Posted by Curt on 5 September, 2023 at 9:18 am. Be the first to comment!


By Scott Lively

In one of the little ironies of history, Edward Gibbons began publishing a six-volume writing project, “The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” in 1776, just as what would become the American Empire was being launched with a revolution against a powerful British Empire still in its ascendency. His final book in the series was published in 1788 as America was in the middle of its two-year transition from a confederacy to a constitutional republic. The British Empire peaked around 1914 and was surpassed by the United States as the world’s foremost superpower in World War II, becoming the sole superpower upon the success of the Anglo-American partnership in collapsing its chief rival, the Soviet Union, during the Reagan and Thatcher administrations.

Studying the history of geopolitical upheavals is fascinating, but living through one makes the topic personal and often painful. Today the world is in the midst of a new upheaval involving many of the ancient powers seeking a new global order, led by a coalition called BRICS, which is an acronym for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. On Aug. 22-24, 2023, the BRICS coalition doubled in size, adding Iran, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Argentina, Egypt and Ethiopia, effective Jan. 1, 2024.

The dominant powers of this group are primarily Russia and China, with Russia providing the executive and military leadership and China providing both the financial stability of an economic giant and the political leverage of holding most of deeply indebted America’s loans. But all 12 of these countries are developed nations with a common interest in ending Anglo-American hegemony – which largely translates into ending U.S./British control of global trade and banking, and defanging NATO as its global enforcer.

For decades, rival elites on both sides of this divide have been engaged in a global chess-match set mostly along the imaginary boundary line of Europe and Asia – because apparently most of them accept Mackinder’s maxim that whoever controls Eurasia controls the world. But adding to the complexity of this equation, and bringing in other regions, especially the Middle East, is the importance of trade routes, including oil pipelines.

If you start with this premise and look back over geopolitics since WWII, all the subsequent lesser wars and “police actions” initiated mostly by the U.S. fit easily into the chess-match paradigm. Syria is about rival oil pipeline routes. Iraq and Libya were about global banking dependency. Iran is about control of the Suez Canal. The Ukraine war is both about oil pipelines and creating an “Israel” on Russia’s border – meaning a heavily militarized forward base to represent Western interests on a mostly hostile frontier.

It is also about gaining a tighter political and economic grip on Europe through energy dependency, of which the U.S. destruction of the Nord Stream II pipeline was an essential component: to prevent a Russian/German economic alliance that would have also supplied all of Europe with cheap, abundant energy.

U.S. domestic policy is being heavily affected by these geopolitical moves. For example, I contend that the sudden move to ban natural gas stoves is to free more supply for Europe, which is building gigantic transfer terminals to receive liquified natural gas from U.S. tankers to offset the loss from Russia (none of which is getting U.S. media coverage).

Indeed, the entire frantic “climate crisis” over carbon emissions – while also a means of increasing globalists power – seems to be an acknowledgment by “our” elites that the BRICS alliance might very well wrest control of the oil-based global economy away from us, and we need to be positioned to survive a global ban on carbon-based fuels that we would attempt to impose as a counter-measure. While that goal may prove unattainable given the growing clout of the BRICS alliance, it does at least provide an emerging narrative theme to justify future wars and police actions to “save the planet” from “criminally carbon-spewing nations.”

This chess-game framework also explains why we’re being conditioned to prepare for a Great Reset. We already have no ability to pay back China and other holders of our massive debt, but that problem will become exponentially worse if/when the dollar loses its globally exclusive reserve currency status. The best chance for retaining our hegemony would be the announcement of a global debt jubilee in conjunction with the launch of a completely new economic system which we control. Think of the Great Reset like geopolitical chemotherapy: a dose of poison designed to kill off the “cancer” in the world (i.e., non-submissive regimes), which theoretically would not kill the host body in the process but leave it stronger in the end.

As much as the extreme moral degeneracy of our elites makes the thought of a new global order more appealing, I don’t think BRICS can beat the West in this worsening conflict, and I believe the example of Brazil shows why. Brazil’s recently coup-reinstalled President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is as much a creation of the American left as any of our homegrown blue-state tyrants, but he’s also a highly ambitious political animal who presumably would rather not be under the American thumb. He was one of the original founders of BRICS and is the only one of the original heads of state who were in the coalition at its founding.

The BRICS threat to U.S. hegemony during Lula’s first administration was nominal, but by last month’s meeting in South Africa it was massive and growing. Lula’s participation in that meeting suggests to me he now is either serving as a U.S. mole in the BRICS leadership, or he believes BRICS represents a realistic opportunity to break his country free from U.S. control. Perhaps it was only for managing public perceptions but concurrent with the BRICS summit, the Brazilian Supreme Court (which staged the coup that reinstalled him) passed one of the world’s first anti-homophobia laws with actual criminal penalties.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x