Empires: rises and falls, so now what?

The US was the dominant world power after WWII but has been failing, compounded by desperate plans for hegemony and appalling errors and lies over a long period. Many other countries are complicit. Here are many examples. NB if you like this post, check some others from the table on the right.

Scroll down to read the most recent articles.  Links to previous articles  follow.

Who Rules America?

Who Rules America  By Greg Felton, from PaulCraigRoberts.org, 23 January 2020

A government, whatever its nature, rules as an imperial power over its people. The surest way to exercise this control is to prop up the illusion that it acts in the public interest. Paul Craig Roberts and Alvin Rabushka spelled out this salient fact in the March 1973 issue of Public Choice, in their article “A Diagrammatic Exposition of an Economic Theory of Imperialism,” and what they wrote is no less relevant today.

The act of voting is one of the props that sustains the delusion of self-rule. People do vote, but the candidates are decided by the oligarchy of organized interest groups. This is also the conclusion of a 2014 study by Princeton University professors Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page about the extent to which U.S. government policy reflects public preferences. Gilens and Page found that voters are, to all intents and purposes, irrelevant to their own “democratic” government:

“[The] preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy . . . Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it” (Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 575, 76).

Instead of representing the common interest of the people, government answers to organized interest groups. Gilens and Page cite the dominance over policy of special interests who use public policy to serve their interests rather than the public’s. We see the effects of this plutocracy in the sharp rise in the inequality of income and wealth, a gap which has grown into a chasm.

Gilens and Page’s analysis of the Unelected Plutocracy of America is on the money, but their understanding of the threat to America’s democracy does not consider foreign policy, which is partly, if not largely, in the hands of a foreign country—Israel. It is not enough to lay the decline of American democracy at the feet of vested interests such as Wall Street, big banks, and the military–security complex, because it is not in their interest to have the government pursue foreign policy contrary to the national interest.

But operating contrary to the national interest is precisely what Washington has been doing. In the 21st century, Washington has squandered trillions of dollars on military aggressions. Hundreds of thousands of U.S. military personnel have been killed, maimed or driven to suicide. The U.S. has derived no benefit from provoking the enmity of Muslim people, bullying NATO allies into abetting this belligerence or persecuting those who expose associated crimes. Even Donald Trump, who ran for the presidency on ending wasteful wars of aggression, continues this self-inflicted economic and political harm, most recently by waging economic war against Iran and sabre-rattling to provoke a shooting war.

The Trump administration is a continuation of decades of Washington’s kowtowing to the Israel Lobby. To appreciate the lack of independence of US foreign policy requires an act of intellectual courage, but few Americans are equipped for the trauma of knowing the truth. To borrow from The Matrix, not many are willing to take the “red pill” to see the reality behind the controlled explanation. “Blue pill” existence comes with a ready-made worldview based on controlled explanations in which believers find comfort, meaning and belonging. Anything that challenges this illusion, is discounted as conspiracy theory or anti-semitism.  Comforting beliefs can take precedence over US national interests.

To “take the red pill” requires an inquisitive mind to reject illusion and to question fundamental assumptions. If it is irrational for a democratic state like the U.S. to harm its own people, damage its own economy and invite hostility by provoking needless wars, perhaps the U.S. is not really a democratic state and not really in charge of its own policy. From an American standpoint, the seemingly inexplicable acts of U.S. belligerence and punishment of those who pose no threat to America can be understood as the consequence of permitting Israeli money and influence to shape US foreign policy in the Middle East and to some extent elsewhere if it bears on Israeli interests.

The U.S. that was founded in 1776 is not the same U.S. that exists today. The founding fathers warned against foreign entanglements, but Washington has sought entanglement. Since the late 1940s, the U.S. has gotten entangled in the service of Israel’s interests. The importance of Israel’s interest to U.S. foreign policy has been elevated by a pervasive Christian prejudice, in which Jews are seen as religiously kindred and Muslims as religiously hostile.

In 1948 President Harry Truman took an infamous $2 million election campaign bribe from an American zionist to support the creation of Israel. By doing so Truman became midwife to an ongoing war crime that has resulted in Washington aiding and abetting Israel’s theft of Palestine. Washington blackmailed and intimidated several UN delegations into supporting the 1947 partition of Palestine. For a country that boasted of its commitment to democracy and support for the UN Charter, Washington’s conduct made no sense. However, if one recognizes that Washington was acting in behalf of Israel, it becomes understandable.

With a foothold gained from Truman’s electoral opportunism, the domestic Israel Lobby gradually gained influence over the U.S. government to the point that today Washington serves Israel’s interest without thinking of its impact on US national interests and without regard to the adverse effects on American interests or those of other people.

After years of Washington’s growing service to Israel, President George H.W. Bush tried to pull back. President Bush thought that he could bring about a final peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinian leadership in Madrid based on “land for peace.”

Bush’s assertion of foreign policy independence infuriated Israel, which proceeded to stage overt and covert attacks on Bush. The overt attack occurred on Feb. 26, 1992, when the domestic Israeli pressure group calling itself, absurdly, the “The Committee on U.S. Interests in the Middle East,” took out a full-page ad in The New York Times to excoriate Bush for “pressuring” Israel to enter into negotiations. Its signatories included neoconservative Israel-firsters like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and Elliott Abrams.

According to a former Mossad agent, the covert attack took the form of a planned assassination of President Bush. Victor Ostrovsky in his book, By Way of Deception (pp. 281-282), writes that on Oct. 1, 1992, he received a nervous call from Ephraim, a Mossad officer of his acquaintance, who opposed the assassination: “They’re out to kill Bush… I mean really kill, as in ‘assassinate.’… during the Madrid peace talks.” Ephraim asked Ostrovsky to leak the plot in hopes the American government would act to prevent it. Ostrovsky did so in an Oct. 1, 1992, speech in Ottawa. From there, the leak made its way to former California congressman Pete McCloskey, the Secret Service, the State Department, the CIA, the U.S. embassy in Ottawa, and finally the press. The assassination was called off.

Bush’s assertion of independence from Israel resulted in Israel’s meddling in the 1992 presidential election which cost Bush re-election and marked the last time that a U.S. president would dare challenge Israel’s self-proclaimed right to murder, torture, dispossess and displace Palestinians.

The eight years of Bill Clinton’s presidency saw a consolidation of Israel’s power over Washington. Clinton showed his willingness to act in Israel’s interest by agreeing to set amounts of aid to Israel––imperial tribute in the view of some––even before he was sworn in as president. It was the Clinton administration that responded to Israeli pressure for action against Iraq by creating the illegal no-fly zones over Iraq, which caused the death of 500,000 Iraqi children. When asked about this by a reporter, Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said, “the price was worth it.” In other words, the death of a half a million Iraqi children served American and  Israeli interests.

Israel’s influence over US foreign policy reached a zenith with George W. Bush. In the name of the “war on terror,” that is, the war on Israel’s enemies, the Bush regime subverted the US Constitution. The Bush government was filled with neoconservatives associated with the Project for a New American Century. The PATRIOT Act, drafted, according to his own admission three weeks prior to the events of September 11, 2001, by neoconservative Philip Zelikow, who later headed up the 9/11 Commission, became law despite the US Congress having no time to read and discuss the tyrannical legislation before passing it.  The fact that a draft of the PATRIOT Act existed prior to 9/11 raises many questions. The passage of the act told Americans that Muslims were such a threat that Americans would have to accept  infringements on their civil liberties.  President Bush made that even more clear when he announced that he was setting aside the US Constitution and suspending habeas corpus.

During the Obama administration Israel dramatically demonstrated its power over the US government when the US Congress intervened in the dispute between Obama and Netanyahu over whose power was supreme in American politics, the power of the American president or Israel’s. Repudiating their own president, Congress invited Netanyahu to address a joint session of the House and Senate and responded to Netanyahu with many standing ovations.

Trump has perpetuated Israeli control over US foreign policy. Trump broke universal policy and recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. He gave Syria’s Golan Heights to Israel, which was not Trump’s to give. He cut off aid to Palestine. He accepted Israel’s policy of illegally incorporating occupied Palestine into Israel.

Trump’s appointment of Project for a New American Century zionist David Wurmser, an architect of Washington’s 2003 invasion of Iraq, is the latest indication that Israel continues to dominate American policy in the Middle East.  According to a report in Mint Press News, Trump admitted that his belligerence toward Iran is driven by Israeli, not U.S., interests.

Trump’s subservience to Israel brings into focus the famous words of Patrick Buchanan, Washington is “Israeli occupied territory.”

Greg Felton is the author of The Host & The Parasite––How Israel’s Fifth Column Consumed America, 3rd edition, available from thehostandtheparasite.com

=================

Doug Casey: Tensions With Iran Can’t End Well

Chris’ note: Today, we have a brand-new Conversations With Casey for you.

As you know, the US killed Iran’s top general, Qassem Soleimani, on the orders of President Trump earlier this month. And now, many people are wondering what’s next.

I wanted to get our founder Doug Casey’s thoughts on this major news. As usual, Doug didn’t hold anything back.

Below, Doug tells me why this is further proof that Trump has no philosophical core… why the US has turned into a rogue bully… how Iran might retaliate next… and much, much more.

Chris Reilly, managing editor, Casey Daily Dispatch: Doug, as you know, the US killed Iran’s top general, Qassem Soleimani, on the orders of President Trump. The story continues to dominate the news. And everyone’s wondering what’s next.

I’ll ask you about that in a moment. But first, I’d like to know what your initial thoughts were when you heard the news…

Doug Casey, founder, Casey Research: I think it’s proof that Trump is psychologically unstable.

As you may know, I’ve always had mixed feelings about Trump. I’m pro-Trump insofar as he’s a cultural traditionalist. He’s anti-politically correct, and that’s why he has the support of Middle America. And he’s reduced regulation in a number of areas, which is great. But Trump has absolutely no philosophical core. He flies entirely by the seat of his pants.

He’s completely unpredictable, and he seems to see his unpredictability as a virtue when it comes to negotiating. It’s not. Unpredictability is a virtue when you’re playing poker – but poker is a win-lose game. In real life, unpredictability equals unreliability and untrustworthiness. It’s a sign of someone without ethics, without a moral core. It tells people that you’re trying to “play” them, to “game” them.

He’s an economic ignoramus. His fiscal and monetary policies amount to Modern Monetary Theory. He thinks ultra-low interest rates are always, and necessarily, a good thing. He’s a pathological borrower. His tariffs may be catalysts for Stage Two of the Greater Depression. Sorry to go off on a tangent about The Donald. But – whatever his virtues – he’s not thoughtful, well-educated, or stable. He’s a narcissist, and shows universally bad judgment in choosing the people he surrounds himself with.

In Aspen, where I spend the northern summer, I know a guy who may be Trump’s oldest and best friend. He’s not a Democrat… I’m not going to mention his name. He’s of the opinion that although Trump is a fun guy, is not stupid, and has some virtues, he’s basically an unhinged personality. Capable of absolutely anything. He thinks that Trump’s about the worst possible choice for being president, simply because you shouldn’t have a loose cannon running the country. I’d only add that there shouldn’t be anyone “running the country,” if only because the people who want to do it are inevitably sociopaths.

This isn’t the time to discuss that issue, except to say Donald sees only the immediate and direct consequences of an action. He’s apparently unable to see the delayed and indirect consequences. And that includes the drone strike on Soleimani.

The US, increasingly over time, has turned into a rogue bully; it’s no longer either loved or admired. It’s not even respected, just feared – but only the way you might fear a nasty 250-pound drunk. It has this gigantic hammer – the US military; it makes everything look like a nail to them. It’s bankrupting the country, staggering around, picking fights and making enemies everywhere.

The US Government’s attitude towards Iran is especially stupid. I’m not a fan of the theocrats in Tehran – they’re a disaster in every way. But they’re absolutely no threat to America. We’ve never had a single instance of an attack by Iranians against Americans. The US populace, however, has been made to think they’re a threat because of a massive forty-year-long propaganda campaign. They’re no more of a threat than was our ex-ally Saddam Hussein. Or, for that matter, Gaddafi in Libya or Assad in Syria. Iran is a threat to no one – not even Israel. And even if it was, Israel is not our problem.

In any event, you can expect the Iranians to react very much the way any government would if a foreign government overtly took out a high government official. It’s almost dishonorable for them not to react. But they know they’re basically a 97-pound weakling confronting a 250-pound drunk. They’ll pick their time and place. You can’t pretend you’re in any way worthy if you let a bully beat you up at will.

Chris: How do you think Iran will retaliate?

Doug: Well, they have to be careful how they retaliate. Launching a serious overt military strike against the US – which is armed with ultra-powerful weapons and has Iran surrounded by military bases on every side – makes no sense at all. But they’ll find some way to counterattack, probably subtly. Asymmetrically.

In today’s world that might be hacking, an attack via computer, which can be disguised. The source of a computer attack is very hard to prove. Not only that, but a cyberattack in today’s highly computerized and wired world, can be just as devastating as a conventional attack. Maybe more so in many ways. Perhaps it could destroy the monetary system – “dollars” are now completely intangible, just digital entries. Perhaps it would destroy the electrical grid. The whole world runs on computers.

If you want to destroy an advanced society today you don’t need, or even want, all manner of expensive military hardware – most of which is obsolete junk anyway.

It’s insane for Trump to go out and provoke a war. And for absolutely no good reason. None. Especially since it’s said Soleimani was in Iraq on a peace mission. Was Soleimani a good guy, or a bad guy? He was a professional soldier who saw himself as a patriot, exactly like Petraeus, McChrystal, or any other of his US counterparts. Not evil, just a uniformed bureaucrat trying to do his job. Which was keeping his country safe from a very aggressive, very powerful, and very perfidious power that has it surrounded on all sides.

I don’t, however, put a lot of store in what people have been saying about Soleimani’s assassination being a war crime, or immoral. This is what governments do. It’s their essence. Although they always gussy it up in self-righteous “Yahweh, Jesus, or Allah is on our side” rhetoric. “We did it to save lives,” and other transparent lies.

I can imagine that there are many, many very smart and imaginative people in the Middle East thinking of what the most cost-effective way to strike back might be. It might be very low-tech, simply disappearing any US soldier or operative who sets foot outside their compounds. If Trump expands the war as a result, perhaps they’ll take out the US naval base in Bahrain or the airbase in Qatar – the things are indefensible, and only a few miles across the Gulf from Iran. I know that if the Chinese (probably our next enemy du jour) had the US surrounded, and were killing people at will with high-tech weapons, there would be legions of Americans figuring out how to strike back.

Chris: Do you think that Trump just killed his chances for reelection with this move?

Doug: That is a really good question. I wish I had my finger more on the pulse of what the hoi polloi, Boobus Americanus is thinking. Most of them can’t find Iran on the map. But for most of their lives, they’ve been told that Iranians are the devil incarnate. Anybody that the bureaucrats in the US government designate evil is automatically accepted as a devil by the media, and then by the people at-large. It’s easy to transform humans into a bunch of hooting and panting chimpanzees who want to kill the other tribe across the watering hole.

Let me reemphasize that I’m not a defender of the Iranian regime. But they’re more or less blameless in this whole thing. The fact that Trump tweeted that he was going to attack cultural icons in Iran was pointlessly and stupidly provocative. How would Americans like it if a foreign government threatened to blow up the Liberty Bell, the Washington Monument, and the Empire State Building? It really does amount to a huge breach of international law and a war crime, for what that’s worth. It was really quite shocking, and a stupid threat to make. Even though we all know that after the precedents set in World War 2 – and all subsequent unpleasantnesses, actually – absolutely nothing is off the table today.

Just as bad is how Trump followed up with a threat to confiscate Iraqi bank accounts in the US if they insist US troops leave the country. Anyone with any sense is thinking that they don’t want to either use dollars or have assets in the US. They could be held hostage on a whim.

Don’t forget Trump is surrounded by all these crazy neocons that really like the idea of war, and think you can win a war in today’s context. Anything could happen from out of the blue. I don’t see how this can end well.

Chris: What do stock market investors need to know about intensifying US-Iran tensions? Any investing implications from this?

Doug: War stocks, weapons manufacturers – it’s dishonest to call them defense stocks – have done extremely well for a long time. Ever since the early ’80s, actually, when Americans could still remember what a total disaster Vietnam was. That said, I still think gold is both a safer and a better way to play it at this point.

Chris: What advice do you have for Americans listening to the news every day, anxiously awaiting what’s next?

Doug: Don’t believe almost anything. Most reporters just parrot whatever they’re told by the authorities. Most pundits misinterpret the facts – apart from the fact most of what they think they know are lies. Be cynical about thinking it’s a good idea to stick your nose in other people’s business.

Chris: Do you think the US will invade Iran?

Doug: No. Washington is incredibly stupid, but even they can see another land war in Asia makes no sense. It’s probably impossible, from the viewpoint of manpower alone. And they have to realize that US troops in Iran would be about as popular as Iranian troops in the US.

On the other hand, it’s been said that, “After hydrogen, the most common thing in the universe is stupidity.”

===================

The War Pigs Are Finally Revealing Themselves

The War Pigs Are Finally Revealing Themselves  By Brandon Smith, via Alt-Market.com & Zerohedge, 12 January 2020

In 2016 during the election campaign of Donald Trump one of the primary factors of his popularity among conservatives was that he was one of the first candidates since Ron Paul to argue for bringing US troops home and ending American involvement in the various elitist fabricated wars in the Middle East. From Iraq, to Afghanistan, to Syria and Yemen and beyond, the Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs at the behest of their globalist masters had been waging war oversees unabated for over 15 years. The time was ripe for a change and people felt certain that if Hillary Clinton entered the White House, another 4-8 years of war were guaranteed.

There was nothing to be gained from these wars. They were only dragging the US down socially and economically, and even the idea of “getting the oil” had turned into a farce as the majority of Iraqi oil has been going to China, not the US. General estimates on the costs of the wars stand at $5 trillion US tax dollars and over 4500 American dead along with around 40,000 wounded. The only people that were benefiting from the situation were globalists and banking elites, who had been clamoring to destabilize the Middle East since the day they launched their “Project For A New American Century” (PNAC). Truly, all wars are banker wars.

The Obama Administration’s attempts to lure Americans into supporting open war with the Assad regime in Syria had failed. Consistent attempts by George W. Bush and Obama to increase tensions with Iran had fizzled. Americans were showing signs of fatigue, FINALLY fed up with the lies being constructed to trick them into being complicit in the banker wars. Trump was a breath of fresh air…but of course, like all other puppets of the globalists, his promises were empty.

In my article ‘Clinton vs. Trump And The Co-Option Of The Liberty Movement’, published before the 2016 election, I warned that Trump’s rhetoric might be a grand show, and that it could be scripted by the establishment to bring conservatives back into the Republican/Neo-Con fold. At the time, leftist media outlet Bloomberg openly reveled in the idea that Trump might absorb and destroy the “Tea Party” and liberty movement and turn them into something far more manageable. The question was whether or not the liberty movement would buy into Trump completely, or remain skeptical.

Initially, I do not think the movement held onto its objectivity at all. Far too many people bought into Trump blindly and immediately based on misguided hopes and a desire to “win” against the leftists. The insane cultism of the political left didn’t help matters much, either.

When Trump started saturating his cabinet with banking elites and globalists from the CFR the moment he entered office, I knew without any doubt that he was a fraud. Close associations with establishment swamp creatures was something he had consistently criticized Clinton and other politicians for during the campaign, but Trump was no better or different than Clinton; he was just an errand boy for the elites. The singular difference was that his rhetoric was designed to appeal directly to liberty minded conservatives.

This meant that it was only a matter of time before Trump broke most of his campaign promises, including his assertions that he would bring US troops home. Eventually, the mask had to come off if Trump was going to continue carrying out the agenda of his masters.

Today, the mask has indeed come off. For the past three years Trump has made announcements of an imminent pull back of troops in the Middle East, including the recent claim that troops would be leaving Syria. All of the announcements were followed by an INCREASE in US troop presence in the region. Consistent attempts have been made to foment renewed strife with Iran. The build-up to war has been obvious, but some people on the Trump train still didn’t get it.

The most common argument I heard when pointing out all the inconsistencies in Trump’s claims as well as his direct links to globalists was that “He hadn’t started any wars, so how could he be a globalist puppet…?” My response has always been “Give it a little time, and he will.”

One of my readers noted recently that “Trump Derangement Syndrome” (TDS) actually goes both ways. Leftists double down on their hatred of Trump at every opportunity, but Trump cultists double down on their support for Trump regardless of how many promises he breaks. This has always been my biggest concern – That conservatives in the liberty movement would ultimately abandon their principles of limited government, the end to banking elites in the White House and ending illegal wars because they had invested themselves so completely in the Trump farce that they would be too embarrassed to admit they had been conned.

Another concern is that the liberty movement would be infected by an influx of people who are neo-conservative statists at their core. These people pretend to be liberty minded conservatives, but when the veil is lifted they show their true colors as the War Pigs they really are. A distinction has to be made between Bush era Neo-Con control freaks and constitutional conservatives; there are few if any similarities between the two groups, but the establishment hopes that the former will devour the latter.

I’ve noticed that the War Pigs are out in force this past week, beating their chests a calling for more blood. The US government has assassinated Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani, retaliations against US targets have begun, and now the Iraqi government has demanded that US troops be removed from the region, to which Trump has said “no” and demanded payment instead. A new troop surge has been initiated and this WILL end in all out war. The tit-for-tat has just begun.

How do Trump cultists respond? “Kill those terrorists!”

Yes, many of the same people that applauded Trump’s supposed opposition to the wars three years ago are now fanatically cheering for the beginning of perhaps the most destructive war of all. The rationalizations for this abound. Soleimani was planning attacks on US targets in Iraq, they say. And, this might be true, though no hard proof has yet been presented.

I’m reminded of the Bush era claims of Iraqi “Weapons of Mass Destruction”, the weapons that were never found and no proof was found that they ever existed. The only weapons Iraq had were the weapons the US sold to them decades ago. Any government can fabricate an excuse for assassination or war for public consumption; the Trump Administration is no different.

That said, I think the most important factor in this debate has fallen by the wayside. The bottom line is, US troops and US bases should NOT be in Iraq in the first place. Trump himself stated this time and time again. Even if Soleimani was behind the attacks and riots in Iraq, US assets cannot be attacked in the region if they are REMOVED from the region as Trump said he would do.

There is only one reason to keep US assets in Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria at this time, and that is to create ongoing tensions in the area which can be used by the establishment to trigger a new war, specifically with Iran.

The War Pigs always have reasons and rationales, though.

They say the Muslim world is a threat to our way of life, and I agree that their ideology is completely incompatible with Western values. That said, the solution is not sending young Americans to die overseas in wars based on lies. Again, these wars only benefit the bankers and globalists; they do not make us safer as a people. The only moral solution is to make sure the fascist elements of Muslim extremism are not imported to our shores.

The War Pigs say that we deserve payment for our “services rendered” in the region before we leave, echoing the sentiments of Donald Trump. I ask, what services? Payment for what? The invasion the Iraqi’s didn’t want, based on fallacies that have been publicly exposed? The US bases that should not be there in the first place? The hundreds of thousands dead from a war that had no purpose except to deliberately destabilize the region?

We will never get “payment” from the Iraqis as compensation for these mad endeavors, and the War Pigs know this. They want war. They want it to go on forever. They want to attach their egos to the event. They want to claim glory for themselves vicariously when we win, and they want to claim victimhood for themselves vicariously when our soldiers or citizens get killed. They are losers that can only be winners through the sacrifices of others.

The War Pigs defend the notion that the president should be allowed to make war unilaterally without support from congress. They say that this type of action is legal, and technically they are right. It is “legal” because the checks and balances of war were removed under the Bush and Obama Administrations. The passage of the AUMF (Authorization For Use Of Military Force) in 2001 gave the Executive Branch dictatorial powers to initiate war on a whim without oversight. Just because it is “legal” does not mean it is constitutional, or right.

In the end, the Trump bandwagon is meant to accomplish many things for the globalists; the main goal though is that it is designed to change liberty conservatives into rabid statists. It is designed to make anti-war pro-constitution activists into war mongers and supporters of big government, as long as it is big government under “our control”. But it’s not under our control. Trump is NOT our guy. He is an agent of the establishment and always has been.

For now, the saber rattling is aggressive but the actions have been limited, but this will not be the case for long.  Some may ask why the establishment has not simply launched all out war now?  Why start out small?  Firstly, they need conservatives psychologically invested in the idea.  This may require a false flag event or attack on American civilians.  Secondly, they need to execute an extensive troop build-up, which could take a few months.  Declarations of a “need for peace” are always used to stall for time while the elites position for war.

War with Iran is pointless, and frankly, unwinnable, and the elites know this. It’s not just a war with Iran, it is a war with Iran, their allies, and every other nation that reacts negatively to our actions.  And, these nations do not have to react militarily, they can react economically by dumping US treasuries and the dollar as world reserve.

The establishment wants the US embroiled in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, etc. until we are so hollowed out from conflict that we collapse.

They also need a considerable distraction to hide their responsibility for the implosion of the Everything Bubble and the economic pain that will come with it. The end game for the establishment is for America to self destruct, so that it can be rebuilt into something unrecognizable and eternally monstrous. They want every vestige of our original principles to be erased, and to do that, they need us to be complicit in our own destruction.

They need us to participate. Don’t participate, and refuse to support new banker wars. Don’t be a War Pig.

*  *  *

If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

=================

Previous articles

About Peter Senior

I'm a very experienced and pragmatic management consultant. I've reviewed and led the restructuring of many organisations - large and small corporations and Government Departments, much of the time as President of the New Zealand Institute of Management Consultants. Before that I was General Manager of a major NZ newspaper; earlier, an analyst for IBM UK. I gained an honours degree in engineering at London University, and studied management at Cambridge University. This wide range of experience has left me frustrated: I continue to see too many examples of really bad management. Sometimes small easily fixed issues; sometimes fundamental faults; and sometimes really tricky problems. Mostly these issues can be fixed using a mixture of common sense, 'management 101' and applying lessons from years of management experience. Unfortunately, all too often, politics, bureaucracy and daft government regulations get in the way; internal factors such as poor culture and out-of-date strategies are often evident. So what's gone wrong, and why, and most importantly, how to fix 'it'? I hope there are like-minded people 'out there' who will share their thoughts enabling 'us' to improve some significant management failures that affect the general public. If you just accept bad management and do nothing about it, you don't have the right to complain! The really tricky part is, what can you do about it that is likely to be effective? If you'd like to share thoughts on any aspects of management, send me an email to petersenior42@gmail.com .
This entry was posted in The Rises, Falls and lies about Western Empires. Bookmark the permalink.