Nothing in the media is true.
The 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles President Trump fired at Syria on April 6, 2017, have left most supporters surprised or confused. In some cases, both. The rampant propaganda which has bookended this event is even more unbelievable than that which accompanied the media onslaught in the lead up to the Iraq invasion of 2003.
The most effective propaganda tactic is the emotional illogic contagion that spreads when fighting “for the children.” It taps into our most profound and most human characteristics. The need to protect our children and those innocent is something that no one could argue with, lest they be labeled a monster.
Humans are emotion-based and can be conditioned with relative ease on most issues. The alleged sarin gas attack on the Syrian people by President Bashar al-Assad fits this profile. It brings back memories of Iraqi soldiers taking Kuwait babies out of incubators and throwing them on the floor. These fabricated events manufacture the necessary support to rally mass populations behind a cause and war they otherwise may disagree with.
The complex nature of world events and challenges would require intense explanations and a broad knowledge base to understand. This does not suggest that people do not deserve the truth and that a high percentage of the population could not comprehend and manage a working understanding of how the world functions. It simple acknowledges the factual data of the intelligence bell curve within demographics and the disproportionate ability of people to process and transfer information and knowledge with any consistent level of accuracy.
The truths around the developing events in Syria are about so much more than sarin gas and innocent children. The gas attack itself is in serious question as Assad had zero motive to commit such an attack. Previous accusations of Assad gassing his people turned out to be fabrications and propaganda, or the acts of the Western-supported rebels and terrorist organizations operating in the country to remove Russian ally Assad from power.
That is the truth spoken of in rushed speech and seldom focused on. But what is the reason for wanting to remove Assad? The propaganda then loops around, and the scripting states that Assad is another evil leader who murders his people and needs to be taken out. But this is far from the truth.
Further understanding of this developing war will require a deeper comprehension of the economics and geopolitics functioning behind the headlines.
First, Syria has the misfortune of being geographically located on the hinge point we call the Middle East. This hinge exists as a bridge between Europe and Asia, with Central Asia filling out the remaining land area. Together all belong to the Eurasian continent.
Some basic facts about Eurasia draw a sharp focus on the region’s importance. It has 70% of the world’s population. It holds 75% of the world’s energy resources. It produces 70% of the world’s gross domestic product. These metrics are essential contributors to what is unfolding on the world stage.
The Anglo-American establishment has dominated the world for subsequent centuries. This has been possible predominantly through the broad use of national currencies on the international level.
First, the British pound was used across a large percentage of the world. The East India Trading Company was one of the major commerce platforms which supported and encouraged the use of the pound through Asia and elsewhere. The American dollar incrementally replaced the British pound between the two world wars as the accepted and primary international reserve currency used to balance global trade.
This transition from pound to the dollar was made official at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in 1944 as the allied nations and China agreed to use the USD as the international reserve asset. Since then, the history of the dollar spans decades of American exportation of culture and monetary inflation.
Nations were forced into acquiring vast amounts of USD-denominated assets in their foreign exchange reserve accounts to balance their trade with the rest of the world. This dollar demand caused extreme imbalances in the international monetary system. Other countries had to manage exchange rate arrangements with the dollar, forcing them to devalue their domestic currencies to continue accumulating USD.
These imbalances hard hit the emerging markets in Central Asia and Asia. Still, they did manage to capitalize on the companies which were now leaving America to set up shop in other nations. The imbalance in currency valuations had a profound effect on the cost of American exports. Other countries who were devaluing their currency to maintain the dollar system could no longer purchase American imports as the prices were too high. This forced an ever-increasing amount of US manufacturers to flee to the emerging nations where labor was cheaper, and their products could be exported at rates that would turn hefty profits.
It was inevitable that the dollar supply would expand to such a large extent that the basic principles of supply and demand would take hold. Though the demand was there, the supply grew faster and faster with each passing year. It got to the point where some nations, such as France under President de Gaulle, were openly discussing the ability of the US monetary authorities to continue maintaining the peg to gold that had been established during the Bretton Woods agreement. This was when President Nixon closed the gold window in 1971, and the rate of dollar inflation increased dramatically.
During this phase of the international dollars timeline, the United States made agreements with energy-producing nations to ensure that all energy sales were completed using the dollar. The creation of OPEC and the American relationship with Saudi Arabia strengthened and continued into the modern era. The terrorism and contemporary problems in the Middle East developed throughout this phase and have escalated into the issues we are experiencing now.
The role of the dollar in the international monetary system, and the dependence it created with other nations, gave America, and to a more significant extent – the Anglo-American Establishment, disproportionate power and influence. The expansion of the dollar supply afforded the US the ability to grow its military to the largest globally, giving it even more power and influence. This unipolar American world was one where economic sanctions could be placed on disagreeable nations without a moment’s hesitation.
The economic and geopolitical importance of Eurasia continued to grow during this period of dollar dominance. The deepening imbalances began to manifest as significant financial and economic challenges. One of the first was the Asian Currency Crisis of 1997 and 1998. The problems continued to grow further and eventually brought the world to the brink with the financial crisis of 2008. From that period, the emerging nations of Eurasia began to openly discuss restructuring the international monetary system to reflect the economic realities more accurately.
The job losses in America continued to escalate, and the only option was to find a way for the USD to devalue and become more aligned with the currencies of its largest trading partners. But how to lessen the dollar when so many nations held so much of it in their foreign exchange reserve accounts? This was the big challenge that needed to be addressed.
Outside of economics, the United States had much bigger problems. Its ability to manipulate and control the world through the role and use of the dollar would be seriously reduced under any multi-currency framework which would develop and be implemented for corrected the imbalances.
Considering the significant presence of Eurasia, the United States would need to develop a different strategy to maintain power and influence on the world stage. With Eurasia having 70% of the world’s population, 75% of all energy resources, and 70% of GDP, America would be left with marginal access to resources and limited ability to manage dollar liquidity and maintain access to capital markets.
Based on this understanding of world events, we can observe that the Anglo-American establishment has been developing a strategy for decades to address the coming challenges. This strategy has taken the form of the NATO buildup on Russia’s border and the Western-backed coup which ousted the democratically elected President in Ukraine.
This is important as Russia has aligned its economic and geopolitical goals with China and the development of the New Silk Road, which is meant to harness the resources and natural trade routes within Eurasia. A Eurasian Union would dominate the world through its sheer size and percentage of its population, resources, and GDP. This amounts to a clear and present danger to the Anglo-American establishment.
Explaining all of the above on the nightly news would be impossible, which is why the growing influence of alternative sources of information is becoming more critical. People understand that the simplified script is misleading and leaves much of the truth. But how do you emotionally process scenes of children being gassed as propaganda if you don’t have a working understanding of just what is, in fact taking place behind the headlines?
Even with the endless alternative sources, so many misinterpret the facts. They cannot process and transfer information and knowledge with any consistent level of accuracy, as stated at the beginning of this article. There are numerous reasons for this.
First and foremost. We are given little factual information to form opinions and present a working thesis on world events. The small amount of accurate information which does come forth is so scarce and scattered that the pieces are tossed about, and some apparent connections are missed. At times the truth is so obvious and in our faces that we cannot see it.
These truths are not hidden for the most part. They are just not openly discussed. Most researchers and reporters could find the pieces with some effort and strategic sleuthing. But it would appear easier to just reduce all truths down into simplified talking points that reach us emotionally where the mass populations can be manipulated and conditioned to go along with what those in the know feel is best for our civilization.
The Anglo-American strategy on Eurasia is broad and complex. It stretches from Eastern Europe to the Middle East and over to the Koreas and the South China Sea. Access to resources and trade routes is the ultimate objective. Left with only 30% of the world’s population, 25% of energy resources, and 30% of world GDP, those in the West and the remaining allies worldwide are in a challenging position.
Preventing the formation of a Eurasian Union alongside a waning USD influence is a balancing act that could have severe consequences.
This brings us back to Syria and Bashar al-Assad.
Europe, which, contrary to what you were taught in school, is not a continent but a peninsula on the Eurasian continent, is dependent upon Russia and the enormous continent for a supply of natural gas. In the emerging multi-currency and multilateral world, those who control the natural gas route into Europe will significantly influence the European nations.
These nations have been traditional allies and partners with the Anglo-American establishment. The relationships which have been built over centuries are now threatened. This, more than any other reason, is why the BREXIT vote happened. Pending the failure of the larger Anglo-American strategy to control a percentage of the Eurasian game and the natural gas trade routes into Europe, the Anglo part of Anglo-American needed an exit strategy so it could stay aligned with its natural partner America.
The Russian natural gas routes into Europe were put into disarray with the problems in Ukraine. Putin has been making deals all-around to develop alternative methods of pumping natural gas into Europe. Other possible routes include a pipeline deal with Turkey, bypassing Ukraine and sending natural gas underneath the Black Sea and through Turkey up into Europe.
The other pipeline in development is the Iran-Iraq-Syria line, which runs through all three of those nations, across the Mediterranean, and up into Europe. This pipeline contributes to the West’s demands to have Russian-allied Bashar al-Assad removed from power and replaced with a leader aligned with the Anglo-American establishment.
Another alternative line in Qatar runs through Saudi Arabia and Jordan before smacking into the same problem with Syria as the Iranian line.
Now let’s consider a short timeline of events to give some perspective to what we are discussing.
On Friday, March 31, 2017, the American administration made multiple statements about the removal from power of Bashar al-Assad as no longer being a priority or demand from the West. This was heralded by Russia and Trump supporters as a positive move towards peace and Trump living up to his campaign promises.
On Monday, April 3, 2017, the Energy Ministers from Israel, Cyprus, Greece, and Italy formally agreed to work together on a 2000 km natural gas pipeline that would originate in the vast off-shore Israel gas fields recently discovered. This field contains over 900 billion cubic meters (BCM) of natural gas. The line is estimated to cost 6 billion euros and will not be complete until sometime between 2020 and 2025.
The alleged sarin gas attack occurred on Tuesday, April 4, 2017. The Anglo-American establishment quickly concluded that Assad attacked and murdered his people. This conclusion was made without any investigation or proof provided to other nations or the UN.
On Thursday, April 6, 2017, Trump ordered the 59 Tomahawk cruise missile strike on Syria. It is being reported in Russian media that this strike was coordinated with a rebel attack on Syrian forces. These rebels consisted of mercenaries and terrorist groups, such as ISIS and al-Nusra. All of them are being supported by the Anglo-American establishment to achieve their objective of removing Assad and replacing him with one of their own.
The confusion comes in when we consider that Trump ran on a campaign platform of not getting involved in Middle Eastern wars and promised to take out ISIS. These promises were contradictory because how would you take out ISIS without getting involved in another war in the Middle East. Not to mention that ISIS is a creation of the West, to begin with.
The domestic platform of Trump is fully aligned with the more significant international monetary changes taking place. These changes will cause a fundamental shift in American culture and economics as the dollar devalues and exports increase. This is the job creation Trump promised.
Though it appears he has strayed from his promises on Syria and the Middle East, he should do well if he keeps his domestic promises. Upon taking office, the task of achieving the domestic goal of making America significant again was met with the more considerable challenges of ensuring that America had access to trade routes and maintained viable trading partners and markets for those new exports.
It could even be considered conclusive that President Trump realized that if he didn’t get involved in the Middle East and take out Assad, which would break that specific campaign promise, he would not deliver on his domestic promises. Break one promise so he wouldn’t fail at both.
Very few men can escape the art of compromise.
In a larger context, there remains the threat of North Korea, which has provided America with a convenient excuse to maintain a military presence in the South. Whatever the outcome of this situation, we can expect that America will keep some form of presence and influence over the region.
If North Korea remains as is, America will as well. If the North has to be taken out, the vacuum will be filled with a western friendly leadership or reunited with the South, serving the same purpose.
As in the South China Sea, the risk is that China will implement its strategy and move to take control of North Korea before it falls into American hands. The spillover across the region will be frightening as both superpowers position for a long, drawn-out semi-cold war where clear trade lines are drawn.
There is geopolitical tension and the threat of war involving the Anglo-American establishment in Eurasia. The Anglo-American establishment has spent decades quietly encircling the continent and preparing for a time when it would have to go to war to ensure that the Western quality of life would remain. Undoubtedly, the West’s banking and corporate interests have a massive stake in this, and perhaps the mass populations are just caught up in the windstorm.
But we are now entering the world’s multilateral transformation phase where a heightened state of war readiness is taking hold. Where we go from this point will depend on the willingness of those involved to maintain peace and work together on the deals and agreements which will pave the road of tomorrow.
Undoubtedly, the Anglo-American establishment has positioned itself well for this negotiation and potential conflict. There is still the risk and expectation that the international banking interests are more aligned with the objectives of Russia and China. This would suggest that the Anglo-American establishment may be forced to make more concessions than they are prepared to. The alternative would be war with 70% of the world.
That is a battle which no one would win. – JC
By JC Collins Via https://www.highermanas.com/post/the-great-war-for-eurasia