Monday, September 16, 2013

One of Many Possible Worlds

Bear with me as I attempt to put together a story of a possible future….  Forgive me, as this will be somewhat disorganized; as I have suggested more than once, this Syria things seems big and I am struggling with putting together many different pieces.  Perhaps I am overthinking it….

It is a story grounded in the global financial mess, brought on by central banking and this driven to a large extent by the Federal Reserve as keeper of the global reserve currency; a world grown tremendously tired of a hypocritical and hyperactive super-power bully; changing geo-political landscapes, as developing economies gain more clout and developed economies fail to grow their way into the impossible promises made by the respective governments; failed attempts at further consolidation toward global centralization (call it world government, if you like).

I will build on one of my earliest posts at this blog.  In it, I presented a scenario of a new set of alliances coming out of the wake of today’s transitional events – transitional even before Obama’s Syrian debacle, although this debacle seems to have brought to the fore that which previously was whispered only discretely.  In reading it again, I remain comfortable with the possibilities presented.

The US and the west have made a fine mess of things.  The obvious death of the old financial system came in 2008, but signs of it were evident certainly in 1971 – just 25 years after its birth – with the closing of dollar convertibility in international markets.

Yet, the military order hasn’t missed a beat – every desired bombing has been carried out.  It is as if the machine of regulatory democracy, put in place for the control made possible, is going through a few final reflexive convulsions before finally finding death.

Events this past week regarding Syria still strike me as a significant sign of something.  Start with the simple: there are several who suggest that if Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize merely for his campaign rhetoric, certainly Putin has earned one for his work regarding Syria:

When Kathleen Trola McFarland (sic) the familiar Fox News national security analyst who served in national security posts in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations and was an aide to Henry Kissinger at the White House, wrote that "Vladimir Putin is the one who really deserves the Nobel Peace Prize", she obviously had the Syrian crisis in mind.

McFarland wrote on Tuesday, "In one of the most deft diplomatic maneuvers of all time, Russia's President Putin has saved the world from near-certain disaster."

With events in Syria masterfully steered by Putin, negative views of the United States are coming to the fore:

Tehran too has taken a highly nuanced position on the issue of Syria's chemical weapons. It has held a delicate line that, alas, the wily Gulf Arab sheikhs trapped Obama. In an extraordinary interview with Press TV on Wednesday, Iran's savvy Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said,

I think that a number of groups, people inside the United States, and interests outside the United States, wanted to put the president of the US - whom I believe was reluctant to start the war - into a trap, a trap which he had unfortunately laid down for himself; and that was to get him involved in a war in order to address a hypothetical issue of the use of chemical weapons by the government of Syria.

This, too, is my sense about Obama – he has been acting against type in his role as Chief Warmonger.

Do you want to see a more thorough portrayal of the world’s market share leader in weapons of mass destruction?  Try this and get a sense of how much of the rest of the world sees the land of the free:

On my wall is the front page of Daily Express of September 5, 1945, and the words: "I write this as a warning to the world." So began Wilfred Burchett's report from Hiroshima. It was the scoop of the century. For his lone, perilous journey that defied the US occupation authorities, Burchett was pilloried, not least by his embedded colleagues. He warned that an act of premeditated mass murder on an epic scale had launched a new era of terror.

Almost every day now, he is vindicated. The intrinsic criminality of the atomic bombing is borne out in the US National Archives and by the subsequent decades of militarism camouflaged as democracy. The Syria psychodrama exemplifies this…. The great unmentionable is that humanity's most dangerous enemy resides in Washington. (emphasis added)

With al-Qaeda now among its allies, and US-armed coupmasters secure in Cairo, the US intends to crush the last independent states in the Middle East: Syria first, then Iran. "This operation [in Syria]," said the former French foreign minister Alexander Dumas in June, "goes way back. It was prepared, pre-conceived and planned." (emphasis added)

The objective is to ever-expand regions under western-style regulatory democracy, useful for shearing the sheep.  But this has not gone so well for at least the last ten years.

Whether or not Bashar al-Assad or the "rebels" used gas in the suburbs of Damascus, it is the US, not Syria, that is the world's most prolific user of these terrible weapons.

The author goes on to list just a minor subset of the atrocities committed by the US government through history.  He does so much more; it is a most worthwhile read.


Many have suggested that this fantasy of man-made global warming was a Trojan horse for advancing world government; the climate is global, and problems involving the globe require global structures to solve, after all.

I have additionally speculated that the carbon tax – a story built up over many years – was the means by which a new global currency would be introduced. From one of my posts that touched on this subject, regarding the failure (in the eyes of the controllers) of the latest green summit in Rio in 2012:

For all of the justifiable concerns of the increasing encroachment by government into the lives of individuals, such failures should be highlighted and celebrated.  This green movement, a move toward carbon taxes all in the name of global cooling / global warming / climate change, was intended to usher in a new global currency at just the time the financial calamity hit.

One certain way to ensure market acceptance of a currency is to require taxes to be paid in said currency.  The global carbon tax was intended just for that purpose, it seems to me – ushering in the replacement for the failing dollar.

Unfortunately for the central planners, a few emails got out into the public just when they were ready to spring their plan – destroying all momentum that was built-up in anticipation of the then upcoming Copenhagen summit:

The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as "Climategate") began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) by an external attacker.  Several weeks before the Copenhagen Summit on climate change, an unknown individual or group breached CRU's server and copied thousands of emails and computer files to various locations on the Internet.

Today we are told that the earth is cooling, just as it was in the 1970s when the fear was a new ice age, not warming.  The possibility of using climate change, just like the continuance of the current monetary scheme, has taken several death blows.  It may very well be dead.

I speculate that the end of global warming / climate change was the end of an ability to globally centralize – at least for a long time.  What global crisis can be invented to take its place?  Space alien invasions, perhaps?

If the possibility of ushering in a new, global, currency has been dashed – and with it, the path toward continued centralization – then perhaps there is little use of the current tool (i.e. the US government) for Anglo-elite control.

So, in my earlier post, I suggested that what might come out of this fine mess is a new alliance – one that includes Russia, China, Germany, Japan, and possibly Australia.  Geographically this is plausible; from a technology, commodity, labor, and market standpoint, this is immensely reasonable; geo-politically, one of the main desires is a check on the US position in the world – the Syrian debacle seems to be exposing this desire in many; financially, there seems to be no alternative prepared to stand in for the slowly failing dollar. 

So why rehash my earlier posts and comments, as well as take the all-too-easy approach of delivering numerous body blows against a failing empire?  Let’s start here:

Romantic Germany risks economic decline as green dream spoils.  Germany is committing slow economic suicide. It has staked its future on heavy industry and manufacturing, yet has no energy policy to back this up.  Instead, the country has a ruinously expensive green dream, priced at €700bn (£590bn) from now until the late 2030s by environment minister Peter Altmaier if costs are slashed - and €1 trillion if they are not.

The green energy religion is butting up against reality, as I wrote about recently; Germany, a country dependent on exporting its manufactured product, has dumped countless billions of Euros down the drain of horrendously expensive and wasteful energy schemes, and has little in the way of economically sustainable energy solutions to show for it.

America was over-rated in 2000. Russia and Britain were over-rated in 2007. Brazil, India and a string of mini-BRICS were over-rated in 2011. Today the country most obviously trading at its cyclical peak is Germany, a geostrategic “short” candidate that is drawing down its credit from past efforts.

Germany is shuttering its nuclear capability.  This represents, apparently, capacity for one-fifth of the country’s energy demand.  In its place is a plan (hope) to derive one-half of energy needs by 2035 from wind, solar, biomass and other renewables.

The results are rather predictable:

Electricity prices are twice as high as in America. Natural gas costs are four times as high, forcing the chemical giants of the Ruhr and the Rhine to decamp across the Atlantic. BASF is building its new site for emulsion polymers in Texas, the latest of a €4.2bn investment blitz in the US.

So far, publicly at least, Merkel is standing firm:

Angela Merkel says she is “more convinced than ever” that her green gamble will pay off. “If anyone can manage it, it’ll be the Germans. It’s not easy, but we can do it.”

Sooner or later, Germany will have to face facts: it needs energy compatible with a technologically advanced industrial economy.  This won’t come from wind turbines and solar panels on the farmhouses of the Schwarz Wald.

What German neighbor has plenty of energy resources?

Germany's euro break-up party – Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) – has unveiled its foreign policy. It is pure Bismarck.

"Germany and Europe have no interest in a further weakening of Russia," said Alexander Gauland, AfD's foreign affairs chief. "Germany's relations with Russia should be managed with meticulous care."

What they say is no longer an academic question. The party is rising fast in the polls and may break through the 5pc barrier to take seats in the Bundestag, scrambling a close election.

A very minor party, but at least this is indicative that the dialogue has become public.

AfD pays lip-service to the Nato alliance, insisting that it wishes to retain the US as the anchor of the Western security system, even it as it talks of finding a middle way between the US and Russia. This is eyewash. You cannot pick and choose, opting in and out of western security as takes your fancy.

But is it merely a minor party giving voice to a minority opinion?  Check recent German behavior on the global stage:

The country refused to back its French and British allies in the UN Security Council over Libya; it refused to join France, Britain, Spain, and Italy in signing the G20 accord denouncing the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime in Syria.

It curries favour with Russia and China at the expense of EU partners on one issue after another, undercutting the European Commission when its own trade interests are at stake. It is a "semi-detached" member of the European Union already, more so than Britain these days in foreign policy.

Germany has already made overtures to the east, at the expense of falling in line with the desires of its western occupiers.

Putin has demonstrated that the US emperor has no clothes – both via Snowden and now regarding Syria.

The order of the world may be changing; instead of the dreamt-for New World Order, the elite may be on the receiving end of a China and Russia that see things differently.  Of course, the elite will still find a way to get theirs; however, it seems to me that the political leadership in China and Russia would not be very willing to allow others to sheer the sheep that are in their respective flocks.

Note: HT to Ed Steer; most of the external articles cited in this post all appeared in the September 14 edition of his daily post.  It is striking that such a story is rapidly emerging, all at this time. 

Or just coincidence.


  1. Greatly enjoying this series of articles. Your ability to connect the dots through so many different angles is fascinating. Sure , it' just speculation, but it's spect speculation of the informed, well thought-out and well-sourced variety.

    I will post this up at later this week

  2. I think we need more of this sort of speculation. Some of what is learned from such things is indirect, yet might not be learned for a very long time without the original thoughts.

    The best things Germany has are heavy industry combined with high tech. One demands a large amount of steady electricity, the other requires a very steady supply. Merkel is destroying Germany in slow motion, just as the US has been denuded of it's industry by the combination of regulatory foolishness and corporate manipulation.

    The NWO crowd will not quit. They will just morph their efforts as they deem best to effectuate world wide control.

    Their being thwarted in this (to them) small way is hopeful but dangerous. Some of us sort of knew what they were doing. Or, at least, some of us like to think so. It will change now. There is no way that we can anticipate all of the ways that it will. taxes

    1. taxes, I agree with the indirect learning. This is one reason I toss this stuff out there - who knows what it might trigger in someone else's thinking, and how that might lead to a fine-tuning of insight.

  3. While I can't say much for the Team USA/Team Russia notes aside from me appreciating the revelations, I can attest to the unraveling of the climate change movement.

    I have the (mis)fortune of being involved in an industry that indirectly gains from the Green Religion. "Green Projects" have all but erased entirely. The bids exist, but they are few and far between. It's hit a point where particular decision makers (I might make /some/ of them sound more important than they are) aren't seeing the point in expending limited resources in green technology that hasn't been proven to be any more or less efficient than it's traditional counterparts.

    It's been interesting to watch the private sector start to back away from the Green Religion.

    -Tony the Tiger