I have been struggling to make some sense of the latest events in Syria, Iraq, and IS.
I have noted both the trend and demeanor of Obama in toning down aggressive overseas action relative to both his predecessors and those against whom he ran for president in both 2008 and 2012.
I have suggested that Obama was installed precisely for this reason – to tone it down. The Frankenstein’s monster created by the elite that is behind the US government went out of control when it was the last man standing, after the fall of the Soviet Union. Instead of effectively shepherding the continuing trend toward global governance, the USG was making enemies of everyone.
So the elite decided, via Obama, that it was time to turn it down a notch. I have seen indications of this in the writing of various members of the CFR and even Henry Kissinger.
This looked like just what was happening via Syria a year ago and Russia earlier this year. Despite the aggressive actions taken by Obama / the USG in both events, imagine if it was Hillary, McCain, or Romney in the driver’s seat. Nuclear war might already be behind us.
Hence my struggle with recent events.
The Daily Bell recently ran an editorial precisely on this subject. As many of you know, I am indebted to this site for the analysis they have done precisely on this type of issue. So I was hoping for some answers. Instead:
But if we look at the muddle in Africa and the Middle East it soon becomes clear that such regional warfare is difficult to control and sustain with any kind of narrative clarity.
We have spent the past several years searching for a sensible and dominant social theme appropriately implemented; increasingly, we wonder if there is one.
I am not alone in this struggle.
My only conclusion, only somewhat satisfying, is that the desires of at least some important faction of the elite are continuing to butt up against the perpetual war-making machine of their creation.
For this reason, it seems to me the success of Rand Paul will be an important marker. If my views of Obama’s election are correct, then Rand Paul is the only mainstream candidate that at least often talks less belligerently than others.