Friday, April 25, 2014

Are They on the Same Team?

One of the open questions, for me at least, concerning the intent of and coordination amongst those we label the global elite: while they certainly compete at one level, ultimately are they all on the same team?  Are they working together toward a one world government, or is there one faction (e.g. the Anglo-dominated west) working to take control of other factions – against the will of the local elite?

My view, so far, is that centralization has reached and passed its peak – we are seeing too many moves of decentralization: in political terms, the USSR, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia have all come apart.  The EU?  Belgium and Spain?  In information terms, the internet – a greater tool of information decentralization has never been available to the masses.

We have seen the advancement (and attempted advancement) of the Anglo-dominated faction; this is most visible, recently, through actions in the Middle East for example.  Relatively speaking, these were pretty easy pushovers – no military muscle, no developed industry, no way to fight back.  So, the local elite cut the best deal that they could; as long as the local political leaders played nice with their Anglo guardians, everyone stayed content.  A few decided not to play nice, and it didn’t end well for them.

But what of China, as a wonderfully clear-cut example?  Are the political leaders in China serving the purposes of the Anglo-elite, or are they serving the purposes of their own, Chinese elite?  The same question can be asked today of Russia.

I wrote recently of the end of the global war on terror.  Perhaps it has run its course; perhaps it has proven to be a not very useful tool; perhaps – as the war benefited the politicians and elite of only one side (guess which), there was not the necessary interplay that benefitted, for example, the cold war.

It seems to me that the events playing out in the Ukraine (and therefore Russia), and ultimately with China will answer the question – are the elites all on the same team?

For this, I offer the following written by Mike Whitney, entitled “Putin’s Dilemma: Fending Off the United States’ Imperial Hand,” (HT Ed Steer)

The United States is in the opening phase of a war on Russia. Policymakers in Washington have shifted their attention from the Middle East to Eurasia where they hope to achieve the most ambitious part of the imperial project; to establish forward-operating bases along Russia’s western flank, to stop further economic integration between Asia and Europe, and to begin the long-sought goal of dismembering the Russian Federation. These are the objectives of the current policy. The US intends to spread its military bases across Central Asia, seize vital resources and pipeline corridors, and encircle China in order to control its future growth.

This sums up the current situation and recent shift in focus quite well.  As I mentioned, it seems the war on terror has come to an end, in place of a return to (hopefully, for the sake of humanity) only a cold war (not to minimize or ignore the suffering of those on the battle line – the miserable experience of being “freed” by the US Government is not to be wished on anyone).

Whitney cites Zbigniew Brzezinski, from his 1997 book “The Grand Chessboard…American Primacy And It’s Geostrategic Imperatives”:

“America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe’s central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America’s global primacy and to America’s historical legacy.” (p.194) “It follows that America’s primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it.” (p.148) …” (Emphasis added)

Let’s be clear – there is no such thing as a “global community” in this context.  There are puppet-masters directing the puppets (or placing automatons in key positions, those who have demonstrated that they will act in desired manners).  Brzezinski’s “global community” is nothing more than the global elite – or at least the western ones that he serves.

Brzezinski throws in the obligatory feint:

“The world’s energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades.” (p.125)

The expansion of empire is not for the purpose of securing energy.  What was Korea?  Vietnam?  Afghanistan? 

It is for control – control of the most productive asset on the planet, the human being.  Control through central banking; control through regulatory democracy (and where democracy is not helpful to the cause, as the population has not been sufficiently brainwashed, control through more overtly forceful means). 

“…how America `manages’ Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe’s largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. …About 75 per cent of the world’s people live in Eurasia…” (p.31)

As a quick aside, note that Brzezinski identifies the population in the region before he (subsequently, and not cited) identifies the “wealth” underground.

But, more to the point of the question asked as the title of this post: who will dominate Eurasia?  The answer to this question will answer if the elite are all on the same team.  Will Russia – but more importantly China – succumb to another cold war (designed to further consolidate power in all spheres) – but this time with the Anglo dominated world immediately adjacent if not even within their respective “spheres of influence”?  Will the political leaders in these two Eurasian giants cooperate with the west, or separate?

The question will be answered by considering one last line from Whitney:

The world’s only superpower does not have to listen to anyone. It is a law unto itself.

We will see.  While doing so will cause considerable harm to their own economies, Russia and China can avoid western elite domination by withdrawing from western economic structures.  There is much talk of this – BRICS nations creating their own trading blocks, currency swapping systems, etc.  I have written about this often – even considering which direction Germany and Japan might head.

In its simplest form: will China pull the rug out from under US Treasury debt?  They could do so – granted, causing significant internal turmoil.  Some have speculated that China could introduce some amount of gold backing for its currency.  While this might have the very short term effect of harming their economy, quite quickly it could turn into a boom.  Most assuredly, it will strangle the US Dollar.

Imagine the shift in scenario if the dollar is no longer considered the world’s reserve currency.  I do not suggest such a possibility is imminent (falling off of a cliff is in no one’s interest), and this may not even be in the cards (exploring this is the point of this post); but if China or Russia chooses not to be swept under Anglo domination, they have choices.

The plan does involve considerable risks, however, (Russia does have nuclear weapons, after all) but the risks are far outweighed by the prospect of unchallenged global dominance for the foreseeable future.

I continue to believe that the elite – whether they are on the same team or not – do not want to risk nuclear war; they cannot survive it much better than any of the rest of us can.

But accidents do happen; in this arena, accidents have almost happened a few times before.  This is no great game.  

So: will China and Russia play along with the west, or will they stand apart?

The answer to this question will answer if the elite are all on the same team or not.  Given that about the only expansion opportunities for the western elite are Russia and China, the time may be near at hand for our answer.


  1. The west became hostile against Putin when he broke the power of certain oligarchs more than a decade ago. Most important was the jailing of Khodorkovsky. US politicians such as McCain and Tom Lantos and other neocons began lobbying against Putin as a result of that.

  2. pretty nice blog, following :)

  3. Why would you expect them all to be on the same team? Just read your Orwell. Oceania must have its external enemies. Today war with Eastasia, as it has always been. Tomorrow war with Eurasia, as it has always been. When it's time for the Two Minute Hate, we will be informed of our enemy du jour. And if there are purges and infighting within the Inner Party, what difference does that ever make to the Outer Party and the Proles?

    1. There are puppet masters above the visible puppets that we see on the stage every day. To what extent are these puppet masters working together? To what extent do all of the visible puppets dance on strings pulled by the same master, or masters working toward a common end?

      I don't know the answer to this with any certainty. My guess is that the puppet masters that control the visible puppets in China (and maybe Russia) are not completely in league with the puppet masters who control the visible puppets of the west. But I cannot say with certainty, and would not be surprised to find I am wrong.

      These most recent events might give a clue as to the answer.

    2. I will add: "Oceania must have its external enemies."

      War is the health of the state - this is true for both states in any war. Have you considered that the cold war was beneficial to both sides in helping to control the respective populations?

      Why can't the puppet masters, if not the puppets, be in league? Having the respective populations believe the other is an enemy serves the interest of both puppet master and long as the puppets don't get too carried away in the part.

  4. BM: "These most recent events might give a clue as to the answer"


    This editorial by Christopher R. Hill may provide more clues:

    "The End of the New World Order"



    1. Abu, very good. As project syndicate seems to be a good site for learning of elite/NWO messaging, the author indicates perhaps an end (or large speed bump) on the road to one. globalized political body.

      More interesting are the comments, almost every one critical of actions of the west and the US government.

  5. Reading the discussion, I had a momentary thought that the actual puppet masters may be large portions of the respective populations of each country. These populations want their lives to continue as they are, these populations are enemies of serious thought and its applications in word and deed, populations that are far more symbiotic allies to the pathetic secret oligarchies than to their own offspring (insofar they have any).

    These hypothetical puppet masters are themselves enslaved by the meme that we're at _the_ summit; "we," who are in the "modernity." And through that belief, as well as by their nihilistic pig-headedness, they're, indeed, globally united.