American Strategic Deception Bureau

　Financial capital is naturally repulsive to any overly powerful state apparatus and prefers to wander between countries and wait for opportunities to develop. If the United States really completely beats Europe to its knees,

　, becoming a real slave-servant state, then no matter where financial capital goes, it will be subject to the supervision of the White House.

　Therefore, on the one hand, Wall Street tycoons hope that the United States will be strong enough to ensure the safety of their investments in Europe and other regions; on the other hand, they hope that the United States will not be too strong, so as not to deprive them of their freedom to bargain and completely become servants of the White House.

　Therefore, American financial capital has been collaborating with Europe to elevate Europe's status and suppress the American far right, creating slogans such as "shared values" and pretending that the United States and Europe are one family. Therefore, Americans should treat Europe like family.

　While the United States certainly displayed an air of superiority after World War II, frequently interfering in Europe, weren't European countries also actively interfering in U.S. internal affairs through various channels, steering mainstream American political thought in a direction that favored Europe's free access to American resources?

　Given such conflicts of interest and personal connections, it is actually very difficult for the US government to eliminate interference and take tough measures against Europe.

　Fortunately, in the previous American Civil War, President Nixon had defeated and severely damaged the financial capital groups on Wall Street, so that New York is still a "rebellious city" today, and every Wall Street tycoon is still accused of being a "traitor to the country". If they don't want to die, they can only keep a low profile.

　According to Nixon, allowing you plutocrats to live is already the greatest mercy. How could we possibly allow you to discuss state affairs?

　Then, because America's glorious image as a beacon of civilization had long been tarnished by a myriad of inhumane scandals, President Nixon simply threw the can down the drain, trampling underfoot the banner of freedom and human rights and replacing it with the shameless slogan of "America First."

　——Since American interests are prioritized, then the practices of betrayal, attacking allies, and colluding with the Soviet Union are naturally understandable.

　This practice, which completely betrays morality and principles, would have attracted joint attacks from traditional conservatives and progressives.

　Fortunately, the "future message" brought back by the British frigate from the world of Cyberpunk 2077 successfully saved Nixon's life. After learning what would happen in the "future world," even the most stubborn and granite-headed hawkish conservatives in the United States had to admit with great difficulty and pain that the Cold War was a huge mistake and that the "Iron Curtain Speech" was a conspiracy of Churchill!

　The world hegemon in the 21st century is Germany, the number one enemy that occupies almost half of the United States is Japan, and the Soviet Union does not pose any threat to the United States at all!

　So why does the United States continue to fight against a false enemy, while condoning and even fostering the growth of two real enemies?

　Why did Senator McCarthy go so far as to incite anti-Soviet sentiment? Could he actually be a Japanese or German spy?

　And those anti-Soviet fanatics who keep saying they want to "defend the free world" are actually "spiritual Japanese" and "spiritual Germans"?

　While this speculation sounds absurd, there are so many absurd things happening these days. Not only are people able to travel to other worlds, but even comic book characters with superpowers have popped up in droves... For Americans raised on conspiracy theories, it's entirely possible that the powerful Senator McCarthy of twenty years ago was actually a hidden Nazi.

　In short, with the miraculous changes on the Thames, many ideological imprints in the minds of Americans are being irreversibly broken.

　However, the decades-long Cold War has nurtured a huge interest group in the political, economic, and cultural circles of the United States. Countless "experts" make a living by being anti-Soviet, and even created a "Kremlinology" that made the Soviets laugh and cry (specializing in analyzing the political operations of the Soviet Union's top leaders through some details. Although it cannot be said to be completely wrong, it is obviously mostly nonsense).

　Since anti-Sovietism and the Cold War have become "the livelihood of millions of porters" in the United States, the "facts" will be thrown into the toilet by some people.

　Even though they knew what would happen in the "future", these anti-Soviet fanatics, Cold War maniacs and pro-Europeans still tried their best to make excuses and frantically forced President Nixon to treat European allies well and unite them while continuing the Cold War and fighting the Soviet Union and China to the end.

　Of course, the result is the same as in another timeline: those guys who tried to force Trump to continue to aid Ukraine in 2025 were completely ignored, leaving these pro-European and anti-Soviet elements with nothing but crying, cursing, raging, and throwing tantrums... and eventually turning themselves into a pile of shit.

　In the face of this, the lack of foreign aid means the country is in real danger of extinction.

　This political law has been applicable for thousands of years, but after World War II, it was actually subverted by nuclear weapons.

　The military strength between superpowers and second- and third-rate small countries has opened up a huge gap not only in quantity but also in quality.

　Every time the United States sent troops overseas after World War II, it relied on its own army to undertake key tasks, and the allied troops were basically just embellishments.

　However, people have inertia in their thinking. After World War II, countries around the world still handled international relations based on the possibility of the next world war, spending a lot of unnecessary costs on investments in "aid", "alliances", "security and shelter" and other aspects.

　As the leader and dominant force of the free world, the United States has been far too generous in this regard, giving too much while asking too little from its allies. If the United States truly fulfilled every security commitment it had made, it would probably be impossible even if it exhausted its national and military power.

　In fact, most of the allies were of little use in the contest between the United States and the Soviet Union. It was a good thing they didn’t make things worse!

　"Of course, this isn't just a problem for the United States. The Soviet Union, China, and even India are all giving too much foreign aid, but receiving too little in return. Ultimately, instead of winning the gratitude of those receiving aid, they've become despised and taken advantage of.

　In general, the international order established after World War II is too restrictive towards major powers and too friendly towards small and weak countries.

　It's difficult for major powers to continue to profit from their power. Instead, many weaker nations, protected by international law and relying on their sovereignty, frequently disrupt the plans of the major powers to increase their bargaining power. They even oscillate between Moscow and Washington, seeking benefits from both sides.

　If this is the case, why does the United States continue to spend so much money every year to prop up a huge framework that is only for show, support a bunch of so-called allies who can only cheat for subsidies and discipline themselves with moral slogans, and consume massive resources to maintain an unprofitable international system?

　"International law? Yes, there are such rules. But why should the United States abide by these international laws?

　In my opinion, many so-called international laws are as ridiculous as a bell hung by a mouse around a cat's neck.

　I remember that on the eve of the English Civil War in the 17th century, when members of Parliament accused King Charles II of breaking the law, the British royal family publicly declared: The law can never bind the king, the king is the law. This is common sense and a self-evident truth, because the king never makes mistakes and never will.

　This principle still applies today: International law can never constrain the United States. The president's will is international law. This is common sense and a self-evident truth, because the United States never makes mistakes, never will! Any ally who questions the United States is a disloyal traitor and needs to be punished!

　The leader of the liberal camp must have dignity. How can he always be attacked and accused by his allies, like a student being lectured by his teacher?

　"Why should we respect the dignity and interests of our European allies? Doctor, you know what the British, Dutch, Germans, and Japanese say about the US military bases stationed on their soil. They describe our troops as nothing more than hired watchdogs and security guards!"

　Although this is just self-deception by their top brass, lies repeated a thousand times will eventually become truth. Europeans will then lose respect for the US military and cease to obey the US will, causing a lot of trouble that is truly unbearable.

　As far as I know, the intellectual circles in European countries even want to use "common values" or "Atlantic values" as a baton to train and discipline the United States in many aspects, impose a set of ideologies that are beneficial to Europe on the United States, and influence and control the United States spiritually.

　Just like the barbarian invasions of the past conquered Rome materially, but the Roman Church, in turn, conquered the barbarians spiritually.

　Old Europe wants to be America's Pope! But can they be a good pope of the new era? Aren't the two world wars and the destruction of colonial empires sufficient proof of their intellectual failure? Even if they reflected on their ideas after the war, who knows if their reflection was correct? Did they overcorrect? Or did they veer into even more absurd directions? It seems unreasonable to ask the United States to bear the cost of this trial and error, right?

　Since these so-called allies are so incompetent and disloyal, why should we take care of the feelings and interests of the old European countries?

　Anyway, they were now only capable of lip service—all sorts of slogans about love and peace, environmental protection, human rights, women's rights, and equal rights, each one louder than the last. But none of them dared to take real action, let alone actually hoist the red flag and join the Soviet Union…"

　When the butler came over with the gilded coffee pot to refill the cups, Ferry was making such a ridiculous statement to Dr. Kissinger and Colonel Haig.

　Before crossing over, he had always been puzzled by why the United States was so lenient towards its European allies, even treating them with caution. It was just like how even though the Russians had become a superpower, they still felt weak in the knees when they heard the words of the German, Dutch, and British masters.

　Later, Firi gradually realized something: Isn't this similar to the conflicting attitudes of Japan, Korea, and Vietnam towards China before the invasion of Western colonizers? On the one hand, they wanted to establish their own country and "de-Sinicize" it.

　On the other hand, they could not get rid of the influence of the Central Plains culture, and at the same time they had the ambition to rule the Central Plains and "transform the barbarians into Chinese". To do this, they had to actively embrace Chinese civilization and integrate into the mainstream of China.

　Should they accept Huaxia ideology and become Han Chinese? The feelings of these marginalized barbarians are extremely complicated.

　As a result, they can only hesitate between "de-Sinicization" and "active Sinicization", jumping back and forth, which is really entangled beyond words.

　Just as the Tanguts developed the Tangut script and the Khitans developed the Khitan script, they ultimately had to adopt the Chinese language. In the early days of the Mongol Empire, there was a period of disdain for Chinese civilization during the decline of the Song Dynasty. However, when Kublai Khan established the Yuan Dynasty, they were forced to embark on a difficult process of partial Sinicization.

　By analogy, Americans call themselves the New Rome, and Russians call themselves the "Third Rome." But where is the real Rome? In Europe!

　Whether this "Rome" refers to "Old Rome," the "Holy Roman Empire," or the "Eastern Roman Empire," it's all quite far from the mainland of the United States and Russia. Both the United States and Russia are essentially secondary civilizations that emerged from the radiation of European civilization into foreign lands.

　Then, when the United States and Russia become powerful, they will naturally want to compete with Europe to prove themselves the true heirs of European civilization—just as any ruler in East Asia, after becoming powerful, will want to compete with the Central Plains and strive for the dominance of China. Toyotomi Hideyoshi's Taiko ambitions are undoubtedly familiar to everyone. But even Korea and Vietnam have, at different times, dreamed of a northern expedition.

　Next, although the United States and Russia overwhelmed the divided Europe in terms of strength, they were still inferior to Europe in terms of culture.

　Although the United States and the Soviet Union are so big, in the field of ideology, both of them are disciples of old Europe!

　It's important to remember that Marxist thought originated in Germany and reached its peak in Britain and France. In both the First and Second Internationals, Russian revolutionary forces were marginalized. Until the founding of the Soviet Union, Lenin was, at best, a second-rate advocate within the Second International's left-wing circles.

　After all, it wasn't until the 19th century that Russian intellectuals stopped blindly following French cultural trends and began to produce a surge of outstanding writers and scientists. But before the Napoleonic Wars, Russia couldn't even produce any literature worth mentioning!

　The history of Russian literature can only be traced back to the 19th-century poet Pushkin.

　In comparison, Japan, which wrote "The Tale of Genji" and "The Pillow Book" a thousand years ago, is culturally superior to Russia.

　Even though the October Revolution was successful, Trotsky and other Bolshevik leaders were still determined to make Germany communist at all costs, believing that at least the red flag had to be raised in Central Europe to be considered a victory. Lenin and Stalin did not object to this, but they simply could not do it.

　As a result, until the end of World War II, the Soviet Union still encountered many unexpected and powerful resistances when integrating half of Europe. The reasons for this were not only that the Russians themselves were too simple and crude in their work, lacked consultation, and had a patriarchal style that was full of fatherly flavor, but also that the European upper class considered themselves civilized nobles and regarded the Russians as barbarians. The revolutionary forces in Europe could not get rid of their prejudices and were reluctant to accept Russian leadership.

　Just like the Chinese Confucian scholars, even though they were already corrupt, it was still difficult for them to accept the rule of the Hu emperor psychologically.

　The situation in the United States was similar. Early America was a crude and uncivilized wilderness, decades behind Europe in terms of social systems, cultural trends, and academic activity. While there were great scientists like Franklin among the founding fathers, these were rare exceptions. Even until the Civil War, students from the upper class in the United States were still proud to study in Europe.

　——I wonder if you have noticed a detail. President Lincoln’s emancipation of the slaves and the abolition of serfdom in Russia happened almost at the same time!

　Next, the first group of American cultural masters represented by Mark Twain and the first group of great Russian writers represented by Leo Tolstoy appeared on the historical stage at almost the same time in the mid-nineteenth century - both of them died in the same year, 1910.

　From this we can see that in the cultural field, modern Russia and the United States were actually equally backward, both following closely behind the brilliant European culture, and neither was much more advanced than the other. In fact, it was not until the late 20th century that the United States established cultural confidence in Europe.

　Next, on a series of progressive issues ranging from the workers' movement, women's rights to national equality, the United States has always lagged behind Europe by a generation.

　In other words, in the field of ideology, both the United States and the Soviet Union were laggards and needed to draw advanced theoretical knowledge from Europe.

　——But this also gave the mainstream European academic community the opportunity to deliberately "mislead" these two in the ideological field.

　Therefore, during the Cold War, the two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, though they suppressed Europe with their strength, were, in turn, receptive to various European ideological outputs—the Soviet Union was somewhat more successful in this regard. Although initially deeply misled by the unrealistic "world revolution theory" of the Europeans, starting with Stalin, they were able to formulate a series of their own theories and engage in debate and confrontation with the European left.

　The United States has adopted a completely copycat approach to ideology. During the Cold War, the Western camp in Europe and the United States raised

　The so-called banner of liberalism, from Foucault, Hayek to Keynes, among this series of theoretical writers, which one was trained in the United States?

　Aren’t they all mentors invited from Europe to come to the wild and exotic land of the New World to guide the American Yankee barbarians in ideological work?

　Even at the end of the Cold War, North America, a barren land of political and economic academic theories, could only produce "winners" like Francis Fukuyama, who advocated "The End of History" - his theories were so crude and shoddy that they were unbearable to read compared with those of European masters.

　Therefore, while the United States certainly relied on its immense power to suppress Europe in all aspects during the Cold War, Europe, in turn, relied on its ideological high ground to use soft power to tie the hands of the United States, rendering it even more "civilized" and "progressive," and thus even more powerless...

　From the Roman Empire to the British Empire, every universal empire in history has extorted tribute from its vassal states, collecting bribes and drawing blood from them. Even the most benevolent of the Chinese Empires could only manage to keep their vassal states at bay, allowing them to live in peace and contentment, and then offering them small rewards through tribute.

　It is rare in history that countries like the United States and the Soviet Union spent money all over the world and acted as suckers, and also provided aid for decades at a time.

　However, this world is ultimately material, and the influence of spiritual and cultural soft power is ultimately illusory.

　As long as the ruling class of the United States can break through the ideological imprint of European theorists mixed into the liberal ideology and the unrealistic moral standards, no longer restrain their own hands and feet, return to the wild cowboy nature of the 19th century, and once again plunder and rob, and trade with swords.

　So, facing the guns and axes of American cowboys, the Europeans who had been lying down for many years could only become blood bags amidst crying and screaming.

　——Just like the MAGA movement that Trump, the King of Understanding, launched in the 21st century in another timeline...

　After all, since the beginning of the Age of Discovery, the glory that belonged to Europeans has long since disappeared with the collapse of colonial empires.

　All that remains now are a few remnants of the past.

　-

　A few rose petals fell on the shoulders of Fieri's white military uniform and on Colonel Haig's suit. The radio switched to "Your Deceitful Heart." As the song played, Fieri took a sip of coffee, moistened his lips, and continued his conversation. "Although we can't trust the loyalty of Western European countries, I believe we can fully trust the class stance of the German and French capitalists."

　When the red flag was raised around them, they would rather burn their factories to ashes, blow up their laboratories, and poison their engineers and scientists, rather than hand over a powerful and advanced industrial and scientific research system intact to the Soviet Union..."

　"But I doubt they'll still be able to carry out such a destruction plan when the apocalypse arrives, and how many people will still be willing to follow their orders. When Nazi Germany collapsed, most of its top scientists came to the United States, but many were also taken away by the Soviet Union."

　Colonel Haig sneered, "If the Soviet Union completely takes over Western Europe's industry and technology, the United States will be in great trouble. Will we then strike our allies once again, launching a new 'Operation Ballista' with nuclear bombs? Will the United States use nuclear weapons to destroy European industry?"

　Britain's control over India was tight, and the princely monarchs were loyal to Britain. But when the independence movement emerged, the Union Jack withdrew from India.

　During the two world wars in the first half of this century, Britain relied on lies and violence to plunder vast amounts of wealth from the wealthy Indian land, sufficient to support the war effort. However, this came at the cost of the collapse of Britain's colonial rule over India, which could no longer be sustained.

　If the United States were to impose heavy taxes on Europe, just as Britain had plundered India, then even if Europeans were now extremely war-shy, there would likely be another hypocritical Mahatma Gandhi or another sinister and cunning Nehru emerging...

　By then, will the United States be able to continue to cling to Europe? It would be great if it could have a dignified retreat.”

　After hearing Dr. Kissinger's reminder, Firi, who had been talking big and treating Europe as a weakling, couldn't help but hesitate.

　In modern history, if we were to talk about any rich but weak place in the world, India would definitely be the first one.

　The reason why the British Empire in the 19th century was able to maneuver in the European continent and suppress the larger France, Germany and Russia with its not-so-large domestic size was because of the rich treasure trove of the Indian subcontinent, which continuously provided blood transfusions to Britain across half the world.

　The tiny nation of Britain was able to conquer and rule the vastness of India because India was a land of numerous princely states and numerous ethnic groups, all of which were deeply conflicted and hostile to each other, making it impossible for them to unite and resist the colonizers. This allowed Britain to exploit local forces and rule India's population of hundreds of millions with only tens of thousands of British people.

　Especially during the First World War, in order to raise massive military funds and thwart the German nation's challenge to British hegemony, Britain further increased its plunder of India, causing prices in India to soar, starvation everywhere, the Indian people suffered terribly, and anti-colonial thoughts emerged among the upper elites.

　At that time, Germany was also secretly supporting the political activities of these Indians, trying to mess up British India, the "cash cow of the British Empire."

　However, the Germans in 1914 really overestimated the ambitions of the Indians and underestimated their feelings towards the British.

　Just as Hong Kong later had a large number of "spiritual British" who claimed to be loyal to the Queen, the British Indian colonies, which had an even more important position in the British Empire, also generally had a very contradictory phenomenon. That is, they wanted to gain freedom, but did not want to completely break away from their ties with Britain. This cannot be said to be entirely due to cowardice and betrayal of the nation, but was also a lesson that Indians had learned from history.

　At the time, India's indigenous elites believed that India's history was too turbulent. Without the colonial invasion of the British Empire, a unified and peaceful Greater India would never have existed. By analogy, once the British left, without the military suppression of this external, advanced civilization, the South Asian subcontinent would likely fragment once again, becoming a myriad of tiny, mutually hostile states.

　Moreover, the Central Asian nomads in the northwest will once again pass through the Khyber Pass and rush into India to kill and slaughter people - the so-called "Hindu Kush Mountains" that stretch across the Afghan territory actually means "the mountains that kill Indians", which shows how cruel they were in killing the Indian people in the past.

　Therefore, a considerable number of Indians feel that instead of letting India fall into division and war again as in history, it would be better to temporarily retain British colonial rule, as long as Britain can appropriately relax its exploitation of India and give India an autonomous status similar to that of Australia and Canada.

　——In general, Indians view Britain a bit like the remnants of the six kingdoms in Guandong during the Qin Dynasty, and their view of the Qin State that ended the war and unified the world.

　There is widespread fear, hatred, indignation, and disgust in people's hearts, but there is also joy for peace and unity, and no one wants chaos to start again.

　Therefore, in 1914, the Indians did not listen to the Germans' deception and launch a new anti-British uprising. Instead, they tried to gain British consent for Indian self-government by offering financial and human resources. The cunning British immediately made a verbal promise, stating that they would transfer power to India after the end of World War I.

　Believing it, the Indian elites immediately set to work, mobilizing all possible resources to help Britain in the war. Even Mahatma Gandhi, who called himself the father of Indian independence, was one of the main supporters of mobilizing various Indian resources to fully assist Britain.

　Throughout the First World War, Indians gave their all to Britain and spared no effort, literally helping Britain with their blood and marrow - India sent 600,000 troops to fight for Britain, and all the logistical expenses of these 600,000 Indian troops had to be raised by the local Indian government.

　In addition, during the entire World War I, the Indian colonies provided Britain with 18 horses, camels and other large livestock, 22 tons of rice, 13 tons of flour, 3.5 tons of sugar, 60 tons of timber, and a large amount of other war-related materials.

　During World War I, the wealth donated to Britain by various sectors of India alone exceeded 1.4 million pounds!

　You have to remember that during World War I, the British pound was still very strong. One pound at that time was equivalent to 2000 pounds in the early 21st century, or 20,000 RMB! In other words, the unpaid donations made by Indians to Britain during World War I alone amounted to 2.8 trillion RMB today!

　The world at the beginning of the 20th century was far from being as wealthy as the world a hundred years later. This huge sum of money really made India

　The bone marrow is squeezed dry.

　In addition to donations, there were also various other exorbitant taxes, wartime procurements, etc. imposed on Indians.

　But after such enthusiastic efforts, what India finally got was the British breaking the contract and turning their back on it: not only did post-war India fail to obtain autonomy as it wished, but Britain also forcibly passed the Rowlatt Act, greatly increasing the repression against Indians in order to suppress India's desire to go it alone.

　During World War II, Britain continued its World War I policy, offering India empty promises of postwar autonomy and once again demanding India's full support. However, a lie cannot be repeated. The Indian National Congress, having learned its lesson from World War I, adopted a non-cooperative attitude. Britain, however, still sought to maintain absolute rule over India, seeking only to exploit Indian manpower and resources without considering the question of Indian independence and autonomy.

　Finally, after a series of fierce games such as armed suppression, negotiation, arresting Congress members and imprisonment, by the end of World War II, Britain's colonial rule machine in India was on the verge of getting out of control, and Indian soldiers and police revolted one after another. In order to win the damn World War II, the British colonists were completely inhumane. On the one hand, they imposed heavy taxes and created a great famine in India and Bengal, and on the other hand, they recruited 250 million Indian men to form an army to join the war.

　This kind of behavior of pouring fuel on the problem while adding fuel to the fire is definitely like drinking poison to quench thirst, and is completely suicidal in the long run.