Final Conflict 2012? Engineering World War III
Final Conflict 2012? Engineering World War III
September 28, 2012
By ADRIAN SALBUCHI
In today’s increasingly interdependent and interactive world, every action has a myriad of causes, meanings, objectives and reactions; many visible, many invisible. Some, openly admitted and declared; others no one would dare confess.
When trying to come to grips with the many complex conflicts going on in the world and the dizzying pace at which they transpire, it would be a mistake to approach them in isolation. Only a “holistic” bird’s eye view gives us the picture of where we are and, more importantly, whereto we are being dragged.
21st century geopolitics cannot be understood applying a silo mentality. Syria’s civil war, Egypt’s “Arab Spring,” the destruction of Libya and Iraq, growing China, crippled Japan, the Eurozone crisis, America’s “missile shield” in Poland, Iran’s nuclear program, the coming Latin American “Spring…” Approached haphazardly, the picture we get is one of utter chaos. Approached applying the right model of interpretation, we begin to see how things interrelate, react and move in obedience to extremely powerful and dynamic – albeit, mostly invisible – forces silently driving today’s world.
Don’t (just) Read the Newspapers…
It’s good to be informed; it’s useless, however, if you cannot format that information into proper intelligible models. Too much unprocessed information will send your brain into overdrive. Thus, it’s good judgment to step away from all the noisy headlines, breaking news, terror alarms and show-biz news anchors. It’s like when you look at a Claude Monet impressionist painting: if you stand too close, you only see a maze of little coloured dots, but when you take a dozen steps back then the beauty of the work unfolds before your eyes.
In today’s information overdrive, we must join the dots correctly in spite of the global media’s insistence that we connect them all wrong.
By now, most of us have realised that ours is “a planet at war”; not at war with some alien world (that would make things easier to understand!). Rather, we are a civilisation waging civil war with itself and against itself.
Reading the global press, you might think this is a war between sovereign nations, but it’s more complicated than that. This world war is waged by a hugely powerful, illegitimate, authoritarian but numerically tiny Global Elite, embedded deep inside the public and private power structures of just about every nation on Earth; notably, the United States of America.
Like a cancerous malignant tumour, we can’t remove it outright; we can only hope to weaken it and arrest its growth before it metastasizes, killing mankind’s whole body politic. What the world needs now is some subtle sort of “virtual political chemotherapy” to remove and destroy this malignant tumour governing the world.
A key manifestation of this social and political illness lies in the extreme inequalities that exist in the USA, where the richest 1% of the population owns 35% of the country’s wealth, whilst the bottom 90% must do what they can with just 25% of national wealth. Worse still, the overwhelming majority of Congressmen, Senators, and top Executive Branch officers fall under the “top richest 1%” category.1
Understanding hidden intentions, long-term plans, hegemonic ambitions and the unconfessable plots necessary to achieve them is particularly important for US, UK, European and Australian citizens. After all, it’s their leaders who formally order their countries’ armed forces to ransack and destroy target countries.
When voters in Argentina, Colombia, Nigeria or Malaysia choose the wrong leaders, they themselves are the sole victims of their bad electoral judgment. But when US, British or French voters in their folly put the wrong people in power in their countries, then hundreds of millions around the world suffer from their bombs, drones, invasions, interference and regime changes.
Report From Iron Mountain
An old book from the late sixties called Report from Iron Mountain on the Possibility and Desirability of Peace2 was allegedly authored by the Hudson Institute future-prying think-tank at the request of then US Secretary of Defense Robert S McNamara. Many say the book is a hoax. But it uncannily reflects the realities of the past half century.
The book includes the claim it was authored by a Special Study Group of fifteen men whose identities were to remain secret and that it was not intended to be made public. It concludes that war, or a credible substitute for war, is necessary if governments are to maintain power.
Report from Iron Mountain states that, “wars are not ‘caused’ by international conflicts of interest. Proper logical sequence would make it more often accurate to say that war-making societies require – and thus bring about – such conflicts. The capacity of a nation to make war expresses the greatest social power it can exercise; war-making, active or contemplated, is a matter of life and death on the greatest scale subject to social control.”
The report goes on to explain that, “the production of weapons of mass destruction has always been associated with economic ‘waste’.” Iron Mountain stresses that war is an important tool, because it creates artificial economic demand, a demand that does not have any political issues: “war, and only war, solves the problem of inventory.”
Not surprisingly, Iron Mountain concludes that “world peace” is neither desirable nor in the best interests of society, because war not only serves important economic functions but also plays key social and cultural roles.
“The permanent possibility of war is the foundation for stable government; it supplies the basis for general acceptance of political authority… War is virtually synonymous with nationhood. The elimination of war implies the inevitable elimination of national sovereignty and the traditional nation-state.” Thus, “war has been the principal evolutionary device for maintaining a satisfactory balance between gross human population and supplies available for its survival. It is unique to the human species.”
So, in order to guarantee its own survival through its entrenchment inside the US, UK, European and other power structures, the Global Power Masters need war, the threat and rumours of war, just as fish need water, tigers need weak prey, and dogs need trees… and all for similar reasons!
But the United States, Britain and their allies cannot have just any enemy. They need a credible, dangerous, “scary” enemy: first it was Germany, then Japan, the Soviet Union, the global “Red Menace”; today it’s “Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism” and, increasingly, China and Russia are going centre-stage on the Global Power Master’s geopolitical radar screen.
The Case of Russia
In recent times, Russia has variously played the role of Buffer, Brake and (now, hopefully) Wall against Western power aggression.
When Russia acts like a Buffer, the world feels frustrated as the cases of Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya and Palestine show. In all these cases, Russia sounded adversarial, “confronting” the US/UK/EU/Israel in word but certainly not in deed. The Western powers always got their way, even at the UN.
In recent times, however, Russia is increasingly acting as a Brake on Western hegemonic ambitions, notably in Syria and Iran. In November 2011 and February 2012, Russia vetoed two US/UK/French sponsored UN Resolutions against Syria which, if passed, would have had the same devastating effect on Syria as UN Resolution 1973 had last year on Libya. Also, Russia has refused to support IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) pseudo-reports and sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program. In addition, Russia has dispatched credible dissuasive military forces to counteract NATO’s militarisation of the Persian Gulf and Mediterranean.
Here we begin to wonder whether a gunfight might actually break out. This has had the sobering effect of forcing the US, UK, France and Israel to drag their feet in carrying out their threats of unilateral attacks on Iran and Syria. The downside is that this is cornering the US and its allies to resort to covert and criminal tactics involving engineered insurrection and civil war – aka “Arab Spring” (see below).
The key question is what needs to happen – what outrage must the Western powers commit – for Russia to start acting as a solid Wall, telling the Western powers in no uncertain terms, “This is as far as we’ll let you go; this is as much as we will tolerate!”
If and when Russia finally does that, will the Western powers stand down or will they bulldoze their way through the Russian Wall? This is the key question because it holds the answer of whether or not the near future will see the unleashing of World War III.
More importantly regarding the West’s decision-making process, all we say about Russia also holds for China which the Global Power Masters see as their real long-term enemy, because of its huge economic, political, demographic and military growth, and China’s increasing geopolitical control over the Pacific Basin and Indian Ocean.
The Case of China
As great air and naval powers, the US and UK well understand that China has many more options to control major oceans than does Russia, which is basically land and ice-locked. Add to this the fact that China holds over two trillion dollars in US-Dollar denominated government bonds, plus another trillion in Euros and then we begin to understand that China holds the financial valve that can trigger sudden collapse of US Dollar hegemony.
We must move away from just thinking in economic/financial terms as most in the West do, concluding that China would never swamp international markets with one or two trillion in US Treasuries because that would destroy their worth and, in a boomerang process, have a negative economic impact on China itself whose reserves would thus evaporate.
But China – the Empire of Ten Thousand Years – has a different thought process. China bides its time when it plays chess with the American Adolescent Empire. China might even decide to play a geopolitical – not financial-economic – card, sacrificing all its Dollar reserves just to cripple the US behemoth’s monetary free-ride with which it pays for its gigantic military machine. Will China fire the first geopolitical shots on the global financial stage?
In 2010, Wikileaks reported that in 2009 then Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd discussed with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton how to deal with China, both voicing their fears over its rapid rise and multi-billion dollar store of US debt, prompting Hillary to ask, “How do you deal toughly with your banker?” Both agreed that the Western powers should try to “integrate China into the international community, while also preparing to deploy force if everything goes wrong.”
The Pentagon knows full well that its long-term enemy after 2020 is China. US News & World Report quotes Aaron L. Friedberg – a former close Dick Cheney advisor, PNAC3 and Council on Foreign Relations member, and Princeton University professor – as saying that the US should spare no effort to “keep the Chinese dragon in its lair” because “strength deters aggression,” and warning “this will cost money.”
Keeping China in mind helps to better understand US moves in other far-away places as direct or indirect stepping stones on the road to China.
Take the Middle East, for instance, where geopolitical positioning and control over oil reserves by the US also acts as a beachhead into Russia’s Heartland and is geared at closing off oil sources to China – notably from Iran.
Wikileaks also exposed Kevin Rudd telling Hillary Clinton that China was “paranoid about Taiwan and Tibet,” adding that, “the West should promote an Asia-Pacific community intended to blunt Chinese influence.” Yet another example of Western double standards and misrepresentation because contrary to the US and Europeans, China has no global hegemonic ambitions.
Rather, China seeks to continue being the dominant power in the Asia-Pacific basin steering traditional Western intrusion, colonialism and interference away.
The West’s worst nightmare-scenario – as noted by Samuel Huntington in his “Clash of Civilisations” theory in the 1990’s – is if China achieves two key geopolitical goals on which it is progressing slowly but surely:
Bonding closer ties, cooperation and agreement with Russia and India on the Asian continent, and Negotiating closer cooperation and overcoming the distrust of the past with Japan. If Japan and China agree a common geopolitical strategy as France and Germany did after World War II (leading to the EU), then the whole Asia-Pacific region powerhouse with two-thirds of the world’s population would be hands-off for the West. Just imagine marrying Japanese cutting-edge technology with Chinese resources and manpower!
The Five Types of War…
When Report From Iron Mountain was written back in the sixties, its authors went so far as to study whether substitutes could be developed for war but – alas – they surmised that war had to be maintained, even improved in its effectiveness. War could, however, take on unexpected and more subtle characteristics. The Report’s recommendations included:
A giant space-research program whose goal was largely impossible to achieve (a black hole, budget-wise and hence able to feed the economy);
Invent a new, non-human enemy: the potential threat of an extra-terrestrial civilisation
Create a new threat to mankind: for example, pollution
Implement new ways of limiting births: via adding drugs to food or water supply
Create fictitious alternate enemies
Almost a half century later, some of these recommendations have been achieved (e.g., 1: a military and civilian space program), others are on-going or in the making (3, 4, and, if Hollywood’s PsyOps machine is any indication, number 2 is no doubt on the books), but 5 is the real keystone: “creating fictitious alternative enemies,” of which we’ve seen so many recently: Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Libya, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Islamic Terrorism, and now: Iran and Syria.
The huge challenge mankind faces is that the US is increasingly resorting to covert, clandestine and technology-driven warfare over outright invasions, as Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan looked really bad on the Evening News…
Thus, there are basically five types of war used by the Global Power Masters through their US/UK/NATO proxies, each characterised by increasing PsyWar and strategic/logistic complexity:
Military Invasion – Clearly visible, very territorial and using overwhelming military force and economic strength. As the Colin Powell Doctrine from the 90’s recommends, “the US should only wage war against foreign enemies where American military power is so overwhelming that victory is guaranteed.” Can a more ruthless doctrine by a major power be imagined? Cowards bombing people half-way around the world using a joystick and screen inside some safe facility.
Military Coup – Identifies dissident and treacherous elements inside the target country’s armed forces, egging them on to removing the local legal authorities and backing them with arms, money, “positive” global and local media coverage and diplomatic support. A favourite method used against Latin America in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s, it’s still being used here and there, as Egypt shows.
Financial Coup – Consists of first cornering a country into an unpayable “sovereign debt” morass with the powerful global mega-banks. Then, when the target country cannot service that debt, the banksters send in the IMF/World Bank leeches supported by global media and rating agencies. They trigger economic and social hardship, financial and monetary collapse leading to widespread social upheaval, thus “justifying regime change.” Throughout Latin America they perfected the “Sovereign Debt Model” that is now being wielded against Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland and – soon to come – the UK and US.
Social Coup – Consists of financing political activists to bring about controlled regime change in the target country. Here the local US/UK/Israeli embassies support all sorts of dissident groups rendering them ample financing and media coverage, plus the logistics to generate constant street turmoil, which ends up grouping around some US-friendly political party or movement. In the 80’s, they used the so-called “human rights” movements in Latin America of which Argentina’s “Mothers of Plaza de Mayo” were a leading case.4
Engineered Civil War – Consists of financing, arming and supporting militarised “opposition” groups against the target country’s on-going government. Normally, a key “national liberation” or some such “council” is set up, as in Libya, Egypt, Syria and elsewhere, around which other militant groups, thugs and mafias can revolve. Here, CIA, MI6 and Mossad fronts play a key role and, in the cases of Libya and Syria, CIA offshoots like Al-Qaeda also play a fundamental “freedom-fighter” role. In the Middle East, they dubbed this the “Arab Spring,” presenting it to global public opinion as a spontaneous, genuine and legitimate fight for freedom by the local population against allegedly repressive and authoritarian regimes.
Thus, local conflicts ready to explode are taken advantage of: regimes that have been in power for too long (as in Egypt and Libya); religious divides (Shiites against Sunnis). It comes as no surprise to learn that Bassma Kodmani, a “member of the executive bureau and head of foreign affairs” at the Syrian National Council, attended the Bilderberg Conference last June in Virginia, USA.5
Lately, this author has been warning of the rise of a “Latin American Spring” that takes advantage of grave social and political grievances throughout Latin America reflecting the huge divide that exists between the very rich and the very poor. Normally, the rich are very US-aligned and the poor have leaders that naïvely point to “Yankee corporate exploitation” as the sole culprit, missing really fundamental political and social factors.
Signs of this coming “Latin Spring” can be seen in the recent Monsanto-orchestrated coup in Paraguay, the money-sloshing election fraud in Mexico, and increasing US militarisation in Colombia and elsewhere in the region.
Often these types of war start at a lower level – say, a social coup – and are then escalated into full-fledged civil war insurrection mode if it suits Global Power Master objectives. Libya, Syria, Egypt are examples of this.
What, Why, When & Where
What then exactly does this all add up to? Basically, we can see that such chaos engineered by the Global Power Masters, although chaotic locally in specific countries and regions, really points to a “new world order” on a global scale.
The “chaos” part is deployed to destroy whole countries, especially those that have come this far preserving their national sovereignty in one way or another. That is a key characteristic shared by all attacked “rogue states” – Libya, Iraq, Serbia – prior to them being invaded. The same goes for on-going targets like Syria, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and Ecuador. The more sovereign states can be weakened, the better for the one-worlders who, after all, basically want to drag us all towards a single, communist-like global state under their total control.
All those Arab (and Latin) “springs,” invasions, no-fly zones, sanctions; all that “rogue state” rhetoric, are ground-clearing exercises geared at positioning the Western powers and their allies for the final assault on Asia which means war with Russia and China.
Of course, such a war would be a gross contradiction of the Powell Doctrine. China and Russia are very powerful, so messing around with them carries huge risks. If – God forbid! – it ever comes to war between China/Russia and the West that dragged in other powers like India, Pakistan and Brazil, hopefully it won’t happen any time soon. However, that’s what lies beyond the 2020 threshold. Its preliminaries are being played out today in different hotspots.
Why is all of this being done? Maybe imperial overreach and the grossly hyper-inflated dollar that saved the Money Power Bankers (don’t say that too loudly!) has cornered the Western Elites into an irreversible and unsustainable corner.
It’s like chess: What do you do when all possible moves only lead to checkmate? Well, basically, you have two “options on the table”: (1) admit defeat, or (2) kick the chessboard and… go for your gun.
1. See Zbigniew Brzezinski, 14 October 2011 acceptance speech of the Jury du Prix Tocqueville Prize, bestowed upon him by former French president Valery Giscard D’Estaing. Not surprisingly, both belong to the Rockefeller/Rothschild Trilateral Commission, a key “rich and powerful” decision-making body.
2. Originally published in 1967; re-published 1996 by the Free Press (Simon & Schuster).
3. PNAC – Project for a New American Century; the Neo-Con think-tank group from the late nineties that designed and planned the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, promoting Israel’s strategic interests in the Middle East, that served as a blueprint for US post-9/11 policies to this day.
4. Its leader Hebe Bonafini is known to have embezzled millions of dollars.
5. See official Bilderberg site www.bilderbergmeetings.org/participants2012.html. Characteristically Ms Kodmani’s nationality is described as “International.” She serves her international masters very well.
|All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:08 PM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.