) approval or biased reporting of f.e. genocide in Gaza, War on terrorism or COVID propaganda, but also by their behavior of destruction or attempted destruction of anyone's life and reputation, whenever they decided to go against the set narrative that is not to be questioned or by creating social conflicts and widening differences between the US population.

- Militarism is a belief that the state should maintain a strong military capability and use it aggressively to expand its national interests or values, that is often tied with glorification of its military just like we see in the US today. One could argue that the US rarely uses its military aggressively, as it often makes it look like it just reacts to aggression of others or uses its army to help oppressed people against their totalitarian governments. While it may look this way to the surface level observer, once you look under the hood, you will find out that the US almost always creates these problems first and it later "tries" to solve them by funding proxy wars, its own military operations or coups that end up benefiting US empire. Here I am not just talking about funding of coups around the globe (f.e. funding of Contras in Nicaragua, Operation Ajax or overthrowing and assasination of Lumumba and its following support of dictators instead of democrats like Lumumba was) that rarely have anything to do with democracy, human rights or freedom and more often than not actually run against such ideals. (Just like we have seen by US supporting the 2014 Maiden coup led by the Ukranian fascists and nazis against the Ukraine's democratically elected government, who immediately started with repression of Russian speaking minority in Ukraine by forbidding Russian language in public spaces, banning political parties or whatever you decide to call that was happening in Donbas) Another way US justifies it's military presence is by straight up creation of false flag operations (Operations TPAJAX, Tonkin Incident, Northwoods or Gladio just to name a few that we know off and are confirmed by the released secret documents) or other propaganda spewing warmongering, chaos and economic pressure/sabotage in the country of interest, often targeting even American “allies” (vassal states), leading to civil wars, wars, coups or just plain old economic poverty (like with the “green” energy propaganda, while hiding geoingeering weather altering experiments for decades, which are almost certainly much more impactful to our planet warming than any CO2 could ever be) destabilizing the country again to the point of civil wars or coups (sometimes only weakening is enough, so the “ally” doesn't get too strong for America to control – f.e. Japan before 1990s and creation of its recession through its nonsensical central bank policies).

- Authoritarian leadership at first glance sounds like the opposite of what actually happens in the USA, but once you understand that you live in a democratorship, it is quite obvious. While in classic authoritarian/totalitarian countries, it is often forbidden even by the law to criticize its leaders, democratorship cannot as easily afford such perk (even thought we recently see it anyway with shady "hate speech", “mis/disinformation” and controling social media laws) because the illusion of democracy would quickly dissipate. Therefore the criticism is somewhat allowed, and especially by the opposing party even encouraged (at least within the borders of allowed discourse). But if you look at the main leaders of each party, they are almost completely shielded (like we have seen with the defense of Biden's obvious mental decline, until it was unattainable, due to his abysmal performance in the presidential debate) from public criticism by its party members, alligned media and supporters. And if you publicly criticize them anyway, others within that circle will look at you as a traitor. Another display of such authoritarian style of politics is voting in congress and senate alongside the party lines by the members of these parties, no matter the proposed solutions (f.e. voting against solutions, they were previously for, to make the current ruling party look bad and I would argue to hurt the general American society, by inaction that creates poverty, that leads to chaos, which helps bringing about more totalitarian government), which if not followed to the dot, will get you in trouble in next election cycle by being cut out of the party funding and worse.

Another way we can see the authoritarian rule in the US is through the way it is demanded and expected to listen to the authority of "scientists and other experts" that in reality are just chosen figureheads, or sponsored researchers by the government itself or by the companies closely connected to the government, to promote their long term agenda. We could have seen this quite clearly during the COVID years, when the whole world was lied to about pretty much everything regarding it and if you questioned or tried to debate the state narrative, you became a conspiracy theorist, kook, danger and the enemy to the wider society at large often even losing your job and worse. We can also see this playbook behavior whenever questioning f.e. history event narratives like the Kennedy asassination, 9/11, second world war and many other topics like UFOs, that are reserved only for the crazy people :).

Another way we can clearly see the authoritarian rule in the US is the way the secret agencies can do pretty much whatever they want, with little to no oversight and the general public is to believe everything they put forward as the truth, even thought it is impossible to verify such claims by even the highest ranking government, publicly elected, officials. This gets even more ridiculous when the publicly available information is clearly in opposition to the state narrative, just like we currently see with the Charlie Kirk assasination investigation (huge thanks goes to Candace Owens and her team of decentralized intelligence agency <3 for their hard work on this one), considering that it seems like public has no real leavers against them to spill the beans, as we can clearly see with them not even releasing the JFK, Martin Luther King and Jeffrey Epstein files, even thought President Trump signed an executive order to do so almost one year ago. The thing that some of these files were supposed to be released (based on US laws) a loooong time ago is a story in itself.

- Nationalism isn't in my opinion necessarily wrong and in its healthy form (some call it patriotism due to nationalism having toxic perception since the 2nd world war) it is actually beneficial and I would even say maybe completely necessary for any country to be healthy in a long term. Healthy nationalism is where you want your country and fellow countrymen to succeed, while being proud of its history, culture(s), people and their achievements. It is the glue that brings citizens closer together not only when in need of defending your country against external threats, but it also connects them and gives them something in common on a deeper level during peace times, so people work together towards brighter future. Nationalism can also be unhealthy. Unhealthy nationalism in the US is something that you can easily spot by the way many Americans often unreasonably think they are the greatest and most advanced nation in the world with the most superior culture, while also knowing pretty much anything about the rest of the world and being one of the worst when it comes to such basic things like infant mortality, life expectancy or the amount of people living in the streets than pretty much any other decently developed country in the world. Also having the most incarcerated people (around 25% of the whole world prison population despite US being just 5% of the world population) in the world and per capita should be a national shame of the highest degree, but since those prisoners are used as slave labor all is good I guess?.....

Such unhealthy nationalism then converts into many Americans defending, supporting or blindly participating in their government's crimes against humanity around the world and not even questioning its internal and foreign policies, as long as they come from their favorite party. Another way US unhealthy and fascist nationalism shows is the way you emphasize own national goals to the point, where you don't mind sabotaging national goals of other nations, where in many instances they can't even feed themselves or have even the most essential development after the USA is done with them. We could have seen an extreme version of such behavior not only during the Vietnam war, which in my opinion perfectly shows that the US empire behavior isn't much different to the Nazi Germany. First of all, we have the previously mentioned Tonkin incident that was a false flag operation created by your leaders to justify full deployment of American troops, leading into 10-15% of Vietnamese being genocided and around another 10-15% of Vietnamese population being poisoned, by the inhumane substances like Agent Orange, whose children still carry this poison in their veins to this day and that is not even counting other crimes like the destruction of Vietnam's habitat and other terror spewed towards its civilian population by the US armymen. All coming from the containment policy outlined in Truman Doctrine which aimed to prevent communist expansion globally, which would by their estimate threaten US strategic interests of exploiting other countries. Personally, I think that the true reason for such policy was that successful socialist/communist (not necessarly fully communist and totalitarian) governments would threaten the exploitative version of US “capitalism” within its own borders, as the only viable economic model, which in my opinion scares the people in power more than anything else, and it is also a reason why countries like Cuba or Venezuela are blockaded or otherwise heavily sanctioned still, even thought there is no Soviet Union that needs to be stopped anymore and there is no other threat from these countries towards the USA. While you could theoretically argue (and I would most likely disagree) that such military “defense” against the totalitarian communist regimes was justified and also a net positive for the rest of the world, I cannot find any honorable reality where measures used in Vietnam were ever justified or good and also any reality in which you wouldn't call Americans anything else but disgusting Nazis with zero respect for human life of anyone else but their own and often not even that.

Now some could argue that this is a long forgotten past that has almost nothing to do with the most of the current US population and that the US surely changed its ways, so lets go more into the current times. Doing a quick Grok search (so take with a grain of salt), one will find out that since the 1975 the US was part of 19 “interventions”, majority of which were done by you alone or led by you usually together with NATO (to which I will dedicate whole chapter in this article later on) except for the 1 intervention in Yemen, which is Saudi led. And while I didn't have time to verify the numbers myself and many of the numbers are incomplete to the point, where it is obvious that the final numbers are underestimated, the US killed at least 273 thousand enemy combatants, murdered at least 611 thousand civilians, at least 903 thousand civilians where seriously wounded and there is an estimate of additional 4,1 million of civilians dead due to the destruction you left behind, worth estimated at least 1,5 trillion USD (2,7 trillion USD in current value). Then we have here your client state (colonizing project) called Israel, created (obvious to anyone with at least a pinch of strategic thinking, knowing your imperial history) to disrupt the middle eastern countries not to get too rich by being in a constant state of war or at least to create enough chaos around them, just so this region cannot get rich and developed enough to help in challenging your (originally in combination with UK and France, who later became your vassals while still maintaining some parts of their sovereignty) inhumane and oppressive hegemony over this world. Since the 1970s, Israel alone has killed at least 36 thousand enemy combatants, murdered at least (very low estimate considering the genocide that is happening now in Gaza) 76 thousand civilians, seriously wounded at least 308 thousand civilians and there is an estimate of additional 501 thousand civilians, who died due to the destruction its military escapades brought to its neighbors worth at least 637,9 billion USD (inflation not included), which would never be possible without your backing and in my eyes, every single life and property destroyed by the state of Israel is as if it was of your own doing because, as we saw in 1982 with Ronald Reagan, whenever the US really wanted to stop the carnage, (that your colonizing, apartheid loving, genocidal baby brings upon this world) it can be done pretty much with one phone call. In the end without the US support, Israel could never even exist and that is still the truth to this day. So counting these numbers, we already have at least about 5,2 million civilians (circa 17 for each combatant) murdered (if you destroy someone's country and people die as a cause of this destruction, it is as if you would murder them yourself, similarly as if you would lock somebody in a room and gave them no food and water and they died) directly or indirectly by American hands in just past 50 years and that doesn't even take into account other conflicts (f.e. Iraq vs Iran War that was most likely green lighted by the US, considering not only that the UN did not recognize the Iraqis as the aggressor of the conflict until their another invasion of Kuwait almost decade ago, Brzezinski meeting with Iraqi diplomat in June 1980, information given by the US Secretary of State Alexander Haig to Ronald Reagan and the eventual US support of Iraqis in the war since 1982) and crises created by other states or other disruptive groups directly controlled or heavily supported by your secret services (especially relevant for Africa) or the federal government itself. It also doesn't even take into account the suffering of billions that the current exploitation system, that is just a different form of slavery, upheld only by the US might, brings to the people all around the world, US included. There are many examples of such behaviour and with today's technology it doesn't take much more than a few days and once own thinking (often times not even that) to find it, so I recommend for you to do your own research.

At the end of this point, I would also like to go back to the past and challenge this notion of the second World War, where you built this ethos around yourself, of US being a good force that was in Europe to save its people against the totalitarian governments, that is being used by Americans as an example for US being a righteous police force around the world and propaganda giving you right to intervene wherever you want to, to this day. First of all, lets start with Hitler and how Nazi party became to be the dominant force in German politics and how Nazi Germany became to be the strongest nation in the Europe itself. Similarly to the support of Zionism (which is just a different version of Nazism), Nazis were hugely supported by the American business elite, even before they came into power in 1933. This support encompassed financial donations to their cause but also non material help, like propaganda style magazines or books. While Henry Ford is the most known german Nazi supporter, he was far from the only one. It is no wonder since during those times, US was a Nazi country itself. This is a time when US was still under Jim Crow apartheid laws and eugenics movement (from which the german Nazis took inspiration) was going strong until around 1960s, resulting in over 60 000 involuntary sterilizations across 32 states and the KKK had around 5 million membership still in mid 1950s. And the American Support for German Nazis didn't stop there. Once they got into power, the business only soared and without the american business support, the Nazi Germany would never be able to prepare for the Blitzkrieg (Koch engineering and their oil refinery in Hamburg, Aluminum Corporation of America and their unlimited supply of aluminum for Nazi Germany, Ruckwanderer Mark scheme to financially help prepare Germany for war by Chase National Bank, General Motors and their factory built in 1935 in Berlin to build the German „Blitz“ trucks and the list goes on and on and on) and conquer half of the Europe without the American expertise, technology and money. The Americans again first helped heavily (I would argue without your help, it would never be possible at all) in creating the problem, which they later were forced by Pearl Harbor to help in “solving”. All the while the biggest human cost was already paid for by the Soviet Union in the war and the US was reaping rewards for supporting both sides of the conflict (which happens with most of the conflicts to this day). While one could call this financially smart, I would call it opportunistic of the worst kind and it is definitely not moral or good.

This support for German Nazis by the American businesses also didn't stop once the Germans occupied my country or even when they went into war against the rest of the Europe and many of the Americans businesses collaborated with the Germans until the end of the war, even when the US joined the war, after which they repatriated the profits from the war and US also capitalized on its investment in the form of getting the best Nazi scientists and engineers with the operation Paperclip and the American businesses of course reaped another type of rewards in investing (and therefore owning/co-owning) in rebuilding the completely destroyed Western Europe. So far it seems to me, like there was pretty much no downside for the US and that the WWII was the best thing that could have ever happened to the US. Thanks to it, US was able to become the hegemonic power and to me it seems like it was all very well planned, since we know how the American business is in bed with American government. While the result couldn't be sure, US was prepared to capitalize on it, no matter who would win the conflict.

Now lets have a look at for example Czechia (back then Czechoslovakia) during the 2nd world war that the US was supposedly “liberating”. We were an occupied country (betrayed by the western powers, together with Poland, in Munich 1938), and I think nobody serious is making a claim that we were a willing part of the German Nazi regime, as we had many Czech and Slovak soldiers fighting on the side of allies, as well as our resistance movements fought Nazis in many ways inside of Czechia, like with the succesful assasination of one of the most powerful Nazi officers and acting Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia, Reinhard Heydrich, that followed with Nazis burning down two Czech villages of Lidice and Ležáky and murdering of all of their citizens (apart for some aryan looking children that were taken for reeducation), because of them helping the resistance movement. Lets look at Pilsen bombing and how righteous the US army really was with its liberation. In Pilsen, Czechoslovakia had its Škoda armament factories, that were creating tanks and other arms for the German war machine, but vast majority of our workers (except for some collaborators) were working in these factories under a forced labor. Interestingly, these factories were left largely untouched for most of the war time, but all changed after the Yalta Conference in February 1945, where the western powers and Soviet Union made a deal on postwar spheres of Influence, under which Czechoslovakia was to be under the Soviet influence. During this time it was more than obvious that Germany cannot win the war anymore. France was liberated, Poland was liberated, Italy surrendered long time ago and allies were pushing deep inside of German territory, yet UK and US decided that in mid April 1945 (just a few weeks before the capitulation of Germany on May 7th), it is the time to start a heavy bombardment of Pilsen, destroying not only the factories but also leveled many residential areas and other civilian infrastructure. At this point this bombing had no strategic (except for maybe train tracks) reasoning and effect on the end of the war, which was already lost by the Germans, so my question is, why did this bombing happen? In my opinion, the heavy focus on the Pilsen was because of Yalta agreement. Allies knew Pilsen would come under the influence of Soviets, so they decided to bomb it because it was one of Czech most industrialized cities and this way, America would hinder our strength and economic power in the future. This is in my opinion another example of American empire not caring about the people at all, but rather it only cared about its longterm imperial goals and liberation was just a way to sell it to its citizens. Righteousness my ass! I mean even the bombardment of Dresden is similarly inhumane, as the destruction of Gaza right now and your behavior in Germany during and especially after the war was a straight genocide, as can be seen in the book „Other Losses“ with your behavior towards German prisoners of war held in interment camps once the war ended. So no, even during the 2nd World War, US was not the righteous force, you created your mythos to be. Instead US behaved just like an opportunistic, most sleezy force that played both sides until the very last moment and all of the evidence points to you orchestrating the whole conflict from behind the scenes (similarly to Israel, where in my opinion, most likely, it is just a rouse by the US empire to make it look like Israel is running the show, so your leaders have possible deniability of being blackmailed and so on) through the business ties. And once you got into the war yourselves, you behaved like Nazi savages without a spec of humanity, with your leaders thinking only about American empire long term goals and humanity and populations you were „liberating“ was somewhere at the bottom of their list of priorities, except for it being a good propaganda machine for your populus back at home. If you are still proud of your army oversee actions, you need to educate yourselves elsewhere than in Hollywood movies and your propaganda school education or legacy media networks. I hope this article helps.

While I could go more in depth on this topic with more markers of fascism, I won't because this is not an article about fascism. Both Republicans and Democrats, with a few exceptions, behave like fascists and all of it seems to me as just a theatre for population to choose a side to "fight for" (as fascists do love those enemies) all the while both parties almost completely ignore its people needs and wants and the society in the US degrades. Once fascists run out of ways to exploit others, they start to economically cannibalize on its own population, as has been happening to all of the Americans in the US for at least past few decades and before that at least to some parts of American society. What I wrote about Israeli society is pretty much true about Americans as well (but much deeper ingrained than Israelis, who at least have their feared enemies close by, so it is bit more understandable), except you are much worse, because you are doing harm even to your own people, not only to the people abroad. To quickly touch on one more important point, fascist or any totalitarian governments for that matter, also usually have one set of rules for general population that doesn't apply to the ruling class. This is completely true when it comes to US, as seen by all of the bankers, pharma and other CEOs poisoning the population and environment that never go to prison, even if they caused a financial crisis, who destroyed millions of American lives or knew about their drugs killing people and burying the evidence. It is even worse when it comes to your government officials, as there is often complete censorship through gag orders about wide range of their actions and crimes, while the whistleblowers get killed (Boeing f.e.) or sentenced and imprisoned for being “spies”, all the while real spies like Jeffrey Epstein, who was selling children to highly positioned pedophiles was able to run free (and is likely still alive) and when it comes to the constitution, I would argue that even the 1st ammendment isn't really being honored, through lawfare used to silence people with threatening opinions.

Second part of this article is gonna focus on international organizations and how the US uses them to achieve it's imperialist agenda. Interestingly enough, we will find out that all of these organizations are doing almost always the complete opposite of what they are supposed to. First let's look at the UN. Is this organization really a tool for peace as it claims to be, or is it actually a tool for war? Let's look at one of the most recent examples of UN completely failing it's mission of peace and instead lets see how its behavior only worsened the situation. I am talking about Serbian NATO intervention and what has preceded it. After the breakout of Yugoslavia, once the Slovenia, Croatia and eventually Bosnia and Herzegovina declared it's independence, Serbia that had most of the weaponry of the formal Yugoslavia, used it first to try to subdue the former Yugoslavian republics and later on tried to at least acquire some of their territory where many of the ethnical Serbs lived.

While on the surface US and UN pretended (UN not only because it was originally against Bosnia UN forces altogether in April of 1992, and US even lobbied to remove United Nations Protection Force [UNPROFOR] from Bosnia and Herzegovina forces completely, if it gained any real mandate to use force) like they cared about the situation in former Yugoslavia and even sent quite a large UN peacekeeping force to Sarajevo to monitor the situation and stop it from escalating (originally in Croatia only), it didn't give it any real powers to enforce its mission. So much that the UN mission of 14 000 soldiers weren't even able to start its mission of delivering aid for almost a month of being partly there, until the rest of the forces arrived. This in the end didn't even matter, as once this force was fully there, and even gained bigger mandate in August to “take nationally or through regional agencies or arrangements all measures necessary to facilitate in coordination with the UN the delivery by relevant UN humanitarian organizations and others of humanitarian assistance to Sarajevo and wherever needed in other parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina.“,they were unable to do so, as when Serbs opposed the humanitarian aid to be delivered, UNPROFOR didn't force the issue by force, which to me is a necessary measure, if diplomacy fails and the adversary forces leave you no other option. UNPROFOR was such a joke that even thought all forces on the battlefield agreed to stop using heavy weaponry, Serbian forces completely ignored it and they didn't even let UNPROFOR oversee the usage of their artillery, as they agreed to multiple times. So in the end UNPROFOR just mostly spent it's time with hands in their pockets watching over a genocide being perpetrated right in front of their eyes, while having full hands of aid with nobody to deliver it to.

All of this happened while UN put arms embargo on the whole former Yugoslavia, which was the reason why Bosnian and Croatian Serb separatists, who were the minority in both Bosnia and Croatia, were able to overpower their Bosnian and Croatian counterparts even without official help from the army of the Yugoslavian Federal Republic (Serbia and Montenegro). Then UN also set up a no fly zone around Bosnia for all military flights, which it didn't enforce for almost one year and even after it started to do so, it only enforced it when it came to jets themselves, while helicopters were free to roam the sky as much as they wanted, so similarly to the earlier UN declared “safe zones”, this no fly zone was no fly zone in name only. In my opinion, pretty much all of the conflicts in Yugoslavia could have been prevented, if UN would just send large peacekeeping force soon enough with real mandate (including use of force to protect civilians within the borders of the invaded territory limited to military and militia targets only) to actually stop the early conflicts from escalating by being in the middle of the warring sides, which would force the sides to attack them directly, (if actually happened would bring escalation from the international community - which no side would risk) or to sit around the table and have a real discussion instead of the fighting. If peacekeeping force has no tools to keep the peace, they will be ignored and this has been the truth in all of the conflicts where UN forces are used.

This behavior obviously only emboldened Serbian forces to completely ignore UN requests, as they saw it lack any real strength behind their words, mostly because there was always at least one UN permanent Security Council seat (in this situation almost always US and sometimes Russia), that would veto any such enforcement (similarly the way US is vetoing pretty much any real resolution in regards of Palestinian genocide today), which I would argue only ended up in much bigger force used and destruction done later on, culminating into 1999 NATO bombardment of Belgrade, that was never even sanctioned by the UN. This is one of the main reasons why the veto power has to be eliminated, as well as the veto also giving permanent Council seats pretty much a blank check to do whatever they please as they can veto any resolution aimed against them, which was the way that the previous colonial powers and winners of the 2nd world war kept control over reactions in conflicts (often created by them) around the world to progress their imperial agenda.

Yet, Bosnia was still just a situation when UN failed its mission of protecting the peace while even here I would argue that UN Security council actually helped the conflict to become bigger due to stopping other countries that wanted to help more (France f.e.), but couldn't because one of the the veto powers stopped it from happening and also by the arms embargo, that heavily favored the Serbian side who had enough weapons already and didn't need any. Let's now have a look at the situation where UN, not just failed its mission to guard the peace around the world, but where it actually became a tool of war for French and consequently also the American empire. Yes, I am talking about the 2011 Lybia regime change war.

As usual, Lybia was far from being a liberal democracy safe haven, which was never an issue for the Americans or French as long as it kept to itself and was useful to them when needed. Unfortunately for its citizens, Qaddafi wasn't the classic corrupt African leader, who would keep all of the money to himself and his high command, as he gave free education, healthcare, electricity and interest free loans to his population, as well as he heavily subsidized or sometimes made even completely free housing, water, food and other bonuses and utilities. Apart for that, thanks to Hillary Clinton leaked emails, we know, Qaddafi was storing a wast amounts of gold, which he wanted to use as a backing for a new pan-african currency, that could be at the beginning used by the Francophone African countries as an alternative to French franc and automatically was also a long term threat to the strength of the mighty dollar. All of the reasons why Qaddafi had to go and the UN was just the tool to help in getting rid of him. Even though it never looked like he was going to genocide his people, media was used to create this image of him and the military NATO action was allowed by the UN that ended up in helping to depose him by supporting the rebels against him and afterwards Lybia went into a deep civil war and is recovering ever since but who cares as long as there is no panafrican currency that could help getting Africans out of poverty...

Now let's look at NATO. It is a supposedly defensive military alliance originated after the 2nd world war to protect its members from the Soviet Union. Lets ignore the part where Soviet Union fell apart and there was no real reason to keep (and especially expand) the alliance, but let's rather focus on the claim that NATO is a defensive alliance. I don't know about you, but when I hear defensive alliance, what I hear is that if somebody attacks a country in the defensive pact, the others will come in their defense against the aggressor, yet this is far from the truth. NATO country was actually never attacked (unless you count 9/11, which i don't) but instead, ever since the fell of the Soviet Union, it has been on the offensive. First we have here the already mentioned Lybia, then we have here the bombardment of Serbia in 1999 that was never sanctioned by the UN, similarly to the offensive escapades in Iraq and other middle-eastern countries. All the while NATO was also being used to aggravate Russia in Ukraine, by NATO announcing in 2008 that Ukraine will be part of it, (that of course Russia couldn't let happen due to strategic reasons similarly to USA not wanting nukes in Cuba) what is also one of the main reasons why there is a war in Ukraine right now. This is not how any defensive alliance behaves, so it isn't surprising when nobody (except for the people brainwashed by the NATO propaganda) takes seriously, the claim that you have nothing to be afraid off if NATO expands to your borders. Overall NATO was so far used only as an aggressive tool, so again completely opposite of what it was supposed to be.

Another way NATO is used to keep the US hegemony is the way that american arms are being sold to its vassals. While it is true that US sells it technology to its NATO “allies“, if you look at the way they are being sold, you will find out that the Americans have key logs on most of the advanced heavy technology, which means that if the vassal state, who bought the technology like F-16 or F-35, doesn't do what the US empire wants, or changes its opinion on the alliance with the US, Americans can just stop providing these vassals with the keys to activate the jets and those airplanes are a complete junk, that cannot even lift off the ground. That doesn't really sound to me like sovereign allies relationship but more as a vassal and overlord type of relationship. How about you?

Another amazing tool that the US uses to expand its empire, this time through economic means without needing to destroy the country first, is the International Monetary Fund and World bank. While on the surface, it looks like those are just organizations that focus on helping countries who are in deep economic problems or in need of financing big infrastructural projects, as usual, the devil is in the detail. First of all, when it comes to voting on decisions like lending in these institutions, as usual former colonial powers and other western countries have disproportionate voting rights (Luxembourg with half a million population has almost twice as strong vote than Ethiopia with 70 mil. population) compare to the developing world. For example, without the vote of US (circa 16% of total vote), some of the major decisions, that need supermajority of 85%, can never be agreed upon, giving US solo veto power over these decisions. Second huge misconception about these institutions is that they are a form of charity from the developed countries to the developing ones. While true that a few loans here and there are without interest, it happens rarely and usually only when the country is already in such a huge debt, that they would have to default on their previous debts (with high interest), so new debt without or with low interest is created, for the countries to be able to pay off their previous debts which had interest, so the banks don't end up losing their debt portfolio. Most of the debts are with high interests, that the developed countries are collecting interest on. So much that currently, the developing countries are paying more money to the developed countries on servicing of their loans, than they collect on ALL foreign aid PLUS from all of the new borrowings. Yet even such situation could be theoretically justified if the money wasn't lend previously to the obviously corrupt dictators who obviously were gonna pocket most of the money, but the rabbit hole goes much deeper.

First of all, lets ignore that these countries are often previous colonies of these western powers, who became powerful and rich on the backs of the developing countries labor and resources, which were never properly resolved (And I would argue that because of that lending money you stole from them before with interest is highly immoral and actually money was supposed to be given to them without need of repaying it) and let's pretend that the world started in around 1960s, after the colonialism was “ended“. One of the IMF and the World Bank missions are supposedly to bring poverty out of these poor regions, so how do they do it? Once we look at the loans, we will find out that pretty much all of them come together with conditions on how is the borrowing country supposed to behave to receive the funds. While some would think, that these conditions would focus on making the country economy rich and bringing its people out of poverty, quickly you will find out that it focuses mostly on the country being able to repay these loans back to the lenders. These conditions include, changing the economic system to lower the local consumption and instead to heavily focus the country's economy on export of goods (to collect dollars with which the debts is usually repaid) to the western countries, to the point where these countries stop producing basic food for themselves and become dependant on food deliveries from the western countries, sometimes ending in famines like in Bangladesh (where they stopped using their fields for farming of rice and other produce to become farmers of shrimps). Other conditions are opening their markets to multionational corporations and giving them subsidies, tax breaks and other benefits in the country, while also reducing the credit for the nationals of their country to borrow from, which obviously hinders their citizens possibility of starting own small businesses, on which all succesfull economies are built upon and where the wealth is really created, conditions also contain devaluing their currency which hinders possibility for the citizens to save any money and last but not least once the countries are unable to pay their debts, they are forced to borrow more money making their situation even worse, sell or borrow their land (often for military purposes of the US), granting mining, farming and other rights to international megacorporations or western countries, similarly to how western media heavily criticized China, for indebting some countries with their Belt and Road initiative but actually much worse. This topic would also take a while to go through and I am no expert (but it doesn't take an expert to see how insidious the behavior of these institutions are) on this topic but if you are interested to find out more, have a look at this interview with Alex Gladstein or read up on his book „Hidden Repression: How the IMF and World Banks Sell Exploitation as Development“. Overall the main point is that while these institutions claim to work on making the developing countries richer, they instead enslave their economies throught the debt to western powers and their corporations, all the while the citizens of these countries see almost zero benefit and often than not, it actually hurts them, while all it costs the western countries is just printing new fiat money that costs nothing to them, because it is all just imaginary money anyway (USD printing press is a way how the rich elite is screwing also regular Americans btw).

While they are for sure many other institutions used for US to keep their hegemony around the world, there are 2 more that need to be mentioned and those are the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court. While the idea of international court is amazing, in practice it very rarely does any justice. Looking at the history of these institutions, we will find out, that they have always been used selectively against the enemies of the US empire (who itself denies juristiction of ICC over its citizens), while its allies have been always shielded from justice, as seen by no NATO leader and other core allies of US, never having an outstanding warrant against them by the ICC, except for now Israel's leaders in 2024. But even when ICC for the first time showed bravery against Israel, the US immediately started threatening the court and even sanctioned some of the people, who stood up against the genocide, while also completely ignoring the warrant and even inviting Bibi Netanyahu into White House. All the while US of course supported the ICC, when they issued arrest warrant against Vladimir Putin. While ICJ has been little more fair in the past when it comes to western powers, when it comes to enforcemments of their rulings like in the Nicaragua vs United states, where the court ruled that the US has to pay reparations for violating international law by arming and supporting the Contra rebels and overthrowing Nicaragua government. US just rejected the ruling and vetoed the UN enforcement (another reason why the veto has to be completely abolished), so nothing came out of it. If these are our institutions of international justice, there is no surprise that there is none in our current world, because as we see, in the end „Might is right“ and the US and other western powers just use these institutions to create an illusion of international law based order (and for their propaganda when useful), where in reality there is none and just like at home, your leaders can act with impunity also on the international stage and that will not change, unless there is a third world war where the US loses or you clean up your mess yourselves and join the collective humanity in our fight for justice.

Now that we have looked at how the American empire is running its operations, I hope that there is noone denying its existence anymore. Originally I planned to go on and on with its crimes but I have decided to stop as there are way too many to count, but at least the war on drugs has to be also mentioned as it is used to destroy mostly South America and American neighborhoods only to fund CIA operations around the world. The are still many crimes well hidden behind the top secret wall and we won't find out about them unless the people rise up and demand justice.

While I was originally optimistic about Trump being brave enough to stand up against the system, it seems to me, like he has either been captured by the deep state himself or he doesn't have the stones to go on a line with his life to fight, as he said he would. That is why we see him calling Jeffrey Epstein a Democrat hoax, that is why we see ICE behaving like Gestapo without identification, testing the waters for later implementation against citizens too, that is why we see Palantir AI surveillance technology getting a green light, so it is even easier to control the American population, that is why we see Trump trying to start new wars with Iran and Venezuela and that is also why we saw high profile political murder in the US that is being covered up by your secret services, all the while he is betraying real MAGA lawmakers like Marjorie Taylor Green, who had his back all along, while he is promoting the neocons who opposed him all the way to the white house.

While I could speak to your empathy to rise up against your government because of the way your governments hurts others around the globe, is ran by pedophiles and nazis supporting genocide and apartheid, I won't, even thought I would like to believe that the most of you care. Instead, I will speak to your sense of self preservation, because as of now, current democratorship version of American empire is in its last breaths and I see only three possible ways this can go if left unchecked. The first one is to either go on full world war 3 offensive, which in my opinion US cannot win. Second option is to stop its charade of pretending to be a democracy and instead it needs to go full on totalitarian mode, which to me seems like the play that is being prepared now, considering what is this administration doing. This would likely happen gradually (but quite fast) through AI surveillence technology with some type of social credit score. What will most likely happen tho, is that the wealth will get sucked out of the US (at least the last bits of wealth it still has) and be transfered to China, which is on the rise, and just like many times in history, the money people will just move their operations elsewhere, while the US might stay a financial hub for a while but average citizen will see nothing of this wealth. Such end to the empire would be slower but it would hurt average Americans nonetheless. This has happened before and wouldn't be anything new. It has happened to Rome, it has happened to United Kingdom, it has happened to China too and now it is happening to EU and the US who are both on the brink of self destruction by their insane policies and are in reality, if you follow the money, are just a continuation of the old Roman Empire.

Of course there is a fourth way this can go, and it is for the American people to stand up for themselves and to take their country back, maybe for the first time ever and it doesn't really matter whether it is now controlled by the Zionists, rich elite, secret services wanting war to evade justice for their crimes or anyone else. I hoped it wouldn't be needed but it seems to me like the (r)evolution is the only viable solution and that is what my next essay is gonna be about.