by Michael Krieger

April 2018

from LibertyBlitzkrieg Website

Spanish version
 

Part 1

Prepare for a Multi-Polar World

April 17, 2018

If pressed to describe what I think the next several years will look like as concisely as possible, I'd simply provide the following quote, often misattributed to Lenin:

"There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen."

There will be many such weeks from now until 2025, with the end result an emergence of a multi-polar world that will permanently unseat the unipolar U.S. imperial paradigm.

Since World War 2, the U.S. has successfully sustained a position of global dominance unlike anything the world's ever seen. Virtually each and every corner of the planet has been subject to inescapable and overwhelming (North) American influence, both culturally and economically.

This root of this power didn't just emerge from GDP strength and the USD, but from Hollywood, popular music and TV shows. The impact of the U.S. empire on the planet over the past 70 years has been extraordinary but, like all things, it too shall pass.

I believe this end will be realized by around 2025...

When I say this sort of stuff people think I'm calling for the end of the world. I suppose that's what it may feel like to many, because a paradigm change of this magnitude will indeed have monumental global implications.

Yet the world will go on, it'll just be very different place.

That said, Americans should not see this as an apocalyptic thing. It's not healthy or sustainable for one nation to dominate the planet in such a manner. Many of us like to think that a benevolent global empire led by philosopher kings is just fine, but the problem is this is utter fantasy.

What happens in real life, to quote Lord Acton, is that,

"power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

This is precisely what's happened in the U.S.

The country's been looted and pillaged with rapacious fervor in recent decades while an unaccountable class of people I refer to as top-tier predators operate at will with total impunity. The man on the street's thrown in jail for the smallest offense, while financiers who destroyed the global economy with fraud retire comfortably to their mansions.

The U.S. empire no longer benefits the average (North) American, but instead systematically funnels all the spoils to a smaller and smaller segment of the population. Most of the world already sees it, and the average U.S. citizen is starting to see it as well.

This is not good for the establishment.

This is also why the U.S. status quo constantly lies to the public with its nonsense narrative that U.S. military action overseas is based on humanitarian concerns and a desire to spread democracy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, all significant U.S. military action overseas is driven by money and power.

Humanitarian concerns play zero role. Not even a small role, zero...

Caitlin Johnstone recently summarized what's going with geopolitics perfectly with the following paragraph:

The mass media narrative factory tries to make it about chemical weapons, about election meddling, about poisoned ex-spies, about humanitarian issues, but it has only ever been about expanding the power and influence of the oligarchs and allied intelligence/defense agencies which run the western empire.

 

All the hostilities that we are seeing are nothing other than an extremely powerful conglomeration of forces poking and prodding noncompliant governments to coerce them into compliance before global power restructures itself into a multipolar world.

The biggest problem for the U.S. establishment right now is people are no longer buying the narrative.

They certainly aren't buying it overseas, and even here in America, U.S. citizens are finally starting to see the "humanitarian bombings" for the shams they are. It'd be one thing if your average (North) American was benefiting from U.S. empire, but they aren't.

Rather, the spoils are all going to a small handful of people from the top tier predator class, while life for tens of millions is characterized by

• dilapidated infrastructure

• a completely broken healthcare system

• continued unaccountable Wall Street looting

• a decimation of of civil liberties

• an overall precarious economic existence that seems modeled off of the Hunger Games...

The only people who don't see how dysfunctional the U.S. empire is are the people running it.

The U.S. establishment, which consists of a diverse assortment of elites from,

• Wall Street

• (North) American intelligence agencies

• mass media

• Congress

• the Federal Reserve (FED)

• the military-industrial complex, etc.,

...disagree on many things, but one thing they agree on completely is the U.S. empire - that it should not only be preserved, but expanded.

The major problem for them is this isn't 1995 anymore, they just haven't got the memo yet.

The U.S. establishment is either too busy making boatloads of money or playing keyboard warrior with other people's lives to acknowledge what's happening both here and abroad.

A disconnected, greedy and unaccountable elite class filled with hubris and an insatiable hunger for power is a core ingredient in any imperial collapse, and this exists in America in droves at the moment.

A reckoning is coming...




 

 
Part 2

Russia and China Have Had Enough
April 18, 2018
 

Part 1 of this series focused on how the U.S. empire no longer provides any real benefit to the average (North) American citizen.

Rather, the spoils of overseas wars, the domestic surveillance state and an overall corrupt economy are being systematically funneled to a smaller and smaller group of generally unsavory characters.

The public's starting to recognize this reality, which is why we saw major populist movements emerge on both the traditional right and left of the political spectrum in 2016.

As millions of Americans emerge from their long slumber, much of the world's been aware of this reality for a long time. They don't see the U.S. as a magnanimous humanitarian empire, that's a fairytale more suited for children's books and the mass media.

In fact, it seems clear that the billions of humans who live in various sovereign nations around the world would certainly prefer to be in control of their own destinies as opposed to mere vassal states of the U.S., they simply haven't possessed the military or economic power to stand up and chart their own course.

But things are changing...

The most significant geopolitical change of the 21^st century is the emergence of China, and the reemergence of Russia, as globally significant military powers. This is the core driver behind the establishment's panic about Russia.

It has nothing to do with Putin's authoritarianism or human rights abuses, that's just marketing directed at a heretofore extremely gullible public.

In reality, those determined to perpetuate a unipolar world run by the U.S. are appalled and concerned about the fact Russia was able to become involved in Syria and prevent another regime change operation.

Russia very publicly, and very successfully, stood up and said "no" to U.S. imperial ambitions in Syria. This isn't just historically significant, it's seen as blasphemous and recalcitrant by the U.S. status quo.

With that out of the way, let's revisit a few things I wrote over the weekend in my first thoughts on the latest Syria strike:

Russian leadership are not a bunch of fools, nor will they back down.

 

After last night, they know for certain the U.S. empire is determined to castrate them globally at all costs in order to impede an inevitable emergence of a multi-polar world.

I don't think Russia or Iran will respond with a shock and awe attack any time soon, nor will this likely spiral out of control in the near-term. It's more likely we'll see this all play out over the course of the next 5 years or so.

I also don't expect this to go nuclear, but I think the chances the U.S. experiences an imperial collapse similar to that of the USSR (or like any historically unmanageable and corrupt empire) has become increasingly likely.

 

My view at this point is the U.S. and its global power position will be so dramatically altered in the years ahead, it'll be almost unrecognizable by 2025, as a result of both economic decline and major geopolitical mistakes.

 

This will cause the public to justifiably lose faith in all leadership and institutions.

The more I reflect on what's going on, the more I'm convinced the U.S. is trying to goad Russia into a response with these provocations. I think the Russians know this, which is precisely why they're responding with cool heads to a blatantly illegal and unconstitutional strike likely based on a fake narrative.

In fact, we still don't have any reliable or rock solid evidence of what happened.

Naturally, this didn't stop Donald Trump from bombing without consulting Congress, nor did it stop Theresa May from doing the same without consulting Parliament. Please tell me again about our illustrious Western democracies. I suppose that's just another fairytale for public consumption.

Moreover, Russia's lack of a military response shouldn't be seen as a sign of weakness, but as an intentional and well thought out strategy.

The Russians seem to think the U.S. (and UK) are acting like desperate feral lunatics and the best thing they can do is sit back, play defense, and let the short-sighted fools running the (North) American empire ruin themselves.

The erratic and demonstrably thuggish and shady manner in which the U.S., UK and France behaved in this latest criminal act has not been lost upon the populations of the world, including considerable portions of the (North) American and British populace who are disgusted at what these governments are doing in our names.

Russia's strategy is to look reasonable on the global stage compared to a U.S. which seems increasingly crazy and unhinged. It seems to be working.

That being said, Russia by itself isn't capable of successfully standing up to the U.S. empire in the long-run. This is where China comes into play. Chinese leadership have also had enough but are, like the Russians, holding back and acting like the reasonable adults in the room.

We saw this most recently with the Chinese cooling down the trade wars.

U.S. pundits cheered this as a sign of weakness, but I think the opposite. China's playing the same game as Russia. Allow U.S. leadership to continue to look like insufferable bullies on the world stage until everyone gets completely sick of U.S. dominance.

A reader who lives in Europe wrote the following comment on my last post, which seems like a fair representation of global public opinion at this point:

The Soviet empire fell because the cost of the arms race depleted the rest of the society to such a degree that a collapse was inevitable.

 

I believe the U.S. are in a similar state now. The current wars are carried out by technology at distance, or by proxy warriors, and not by actual (North) Americans on ground.

 

How long can the citizens carry that burden?

 

At the same time the U.S. is losing the moral support within the public among their allies, as I know first hand, by being from a European allied country.

 

Although our domestic politic leadership and mainstream press are supporting the U.S., especially when they launch some rockets, opposition and disbelief is large and growing among normal people.

 

The U.S. has lost its position as our leading star, not just among the leftist, but all over the spectrum. The insanity and lies are becoming so evident that it is impossible to deny it.

The U.S. is rapidly losing support and confidence at the grassroots level, both at home and abroad.

We see the lies and we see the disregard for the Constitution. The U.S. and its pet allies like the UK and France will all be increasingly seen as rogue states by much of the world if they keep this up.

Finally, for those of you who doubt which side China is on in this global drama, let me point out the following excerpts from a recent editorial published in the state-sponsored Global Times earlier this week:

The facts cannot be distorted.

 

This military strike was not authorized by the UN, and the strikes targeted a legal government of a UN member state. The U.S. and its European allies launched strikes to punish President Bashar al-Assad for a suspected chemical attack in Duma last weekend.

 

However, it has not been confirmed if the chemical weapons attack happened or if it did, whether government forces or opposition forces launched it. International organizations have not carried out any authoritative investigation.

The Syrian government has repeatedly stressed that there is no need for it to use chemical weapons to capture the opposition-controlled Duma city and the use of chemical weapons has provided an excuse for Western intervention.

 

The Syrian government's argument or Trump's accusations against the "evil" Assad regime, which one is in line with basic logic? The answer is quite obvious.

The U.S. has a record of launching wars on deceptive grounds. The Bush government asserted the Saddam regime held chemical weapons before the U.S.-British coalition troops invaded Iraq in 2003.

 

However, the coalition forces didn't find what they called weapons of mass destruction after overthrowing the Saddam regime. Both Washington and London admitted later that their intelligence was false.

Washington's attack on Syria where Russian troops are stationed constitute serious contempt for Russia's military capabilities and political dignity.

 

Trump, like scolding a pupil, called on Moscow, one of the world's leading nuclear powers, to abandon its "dark path."

 

Disturbingly, Washington seems to have become addicted to mocking Russia in this way. Russia is capable of launching a destructive retaliatory attack on the West. Russia's weak economy is plagued by Western sanctions and squeezing of its strategic space.

 

That the West provokes Russia in such a manner is irresponsible for world peace.

The situation is still fomenting. The Trump administration said it will sustain the strikes. But how long will the military action continue and whether Russia will fight back as it claimed previously remain uncertain.

 

Western countries continue bullying Russia but are seemingly not afraid of its possible counterattack.

 

Their arrogance breeds risk and danger.

China and Russia will work together, often behind the scenes, to convince the rest of the world that the U.S. has become a rogue state, and will use this argument to build international support for a multi-polar world.

The only thing that could slow this process down is if the U.S. stops acting like a rogue state, something that appears increasingly unlikely with Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State and John Bolton as National Security Advisor.

Back to Asia - The Reemerge of a Giant

Back to Russia and The EU


 

Part 3

USD Dominated Financial System Will Fall Apart
April 19, 2018

It's our currency, but it's your problem.
U.S. Treasury Secretary John Connelly to European Finance Ministers, 1971

Today's post will cover a topic that consumed my thoughts for many years, but one I haven't discussed much lately:

the terminal nature of a global financial system being propped up artificially by central bank shenanigans.

First, it's crucial to understand that at the very core of our global economy is a financial system dominated by the U.S. dollar.

The USD is a fiat currency directly backed by nothing, the supply of which can be arbitrarily altered and manipulated by a group of unelected bureaucrats in charge of the Federal Reserve (FED).

This money system represents the most powerful tool of centralized power on planet earth.

The USD is unique in that it grants the U.S. the "exorbitant privilege" of having a national currency which at the same time serves as the global reserve currency. This was solidified toward the end of World War 2 with the Bretton Woods agreement, and was accepted because the U.S. agreed to offer sovereign nations holding dollars a right to exchange these dollars for gold at a fixed price.

This fell apart in 1971, but was shortly replaced with an unofficial "petrodollar" system, which allowed the USD to remain the world reserve currency despite no longer being redeemable in gold.

Before moving on, I want to share a few excerpts from an article I read yesterday titled, The De-Dollarization in China:

Petrodollars emerged when Henry Kissinger dealt with King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, after "Black September" in Jordan.

 

The agreement was simple.

Saudi Arabia had to accept only dollars as payments for the oil it sold, but was forced to invest that huge amount of U.S. currency only in the U.S. financial channels while.

 

In return, the United States placed Saudi Arabia and the other OPEC neighboring countries under its own military protection.

Hence the turning of the dollar into a world currency, considering the importance and extent of the oil market.

 

Not to mention that this large amount of dollars circulating in the world definitely marginalized gold and later convinced the FED that the demand for dollars in the world was huge and unstoppable.

An unlimited amount of liquidity that kept various U.S. industrial sectors alive but, above all, guaranteed huge financial markets such as the derivatives - markets based on the structural surplus of U.S. liquidity.

Pricing key commodities such as oil, which everyone in the world needs, in USD creates a massive structural support for the dollar versus other government fiat currencies.

If other nations constantly have to convert to USD before purchasing commodities, there's a constant underlying global demand to buy USD on a daily basis. No other country has this sort of structural support for its currency, and it allows the U.S. to be far more fiscally irresponsible than other countries without suffering devastating currency devaluations on the global market.

Despite the tremendous advantage such a system offers the U.S. on the world stage, there haven't been any rival countries that could realistically challenge it given (North) American economic dominance.

This is no longer the case.

As also noted in the article highlighted earlier:

Still today, the U.S. GDP accounts for 22% of world's GDP, while 80% of international payments are made in dollars.

 

Hence the United States receives goods from abroad always at comparatively very low prices, while the massive demand for dollars from the rest of the world allows to refinance the U.S. public debt at very low costs.

This is the economic and political core of the issue…

Therefore the United States is about to be ousted as world's currency due to its continuous series of wars and military failures and, like everyone else, it shall pay for its public debt, which is huge and will be ever more its problem, not ours.

 

Former President Cossiga always told me:

"The United States is always on the warpath and up in arms, but then it is not able to get out of it".

This is absolutely key.

There's now a huge mismatch between the use of USD in the global financial system and the U.S. share of the world economy. China and Russia are acutely aware of this and have been taking major steps to transition to a more multi-polar currency world.

There can be no multi-polar geopolitical world without a multi-polar currency world, which is why they're working toward dethroning the USD.

I believe they will succeed...

Specifically, I think by 2025 the world will have a completely different global financial system from the one chaotically birthed in the 1970s. The USD will lose its total dominance on the world stage, resulting in major implications geopolitically as well as at home.

Though plenty of people see this coming, everybody has their own opinion on what comes next. While it can be fun to engage in speculation, nobody really knows what the world financial system will look like in ten or twenty years.

Plenty of bureaucrats have their well-oiled plans, and plenty of bloggers are convinced they know, but I promise you, nobody really knows...

Cryptocurrencies have expanded the possibilities greatly. Thanks to Bitcoin, we now have a decentralized, voluntary, open source, free-market global currency. This is one of the most extraordinary creations in human history, and opens up possibilities for our species that never existed before.

Sure, nation-states won't just roll over and give up their money creation addiction any time soon, but the point is we finally have other options and can choose to opt out while still conducting global transactions.

In summary, the next few years will be characterized by currency wars, not just between rival nation-states, but also between paranoid and authoritarian nation-states and new free market currencies.

Readers know what I want to see. I will never get excited about transitioning away from the USD just to be under the thumb of another oppressive nation-state currency from Russia or China.

If we want to evolve, explore the limits of human potential and usher in a world of monetary freedom, it's important to support the key principles represented by Bitcoin.

Don't say,

"I like the idea, but it'll be shut-down."

That's giving up the battle without a fight. I genuinely think we can create a new paradigm for humankind.

We have the tools, we just need the will.

Back to The Global Banking System



 

Part 4

A Very Bright Future If We Demand It
April 24, 2018

Whenever all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.
Thomas Jefferson letter to C.Hammond, 1821

The first three parts (above reports) of this series focused on the obvious reality that imperial America is not just increasingly being seen as a rogue state around the world, but that it's also become harmful and parasitic to its own people.

It's become abundantly clear that empire is not compatible with Constitutional government.

As power and resources have become increasingly centralized in Washington D.C., the (North) American people have suffered. We've suffered from an increasingly rigged economic and financial system, continued security-state encroachment in the form of mass surveillance and a militarization of police, and a war industry which relentlessly funnels more and more wealth toward protecting imperial dominance overseas.

As anyone who's read the U.S. Constitution knows, this is not the way the union was supposed to function. Indeed, the founders were obsessed with avoiding the pitfalls of European empires since they knew how that story ends.

At the federal level, a separation of powers between the three branches of government:

• the legislative

• the executive

• the judicial,

...was a key component of the Constitution.

The specific purpose here was to prevent an accumulation of excessive centralized power within a specific area of government.

While this separation of powers still exists on paper, it's been eroded to a very dangerous degree. When it comes to war, which the legislative branch is supposed to declare, Congress has chosen to abdicate its responsibility and simply allows the executive to do whatever it wants.

We saw this with Obama and we see it with Trump.

The separation of powers is being ignored completely when it comes to state-sanctioned murder and this is no small thing.

Equally concerning, a 'fourth branch' of government has also emerged. Completely lawless and unaccountable, the extraordinarily dangerous power wielded by U.S. intelligence agencies (CIA, NSA and more...) provides another example of how far we've strayed as a people.

Beyond a separation of powers at the federal level, the founding founders made sure that the various states had tremendous independent governance authority in their own right in order to further their objective of decentralized political power.

This was enshrined in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which reads as follows:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The reason I'm pointing all of this out is because the founding fathers intended the U.S. to be a project in political decentralization.

Not only was regional (state) power supposed to be extensive by design, but they also made sure to separate powers at the the federal level. It seems clear that the primary intent behind the Constitution was to prevent an accumulation of excessive power (centralization) in any one person or group of people.

This was revolutionary for its time.

If you take an honest look at the U.S. today, you won't see Constitutional government. Politicians don't care about it, intelligence agencies don't care about it, and the average person doesn't really care either.

Our national evolution into the world's dominant imperial force has transformed the Republic into a centralized super-state.

Most of you already understand all this. Where things get interesting is that this centralized super-state, aka the U.S. empire, is likely to experience a serious collapse in the years ahead under the weight of,

• excessive corruption

• mismanagement

• a loss of the consent of the governed

(North) American citizens are rapidly climbing the learning curve as to how things really work and they're not too happy.

I believe such a collapse is essentially inevitable at this point, which means we should be focusing our energy on what comes next. Many Americans have been living in total denial for decades.

A considerable portion of the public either hasn't admitted the U.S. is a global empire in the first place, or they consider it a good or just thing. Moreover, they accept the current centralized structure of U.S. governance as appropriate and logical.

There's this erroneous belief that the key thing we need to do is "elect good people."

I disagree... What we need are more appropriate political structures.

The more I live and learn, the more I become convinced that the vast majority of decisions should be made at the local level, by people living in the communities directly affected. The idea that we need to argue and bicker endlessly in order to convince a small majority of Congress to vote in a particular manner to pass legislation that will then apply to 325 million people,  is idiotic.

In a country as large and diverse as the U.S., you're guaranteed to make almost everybody unhappy all the time.

While I accept that some issues transcend local governance, these issues are far, far fewer that we're led to believe. Almost all decisions that affect how people live their everyday lives should be decided at the local level by communities, not by a bureaucratic and easily corruptible behemoth thousands of miles away.

As the U.S. empire weakens in the years ahead, the worst thing we could possibly do is give Washington D.C. more power. It's an excessive accumulation of wealth and power in that swamp which got us to the point of collapse in the first place.

Rather, I hope we think about the original intent of our founding document and rediscover the importance of decentralized political power.

Moreover, we now have access to tools our founding fathers never could have dreamed of. Instant communications and access to the world's information at our fingertips have made representative democracy obsolete (voting for someone to vote for you), and we've never had a better opportunity to restore sovereignty to the individual.

This isn't to say I foresee a world with no governance structures. I think human beings tend to gravitate toward creating rules-based communities and that's not a bad thing.

The key principle is that such collaboration should be voluntary and organic, unlike the political structures which currently dominate our planet.

As things stand, we're each born into particular nation-states, and most of us must then live the rest of our lives under a governance structure we never agreed to in the first place. The primary factor determining what sort of government you live under is which piece of dirt you happened to be born on.

You essentially have no choice to how you're governed, it's all determined by the randomness of birth.

Does this actually make sense to anyone?

It doesn't make sense to me because I believe individual human beings should have an opportunity to live how they want to live. Moreover, the paradigm we need to move toward consists of governance structures characterized by rules without rulers.

Critically, these rules must be agreed to voluntarily by the various participants in a multitude of decentralized political units I'd like to see emerge someday.

You'd also ideally want to have a great deal of fluidity for humans to move from one unit to another. Someone at a particular stage of life might find one type of self-governing community ideal, but become interested in a very different model as they grow.

In 2018, pretty much everyone is born into a particular governance model/nation-state (not of their own choosing) and then stays stuck in it for the rest of their lives. This seems like a very primitive and un-free way of structuring political life for human beings.

The future model I'd prefer to see would be rooted in ethical governance systems that value freedom and flexibility over the coercion and rigidity which dominate political life throughout the world today.

Governance should be decentralized and political relationships should be voluntary.

Believe it or not, I think the key obstacle we face to making this sort of vision a reality is ourselves. Most of us tend to think too inside the box, anchoring what can be achieved by what's been achieved thus far.

However, the truth of the matter is we can create whatever sort of world we want. If enough of us simply begin to believe our current political structures are too centralized, bureaucratic, corrupt and un-free, then we can and will discard them and evolve toward a new paradigm.

Which is why I always like to say,

we already have the tools, we just need the will...

When you go to the grocery store your options for toothpaste and shampoo are almost endless, yet when it comes to the really important stuff, such as what sort of rules/governance we live under, or what sort of money we use, we're given virtually no choice at all.

Bitcoin's emergence on the scene has already challenged this static rigidity when it comes to money.

The next area to tackle will be governance...