Friends, Given plausible predictions of an invasion of Iran in June, this seems like a good time to share with you folks my own perspective on our current global situation. --- But first, I'd like to make a request. I'll need some "blurbs" to include on the cover of my book. Those are brief comments about the book, by people who've read it, or at least read some of it. Blurbs are best if from famous people, but they don't need to be. I would be including the name and some kind of affiliation with each blurb. So if any of you, who've been following the drafts, would like to offer such a comment, or if you know someone famous who might look at the material and comment, please let me know. --- The place to start, in assessing our current situation, is to consider how the world looks from the perspective of those in the White House. They came into power with a plan, and they have proceeded systematically to implement that plan - basically the PNAC document - with great success so far. They took a drastic step, and committed themselves to the course, when they blew up the World Trade Center. And they seem to have gotten by with it, despite glaring contradictions in both the evidence and their cover stories. They took another drastic step, and committed themselves further to their course, when they invaded Iraq on trumped-up charges and contrary to international law. Again, they seem to have gotten by with it, despite the quagmire, and despite all their lies having been revealed. These people, in their own minds, are on a roll. They've found a sure-fire formula for world conquest. On the domestic front, the main tool is terrorism hysteria, which can be stirred up at any time with a simple false-flag incident, blamed on whoever they choose. The media never asks questions about such claims, it simply parrots them. On the global front, the main tool is the demonization of "rogues states" - "threats to security" - which continues to be effective despite the lies around Iraq. Again the media acts as an amplifier. One thing we need to understand about these people is that they have pulled out all the stops. They will do whatever they consider necessary to pursue their stated objectives. They proved this on 9/11. They are willing to take significant risks, if they believe they have covered all the angles adequately. We must keep this determined ruthlessness in mind when we consider their attitude toward using nuclear weapons. From a cost-effectiveness point of view, nukes offer great advantages. They could enable a conquest of Iran without the quagmire and with less expense, as compared to Iraq. Given their world-conquest agenda, I would imagine they are eagerly seeking ways to open the nuclear Pandora's box. Presumably they'll say "Nukes save lives", in the same way the Nazi's said, "Total war is shortest war." What the neocons will need is to do is to create an incident that they can use an excuse to move the game up to the next level of technology. That's why the article "Israel, Iran, Mossad and a Nuclear False Flag Attack" was notable: (http://www.cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?id=462&lists=newslog). Mossad is a very convenient agency to carry out projects such as 9/11 - they share the neocon's ruthlessness and objectives, they're very competent, and they're relatively isolated from the Beltway gossip networks, as compared to domestic covert agencies. If Mossad could blow up a U.S. nuclear facility, and that could be blamed on Iran, that would give the neocons an excuse to go into Iran with 'tactical' nukes. The scenario is a highly plausible one, and the claims in the article seem to be well documented. But enough about Iran. It's only a stepping stone, a fueling depot, as regards geopolitics. The game being played has three main players: the U.S., China, and Russia. The U.S. wants to rule the world, and Russia and China are the only significant obstacles to that objective. Both China and Russia are well aware of this fact. China has been rapidly upgrading its military capabilities in anticipation of a U.S. attack, and Russia has been taking an increasingly harder line as a nationalist power, even as the CIA peels one regime after another from the Russian orbit. The question here is how long will Russia and China continue to play the appeasement game? From their perspective, the only difference between the Nazis in 1939, and the U.S. now, is that the U.S. has more powerful weapons and control of the seven seas. Russia and China both know that appeasement only delays confrontation, and improves the strategic position of the aggressor. Just as England and France drew the line at Poland as regards Nazi expansionism, so we must expect that Russia and China will draw a line somewhere, with regard to the neocons. We may be getting close to that line already. It's hard to tell. I did read one report that claimed Putin had warned Washington and Tel Aviv that an attack on Iran or Syria would lead to a nuclear response by Russia against Israel. Apart from the predictions in Revelations, I haven't seen confirmation of that report from other sources. But surely, there must be such a line somewhere. With their revived and dubious Star Wars project, and their distribution of nuclear weapons to field commanders, the neocons seem to be making every preparation for nuclear confrontation, despite the uncertain risks. I'm sure they are confident of their ability to create whatever excuses are necessary, for whatever initiatives they deem necessary. The question here is what domestic losses the neocons consider to be "acceptable" in a nuclear exchange. Given their demonstrated lack of regard for civilian lives generally, whether domestic or foreign, one shudders to imagine the definition of "winning" that exists in their deranged minds. They probably dream of themselves as the undisputed masters of a post-apocalyptic world, cleansed of excess population and culled of unfavored races, a world all cleared away and in dire need of reconstruction, via Halliburton and ilk. --- That's a geopolitical perspective. We could also look at things from a global economic perspective, or from an environmental or human-rights perspective. All such perspectives are equally dismal, and in their own ways equally apocalyptic. Because of the way our societies are organized, and how decision are made, the energy and resources of our civilization are being devoted to making everything worse as quickly as possible and in as many ways as possible. It is totally insane. --- I say these things not to depress you, but to help us all refocus our attention on the real issues of the day, as opposed to the trivia carried in the media. The purpose of the media is to give us a comfortable sand-patch in which we can bury our heads, tempting us down the path of the ostrich. It might feel better, but it doesn't help our situation. rkm http://cyberjournal.org
Share: