I have speculated before: is it purposeful that the Anglo-American Empire is (or certainly seems to be) in retreat. Have the elites decided that their creation has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted in world devoid of a substantial enemy? Is this current dance between Russia and the US one designed to further empower the Anglo Empire, or is it to force a step back by its primary globalizing tool?
I note an interesting blog post (HT Ed Steer), entitled “John Kerry should really try and get some sleep.”
Citing a Kerry statement regarding the events in and around Syria last year:
And if you just look at last year, I ask you to measure what our diplomacy is doing. I know I listen to the sort of political currents that people who try to drag you down by asserting that you’re not doing enough or you didn’t go to war where you should have or whatever it is, but we’re getting things done.
And we’re getting them done in the best traditions of what diplomacy is supposed to do. People are angry because we didn’t strike Syria at one instant. But guess what? Today, 92 percent of all the chemical weapons in Syria are out and being destroyed, and the other 8 percent will get out. That never would have occurred otherwise. (Applause.)
Now, on the surface this is laughable. Kerry appears to be taking credit for the outcome in Syria, when the (superficial) truth is that Putin is the one that made this happen, seemingly counter to the desires of the US government.
But, what if Kerry is actually correct? What if this was the intended result of US diplomacy?
Obama was selected by the elite because, among other reasons, he was relatively passive – certainly when compared to Hillary or McCain. Also because they knew he wouldn’t pay attention to details.
There are a few positions more important for the elite to control than that of Secretary of State in the US. Are such significant statements made by accident?
Asked in London last September if there anything that Bashar al-Assad could do to avoid air strikes in reprisal for using chemical weapons, Mr Kerry fired a stentorian broadside straight off one of his heavily starched cuffs.
"Sure," he responded mockingly, "He can turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week." And just to make clear that he wasn't serious Mr Kerry added: "But he isn't about to do it, and it can't be done, obviously."
Obviously. Except of course, Mr Assad did do just that, but only after an intervention by Vladimir Putin that saved face for an Obama administration that was in utter disarray and has had rings run around it by the crafty KGB man ever since.
Perhaps Kerry purposefully gaffed, knowing the next steps in the dance. Perhaps it was by design – a coordinated effort – to get the US to lose face.
Other than Ron Paul (who could not be considered because he called the entire edifice of government into question), Obama was the best candidate for president if one wanted to shrink the influence and war-mongering of the US government.
Kerry, especially if one recalls his courageous stands on foreign policy in his younger days, was an ideal candidate for his position if the same objective is kept in mind. (Hillary perhaps needed to be thrown a bone in order to get her to back off peacefully when it was clear Obama was the one.)
Perhaps the emperor has gotten too big for his britches.
What a nice thought.