From Strangelove to Dearlove: The U.S. Is Conducting War, But the President Cannot Know About It

Does the President of the United States, or Her Majesty’s Secret Service and her Tory accomplices, hold the power to launch cyberwar, and even thermonuclear war?

Multiple news outlets followed the New York Times report of June 15 with stories proclaiming that the Pentagon’s U.S. Cyber Command has expanded offensive cyber attacks on Russia’s power grid and other infrastructure targets. At a Wall Street Journal seminar on Tuesday, June 11, the loud-mouthed warmonger, National Security Adviser John Bolton, proclaimed that this expanded warfare regime was in existence. This was followed by the Times story reported Saturday citing sources within the U.S. Cyber Command and the National Security Council. All the stories proclaim that President Donald Trump has not been briefed on this and that information concerning these warfare measures is deliberately being kept from him because he might countermand it. It appears to be part of a concerted strategy by the intelligence community, taking orders from the City of London and Wall Street’s financial houses, to lure the President into the wars which will ensure his electoral defeat while risking the human race in the process. It follows the recent drumbeat for attacks on Iran based on their alleged attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf attacks which most nations don’t believe can be attributed to Iran. Most nations, that is, other than the mad British Empire and their intelligence warriors in the United States.

The same intelligence community apparatus involved in the 2016 attempt to illegally secure the U.S. election for Hillary Clinton and to destroy the Trump Presidency, is behind these maneuvers for war. Their exposure has been put prominently on the agenda by Attorney General William Barr who is investigating their crimes.

According to the Times, U.S. cyber warfare has been targeted at the Russians since 2012, but has recently become more aggressive. The Washington Post reported that President Obama conducted the first stage of this dangerous escalation, shortly before leaving office, in response to the alleged Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta.

But it would be naïve to accept the time-lines and “intelligence leaks” being offered to the credulous by fake news media. Since it became irrefutably clear as of April 1, 2009, that Barack Obama’s presidency was in the service of Her Majesty the Queen, why should the Russiagate fable be not itself seen as part of a British cyberwarfare attack, launched within that Obama Administration not only on Russia, but on the United States presidency and population?

Last year, Congress sneaked a new provision into the National Defense Authorization Act, according to the Times, which gives the Pentagon’s Cyber Command the ability to conduct cyber strikes without informing the President. General Paul M. Nakasone, who now heads the Cyber Command and the NSA, is described as a proponent of aggressive offensive cyberwar. The Times says that now the American strategy has shifted more toward offense, with the placement of potentially crippling malware inside the Russian system at a depth and with an aggressiveness that had never been tried before. It is intended partly as a warning, and partly to be poised to conduct cyberstrikes if a major conflict broke out between Washington and Moscow. It should also be remembered that the mad preventive war doctrine “Prompt Global Strike” discusses advanced cyber warfare techniques to be deployed in a first strike capacity against Russia to win thermonuclear war.

President Trump responded to the Times story with tweets saying it was treason and not true. All of the coverage of this story, in the New York Times and elsewhere, stresses that this is being kept from President Trump for fear that he might not allow it to go forward or that he might tell the Russians about it. As the Times story itself says, the aggressiveness of this strategy could have incalculable results, just as in nuclear warfare escalation.

Recent visitors to Moscow have found almost universal agreement that nuclear war with the United States is becoming inevitable. This is the latest manifestation of the ongoing and very treasonous coup taking place against Donald Trump because of his vow to end imperial wars conducted in the name of the United States and it is, perhaps, the most dangerous.

In Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 satire “Dr. Strangelove,” the President of the United States, suddenly informed that there is a nuclear attack upon the Soviet Union underway without his knowledge or permission, is told by a general that a complex series of special memoranda signed into law have actually allowed Col. Jack Ripper, a Strategic Air Command base commander, to launch World War III. It was thought better to keep the President uninformed about this, as JFK had infamously been uninformed about the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba, which one year later was the scene of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

The shadowy Dr. Strangelove was a paragon of sanity next to Sir Richard Dearlove, Robert Hannigan, and their American lunkhead collaborators Bolton, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, et al. Each Trump-initiated peace effort—North Korea, the Syrian pull-out, negotiations with Russia—has been sabotaged. As a result, where are we now?

Remember when on Tuesday, Jan. 3, 2017, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, speaking with MSNBC host and Rachel Maddow, warned a newly-elected Donald Trump: “Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community—they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” Maddow had in May 2016 compared the wacky idea of Trump ever getting elected President to the even more wacky success of Lyndon LaRouche in Illinois in 1986. She and others deployed on behalf of the extended British intelligence fake news that has, by keeping the Russiagate lie against the President alive, now led us, despite that President’s intentions, to the abyss of strategic miscalculation.

The attack against LaRouche is not extraneous, but central to British Empire grand strategy against the Presidency.

How the President, under persistent attack, responds to these actions, which could lead to nuclear Armageddon, is one thing. Hopefully, he will fire all those involved and seek a new strategic agreement on all fronts with Russia and China.

To send a clear signal to Russia, China, and to the true friends of United States, the exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche may be the best, if not the only means for reestablishing the trust among nations that is the prerequisite to ensuring the survival of the human race.