The truth about America: Stupidity or malice?

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice. In this post, I will tackle three main points, and I’ll try my best not to go in to too many tangents. First, I want to address the history of America and the false notion that it is a ‘good’ state that only acts maliciously due to the influence of Israel. Second, I will examine how the state hides its malice by disguising it as stupidity, and how narcissism and arrogance of people is used against them to facilitate this deception. Finally, I will discuss a personal fear: my suspicion regarding what I call the ‘American Economic Samson Option’ against China — the possibility that America might be willing to destroy the entire global economy simply to undermine its rival. History of America I won’t address the entirety of American history because that would take too long. Instead, I will focus on a few specific events and dates to demonstrate that America pursued aggressive imperialist actions long before Israel began to exert significant influence, and even before Israel existed as a state. The first important event occurred during the 1956 Suez Crisis, which marked the last breath of the British Empire. Heavily depleted after World War II, the British Empire saw its global dominance gradually taken over by the United States. This shift was already evident during the 1953 Iranian coup d’état. When Iran, under Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, moved to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later BP), the British asked the United States for help. America orchestrated the coup and removed Mosaddegh. However, instead of allowing the British to reclaim full control of Iranian oil, American companies swooped in and took over a massive portion of it. This deeply upset the British and proved that Americans did not execute the 1953 coup on behalf of Britain, but for themselves. This historical reality breaks the narrative that Britain controls America or that America acts as a giant working on Britain’s behalf. If that were true, Britain would have regained full control of the oil. Let’s return to the 1956 Suez Crisis, which many historians, and I, consider the final gasp of the British Empire, after which America completely dismantled and absorbed what remained of British global hegemony. We must remember that Israel was initially established as a British Empire project. While some argue against this by pointing out that the official British position was often strange or that they even fought against Jewish paramilitaries in Palestine, I disagree. Much like the American Empire today, the British Empire back then required plausible deniability and a veil of ambiguity. While it may have looked like the British were opposing the establishment of Israel, in reality, the entire project was backed by the Empire. For a modern parallel, look at Ukraine: it is not America actively fighting Russia on the ground, right? America needs plausible deniability. While we know the war is a proxy conflict of the American Empire, it requires a veil of ambiguity. The same applied to British actions regarding Israel. During the 1956 Suez Crisis, America actually sided against Israel because Israel was operating for  British interests. This was the last independent action of the British Empire in history. Following those events, the Israeli project was effectively taken over by the United States, and the British Empire ceased to exist as an independent player, operating from that day on as an American proxy. For those who believe America is fundamentally good and only acts poorly due to Israeli influence, let’s look at another date: the 1954 Guatemalan coup d’état. This occurred two years before the Suez Crisis, while the Israeli project was still under the British Empire control. If America were a naturally benevolent country only acting aggressively because of Israel, why did that coup happen? It proves that America was operating as an evil empire long before it took over the Israeli project. Its actions stem from its own imperial nature, not external influence. Many people point to the creation of the Federal Reserve (the FED) in 1913 as the beginning of America’s decline into malice. However, we can trace these patterns much further back. A prime example is the USS Maine incident of 1898, which was a false flag operation and it was used as a pretext to start a war based on lies. Thus, the establishment of the FED was not the origin of these actions. To quote the famous Major General Smedley D. Butler, author of War Is a Racket: “I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents”. For people wanting a deeper dive into the earlier story of the American establishment, I highly recommend the video which I used in my previous post: MUST WATCH!!! How the world really works and who controls it: Sullivan & Cromwell, Allen Dulles, the origin of the world order, and the neocons. This post discusses Sullivan & Cromwell, a firm that sat at the very core of the American 'gangster state.' It represents an era of systemic malice that existed long before the influence of Israel, the creation of the state of Israel, or even the establishment of the Federal Reserve. Stupidity or malice so an intentional evil action to achieve their goal disguised under a veil of ambiguity and pleasurable deniability?   I would like to start this section by quoting the opening of Brian’s video, which is the main video attached to this post. "Today is April 2nd, 2026. We're now well over a month into the US War of aggression against Iran. And it continues. Not only is it continuing, but it continues to escalate. And this is something that I had warned about from the very beginning of this war that the United States didn't go into this conflict with only a plan A to rush in shock and awe, topple Iran in a couple of days, a week at most, and wrap it up and say mission accomplished. That was never their only plan. They probably hoped that that might happen, but of course they have a plan B. They have a plan C and people are constantly underestimating the destruction, the destructive power and the willingness of the US to destroy the planet in pursuit of its objectives. This constant underestimation of the United States really puzzles me because we have watched the US do this from one conflict after the other." This is something that puzzles me as well. Here again, I would like to quote someone I respect a lot: Michael Parenti. "Do not join those critics who say US policy is stupid. It’s so foolish, it gets all mixed up. Why do we keep getting into these silly messes? It’s stupid. You’re stupid if you think the people who own and run this country are stupid." As I wrote previously, this is perhaps the most important lesson from Michael Parenti. It stands in direct opposition to the common adage known as Hanlon’s Razor, which states: 'Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.' In reality, the reverse is true: 'Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice.' Our so-called 'failure' in Iraq and the subsequent rise of ISIS may be seen as evidence of American incompetence — until you look deeper. The U.S. wanted permanent military bases in Iraq, which the Iraqi government initially refused to allow. However, after the emergence of ISIS, the Iraqi government was forced to ask the Americans to return and grant them the very permanent bases they had previously denied. So, were the chaos in Iraq and the rise of ISIS truly evidence of stupidity, or were they intentional acts of malice? Since the creation of ISIS ultimately served American interests by securing those bases, was it 'incompetence,' or an intentional evil disguised under a veil of ambiguity and plausible deniability? We can apply the same logic to the twenty-year occupation of Afghanistan. When the U.S. invaded, Afghanistan produced roughly 60% of the world’s heroin supply. By the time the U.S. left twenty years later, that figure had risen to over 90%. Yet, shortly after the U.S. withdrawal and the Taliban’s subsequent ban on production, production plummeted by over 95%. Again, we must ask: was this a twenty-year lapse in judgment, or was it a calculated objective? specifically from roughly 2001 until the 2022 Taliban ban — Afghanistan was responsible for producing significantly over 90% of the world's illicit heroin supply After the Taliban announced a ban on all narcotics in April 2022, poppy cultivation dropped by over 95% across the country by 2023 US soldiers protecting drug fields in Afghanistan. Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. Here is another one: Interviewer: I know that you care deeply about this uh this contradiction, the fact that uh here you have one of the best fighting forces in the world ever mounted. Uh and in a sense uh you're watching as uh this opium is being grown. I know it grinds in your gut. Uh how do you deal with it? What are you doing about it?  Soldier: Well uh frankly this is a part of their culture. So uh while it might grind in my gut, it's what they do. Uh we provide them security, we're providing them resources, and we're providing them alternatives. The alternatives uh are different crops to grow. They're getting the seed and the fertilizer to do it. Uh they can rotate any of their crops uh that they want. If they want to get rid of their wheat and grow cotton for the winter, they can do that and we're going to help them do it Oh, really — 'this is a part of their culture'? How does that square with the fact that after America left, the Taliban banned opium production and reduced it by over 95%? We were told it was part of their culture and that they grew it because they wanted to. Meanwhile, I heard stories of American soldiers shooting at Taliban members who were trying to destroy those opium fields. I was called 'crazy' for suggesting that America was forcing the production of opium and protecting those fields from an Afghan population that was actually against it. Now that the Americans have left and production has plummeted, it appears that what I was saying was true all along. What we were told was nonsense — part of that veil of ambiguity and plausible deniability. Consider the timing: we left Afghanistan only after we had developed synthetic heroin in the form of Fentanyl, which can be produced chemically without the need for poppy fields, making Afghan opium obsolete. Again, was our twenty-year stay in Afghanistan evidence of stupidity, or was it a calculated act of malice disguised as a 'mistake'? This is what upsets me about many analysts. They point to Afghanistan or Iraq and say, 'Look at how we failed; it shows American weakness and stupidity.' But is it really evidence of stupidity? We didn't stay in Afghanistan for twenty years because we 'failed.' We stayed because it was the only way to secure heroin production. As soon as we left, production stopped — proving we were the ones keeping it alive. The CIA is the biggest drug cartel in the world, and we only moved out once the Afghan fields were no longer necessary. The same logic applies to Iraq. We had to make a mess of it and allow the rise of ISIS because it was the only way to coerce the Iraqi government into allowing permanent U.S. bases. It also allowed for the theft of Iraqi oil. ISIS was 'producing' oil that we could have stopped at any moment — we controlled the entire airspace, and they had no anti-air capabilities. We could have bombed those extraction facilities on day one, but we didn’t. Why? Because when ISIS extracted that oil, they sold it at a massive discount to Western companies. Again, was it stupidity or malice? An intentional evil action to achieve a goal, hidden behind a veil of plausible deniability. This is exactly what Julian Assange spoke about. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were never meant to be won; they were designed to be 'forever wars.' As Assange famously argued: The goal is to use Afghanistan to wash money out of the tax bases of the U.S. and Europe through Afghanistan and back into the hands of a transnational security elite. The goal is an endless war, not a successful war So, to all the geopolitical analysts who point to these wars as examples of American failure: did America really fail? Is the American Empire actually 'stupid,' or are you the stupid ones — as Michael Parenti says — for believing the empire is incompetent? Stop thinking America 'fell into a mess.' As Parenti says, it’s not a 'silly mess' or a 'foolish mistake' — it is a successful, intentional project. American economic Samson Option against China Now I would like to talk about the main subject of this post and something that doesn't allow me to sleep at night. I listened to so many sources of information and I heard things which made me think from many places. I can't remember exactly all the places where I heard it but here is one.  - YouTube Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. 17:32 So, the United States will use the Iranian attack and response to say, "Well, with uh OPEC out of the picture and with us in the United States controlling Venezuelan oil that we've just uh done, acquired uh US oil and our allied oil oil producers. We have reestablished the foundation of American foreign policy by controlling the world's oil and it's true that the United States economy is going to be disrupted but the United States being an oil producer is in a much better position to withstand the shock than our other countries. So, and as the world price of oil goes very high for countries in distress, this is going to create a price umbrella for American oil and gas producers. It'll be a bonanza for the American oil industry just as the 1974 OPEC quadrupling of price was a bonanza for the American US oil firms and oil industry. And I can assure you at the time I was u closely uh working with the oil industry and they were overjoyed at all of this. And it was they who were pressing for OPEC to do exactly what it did because the arrangements as it turned out were made under the conditions where OPEC became a US satellite. I have heard similar things from other sources, and they connect directly to the main video featuring Brian attached to this post. 47:08 Ideally it would want to have already toppled Iran. It would want to control the energy flowing out of the Middle East. It still has options by which it can do that. It would have wanted to degrade Russia much more than it has up until now. From its point of view, while that would have been ideal, it will also settle for just destroying Eurasia. Look, look, look at this. The US has oceans on either side of it. The Atlantic Ocean here and the Pacific Ocean here and all of this here, the US could afford to burn all of this (EUROASIAN/Halford Mackinder's World-Island or Great Island) down to the ground. It could afford to burn all of this down to the ground and it would be separated by two oceans from that. It wouldn't be without consequence. But from Wall Street and Washington's point of view, rather than allow China to irreversibly surpass the US and then never ever being able to regain primacy over the the planet ever again, they would settle for destroying Eurasia, Africa, even parts of Latin America, suffering in the United States, but emerging out the other end stronger relative to everybody else. They would be willing to do that. And if you look at what the US is doing, that is literally what they are doing right now. I have now established American history as that of an 'Evil Empire' and shown that its actions are not driven by stupidity, but by malice disguised as incompetence to maintain a veil of ambiguity and plausible deniability. I previously wrote regarding the war in Ukraine that the American Empire would not have initiated this conflict unless they were guaranteed a 'win' regardless of the outcome. If Ukraine wins and a regime change occurs in Russia, a new Boris Yeltsin is installed to sell out Russia to the West and allow its resources to be plundered. However, even if Ukraine loses, the U.S. still secures European dependence, ends any European aspirations for strategic independence, and reduces Europe to a mere American vassal. People consistently claim the American Empire is 'stupid,' which, in reality, proves they are as blind as Parenti described. I am often accused of being a narcissist or arrogant for calling these geopolitical and military analysts 'stupid' for their views on American policy. Apparently, I am the arrogant one for believing that the people who own and control our world — armed with the most sophisticated information-gathering apparatus and the best information possible — actually understand more than nobody like myself. Meanwhile, those analysts believe they are smarter and better informed than the very people who own and control our world — yet they aren't considered narcissistic at all. They cannot fathom the possibility that they are simply being manipulated; that their own arrogance is used against them to make them believe in a reality that is nothing more than a carefully crafted veil of plausible deniability. So, go ahead and call me a narcissist for refusing to believe that I am smarter than the people who own and control our world. Taking into account my point about Ukraine — that the Empire only starts a war if they win regardless of the outcome — it leads me to a horrifying conclusion. If we know that an American failure in Iran could lead to the destruction of the Middle East, what if the Empire believes they actually 'win' if that happens? As Michael Hudson said: We have reestablished the foundation of American foreign policy by controlling the world's oil and it's true that the United States economy is going to be disrupted but the United States being an oil producer is in a much better position to withstand the shock than our other countries. The U.S. faces significant challenges in producing high-tech goods because its population less well educated because it has been hollowed out, but the US remains a powerhouse in the production of oil and fertilizers as well as food, securing its own survival to some extent. What if a global recession and widespread starvation, the likely outcomes of current policies, are actually seen by the American Empire as a benefit? As Brian noted: The US has oceans on either side of it. The Atlantic Ocean here and the Pacific Ocean here and all of this here, the US could afford to burn all of this (EUROASIAN/Halford Mackinder's World-Island or Great Island) down to the ground. It could afford to burn all of this down to the ground and it would be separated by two oceans from that. It wouldn't be without consequence. But from Wall Street and Washington's point of view, rather than allow China to irreversibly surpass the US and then never ever being able to regain primacy over the the planet ever again, they would settle for destroying Eurasia, Africa, even parts of Latin America, suffering in the United States, but emerging out the other end stronger relative to everybody else. Let’s think about this: if the goal is to weaken China, an economy built primarily on exports, who suffers most in a global recession? An export-driven economy is the most vulnerable because, in a world of starvation and poverty, people can no longer afford to buy those exports. Meanwhile, economies based on capital and resources benefit, as they have the liquid assets to buy up everything while it is cheap. How could China sustain its growth or keep its factories open during a global depression, especially when most of its exports now go to the Global South, the very regions that would be hit hardest? What if the American Empire views burning down the global economy as a viable strategy to stop China? Even if they 'fail' in a conflict with Iran, if that failure triggers a global depression and mass starvation that ultimately halts China’s rise, wouldn’t they consider that a win? Just as in Ukraine, America doesn’t bet on a fair game; they rig the game so they win regardless of the outcome. That thought is what keeps me awake at night. What if these people are perfectly comfortable with global recession and starvation? What if they are willing to burn the world down if they believe they will emerge on top of the ashes? What we fear most may be exactly what they intend to do to maintain global control. Of course, this can never be done. They can’t admit they stayed in Afghanistan to run a drug cartel or created ISIS to secure oil and permanent bases. There must always be a veil of ambiguity and plausible deniability. It must be presented as an 'unintended consequence' — a mistake born of 'stupidity' to hide the raw malice of the action. The Empire cannot say, 'We want to starve billions to maintain our hegemony.' Instead, they say, 'We tried our best, but we failed.' Just like they 'failed' in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, stop believing that the people who own and rule our world are stupid. They use your own arrogance and narcissism against you; they count on you believing you are smarter than them so you will accept 'stupidity' as an explanation for their malice. Unlike many, I don’t claim to be smarter than those who control the world’s most sophisticated information-gathering apparatus. I am simply trying to grasp the genius of their deceptions. We must invert Hanlon’s Razor: 'Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice.' It is the only way to understand what is truly happening. If you don’t, you will continue to be manipulated by your own narcissism and arrogance.   I will end it here, thanks to everyone who stuck with me until the end. And, as always…   “Knowledge will make you be free.” ― Socrates + “Knowledge isn’t free. You have to pay attention.” ― Richard P. Feynman = “Freedom is not free, you need to pay attention.” ― Grzegorz Ochman   P.S. I would like to apologize to the entire community. It is deeply saddening that comments were recently disabled on the forum, though I understand the decision. I feel partially responsible for this, and I sincerely want to apologize to everyone here. I truly value the community’s input and the ability to engage in discourse; your feedback allows me to expand on my ideas, especially since I have to leave so much out of each post. However, I do understand why this had to happen. In my recent post on conspiracy theories: The origin of conspiracy theories and cognitive warfare   I mentioned “cognitive warfare”: The stigmatization of conspiracy theorists through government propaganda and other covert actions continues to this day. For example, the American legal scholar Cass Sunstein, who was Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration, wrote a paper in 2008, co-authored by Harvard legal scholar Adrian Vermeule, which explores various methods for discrediting conspiracy theorists. The method they propose government use is called cognitive infiltration or as they write: “our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories.” (Cass R. Sunstein & Adrian Vermeule, “Conspiracy Theories”) Cognitive infiltration involves government agents, or private agents acting on the government’s behalf, infiltrating groups that spread conspiracy theories and attempting to fracture their unity and undermine their theories. Or as Sunstein and Vermeule explain, cognitive infiltration occurs when “government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) … undermine the crippled epistemology of those who subscribe to [conspiracy] theories. They do so by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.” (Cass R. Sunstein & Adrian Vermeule, “Conspiracy Theories”) Cognitive infiltration is reminiscent of the FBI’s illegal Counterintelligence Program that operated covertly from the mid-1950s to the 1970s. This program involved the FBI targeting political groups they saw as subversive, such as civil rights and antiwar groups, placing them under surveillance, infiltrating them and attempting to disrupt their functioning. Cognitive infiltration is a form of cognitive warfare that intelligence agencies have long utilized to control narratives and to thwart the spread of information that is disruptive to the goals of the ruling class. Sunstein and Vermeule’s promotion of this theory is merely an academic attempt to justify the state’s control of its citizens’ minds, or as deHaven-Smith writes: “. . .there is something very hypocritical about those who want to fix people who do not share their opinions. Sunstein and Vermeule say conspiracy believers need to have their discussions disrupted, because they are dangerous. But what could be more dangerous than thinking it is acceptable to mess with someone else’s thoughts? Sunstein and Vermeule’s hypocrisy is breathtaking. They would have government conspiring against citizens who voice suspicions about government conspiracies, which is to say they would have government do precisely what they want citizens to stop saying government does. How do Harvard law professors become snared in such Orwellian logic?” ―Lance deHaven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America I do not know if the community members whose comments led to the disabling comments in this forum were literal agents, but such actions are neither new nor inconceivable. We must remain aware of these tactics. To quote my hero, Józef Piłsudski: Agencies, like some kind of curse, continue to walk side by side and step by step. Gentlemen, when I took this truth as my subject, I chose it deliberately and for no other reason than to dot the "i's," so it would not be said that we must manage the truths of the agency. Poland may, perhaps, face heavy experiences. During crises—I repeat—beware of agencies. Go your own way, serving only Poland, loving only Poland, and hating those who serve foreigners. My version to you would be: During crises—I repeat—beware of agencies. Go your own way, serving only Peace, loving only Peace, and hating those who serve Warmogers. Read LaterAdd to FavouritesAdd to CollectionReport The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.

View Original Article