Eurasia: A Geo-political re-alignment

[Magda Hassan]

Or they could be cookies.

[Lauren Johnson]

by Andrew Korybko [An excellent article]

All the chaos that's been unleashed in Eurasia can be attributed to the existential battle between the Exceptionalists and the Integrationalists, represented respectively by the unipolar and multipolar worlds. A lot has lately been written about the emerging triangle of defensive and incorporative interests between Russia, China, and Iran, yet not much has been published about the offensive alliance between American Exceptionalism, Zionism, and Wahhabism, the three ideologies dedicated to dividing the diverse multipolar forces in Eurasia and perpetuating unipolar dominance. The aim of the piece is not at all to demonize the identities mistakenly caught up in blanket association with these ideologies (Westerners, Jews, Muslims), but rather to illustrate how the most extreme strains of thought tangentially associated with them have become the most destabilizing forces in Eurasia, and how the unholy alliance' between these three has emerged as the primary driver of conflict in the supercontinent.

The Three Exceptions

A brief definition of the three instigators of instability is as follows:

American Exceptionalism:

Adherents of this ideology hold an ingrained belief that the country's unique geography and place on the historical timeline endows its leadership with the right to proselytize (even militarily, if need be) its governing, economic, and social models all across the world.

Zionism:

Proponents assert that Jews have a special relationship with God and an historical imperative to recreate the Biblical Israeli state, which thus gives their leadership the right to do whatever is deemed to be in their global interests.

Wahhabism:

Unquestioning and fervent conviction in the "pureness" of this strain of Islamic interpretation emboldens its practitioners to commit whatever means of savagery and barbarism are necessary to create a global un-"Islamic State".

Cerberus

These three ideologies share pivotal structural similarities that essentially make them separate faces of the same actor, a modern-day Cerberus, if one will. Here are the most important commonalities that tie them together:

Exceptionalist Standards:

The practitioners of these ideologies identify themselves as "special", thus convincing themselves that they're entitled to break established rules and enact a plethora of double standards in order to shape the world according to their design.

Historical Inevitability:

Each of these movements believes that their success is inevitable, and that it's a question of "when" not "if" they succeed.

Global Scope:

Accordingly, in order to facilitate their historical inevitability, they must partake in a global strategy designed to safeguard their interests and promote their core entities (the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, respectively).

Antagonism To Multipolarity:

By their very nature, none of these ideologies is compatible with multipolarity and the plurality of geopolitical thought, which is why they've been harnessed to come together as the Cerberus in attempting to halt and reverse this global trend.

Unrepresentative Nature:

One mustn't make the mistake of forgetting that these movements are not representative of the majority of their blanket associates (Westerners [Europeans are subordinated as second-rate Exceptionalists under American tutelage], Jews, Muslims), although each ideological vanguard attempts to create the illusion that this is so in order to justify' and legitimize' its extreme minority control over affairs.

The Interplay Of Interests

The Cerberus is formed of three different faces that each espouse a different variation of seemingly incompatible Exceptionalism, but in reality they're each complementary to one another's long-term goal in defeating multipolarity. Per their shared hypocritical standards, the only inclusiveness allowed in their vision is the convergence of American Exceptionalism, Zionism, and Wahhabism as an ultra-exclusive unipolar super model. It will later be argued in another section that this unstable arrangement is a geo-ideological gambit that could seriously backfire against Zionism and Wahhabism, all to the US' eventual geopolitical benefit (and perhaps even through its own hand).

Before getting to that point, however, it's necessary to chronicle how the convergence of interest between these three ideologies came to be in the first place and what interplay of interests lays at the crossroads of their strategic cooperation. While it may be possible to document such examples prior to World War II, it wasn't until its aftermath that the relationships really began to come to light and were activated on a massive regional scale throughout the entire Mideast, initiating the destructive processes that have accelerated in the present day.

The American Exceptionalist-Zionist Alliance:

The US emerged from World War II with the capacity to extend its military reach all across Eurasia, but one regional theater (aside from the Soviet Bloc) posed a noticeable problem for its penetration, and that was the Mideast. The US had vested geopolitical interests in shattering Arab unity after World War II (partly in order to preempt the possible creation of a pro-Soviet supranational entity) and creating a geopolitical perch that could allow it to practice a permanent proxy intervention role in picking apart each regional payer, hence the creation of Israel and the formalization of the American Exceptionalist-Zionist strategic convergence. The global significance of the Mideast for American Exceptionalism's grand strategy will be explained in the following section, but what's important to understand at this juncture is that American Exceptionalism's empowerment and support of Zionism was meant to create a proxy partner that had a shared interest in militarily unraveling Arab unity, which is exactly what the ultimate result of the Arab-Israeli wars happened to be.

After the Arab coalitions were defeated, the military component of Arab unity was neutralized, the importance of which cannot be understated. Only through Arab unity could there be a chance of defeating Israel and accordingly remove the US' intergenerational perch in the Mideast, the geostrategic connecting region between Europe and Asia (and equally positioned to exert influence on both, if properly applied). Israel, unlike any other American allies, is directly dependent on the US for both its creation and existence, and is hence much more reliable as a long-term committed ally (both ideologically and politically) than any other country. The US needs Israel's strategic location and regional military contracting services to keep Arab governments perpetually weak and divided, while Israel needs the US' full-spectrum support to continue to exist, thus explaining the intensive depth of support that each entity has for the other.

Despite militarily cracking Arab unity, Israel is inherently incapable of destroying the bond that connects Arab people, hence why another Exceptionalist component had to be brought into the mix in order to achieve this and remove any possibility that an Arab coalition could ever threaten Israel (and by extension, the US' premier Eurasian super base) again.

The Wahhabist Weapon:

Saudi Arabia's official ideology, Wahhabism, was thus selected as the destructive ideology necessary to tear apart Arab unity and sow irreconcilable identity discord among the Arab people for generations. It placed its victims on the horns of a major dilemma, in which they were forced to choose whether they were secular pan-Arabs along the model of Nasser or extremist pan-Islamists like the Saudi Kings. While Nasser preached the importance of a progressive republican form of government, the Saudis strictly supported authoritarian monarchism, thus putting the two Mideast ideologies at odds with one another and motivating the Wahhabis to find external support in eliminating the most pressing threat to their ideological existence.

It was through this imperative, namely the challenge that secular pan-Arab republicanism posed to extremist pan-Islamic authoritative monarchism, that the Wahhabis decided to join the American Exceptionalist-Zionist alliance which also was dedicated to defeating the Saudis' ideological rivals. The Wahhabist virus is such that it's engineered to destabilize secular pan-Arab governments by forcing each citizen to reconsider their most basic identity, thus theoretically making most of these countries' citizens vulnerable to its allure. On top of that, not only does Wahhabism preach the need to overthrow secular governments, but it also carries with it militant takfirism that leads to sectarian warfare. Thus, Wahhabism is uniquely positioned to divide Arabs both from their secular governments and also from themselves, thereby presenting the ultimate divisive ideology to ever serve the interests of the American Exceptionalist-Zionist alliance.

While Wahhabism is known for its unflinching ideological hatred, just like the other two Exceptionalist ideologies, it also partakes in major hypocritical standards, namely in the surprise moderation of its policies towards Israel and the US. It holds out the tantalizing hint of conducting an eventual religious war against Israel but notably never takes steps to actualize it. Instead, it focuses all of its time and energy on dividing the Mideast in as many ways as possible (ergo the takfirism that defines Wahhabism), meaning that any slogans against Israel are purely just that, and are designed simply to spread a marketing campaign for more naïve recruits. At the same time, certain Wahhabist elements have a tendency to go rogue and let ideology get the better of their externally imposed practicality' (whether by design or accident), which can open up either opportunities' or vulnerabilities for the American Exceptionalists depending on the context (to be explained in a later section).

The Significance Of The War On Syria:

Considering all of the aforementioned agreements in strategic focus endemic to the American Exceptionalist-Zionist-Wahhabist alliance (hereto referred to as Cerberus), the War on Syria becomes what may aptly be described as the most pivotal Eurasian resistance struggle today. Other than the fact that all three heads of Cerberus are bitterly engaged in mauling this Mideast nation and its people to pieces, Syria represents the last vestige of secular pan-Arab governance due to the ideological foundations of the Baath Party. This qualifies it as the most Resistant & Defiant state in Israel's nearest vicinity and by itself is reason enough for Cerberus' enemies (thenceforth referred to as the Herculean Coalition [the anchors of which are Russia, China, and Iran] after the Greek hero that defeated Cerberus) to support its democratically elected government. If Cerberus is successful in slaughtering Syria, then this would herald in a Dark Age for the Mideast that would turn the entire region into a launching pad for further destabilization into the Eurasian interior, and thus, expressly target the geographic vulnerabilities of the Herculean Coalition.

Concentrated Overlap

There's a reason that all of Cerberus' three-headed interests coincide in the Mideast, and it's not simply because two of the three ideologies emerged in this region. Rather, there are greater geopolitical underpinnings as to why Cerberus focuses so intently on the area, since just as the mythical beast itself guards the gates of hell in Greek folklore, in Eurasian geostrategy, it's at the forefront of the gate to the supercontinent, being specifically positioned to exert influence on Europe, Asia, and even Africa if need be. It's not to say that Eurasia is hell, but instead to emphasize that in both cases, Cerberus occupies a position of access, the mythological of which was defensive while the geopolitical equivalent is offensive. Modern-day Cerberus is intent on using its location as a springboard for further attacks into Eurasia in an effort to destroy the Herculean Coalition, and its strategy closely follows the dictates of British strategist Halford Mackinder.

This individual prominently pioneered the field of geostrategy and geopolitics over a century ago through this work "The Geopolitical Pivot of History", in which he famously stipulated that:

"Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland:

Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island:

Who rules the World-Island commands the World."

He was absolutely correct in ascertaining that command of the Heartland, largely identified with contemporaneous Central Asia, was pivotal in exerting influence all throughout Eurasia, but he neglected to consider additional approaches for controlling this crucial piece of geopolitical real estate. At the time it seemed as though Eastern Europe was the only gateway to achieving this, but increasingly, it appears as though the Mideast can serve just as much, if not more, of a facilitating role given its Eurasian Balkans credentials of demographic chain-reaction fragmentation.

Brzezinski's theoretical innovation to Mackinder's axiom is that command and control do not have to be direct or even require a physical presence, but that given the innate ability of the center to influence the periphery, that massive destabilization in the Heartland (be it through Islamic terrorist insurgency, state collapse, humanitarian crises, and/or a combination thereof plus additional factors) can automatically radiate outwards. In today's world, this means that asymmetrical threats indirectly instigated by out-of-regional actors such as Cerberus can lead to simultaneous challenges for the three main members of the Herculean Coalition, not only putting them on the severe strategic defensive, but actually endangering their existence if allowed to grow out of control (as purposefully envisioned by Cerberus). In the early 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century, Mackinder may have thought of state armies rolling through Eastern Europe en route to taking control of the Heartland, but in the early 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century, it's more likely that this will take the form of terrorist brigades originating in or having acquired their battle experience in the Mideast that happen to pop up' in the Heartland without any direct links to state sponsors.

The Mideast is therefore the fulcrum of Eurasian-African (in)stability, and thus, any entity that controls it can export asymmetrical and conventional force in near-equidistant direction to penetrate the heart of Africa, the heart of Europe (or even Eastern Europe, for that matter), and the Eurasian Heartland (the key continental gateway to East Asia). Such a geopolitical understanding of power and force projection adds an updated component to Mackinder and Brzezinski's theoretical contributions and explains the reasoning behind the Mideast-centric application of Cerberus' wrath.[B][B][B]

Eurasian Reach[/B][/B][/B]

Cerberus isn't limited to only the Mideast, although that's where the majority of its activities and strategic focus are concentrated. One can actually identify its involvement in Europe and Asia as well, which will be explored in this section.

Bark, Bite, Beg:

Prior to commencing the overview, Cerberus' pattern in Europe and Asia needs to be conceptually outlined so as to draw more of the reader's attention to it. Basically, each of its three heads fulfills the interchanging role of barking (threatening, fear mongering), biting (attacking), and begging (lobbying) in order to push its collective interest. Let's look at how they work in practice.

Europe:

The US uses NATO to control the continent, and it bitterly barks at its puppies any time they're reluctant to follow its lead in whatever the issue of the day may be. The US also barks loudly about the so-called "Russian threat" without providing any evidence of what there is to be scared of in the first place. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabi zombies are being deployed to the Balkans and select Western European countries to carry out strategic terrorist attacks designed to take a bite out of continental security and stabilization, as well as to prod the US' NATO puppies into taking Washington's suggested' courses of action on various topics. Finally, Israel rounds up the trio by lobbying the continent and its key political and social figures in order to gather as much financial, political, and normative support for Cerberus as possible. The implicit threat is that a rejection of support for Cerberus will translate into more barking by the US and biting by the Saudis, meaning that it's best to feed the begging mouth in order to avoid the unpleasant consequences from the other two heads.

Asia:

Cerberus has only lately turned its three heads to the East, but it's been relatively successful in such a short timeframe. The US has been barking incessantly about China ever since Hillary Clinton announced the Pivot to Asia in 2011, and its doing this with the intent of scaring the little dogs' surrounding it into a NATO-modeled alliance of anti-Chinese containment. As a means of deepening the US' security engagement with each of these members, especially in the case of Thailand and the Philippines, Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi proxies occasionally carry out terrorist attacks to justify' an increased and intensified US presence and/or strategic oversight, and this pattern is only expected to increase with the creation of the globally oriented un-"Islamic State". Israel's role, while largely muted, is disproportionately significant to its size, in that its begging efforts appear to be on the verge of successfully lobbying India over to the side of Cerberus. Israel has had breakthrough relations with India since the rise of the Modi government, as the new multipolar' Prime Minister is reluctant to become too overtly close with the US and of course hates the Saudis and their Wahhabi terrorism (and political support of Pakistan). Thus, Israel represents the perfect solution for Cerberus to penetrate the subcontinental hegemon and pursue its partners' shared interests.

Extra: Mideast:

Cerberus' home theater is characterized by a dynamic interplay of ever-changing and less clearly defined roles dependent on the specific circumstances at hand. Each of its three heads vigorously cycles through the available roles as is necessary in order to advance the allied entity's shared goals. One example might see the US barking about the un-"Islamic State" while Saudi-supported agents provide the on-the-ground bite to justify the fear America was mongering, whereas another one could see Israel and the Saudis barking about the threat' of Saddam Hussein while the US begs for an international coalition prior to its devastating bite. A future scenario that's not too unlikely might see Israel barking about alleged Iranian non-compliance with the forthcoming nuclear deal, while the US begs the world to support the Arab NATO's Lead-From-Behind punitive bite against Tehran.[B][B]

Geo-Ideological Gambit[/B][/B]

As mentioned near the beginning of the article, Cerberus is centered on an unstable geo-ideological foundation that might unexpectedly crack along its two major Zionist and Wahhabist fault lines. Both sides suspect that the other may turn on them one day, hence why they're both eager to cultivate as privileged relations as possible with their American Exceptionalist sibling, which only works out to Washington's prime strategic benefit. The Zionists are afraid of two scenarios: that the Wahhabi terrorists become strong enough on their own to disobey Riyadh and wage jihad against Israel outside of the US or Saudi Arabia's control; or that Saudi Arabia will one day betray Israel and directly order its terrorist proxies to attack it in order to fully complete the un-"Islamic State". Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is apprehensive of the Zionist Yinon Plan and fully aware of Ralph Peters' "Blood Borders" mapand the New York Times' "How 5 Countries Could Become 14" suggestions, all of which deal with the eventual dismemberment of the kingdom. Pure Zionism and pure Wahhabism cannot coexist due to these existential contradictions, hence why a falling out is inevitable if Cerberus eliminates the Herculean Coalition (the main force that glues it together).

If they turn on each other prematurely before the Coalition can be conquered, then both Zionism and Wahhabism open themselves up to being separately defeated in a devastating counter-attack, which would then lead to the disintegration of American Exceptionalist influence in Eurasia. Therefore, the nature of the gambit is that they can prolong their falling out until afterwards, or that the US is able to somehow balance relations between them to the point of precluding such a scenario, which is the policy that it currently practices. Washington regularly intimates that it could throw additional weight towards one or the other and subsequently disrupt the delicate balance keeping the peace between its three heads. It's not serious enough to do so at this point, of course, and all Exceptionalist sides understand that they need the other in order to continue surviving until the reactionary Herculean Coalition can be dealt with, but the prospect of such a suicidal security dilemma succeeds in scaring Israel and Saudi Arabia to the point of unquestionable cooperation within the Cerberus framework (for now, at least).

The only alternative to Cerberus is the eventual removal of the Exceptionalist Ideological minority from each captive entity, which would see the American Exceptionalists ousted from the US, the Zionists from Palestine, and the Wahhabis from Saudi Arabia, thus leading to a change in their foreign policies and internal organization. None of this means that these entities are facing geopolitical elimination, as only the minority Exceptionalist Ideologies and their practitioners are under existential threat of losing anything at all (namely their power and legitimacy'), but it is this fear of those currently in power that desperately motivates them to aggressively summon Cerberus in indefinitely prolonging their unipolar hegemony. Ironically, only through their theoretical success' in destroying the Herculean Coalition do the odds dramatically increase that they may be geopolitically eliminated, as the aforementioned ideological contradictions between Zionist and Wahhbist Exceptionalists inevitably means that they'll militarily clash in a duel to the death someday. Even in the best case' scenario of a victory over the Herculean Coalition and a fragile cold peace between these two incompatible camps, there's no guaranteeing that the American Exceptionalists won't purposely tip the strategic balance towards one side or the other in order to recreate its characteristic cauldron of chaos in the Mideast perfectly suited for its grand geopolitical goals.[B][B][B]

Concluding Thoughts[/B][/B][/B]

The unipolar Cerberus mutant of American, Zionist, and Wahhabist Exceptionalism is the true reason for Eurasia's destabilization, and only the Resistant & Defiant Herculean Coalition of Russia, China, and Iran is capable of pacifying it. Right now the fate of Eurasia appears to be foreshadowed by the fate of Syria in resisting Cerberus, in that its success or failure would have game-changing reverberations all throughout the supercontinent. If Syria and her people are successful in repelling the onslaught, then it would safeguard the Eurasian interior to a much stronger degree than if it failed, and it would also begin to turn the tide against Cerberus. However, if Syria happens to fall, then Cerberus will waste no time in launching a rapid and aggressive asymmetrical blitzkrieg into the Eurasian Heartland, one which is intended to divide the Herculean Coalition and defeat the champions of multipolarity.

One must always remember, though, that it's not Westerners, Jews, or Muslims who are in any way to blame for what Cerberus does, but instead the most radical ideological components of these societies (unrepresentative of the vast majority, thus making them extreme outliers) which have seized control of key states and are now using their host entities to engage in a global proxy war against the multipolar forces of inclusion and integration. Cerberus' unipolar victory wouldn't mean peace, however, since it's guaranteed that two of its three heads will eventually cannibalize one another, after which the American Exceptionalist one, unscathed by the fraternal infighting, can finish off its weakened surviving sibling and lay full claim to what were thought to have been shared global spoils (but which are really impossible to divide among two Exceptionalists as mutual incompatible as the Zionists and Wahhabists). That being the case, the only way to preclude such a gloomy global forecast is for the Herculean Coalition to succeed in saving Syria from Cerberus before the latter's aggressive pan-continental campaign and post-victory' self-destruction engulf the entire landmass.

[Paul Rigby]

Published on 10 Jun 2015

[video=youtube_share;Y1OPFr4WH3M]http://youtu.be/Y1OPFr4WH3M[/video]

source: https://youtu.be/_0I3pAITZMk
original video in German: https://youtu.be/zVvuNySp-i4

On the same speech, from Fort Russ:

http://fortruss.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/w...-data.html

Wagenknecht: "Community of values," data collection, and other "pieces from the madhouse"

Speech to The Left Party, June 6, 2015

June 9, 2015
Translated from German by Tom Winter

Dear Colleagues, in politics it's plain truth: the shabbier the contents, the more emphatic the justifications. And so there will be a meeting tomorrow in Elmau of not only a self-proclaimed government of the world, that nobody needs, but -- if we are to believe Mrs Merkel -- a meeting, behind high fences, of something much, much more noble, namely a community of values. A community of values, in which only those professing the values of international law are allowed. I do not know if the highly over-esteemed Chancellor noticed that if you would take this principle seriously, the Japanese Prime Minister would be damn lonely in Elmau. Because, except for Japan there is not a single country in the G7 that has not, in recent years, gotten itself involved in international law-breaking war. It is a sad reality, but it is a reality.

And in fact one has to add that Merkel's community-of-values is not very picky in choosing their friends - if the Ukrainian government is one, that puts Nazis in leadership positions and conducts war with nazi battalions; if Saudi Arabia is one, that has beheaded more people than the barbaric murderers of ISIS. And meanwhile we find out that Washington had its fingers in the game right at the foundation of ISIS, just as before in the case of the Taliban. First plant terror and then fight it with arms supplies and terrorist wars, thereby destabilizing entire regions, with the attendant inhuman suffering and millions of refugees -- and all this just to keep expanding their own spheres of influence and to seize lucrative commodities in their talons. Whoever takes this NATO strategy for a value-based policy, and who still believes Germany's responsibility in the world depends on putting this kind of policy up front, needs their head examined.

And therefore there is in my eyes really no reason why The Left should begin pondering, whether this war is worse, or that war is less bad. Dear colleagues, war is the greatest human rights crime, and therefore there can be no less serious wars and there must be a party in the Bundestag and stay there, that still has the courage to utter this truth. And it does not matter whether the SPD and the Greens like it or not.
And they tell us that we will need the NSA's high tech sniffers to protect us against terrorist attacks - what kind of nonsense is that? If you don't want terrorists in your country, stop terrorizing abroad! And it's a fact and a truth: US drones have wiped out countless innocent families from Yemen to Afghanistan. And these drones would not fly, if Germany via Ramstein were not providing the necessary base. [Ramstein, Germany is HQ for the US Air Force in Europe plus US Air Force Africa, and is also a NATO installation - tr]

And therefore an end to this cooperation -- and this means in consequence an exit from the military structures of NATO -- an end to this cooperation would be the most important requirement for protection from terrorist attacks, and far better than the NSA illegally supplying us with all our private data.

Allegedly the days in Elmau are only for the really quite flawless democrats. Even that is also cited as a reason why Putin is not welcome there - What a hypocrisy! How can people call themselves democratic, and at the same time be negotiating on a free trade agreements like CETA and TTIP, whose declared aim is to take away the decision-making authority from democratically elected governments and parliaments, to install corporations over government, and basically make all future elections superfluous, because then you can not let any land propose and adopt laws that would bring the big profiteers to heel.

I have to say once: Those involved in such an agreement, who support such agreements, have to stop calling themselves democratic. These are anti-democrats, and it is anti-democratic agreements that are negotiated there.
And I will add this: I have to say, because it falls a really hard, to see such a man as Mr. Gabriel, who has been these months telling the public lies and taking them for dummies as a possible partner in future governmental social- and policy change. This contradicts itself, it simply doesn't jibe.

And of course, dear colleagues, yes, I want us to change this country and we are already doing it. And it is also true: you can change more from the government than from the opposition if - but this "if" is the decisive condition - if you have partners who want to at least go in the same direction as you. That's what matters. But where have the SPD and the Greens gone in national politics in recent years? Let us just look at the events: As Oxfam has pointed out, extrapolating the current distribution of wealth and power into 2016, the top one percent will have more assets than all other people together, so what then was the debate contribution of the SPD Chairman? The property taxes were no longer appropriate!

And what was Gabriel's follow-up on the NSA scandal after he first inflated his cheeks and produced all the hot air? Well he has come out in favor of enforcing the law on data retention. Apparently as a special service to the NSA, so they wouldn't have so much stress any more evaluating their data. So we are storing the data -- Nice, eh? Right! What kind of policy is that? [Sigmar Gabriel is Germany's Minister of Economic Affairs -- tr]

And does Ms Nahles [Federal Minister of Labour and Social Affairs -- tr] like it when workers in Germany fight at last more and more strongly for their rights and against lousy wages? What does she like most? A law restricting the right to strike. And this law then gets tagged with the ironic name: "Act on bargaining unity." So it hasn't occurred to Ms. Nahles that this bargaining unity was ruined in Germany and destroyed by Agenda 2010, by the work and loan contracts, and the like. But if she wants to change something with us, she should do it and she can do it.

Where is the criticism of the leading SPD politicians on the disastrous European politics of our Chancellor? Or at the merciless extortion of the SYRIZA government? For five years, Greece has been driven deeper and deeper into crisis by wage cuts, through cuts in social services, privatization, and all the while their debt has gotten higher and higher. And what are now the terms of new loans? Wage cuts, social cuts and privatizations. That's a piece from the madhouse.

And dear colleagues, I think we are still in complete agreement: the left was not established to keep on swimming in this murky broth. All the more since this country stands as proof of ability to govern, and for pragmatism.

And further: Mr. Söder is always in grand form showing up on the talk shows as he demands of the Greeks: I want our money back! Well one can only say: "Mr. Söder, Yes please. Have them get their money back. But if you please, from the ones that got it, - and that's not the Greek nurse, and that is not the Greek pensioners, but it's the banks and the Greek elite. There lies the money the Greeks need.

And that's the way it is in all of Europe: it lies with the banks, the conglomerates and the upper class: there lies the money needed for a socially just policy. And it lies with the umpteenth government which again does not dare to approach this money, nor to engage with it, but the Left is not needed for this: what is needed is clear positions to attract the people so that, finally, there is a different policy possible in this country. Therefore we have to fight together, with clear positions. I thank you.

[Paul Rigby]

German Banker: Obama Is Destroying Europe

By Eric Zuesse
Global Research, June 10, 2015

http://www.globalresearch.ca/german-bank...pe/5454736

Interviewed on June 6th by German Economic News, the chief economist at Bremer Landesbank, Folker Hellmeyer, says that because of Obama's sanctions against Russia, German exports declined year-over-year by 18% in 2014, and by 34% in the first two months of 2015 (no later figures), but he asserts that "The damage is much more comprehensive than these statistics show," because those are only the "primary losses," and there are in addition "secondary effects," which get even worse over time.

For example: "European countries with strong business in Russia, including Finland and Austria, are economically hit very hard. These countries consequently place fewer orders from Germany. Moreover, considering that European corporations will circumvent the sanctions, to create production facilities at the highest efficiency level in Russia, we lose this potential capital stock, which is the basis of our prosperity. Russia wins the capital stock," at the EU's expense, even though the sanctions are targeted against Russia.

But the nub is this:

For the future, Germany and the EU place their economic reliability into question with Russia. The relationship of trust is broken by Germany and the EU. In order to build such confidence, it takes several years. Between signature and delivery are up to five years. … Siemens is now thrown out from a major project for this reason [i.e., because the requisite predictability has been lost]. Alstom has likewise lost the contract for the railway line from Moscow to Beijing. Consequently, the potential for damage is much more massive than the current figures show, not only for Germany, but for the entire EU.

Then, he says:

More [projects] still in planning include the axis from Peking to Moscow as part of the Shanghai Corporation and the BRIC countries, the largest growth project in modern history, the construction of the infrastructure of Eurasia, from Moscow to Vladivostok, to Southern China and India. How far the EU and Germany's sanctions-policy regarding Russia figures in these developing-countries' mega-projects will depend upon whether we'll be seen as hostile in other emerging countries than Russia. [Note from Eric Zuesse: Obama speaking 28 May 2014 to graduating West Point cadets: Russia's aggression toward former Soviet states unnerves capitals in Europe, while China's economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. From Brazil to India, rising middle classes compete with us, and governments seek a greater say in global forums.' His attitude toward developing countries is clear they are enemies, to be dealt with via the military, not economic partners to advance with us in economic cooperation.] But, obviously, there is a lack that some participants in European politics [and inside the White House!] have in their abilities to think abstractly on our behalf.

Asked who will be paying the price for this, he says:

"The measurable damage is loss of growth, in lost wages, losses in contributions to the social system and in tax revenue. This is true for the past 12 months, and it is valid for the years ahead. The people in Germany and the EU will pay the price through lost prosperity and stability. The unmeasurable damage lies in an elevated geopolitical risk situation for the people in the EU."

Asked about the situation in Ukraine, Hellmeyer says:

"It is indeed irritating. People who are focused not only on Western quality media' are amazed at those media hiding the aggression of Kiev and the discriminatory laws implemented by the Government in Kiev, which constitute a serious challenge to the claim that Western values and democracy are being supported by the West. I believe, to Mr Steinmeier's credit, that he is in fact talking plainly about these matters behind closed doors. The question is whether the behavior of the Atlantic alliance supports Mr. Steinmeier. I refer in this regard especially to Victoria Nuland. The fact is that by the coup in the Ukraine, an oligarchy friendly towards Moscow was replaced by an oligarchy now oriented toward the United States. It's geopolitics, which benefits third forces, but definitely not Germany, not the EU, not Russia, and not Ukraine."

So, he sees U.S. as having gained at the expense of every other country, but especially at Europe's expense.

Asked about the future, Folker Hellmeyer says:

For me, the conflict has already been decided. The axis Moscow-Beijing-BRIC wins. The dominance of the West is through. In 1990 those countries accounted for only about 25% of world economic output. Today, they represent 56% of world economic output, and 85% of world population. They control about 70% of the world's foreign exchange reserves. They grow annually by an average of 4% 5%. Since the United States were not prepared to share power internationally (e.g., by changing the voting-apportionments in the IMF and World Bank), the future rests with those countries themselves, to build in the emerging markets sector on their own financial system. There lies their future. The EU is currently being drawn into the conflict, which the United States caused because she did not share power and want to share. The longer we pursue this [mono-polar, hegemonic, Imperial, supremacist, internationally dictatorial, aggressive] policy in the EU, the higher the price [to Europe will be].

He goes on to say:

The fact is that the emerging countries emancipate themselves from US control. This is evident in the creation of competitive institutions of the World Bank (AIIB) and the IMF (New Development Bank) by the axis of the emerging countries. This displeases the still prevailing hegemon. The current international hot spots of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt, to the Ukraine, are an expression of this, in the background, as a clearly identifiable power-confrontation [between the U.S. and every other country]. If we were there intending to establish democracy and freedom, let's look at the success in achieving those goals. [His implication: it's failure.]

German Economic News asks: "The contempt with which the US government deals with the Europeans is remarkable, such as the NSA tapping the Chancellor's phone, and Nuland's famous Fuck the EU' statement. Have European politicians no self-respect, or are they just too cowardly?"

Hellmeyer responds:

"The person who is a true democrat takes seriously his duties as a politician for the public's well-being, and does not allow his nation's self-determination to be so contemptuously trampled underfoot, such as has followed from that remark. The person who is not a true democrat, has with respect to the above values and canon, severe deficits."

Concluding Remarks

Why is there not, in Europe, a huge movement to abandon NATO, and to kick out the U.S. military?

Whom is the U.S. defending' Europeans from, after the Warsaw Pact ended in 1991?

Why did not Gorbachev demand that NATO disband when the Warsaw Pact did simultaneous (instead of one-sided) disbanding of the Cold War, so that there would not become the foundation for international fascism to arise to conquer Russia (first, to surround it by an expanding NATO and ultimately via TPP & TTIP), in the aftermath?

Why is there not considerable public debate about these crucial historical, cultural, and economic, matters?

Why is there such deceit, which requires these massive questions to be ignored so long by historians'? How is it even possible for the world to move constructively forward, in this environment, of severe censorship, in the media, in academia, and throughout the free world'?

Why is there no outrage that the Saudi and other Arabic royals fund islamic jihad (so long as it's not in their own countries) but America instead demonizes Russia's leaders, who consistently oppose jihadists and jihadism?

Why are America's rulers allied with the top financiers of jihad? Why is that being kept so secret? Why are these injustices tolerated by the public?

Who will change this, and how? When will that desperately needed change even start? Will it start soon enough? Maybe WW III won't occur, but the damages are already horrible, and they're getting worse.

This can go on until the end; and, if it does, that end will make horrible look like heaven, by comparison. It would be worse than anything ever known and it could happen in and to our generation.

[Paul Rigby]

The US Dollar and Bretton Woods are Finished: The BRICS/SCO Summits in Ufa Mark the Start of a "Silk World Order"

By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research, July 10, 2015
Strategic Culture Foundation 10 July 2015

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-us-doll...er/5461828

Get ready for ground shattering geopolitical changes. At the crossroads of Asia and Europe, it has been decided that the Russian city of Ufa will be the point of convergence for all the initiatives and projects of the Silk World Order of trade and integration that China and Russia are spearheading. Ufa, which is the capital of Russia's Bashkortostan, is being used to simultaneously host an extraordinary summit for both the BRICSwhich has increasing become an alternative forum to that of the G7and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) respectively from July 8 to 9 and from July 9 to 10, 2015.

The Coming Together of Eurasia and Beyond

The joint BRICS and SCO summit in Ufa has been organized by Moscow as the simultaneous holder of both the rotating chairmanships of the BRICS and the SCO. It is no coincidence, however, that the Seventh BRICS and Fifteenth SCO summits have been amalgamated as one large international summit. The Kremlin has used the opportunity to bring Russia's partners together. This is part of the integration process of the Silk World Order. There will be joint BRICS and SCO sessions and many important exchanges and discussions about a new archetype for the world.

One informal session at Ufa will not only include all the members of the BRICS and the SCO, but will also include all the members of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), according to information disclosed by Russian President Putin's aide Yury Ushakov to the Russia media days before the summit in Ufa. Aside from Brazil and South Africa, since all the members of the BRICS and the SCO are located in Eurasia, the Kremlin saw it as pertinent that the EEU be involved in some type of discussion about the development of the Eurasian space. In essence this means that Armenia will be attending the joint BRICS and SCO summit in Bashkortostan, since all the other members of the Eurasian Economic Space are either full SCO members or, in the case of Belarus, an SCO dialogue partner. According to the Mercator Institute for China Studies (MERICS) in Berlin, which asserts that the BRICS-SCO-EEU talks are «a sign that Russia is aiming for political block-building,» the Republic of Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan will also take part in informal meeting of the BRICS, SCO, and EEU. [1]

The Eurasian and global convergences in Ufa are clear. Using the links that already exist between the two, China's New Silk Road and the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union will begin a roadmap to fuse together in Bashkortostan as the pivotal axis of rotation in the Eurasian space. This is a continuation of the high-level discussions that were announced by both Chinese President Xi Jinping and Putin on May 8 on the Xi Jinping's arrival to Moscow, ahead of the Victory Day celebrations on May 9, 2015.

After failed attempts at different venues, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Iranian President Hassan Rohani will finally meet in Ufa. India and Iran are rekindling their strategic bonds that had been neglected by the government of Modi's predecessor, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The use of the Iranian port Chabahar by India for gaining access to Russia and Central Asia through the North-South Corridor will definitely be discussed by Indian and Iranian officials at Ufa.

[video]http://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/US-No-More-for-Nazemroaya-article.png[/video]

The Coming Silk World Order Being Unveiled in Ufa

While the New Silk Road and the EEC come together in Ufa, the BRICS will put together a development map while the SCO will outline its expansion plans for new full members. The applications of India, Iran, and Pakistan for full membership will be addressed. Moreover, Egypt and several other countries have applied to join the SCO in come context.

Ufa is being used to stamp out a roadmap for the «Eurasian Century» and a Silk World Order that goes beyond Eurasia, which includes everything from a transcontinental mega railroad network connecting the Iberian Peninsula to the South China Sea and to what has been dubbed as the «modern city of the Eurasian continent» in Belarus.

The US is clearly worried about the Silk World Order that is emerging. It has begun to pull out all the stops, from courting Brazil on the eve of the summit in Ufa to calls for the European Union to not join China's banking project. The Pentagon's 2015 Military Strategy that addresses the possibility of confrontation with an updated «Axis of Evil» composed of China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea is catered to Washington's proclivity to confront the countries that are challenging a US-dominated international order.

While Washington and NATO are making a general call to arms, the Chinese are busy building trade infrastructure and transport networks. In Belarus, the Chinese are building the first «modern city of the Eurasian continent» in the forests next to the Minsk National Airport as part of what Bloomberg calls «a manufacturing springboard between the European Union and Russia.» [2] Upon completion, the new export-oriented city in Belarus, which is being built on the route of the European highway that links Berlin, Warsaw, Minsk, and Moscow, will be the largest manufacturing and industrial park in Europe.

The US Dollar and Bretton Woods are Finished

The Silk World Order that is being shaped in Ufa will see the existing Bretton Woods financial architecture of the world unraveled and replaced by one that is no longer dominated by the trilateral grouping of the United States, Western Europe, and Japan. The monopoly of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which has benefited Washington, is at its end. The US dollar as a currency in bilateral and multilateral trade is being scraped by the BRICS, SCO, and EEU Washington's flooding of oil markets was partially aimed at derailing this by forcing renewed dependence on the US dollar for energy trade.

The BRICS New Development Bank (NDB), the first institution of the BRICS, is being launched by Brazil, China, India, Russia, and South Africa. It is joined by the SCO Development Bank and by the recently launched Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) in the assault on Bretton Woods.

Gone are the days of unchallenged US domination. The architecture of the post-Second World War or post-1945 global order is now in its death bed and finished. With or without Washington, a Silk World is emerging and its coming is being trumpeted from Ufa as the SCO strengthens and the BRICS institutionalizes itself as the cornerstone of a new multi-polar world order.

NOTES

[1] Gabriel Domínguez, «What to expect from the SCO, BRICS summits in Russia,» Deutsche Welle, July 6, 2015.

[2] Aliaksandr Kudrytski, «China Builds EU Beachhead With $5 Billion City in Belarus,» Bloomberg, May 26, 2013.

This article was originally published by the Strategic Culture Foundation on July 10, 2015.

[R.K. Locke]

New Stephen F. Cohen interview for anyone interested:

http://johnbatchelorshow.com/podcasts/tu...hor-soviet

[Paul Rigby]

China chooses her weapons

By Alasdair Macleod
Posted 20 August 2015

https://www.goldmoney.com/research/analy...er-weapons

China's recent mini-devaluations had less to do with her mounting economic challenges, and more to do with a statement from the IMF on 4 August, that it was proposing to defer the decision to include the yuan in the SDR until next October.

The IMF's excuse was to avoid changes at the calendar year-end and to allow users of the SDR time to "adjust to a potential changed basket composition". It was a poor explanation that was hardly credible, given that SDR users have already had five years to prepare; but the decision confirming the delay was finally released by the IMF in a statement on Wednesday 19th.

One cannot blame China for taking the view that these are delaying tactics designed to keep the yuan out, and if so suspicion falls squarely on the US as instigators. America has most to lose, because if the yuan is accepted in the SDR the dollar's future hegemony will be compromised, and everyone knows it. The final decision as to whether the yuan will be included is not due to be taken until later this year, so China still has time to persuade, by any means at her disposal, all the IMF members to agree to include the yuan in the SDR as originally proposed, even if its inclusion is temporarily deferred.

China was first rejected in this quest in 2010 and since then has worked hard to address the deficiencies raised at that time by the IMF's executive board. That is the background to China's new currency policy and what also looks like becoming frequent updates on her gold reserves. It bears repeating that these moves had little to do with her domestic economic conditions, for the following reasons:

To have an economic effect a substantial devaluation would be required. That is not what is happening. Furthermore devaluation as an economic solution is essentially a Keynesian proposal and it is far from clear China's leadership embraces Keynesian economics.
Together with Russia through the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, China is planning an infrastructure revolution encompassing the whole of Asia, which will replicate China's economic development post-1980, but on a grander scale. This is why "those in the know" jumped at the chance of participating in the financing opportunities through the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which will be the principal financing channel.
China's strategy in the decades to come is to be the provider of high-end products and services to the whole of the Eurasian continent, evolving from her current status as a low-cost manufacturer for the rest of the world.

China's leaders have a vision, and it is a mistake to think of China solely in the context of a country whose economy is on the wrong end of a credit cycle. This is of course true and is creating enormous problems, but the government plans to reallocate capital resources from legacy industries to future projects. Rightly or wrongly and unlike any western government at this point in a credit cycle, China accepts that a deflating credit bubble is a necessary consequence of a deliberate policy that supports her future plans. She is prepared to live with and manage the fall-out from declining asset valuations and business failures, facilitated by state ownership of the banks.

Instead, to understand why she is changing the yuan-dollar rate we must look at currencies from China's perspective. China is the world's largest manufacturing power by far, and can be said to control global trade pricing as a result. It then becomes obvious that China is not so much devaluing the yuan, but causing a dollar revaluation upwards relative to international trade prices. She is aware that the US economy is in difficulties and that the Fed is worried about the prospect of price deflation, so lower import prices are the last thing the Fed needs. Now China's currency move begins to make sense.

The mini-devaluations were a signal to Washington and the rest of the world that if she so wishes China can dictate the global economic outlook through the foreign exchange markets. China believes, with good reason, that she is more politically and economically robust, and has a better grasp over the actions of her own citizens, than the welfare economies of the west in the event of an economic downturn. Therefore, she is pursuing her foreign exchange policy from a position of strength. And the increments that will now be added to gold reserves month by month are a signal that China believes she can destabilise the dollar through her control of the physical gold market, because it gently reminds us of an unanswered question always ducked by the US Treasury: what evidence is there of the state of the US's gold reserves?

China would probably live with a deferral of her SDR membership for another year, if there is a definite decision in October to include her currency in the SDR basket. That being the case, China must be tempted to increase pressure on all IMF members ahead of the October meeting. The strategy therefore changes from less passivity to more aggression over both foreign exchange rates and gold ownership over the next eight weeks. We can expect China to tighten the screw if necessary.

The stakes are high, and China's devaluation of only a few per cent has caused enough chaos in capital markets for now. But if the eventual answer is that the yuan will not be allowed to join the SDR basket, it will be in China's interest to increase the pace of development of the new BRICS bank instead with its own version of an SDR, selling dollar reserves and underlying Treasuries to fund it. The threat that China will turn her back on the post-war financial system and the IMF would also undermine the credibility of that institution more rapidly perhaps than the dollar's hegemony if the yuan was accepted. And if a US-controlled IMF loses its credibility, even America's allies will desert her, just as they did to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank a few months ago.

It was always going to be the US that faced a predicament from China's growing economic power. She has chosen to bluff it out instead of gracefully accepting the winds of change, as Britain did over her empire sixty years ago. Change in the economic pecking-order is happening again whether we like it or not and China will have her way.

The views and opinions expressed in the article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of GoldMoney, unless expressly stated. Please note that neither GoldMoney nor any of its representatives provide financial, legal, tax, investment or other advice. Such advice should be sought form an independent regulated person or body who is suitably qualified to do so. Any information provided in this article is provided solely as general market commentary and does not constitute advice. GoldMoney will not accept liability for any loss or damage, which may arise directly or indirectly from your use of or reliance on such information.

[Paul Rigby]

Washington's Financial/Currency War on China: ECLIPSING of US Dollar by Yuan

Mahdi Darius NAZEMROAYA | Sunday, August 30, 2015, 18:55 Beijing

http://www.4thmedia.org/2015/08/washingt...r-by-yuan/

The Chinese are in the process of displacing the monopoly of the US dollar. They are dropping their US Treasury bonds, stockpiling gold reserves, and opening regional distribution banks for their own national currency. This will give them easier access to capital markets and insulate them from financial manipulation by Washington and Wall Street.

Fearing the eclipsing of the US dollar and the Bretton Woods system by a rival financial architecture the US response has been an attempt to damage the Chinese markets and increase the value of China's currency. China has responded through regulations in the market and then quantitative easing of its currency to maintain the low prices of Chinese manufactured goods and exports.

Beijing's quantitative easing is a reaction or response to the financial manipulation of Washington and Wall Street. Additionally, Washington never thought that the Chinese would respond by dumping US Treasury bonds. Instead of the hysteria about the Chinese economy, «the impending collapse of the US dollar should be getting all of the attention of investors», one US economist (Peter Schiff) has warned.

Schiff's voice is one of many analysts saying that the talk about the Chinese economy faltering is exaggerated and bad spirited.

Financial War against China, Russia: America's War against the «Community of Destiny»

As the financial architecture of the world is being altered by China and Russia, the US dollar is gradually being neutralized as one of Washington's weapon of choice. Even the monopoly of Washington's Bretton Woods system formed by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank is being directly challenged.

Although they do not constitute alternatives to neoliberal economics, the BRICS News Development Bank (NDB) and Beijing's Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) are challenging the Bretton Woods system through a rival financial structure.

The US Empire has been cognizant of the moves to establish a rival financial order. Policymakers in the Washington Beltway, the Pentagon, and Wall Street all watched the dual summits of the BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organization in the Russian city of Ufa with concern.

Up to that point, they had been waging an information/propaganda, energy, financial market, currency war, and general economic war against the Russian Federation. Post-Ufa, they extended the financial market and economic war to China.

Banks and governments in the European Union had been considering and examining the use of China's national currency, renminbi/yuan, as a reserve currency. This was because of attractiveness of the stability of renminbi as a currency.

This had Washington and Wall Street worried and was one of the factors that resulted in the expansion of the currency and financial war on Russia to China.

Using speculation as a psychological weapon and market manipulation, the US launched a financial strike against the Chinese. This was done through an attempt to sink or crash the Chinese stock market and hurt investor confidence in the Chinese economy and its stocks.

Beijing, however, reacted quickly by imposing controls on investment withdrawals. This prevented the snowballing of stock selloffs and defused the US financial bomb.

As the price of renminbi began to rise Beijing began quantitative easing to devalue its national currency as a means of continuing export trade. The US Congress and White House began to loudly object.

Thye accused the Chinese of financial manipulation and demanded that Beijing do nothing to readjust the value of the renminbi. What the folks in the Washington Beltway wanted was for the Chinese to let the value of the renminbi to rise as a means of disrupting China's economy and market.

The Chinese Dragon Strikes Back: Beijing Liquidates its US Bonds

Push China and it will push back. The buck (or, more properly, renminbi/yuan) did not stop with the introduction of regulations by Beijing. China took steps that shock Wall Street and put Washington on notice.

As US financial institutions began trying to hurt investor confidence in China through psychological tactics claiming that the Chinese economy was slowing down and that the Chinese market was in freefall, Beijing announced that it had bought 600 tons of gold in the span of a month and the People's Bank of China had got rid of over 17 billion US dollars from its foreign exchange reserves.

China's foreign exchange reserves excluding the foreign reserves of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Macau Special Administrative Region were 3.71 trillion (37,111,430 million) US dollars in May 2015. They had dropped to 3.69 trillion (36,938,380 million) US dollars by June 2015.

The financial market webpage Zero Hedge, which had been following this development, explained what it had discovered was taking place:

«We then put China's change in FX reserves alongside the total Treasury holdings of China and its anonymous' offshore Treasury dealer Euroclear (aka Belgium') as released by TIC, and found that the dramatic relationship which we first discovered back in May, has persisted namely virtually the entire delta in Chinese FX reserves come via China's US Treasury holdings».

The main point here was that China's US Treasury bonds «are being aggressively sold, to the tune of $107 billion in Treasury sales so far in 2015». By following China's financial transactions in Belgium, Zero Hedge had actually calculated that Beijing had dropped 143 billion US dollars in three months.

A few months later, in August, the Chinese dropped 100 billion US dollars worth of US Treasury bonds in the span of two weeks.

A day later, on August 27, Bloomberg corroborated what Zero Hedge had identified. A Bloomberg report explained the following:

«The People's Bank of China has been offloading dollars and buying yuan to support the exchange rate, a policy that's contributed to a $315 billion drop in its foreign-exchange reserves over the last 12 months. The $3.65 trillion stockpile will fall by some $40 billion a month in the remainder of 2015 because of the intervention, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg survey».

While the Bloomberg emphasized that the Chinese were using US dollars to buy their own national currency, it casually mentioned, «Strategically, it probably has been China's intention to find the right time to lighten up its excessive accumulation of U.S. Treasuries», citing an economist at Reorient Financial Markets Limited in Hong Kong.

The Eclipsing of the US Dollar by the Chinese Renminbi

Wall Street should be worried about the economic problems at home in the US instead of trying to undermine China. The talk about the slowing down of the Chinese economy in part is distraction.

It diverts attention from the decline of the US and is meant to enforce the efforts of Washington and Wall Street to rein in Beijing. The Chinese, however, continue to move forward undeterred.

Beijing selected Qatar as its first renminbi clearing house in the Middle East and North Africa for regional exchange markets there in April 2015. The name of this clearing house is the Qatar Renminbi Centre. It will circumvent US financial structures and give greater access to oil and natural gas from the Middle East and North Africa to the People's Republic of China.

Despite the wishes of Wall Street and Washington, the Silk World Order is moving forward.

[Paul Rigby]

A Parable for Our Dangerous Times

by Pepe Escobar

31 August 2015

http://sputniknews.com/columnists/201508...93243.html

This is a parable about the new geopolitical new normal.

The parable stars someone who closely interacts with selected Masters of the Universe. Through his business deals, he has no doubt about having identified the way the current high-stakes geopolitical game is being played. That even led him to pen a letter to the People's Bank of China (PBOC) in Beijing conveying his apprehension.

Our man in the parable claims access to privileged information confirming what just happened with Chinese stocks involved market manipulation by Wall Street and selected hedge funds to severely disrupt the Russia-China strategic partnership and consequently destroy the attempt at organizing the Eurasian landmass into a coherent economic union.

He refers of course to the interpenetration of the Chinese-led New Silk Roads, or "One Belt, One Road", as they are known in China, and the Russia-led Eurasia Economic Union.

In his letter to the PBOC, he reminded them of what they already know; how China's GDP has grown six fold from 2000 to 2015. And how "One Belt, One Road" could yield a three-to-six fold GDP increase over the next 15 years. His clincher: this is what the United States seeks to disrupt, indirectly.

He reminded the PBOC how Washington/Wall Street crashed the oil price and the ruble through selected traders and the cooperation of the Persian Gulf petromonarchies, which pumped surplus production capacity on the market, thus crashing the oil price. And how this process placed enormous pressure on Moscow.

And yet now there is a major negotiation going on between Moscow and the House of Saud aiming for a compromise on Syria. An eventual success would imply a geopolitical shift of the Persian Gulf petromonarchies towards Moscow and Beijing away from Washington.

The new Eurasian emporium would then have direct access to nearly half the world's oil supply in Russia, Central Asia and the Middle East.

Hear MacArthur raging in the dark

Iran, meanwhile, is solidifying its strategic partnership with China.

The head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, Ali Akbar Salehi, has been in Beijing to expand civilian nuclear cooperation. That includes the redesigning of Iran's Arak heavy water reactor and the construction of several small ACP100 nuclear reactors. The ACP100 is a Chinese-designed multi-purpose modular reactor.

Meanwhile, Iran's Export Development Bank is about to cooperate with the Bank of China on funding multiple Iranian projects.

Our man in the parable is sure that if the Masters of the Universe are eventually able to break up the Eurasian landmass and that includes luring Iran away from both Russia and China it's because they have been successful in balancing Germany and the EU-NATO against Russia, and Japan against China.

That is why the Masters of the Universe have allowed the 68% depreciation of the yen; to damage China and build up Japan. That explains why they hollered when the Chinese yuan depreciated slightly in the past few days but were highly enthusiastic about Japan's quantitative easing (QE).

Our man in the parable added that the saber rattling over the South China Sea is designed for extra pressure on China. Those rocks were strategically important to the US at the time of General MacArthur to extend the American defense perimeter outward.

However, Chinese ICBMs the latest generation of which will be presented this week at the military parade celebrating the 70th anniversary of the end of WWII in Asia-Pacific are a game-changer, as well as silent submarines carrying nuclear tipped cruise missiles. These offshore islands have become insignificant to the defense of the US homeland.

Our man in the parable very well knows that the Chinese know it: how an economy that was growing 7% in the last quarter can possibly, suddenly, face Armageddon.

So our man in the parable concludes that the really underlying rationale for the Masters of the Universe's strategy is similar to one of Churchill's justifications for the First World War: to destroy Germany as an industrial competitor.

The same applied related to Japan. As the sun rose too high, Washington gave the orders to the Japanese Central Bank to contract; and so Japan has shown hardly any growth in twenty years. Neoliberalism subsequently bet all its chips on China. If China became too big, then its wings would also have to be necessarily clipped.

And this is what our man in the parable sees in the making now.

So here's the parable of a player perched in a privileged position in Gotham City but worried enough to write to the People's Bank of China to convey his geopolitical fears. We don't know if or how the PBOC will answer the letter. What is certain is that they could not possibly disagree with how the parable ends; with the "magnificent" Eurasian integration plan full steam rather, high-speed railing ahead.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.

[David Guyatt]

Two really interesting posts Paul. Escobar is always worth reading and absorbing.

On the 4th Media piece it was news to me that "bank and governments in the European Union had been considering and examining the use of China's national currency, renmimbi/yuan, as a reserve currency". For me, this was/is an extraordinary development and one that must've caused considerable worry in Washington and Wall Street. A link to this story can be found HERE (and dated from October last year). That Europe considered this, and still may be considering this, speaks volumes about the pending fragility of the continuing US-European relationship.

It is hard not to conclude that the US economic manipulation of the world - forcing Europe to turn against Russia against her best interests, and the US current currency war against China - is going to fail with a massive collapse of the US and the dollar. The really smart move by China and Russia has been to create parallel banking and economic systems outside the control of the US, I think.