Showing posts with label BRICS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BRICS. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 20, 2024

Germany at the Crossroads: It’s the System, Stupid │ Gerry Nolan

Germany, once Europe’s industrial juggernaut, now stumbles in a state of managed decline. With elections looming, the theatre is set. But let’s be clear: this isn’t about who wins, but whether Germans can reject the system that’s strangling their sovereignty. Because unless they do, these elections are nothing more than a distraction, a masterclass in divide-and-conquer.
 
» Know your enemy. «
  Sun Tzu.
 
Scenario 1: Banning AfD, A Gamble with Fire
Banning AfD wouldn’t be a show of strength but a desperate move to silence over a quarter of the electorate, especially in the former DDR where resentment still burns over decades of economic neglect. Friedrich Merz, obedient globalist and former BlackRock operative, would become Chancellor. The result? More war, deindustrialization, and blind subservience to the US. But silencing AfD won’t kill populism, it’ll fuel it. BSW would emerge as the strongest opposition, carrying the banner for those abandoned by the establishment.

  » Election isn’t about who governs. «

Scenario 2: AfD Grows, But the System Holds
AfD and CDU dominate the elections, but the anti-AfD cordon sanitaire holds. Merz scrambles to cobble together a coalition with Greens and SPD, a circus of contradictions. Meanwhile, AfD becomes the largest opposition party, and with BSW rising in tandem, Germany’s parliament turns into a warzone of populist resistance.
 
But the cracks widen as Germany faces three brutal realities: NATO’s inevitable defeat in Ukraine, an economic crisis fueled by sanctions and energy dependency, and mounting unrest from a population tired of being sacrificed on the altar of vassalage. 
 
Scenario 3: AfD Triumphs – The System Strikes Back
An AfD victory would trigger nothing short of institutional war. Mockingbird media, and globalist puppeteers would unleash chaos: mass protests, endless scandals, “mystery” corruption charges, and lawfare targeting AfD leaders. Color revolution tactics, international condemnation, and Soros-funded street movements would all be in play.
 
»
It’s the System, Stupid. «
 
These scenarios expose a single rigged system. This election isn’t about who governs, it’s about maintaining control while gaslighting the public into thinking change is possible. Divide and conquer, with AfD voters demonized as extremists and BSW supporters dismissed as utopian dreamers, all while the establishment engineers the decline.

Here’s the uncomfortable reality: Germany’s democracy is theatre, scripted to ensure one outcome, continued vassalage to Washington. The Nord Stream sabotage was a declaration of US dominance over Europe. Germany’s leaders didn’t even flinch. Their silence was an endorsement of their own country’s humiliation.

If Germans want real change, it’s not about winning elections within a rigged system, it’s about rejecting the system itself. Imagine a post-SMO world where Germany reclaims sovereignty, realigns with Russia and China, and embraces BRICS. Imagine restoring its industrial base, securing cheap energy, and forging a just peace in Europe. This isn’t a fantasy, it’s a choice. But to make it, Germans must first wake up to the fact that their political elite serves Washington, not Berlin.

» Yankee, Go Home «German cry for sovereignty.
 
The 80’s saw mass protests demanding the removal of US missiles and troops. It’s time for Germans to rediscover that spirit, to say "Yankee, go home" and reclaim their sovereignty. NATO has turned Europe into an American buffer, draining its resources, compromising its security, and hijacking its future.

A sovereign Germany could help lead Europe in a multipolar world, standing with the Global Majority rather than kneeling before the US. The alternative? Continued decline, economic ruin, and an electorate manipulated into fighting itself while the true oppressors profit from the chaos. The real question isn’t about CDU, AfD, or BSW, but whether Germans can see through the charade. The rigged script won’t save them; only rejecting NATO servitude and imagining a future aligned with the Global Majority can.



See also:

Thursday, October 31, 2024

BRICS Will Not Kill the Dollar—War Will | Martin Armstrong

The BRICS currency was created for geopolitical reasons when the neocons transformed the SWIFT system into an economic weapon and even threatened China with the same fate if they supported Russia. Once this occurred, the neocons turned the entire world’s monetary system into a weapon of war. This is why we have BRICS; it had nothing to do with killing the dollar or backing their currency with gold.

 » All currency is fiat, even when it is gold. Just because a currency is
backed by gold does not eliminate inflation or deflation. «

Many hoped for an official announcement regarding a gold-backed currency, which failed to materialize. A gold-backed currency would be massively deflationary. The money supply could not expand with the population or in times of need without new discoveries. Just because a currency is backed by gold does not eliminate inflation or deflation. The gold discoveries of the 19th century in California, Alaska, and Australia caused significant economic upheaval, followed by wars. The fact that gold was the currency did not prevent inflation.

Spain defaulted seven times. The gold and silver they brought back from the New World led to massive inflation in Europe. Those who preach that a gold standard is the solution lack an understanding of history. They blame “fiat currency,” as if eliminating it will solve all problems. There were booms and busts throughout ancient times long before paper money existed. All currency is fiat, even when it is gold. I have shown that Southern India routinely imitated Roman gold coins because they held a premium over gold—this is fiat. Northern India and the Kushan Empire issued their own coinage primarily because they traded more with China. Southern India used imitation Roman gold coins for about 250 years, confirming that the Roman coinage was worth more than its metal content.
 
 » The purchasing power of gold fluctuated at all times. The value of a currency is determined 
by the productive capacity of its people, not by its gold reserves. «

Similar claims were made about the Euro, which also did not work out well. Why? The value of a currency is determined by the productive capacity of its people, not by its gold reserves. Japan and Germany lost the war yet rose to the top of the economic hierarchy because their populations were productive. The United States has the largest consumer-based economy, which means that everyone needs to sell their products here, requiring transactions in dollars. The US is also strong militarily, which further supports the currency's foundation.

It is time to abandon these outdated economic theories, remnants from the 18th and 19th centuries. The economy has evolved since then. The neocons are destroying the dollar and undermining the future of the United States. When we lose another one of their endless wars, financial capital will shift from New York to Beijing. Just as war diminished Britain, so will it diminish the dollar and the United States.


Wednesday, October 30, 2024

Global MAGA-nomics | Francisco José Fernández-Cruz Sequera

The re-election of Donald Trump will lead to significant shifts in US economic and foreign policy, emphasizing unilateral protectionism and high tariffs aimed at boosting domestic production and safeguarding American interests. This 'MAGA-nomics' approach may impose tariffs of 10% to 20% on all imports and up to 60% on Chinese products, intending to reverse US deindustrialization and create jobs in key sectors.

MAGA-nomics: The war Trump will wage in 2025.

Trump's trade rhetoric portrays free trade as detrimental to the US economy, claiming trade deficits indicate weakness and job losses. His strategy seeks not only to protect the domestic market but also to pressure other nations to enhance market access for US goods. However, such mercantilism poses risks, including potential retaliatory tariffs from other countries, which could escalate costs and inflation both in the US and globally.

 Chronicles of Western Collapse.

A drastic tariff increase could harm American consumers by raising prices and potentially increasing inflation. The confrontation with China is particularly complex, as high tariffs may prompt China to devalue its currency, exacerbating internal economic issues while potentially triggering further trade conflicts.

The European Union, a major US trading partner, would likely suffer from these tariffs, which could significantly impact its economy amidst already existing challenges. Projections indicate that a 10% tariff on EU imports could reduce the Eurozone's annual GDP growth, further straining economic recovery.

 High tariffs, radical unilateralism, and the end of globalization as we know it.

Emerging markets like Vietnam, India, and Mexico may benefit as companies relocate production away from China, realigning global supply chains and potentially harming economies in Africa. The International Monetary Fund estimates that escalating trade disputes could reduce global economic growth, affecting millions worldwide.

Trump's approach extends beyond economics to form a coalition against China's influence, integrating defense strategies within economic policies (“Free and Open Indo-Pacific”). This could deepen geopolitical tensions and potentially lead to a new pro-China bloc. The historical precedent of protectionism, such as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, illustrates the risks of such policies, emphasizing the interconnectedness of global economies and the potential for widespread negative repercussions.

Wednesday, August 28, 2024

Facing Global System Change | Prime Minister Viktor Orbán of Hungary

It is a cliché that war is the continuation of policy with other means. It is important to add that war is the continuation of policy from a different perspective. So war, in its relentlessness, takes us to a new position from which to see things, to a high vantage point. And from there it gives us a completely different – hitherto unknown – perspective. We find ourselves in new surroundings and in a new, rarefied force field. In this pure reality, ideologies lose their power; statistical sleights of hand lose their power; media distortions and politicians’ tactical dissimulation loses its power. There is no longer any relevance to widespread delusions – or even to conspiracy theories. What remains is the stark, brutal reality. 
 
 » The war in Ukraine is our red pill. And now we must talk about reality. « 
Viktor Orbán - July 27, 2024.

[...] A change is coming, that has not been seen for five hundred years. This has not been apparent to us because in the last 150 years there have been great changes in and around us, but in these changes the dominant world power has always been in the West. And our starting point is that the changes we are seeing now are likely to follow this Western logic. By contrast, this is a new situation. In the past, change was Western: the Habsburgs rose and then fell; Spain was up, and it became the centre of power; it fell, and the English rose; the First World War finished off the monarchies; the British were replaced by the Americans as world leaders; then the Russo–American Cold War was won by the Americans. But all these developments remained within our Western logic. 
 

This is not the case now, however, and this is what we must face up to; because the Western world is not challenged from within the Western world, and so the logic of change has been disrupted. What I am talking about, and what we are facing, is actually a global system change. And this is a process that is coming from Asia. To put it succinctly and primitively, for the next many decades – or perhaps centuries, because the previous world system was in place for five hundred years – the dominant centre of the world will be in Asia: China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and I could go on. They have already created their platforms, there is this BRICS formation in which they are already present. And there is the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, in which these countries are building the new world economy.


I think that this is an inevitable process, because Asia has the demographic advantage, it has the technological advantage in ever more areas, it has the capital advantage, and it is bringing its military power up to equilibrium with that of the West. Asia will have – or perhaps already has – the most money, the largest financial funds, the largest companies in the world, the best universities, the best research institutes, and the largest stock exchanges. It will have – or already has – the most advanced space research and the most advanced medical science. In addition, we in the West – even the Russians – have been well shepherded into this new entity that is taking shape. The question is whether or not the process is reversible – and if not, when it became irreversible. I think it happened in 2001, when we in the West decided to invite China to join the World Trade Organisation. Since then this process has been almost unstoppable and irreversible.
 
[...] What is the European response to global system change? We have two options. The first is what we call “the open-air museum”. This is what we have now. We are moving towards it. Europe, absorbed by the US, will be left in an underdeveloped role. It will be a continent that the world marvels at, but one which no longer has within it the dynamic for development. The second option is strategic autonomy. In other words, we must enter the competition of global system change. After all, this is what the USA does, according to its own logic. And we are indeed talking about 400 million people. It is possible to recreate Europe’s capacity to attract capital, and it is possible to bring capital back from America.

Sunday, August 18, 2024

Mexico Pivoting Away From Washington’s Grip

In Mexico City, Washington is accused of sponsoring opposition NGOs such as Mexicans Against Corruption and Impunity (MCCI) through USAID programs and various private foundations, including Ford, Rockefeller, and Soros. The US government has sent nearly $5 million to MCCI since 2018, according to Mexico’s Financial Crimes Unit (UIF). Outgoing President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, also known as AMLO, whose term ends on September 30, 2024, has publicly condemned these actions, stating that his Foreign Ministry has sent a diplomatic notice to the US and that he will write directly to President Joe Biden about it. 

 Outgoing Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador
and President-elect Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo, in the shadow behind him - August 16, 2024.

This accusation is part of a broader pattern of strained relations between the US and Mexico under López Obrador's presidency. Mexico has curtailed military cooperation with the United States, closing its airspace to American military aircrafts and reconnaissance drones. Last year, López Obrador accused the US Department of Defense of spying and vowed to restrict military information after Mexican-related intelligence documents were leaked. 
 
 » [...] if a foreign enemy would dare to profane Your ground with their sole, think,
Oh beloved Fatherland!, that Heaven has given a soldier in every son. War, war! with no mercy 
[...] «
Mexican National Anthem

The current row is part of a general pivot away from the US, driven by López Obrador and his left-wing populist MORENA political party, which has repeatedly asserted that Mexico will not be subservient to the US.

■  Last year, López Obrador rebuked “irresponsible” calls from some US lawmakers advocating military action against drug cartels. “We are not going to permit any foreign government to intervene in our territory,” he said.
■  López Obrador conditioned helping Biden with his southern border migrant crisis on lifting sanctions from Cuba and Venezuela – both of which are Mexican trading partners.
■  Mexico slashed imports of genetically-modified US corn in favor of boosting local production, sparking a trade dispute.
■  Mexico joined other major Latin American countries in pushing back on efforts by the US and EU to diplomatically isolate President Nicolás Maduro after the Venezuelan president was reelected to a third term in office.
■  Mexico has refused to support NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine and declined to impose economic sanctions on Russia.
■  Trade volume between Russia and Mexico increased by 9.8% in the first four months of 2024 compared to the same period in 2023, amounting to $759.99 million.
 
while Mexico remains chained by treaties to the sinking dollar-ship.
 
 
In the broader geopolitical context, Mexico is increasingly engaging with BRICS+ to diversify its global alliances and reduce reliance on the United States. This strategic shift includes substantial investments in the Mexican economy and strengthening ties with China, which offers significant trade and investment opportunities. Mexico's collaboration with BRICS+ presents huge potentials for growth in technology, energy, and agriculture. 
 
In 2024 IMF and World Bank rank Mexico 14th globally in terms of nominal GDP,  and 9th in terms of PPP.

The US attempts to influence the outcome of Mexican elections through its NGOs have been unsuccessful, and President-elect Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo, who received 60% of the vote in the June 2, 2024 elections, is expected to continue López Obrador’s policies. Should Donald Trump win the next US presidential election, the relationship between the two countries could deteriorate further, with heightened conflicts related to trade, migration, weapons- and drug-trafficking, potentially bringing the two nations to the brink of direct military conflict. Balancing the
BRICS+ alliances with existing commitments will be crucial for Mexico's strategic and economic goals.

Monday, May 13, 2024

Welcome to the UNIT - The De-Dollarization Bombshell | Pepe Escobar

Welcome to the UNIT – a concept that has already been discussed by the financial services and investments working group set up by the BRICS+ Business Council and has a serious shot at becoming official BRICS+ policy as early as in 2025.

  » The UNIT is a new form of international currency that can be issued 
in a de-centralized way, and then recognized and regulated at national level.  «

[...] The Global Majority has had enough of the centrally controlled monetary framework put in place 80 years ago in Bretton Woods and its endemic flaws: chronic deficits fueling irresponsible military spending; speculative bubbles; politically motivated sanctions and secondary sanctions; abuse of settlement and payment infrastructure; protectionism; and the lack of fair arbitration. In contrast, the UNIT proposes a reliable, quick and economically efficient solution for cross-border payments. The - transactional - UNIT is a game-changer as a new form of international currency that can be issued in a de-centralized way, and then recognized and regulated at national level.

  » Decoupling money from politics will undoubtedly offer unique opportunities 
for fair trade and investments across the globe removing economic bypasses created by 
political power plays and irresponsible fiscal and monetary policies.  «

The strength of the UNIT, conceptually, is to remove direct dependency on the currency of other nations, and to offer especially to the Global Majority a new form of apolitical money - with huge potential for anchoring fair trade and investments. It is indeed a new concept in terms of an international currency - anchored in gold (40%) and BRICS+ currencies (60%). It is neither crypto nor stablecoin. [...] The endgame is that everyone, essentially, may use the UNIT for accounting, bookkeeping, pricing, settling, paying, saving and investing.

 

See
also:

Wednesday, May 8, 2024

The US is in Decline and Desperate Need to Modernize | President of Mexico

After a report from the US State Department about the allegedly poor human rights situation in Mexico, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) launched a counterattack. He warned Washington that there was no government in the world that had the right to interfere in the politics of another nation. Only the USA has repeatedly claimed such special rights in the past. AMLO pronounced: "Mexico will not tolerate such interference. Mexico will never be a protectorate or a colony of another country. Mexico is a free, independent and sovereign country."

  » That's just how they are. They are stagnant and ossified in decadence.
They are in decline and desperately need to modernize. 
The US must change their arrogant interventionist foreign policy.  «
 Andrés Manuel López Obrador, President of Mexico - April 24, 2024.

AMLO condemned US funding of so-called NGOs
- such as terrorist groups and drug cartels - that attack Mexico's legitimate government and its courts. It is above all the USA that should not lean too far out of the window when it comes to human rights: "Imagine if we would announce that the USA are violating human rights, political rights and freedoms, that the Statue of Liberty would be an empty symbol just because they have a presidential candidate who is constantly being dragged into court. How they want to talk about human rights when they are pouring billions of dollars into wars that result in the deaths of innocent people around the world? Why don't they release Assange? Where is the freedom? "

"United States governments are meddling in the internal politics of other countries for at least two centuries. And it is not only giving opinions of good conduct as if they were the judge of the world. They are also intervening militarily in countries with governments not subject to the interests of the United States. That's the story. They used to appoint and remove presidents as they pleased. That is the history of the people of Latin America. Well, in our history they invaded us twice. The first time they forced the Mexican government to sign the Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty, that is: we lost half of our territory and nine of the fifty US federal states belonged to Mexico. We have not forgotten US Invasions. We have insisted a lot and we will continue to do so: The US must change their arrogant interventionist foreign policy."
 
» Cancel NAFTA/USMCA. Ditch the dollar. Re-issue the Mexican gold peso. Join the BRICS. « 
For now these topics are official diplomatic taboos still. But chained to a sinking ship, the US' 
biggest trading partner becomes increasingly fed up with the inflation-dollar fraud, the drug-war-
pandemic-genocide economy and the insane migration industry of its northern neighbor.

"
How come they allocate so much money to war? Why they do not allocate funds to care for their young people who are suffering from drug use; unfortunately, 100,000 young people die every year from fentanyl use. But that's just how they are. And we shouldn't be surprised. That is how it has been historically. That indicates that they are stagnant, and ossified in decadence. They are in decline and desperately need to modernize."

Quoted from: 

It is unlikely that we can avoid a Third World War | Martin Armstrong

Piero Messina: Fukuyama advocated the end of history. Huntington spoke of a clash of civilizations. Is it possible to imagine a third way?

Martin Armstrong: Our greatest threat is centralized control; that is what doomed communism. I agree with Huntington that the clash of civilizations will be based upon cultures and religion mainly because of centralized attempt to impose a unified culture.
 
 » It is unlikely that we can avoid world war. 
Governments need war because their debts are no longer sustainable. 
They will use the war as the excuse for defaults – as was the case for WWII. 
They will create Bretton Woods II with the IMF digital currency as the reserve.
I believe we have a third world war that will begin piecemeal with the Middle East, Iran vs Israel, 
Europe vs Russia, North Korea vs Japan and South Korea, China vs Taiwan. 
But they will eventually merge together. «

At the end of the 1980s, the reference geopolitical model was the unipolar world, based on Western primacy. What cultural, military, and economic pillars is the Washington Consensus based on? Is it true freedom?

The military in economic pillars that dominate Washington today have nothing to do with freedom. They have to do with people who were unwilling to accept the collapse of communism. Whereby the enemy was transformed by communism to ethnic racism.

With the birth of the BRICS, is it possible to talk about a multipolar option? What are the limits that you see in this geopolitical dimension?

The birth of the BRICS was caused by these people we call the Neocons who engaged in ethnic racism and targeted Russia by removing them from the world economy under SWIFT. This woke up many in the world, realizing that the dollar was now being weaponized and was no longer a monetary instrument exclusively. Nations began to realize if they did not conform to the commands of Washington, then they to could be removed from SWIFT. Thus they have divided the world economy bringing to an end globalization.

Your analysis and studies seems to reveal several critical issues regarding the stability of the so-called Western system. There is a profound crisis of democratic systems, there is a lot of mistrust towards mainstream information and above all there are “agents” external to the institutions (an example above all is the activity of George Soros) who seem to influence the choices of governments in the United States and Western Europe. What could happen in the immediate future and in the coming years?

It has been propaganda that we live under a democracy. We live under republics in which case the people are represented and have no right to vote on critical issues. Republics historically are the most corrupt forms of government compared to a monarchy or dictatorship which cannot be bribed. In a republic, all representatives lacking term limits are up for sale to the highest bidder. This has resulted in the collapse of confidence in government both in Europe and the US which have fallen below 30% – the lowest since WWII. External agents such as George Soros, Bill Gates, World Economic Forum, push personal agendas which has further undermined the confidence in our systems. It is the government that decides if we go to war or not. The people are never asked.

 » It has been propaganda that we live under a democracy
We live under republics in which case the people are represented and have no right to vote on critical issues. 
Republics historically are the most corrupt forms of government. «

We invite you to make some reflections on the geoeconomic dimension. The global capitalist system is based on the indebtedness of sovereign states. Is this a sustainable situation? Who will pay the bill in the end?

The sovereign debt crisis that we face has appeared often throughout history. It is unsustainable because governments act in their own self-interest and will always expand debt to retain power. Historically, these systems collapse when they issue new debt to pay off the old, and no one is there to buy the new debt. Once they can no longer continue to borrow new money, then inevitably, they collapse.

Your predictive model is based on precise calculations. The cycles of history and the economy thus seem to chase each other along the time span of history. If I’m not mistaken, you compared the current context to the crisis and dissolution of the Roman Empire. Is it correct?

History repeats because human nature never changes. The Roman Empire is but one example from history of its success and failures. It lasted longer than anyone because it did not impose cultural regulations. The Christians called them pagans because they had so many Gods. That was the product of their policy of freedom of religion. Athens had Athena, Northern Europe had Thor, so they did not try to change the culture of the lands they conquered. They created a common market where someone in Britain could sell products to someone in Rome. So the freedom of religion, low taxation, freedom of movement, and a common market combined to create the Pax Romana.

Is it still possible to avoid a large-scale world conflict?

It is unlikely that we can avoid world war. Governments need war because their debts are no longer sustainable. They will use the war as the excuse for defaults – as was the case for WWII. They will create Bretton Woods II with the IMF digital currency as the reserve.

Pope Francis has been talking about a piecemeal Third World War for years. From your point of view, is what the Holy Father claims can be shared? What are the main weapons of this possible Third World War?

I believe we have a third world war that will begin piecemeal with the Middle East, Iran vs Israel, Europe vs Russia, north Korea vs Japan and South Korea, China vs Taiwan. But they will eventually merge together.

Have you argued that the true wealth of a state is its people? Why did we forget about all this? Above all, who is it convenient for?

The wealth of every nation is its people. That has been proven with the rise of Germany and Japan after WWII. This is the essence of Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand.” But those in government prefer Marx, for he advocates that the state has the power to manipulate the people. So, Governments have forgotten it and reject Smith because Marx provides them with more power.

Is it correct to claim that your analysis succeed in covering the intersection of geopolitics, global markets and economic confidence? Can you explain to us in a simple way how your Socrates predictive model works? By the way, why did you name it just like the Greek philosopher?

I named my computer model after Socrates because the oracle of Delphi had said that he was the smartest man in Greece. He tried to prove the oracle wrong and the process proved it to be correct. He was put on trial and sentenced to death because he knew too much. My computer has taught me a lot in geopolitics, we had a major bank in Lebanon in the 1980’s and they asked if I could create a model on the Lebanese pound. I put the data in the computer and it came out and said their country would fall apart in 8 days. I thought something was wrong with the data. When I told the client, they asked me what currency would be best, and I said the Swiss Franc. Eight days later the civil war began. Obviously they saw the movement of money themselves and came to me for the timing. The same thing happened with a client in Saudi Arabia who was a big shipper. He called me asking me what gold would do tomorrow because Iran was going to begin attacking shipping in the gulf. So once again, there was advanced information about war. By 1998, I understood how the computer was forecasting such events. I warned in June at our London conference that Russia was about to collapse. The London financial Times had snuck into the back of the room and reported that forecast on the front of their newspaper on June 27th 1998. Russia collapsed about 6 weeks later.

Are unpredictable events, such as the terrorist attack in Moscow, also considered among the parameters of your predictive model? A “black swan” type event can change the course of history and geopolitical relations?

Yes, we saw the capital flows shift a day in advance, up to a week in advance in the case of the attack in Israel. The defense stocks began to rise even with 9/11 the government used our model to look at who bought puts on airlines in the days before. Someone always knows when they’re going to do these types of events. And they move their money either to profit or to avoid a loss. The computer is tracking everything. It cannot tell me which person has done it. Just that the move is about to take place.

 
 » America is a Golden Calf and we will suck it dry, chop it up, and sell it off piece by piece. «
 

Friday, March 22, 2024

500 Years of Western Dominance - What Comes Next | Glenn Diesen

Felix Abt: A great European religious war and the first pan-European conflict over superpower status came to an end in 1648. After 30 years of devastating wars and chaos, especially on German soil, with millions of deaths and shattered economies, the Peace of Westphalia brought a new, rules-based order to Europe, as the Western political class would call it today. This included the inviolability of borders and non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign and equal states; it is regarded as a milestone in the development toward tolerance and secularization. How did this affect the new powers that emerged afterward and their quest for hegemony?

Glenn Diesen: The lesson from the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) was that no one power could restore order based on hegemony and universal values, as the other states in Europe would preserve their own sovereignty and distinctiveness by collectively balancing the most powerful state. This was evident when Catholic France supported Protestant Sweden to prevent the dominance of the Catholic Habsburgs. The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 gave birth to the modern world order, in which peace and order depend on a balance of power between sovereign states. The Westphalian system prevents hegemony as other states collectively balance the effort of an aspiring hegemon to establish economic and military dominance, and universal values are rejected to the extent they are used to reduce the sovereignty of other states.

» The Westphalian system prevents hegemony. « 
The 1648 peace treaty between the parties in the Thirty Years' War established the Westphalian system.
 
The principle, known as the Westphalian principle of sovereignty, prohibits interference in the internal affairs of another state, and every state is equal before international law, regardless of its size. Thus, every state has sovereignty over its territory and its internal affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers. But when the European colonial powers used violence to impose their will on other continents, they violated this ideal. Was this the beginning of this principle’s demise?
 
The Westphalian system should in principle be based on sovereign equality for all states. However, it originated as a European security order that later laid the foundation for a world order. Under the original Westphalian system, the Europeans claimed special privileges and the principle of equal sovereignty for states did not apply to everyone. Sovereignty was deemed to be a right and a responsibility assigned to civilized peoples, a reference to the Europeans as white Christians. The international system was divided between the civilized and the barbarians. There was one set of rules for the Europeans in the civilized garden, and another set of rules when the Europeans engaged with the so-called despotic barbarians in the jungle. The interference in the internal affairs of other peoples and the development of vast empires was framed as the right and the responsibility of civilized states to guide the barbaric peoples towards universal values of civilization. This responsibility to govern other peoples was termed the white man’s burden and the civilizing mission.

 » The gardeners have to go to the jungle. «
Josep Borrell's universal mission.

In our current era, we have abandoned the civilized-barbarian divide, but we have replaced it with a liberal democracy-authoritarian divide to legitimize sovereign inequality. The West can interfere in the domestic affairs of other states to promote democracy, invade countries to defend human rights, or even change the borders of countries in support of self-determination. This is the exclusive right and a responsibility of the West as the champions of the universal values of liberal democracy. As the EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell explained:
The gardeners have to go to the jungle. Europeans have to be much more engaged with the rest of the world. Otherwise, the rest of the world will invade us.

International law in accordance with the UN Charter defends the principle of sovereign equality for all states. The so-called
rules-based international order is based on sovereign inequality, which introduces special privileges under the guise of universal liberal democratic values. For example, the West’s recognition of independence for Kosovo was a breach of international law as it violated the territorial integrity of Serbia, although it was legitimized by the liberal principle of respecting the self-determination of Kosovo Albanians. In Crimea the West decided that self-determination should not be the leading principle, but territorial integrity. The US refers to liberal democratic values to exercise its exclusive right to invade and occupy countries such as Iraq, Syria and Libya, although this right is not extended to countries in the jungle.  

» The so-called “rules-based international order” is based on sovereign inequality, 
which introduces special privileges under the guise of universal liberal democratic values. «
In 1945 fifty countries established the United Nations System. With the help of this supra-national governance
system the Anglo-Frankish-Zionist-Dönmeh-Wahhabi-Takfiri elites of the UK, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the US and
some others, expected to secure their hegemonies beyond the foreseeable demise of traditional colonialism
The Bretton Woods conference, World Bank, IMF, nuclear bombing of Japan, dividing Korea 
and creating the State of Israel in Palestine are early show cases of what Pax Americana and UN are all about.

[...] The Ukrainian conflict is essentially an extension of American geopolitics, which aims to carry out Mackinder’s aforementioned stanza, He who rules Eastern Europe rules the world. What are your thoughts about it?

Preventing Germany and Russia from controlling Eastern Europe means that much of the Eurasian continent becomes landlocked. US control over Eastern Europe implies that Russia can not bridge Europe and Asia, but rather becomes an isolated land-locked region at the dual periphery of Europe and Asia.

Brzezinski outlined the strategy for developing and preserving US global primacy, which relies on the age-old wisdom of divide-and-rule. Brzezinski wrote that the US must
prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and keep the barbarians from coming together. Historically, the British and the Americans have worked to prevent Germany and Russia from coming together as it would form an independent pole of power. Hegemony requires conflict between Germany and Russia, as Germany becomes a dependent ally and Russia is weakened. This logic is also applied to why it is beneficial to perpetuate tensions between the Arabs and Iran, or between China and its neighbors. The US has been very concerned about the economic integration between the Germans and Russians, which is why the US was so hostile to the Nord Stream pipelines and most likely was behind the attack on these pipelines. 
 
 Anka Feldhusen, a fine example of a German Neonazi apparatchik of the 21st century.
March 22, 2023.
 
 Wehrmacht 2.0 south of Kiev. 
There will be hell to pay.
March 22, 2024.


The problem is that the world is no longer Western-centric and by pushing Russia away from Germany, the US has pushed Russia towards China – a technological and industrial power much greater than Germany. In the mid-19th century, the British fought against Russia in the Crimean War with the explicit purpose of pushing Russia back into Asia, where it would remain technologically and economically backward and stagnant. NATO’s war in Ukraine is a repeat of the efforts to push Russia back into Asia, although this time Asia is much more dynamic than the West. The failure of the West to adjust our grand strategy to this new reality has been a mistake of immeasurable proportions. We have not subordinated Russia, rather we ended Russia’s 300-year-long Western-centric policies in which Moscow looked to the West for modernization.

What is driving this stunning anti-Chinese obsession in the United States against a country that upholds the principle of non-interference in other countries, that used its mighty navy only for trade and not for gunboat politics when it was a superpower in the past, and that follows the millennia-old concept of “Tianxia” (天下), which literally means “everything under heaven”, that is, an inclusive world full of harmony for all?

China does not threaten the US, but it threatens US dominance as the foundation for the unipolar world order established after the Cold War. The US is currently attempting to weaken China through economic warfare, convincing its allies to decouple from the Chinese economy, and knocking out Russia in Ukraine as a vital partner of China. If the US fails to achieve its objectives, then it will likely stoke conflicts between China and its neighbors to make the neighbors more dependent and obedient, and also create instability for the Chinese that will bleed it of resources. The ideal would be greater tensions between India and China, as India would have to make itself more reliant on the US and it would be an important ally to weaken China. If all fails, then the US could also fight an indirect war through a proxy similar to the way they are using Ukrainians to fight Russia – by for example pushing for Taiwan’s secession. Besides securing its supply chains and building a military for deterrence, China should prioritize resolving its disputes with India as any friction with China can be exploited.

» This is a Westphalian system with Eurasian characteristics. « 
Since 2009 BRICS is establishing a Multipolar World Order based on Westphalian principles and controlled by the 
Eurasian great powers China, India and Russia. Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates joined BRICS
on January 1, 2024. To date 15 more countries have formally applied to join.

Finally, in your new book you say that a new Westphalian world order is reasserting itself, albeit with Eurasian characteristics. Can you explain this in more detail?

We are returning to a Westphalian system based on a balance of power between sovereign states. However, the former Westphalian system was based on sovereign equality among the Western powers while the barbarians or despots outside the West were not deemed to be qualified for the responsibility of sovereignty. It was a dual system of collective hegemony of the West, with sovereign equality between the Western states. In the new Westphalian system, there are several powerful states that are not Western, with China as the leading economy in the world. The Eurasian powers such as China, Russia, India and others are developing the economic foundations for this system with new technologies, transportation corridors and financial instruments. The Eurasian powers are more prepared to include the Global South as sovereign equals. The Eurasian powers reject the so-called rules-based international order based on sovereign inequality, as Western dominance should not be legitimized by a civilized-barbarian or liberal democracy-authoritarian divide.

The Western powers over the past centuries have had an inclination for dominance and empire by controlling limited maritime corridors. Russia’s Eurasianism in the 19th century was a hegemonic strategy by dominating the Eurasian landmass through land corridors, although under the multipolar distribution of power the Russians do not have the capability or intentions to pursue hegemony. Instead, Eurasian integration entails moving from the dual periphery of Europe and Asia, to the center of a new Eurasian construct. Even China as the leading power does not have the capability or intention to pursue hegemony. Countries like Russia are content with China being the leading power, although they would not support China if it demanded dominance and hegemony. The Chinese demonstrate that they are not attempting to limit Russia’s economic connectivity with other states to make itself the only center of power. In the Global Civilization Initiative, the Chinese are also advocating for respecting civilizational differences and that all states have their own path to modernity, which implies that China is not claiming to represent universal values that legitimizes interference into the domestic affairs of other states. The West assumed that the Russia-China partnership was a marriage of convenience and that they would clash over influence in Central Asia, but this never happened because neither side demanded hegemony. Instead of sabotaging each other’s relations with the region, China and Russia harmonized their interests in Central Asia. China, Russia, India and other Eurasian powers have different visions and interests in terms of Eurasian integration, but they all need each other to realize their goals and pursue prosperity. Hegemony is not an option. This is a Westphalian system with Eurasian characteristics.

Quoted from:
 

See also: