Control of debt, deception, and Chinese-American war

[Skybird]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-13/war-china-inevitable


Why Is War Useful?

What could possibly be gained by fomenting a war between the United States and China? What could possibly be gained by throwing America's economy, the supposed "goose that lays the golden eggs", to the fiscal wolves? As stated earlier, distraction is paramount, and fear is valuable political and social capital.

Global financiers created the circumstances that have led to America’s probable economic demise, but they don’t want to be blamed for it. War provides the perfect cover for monetary collapse, and a war with China might become the cover to end all covers. The resulting fiscal damage and the terror Americans would face could be overwhelming. Activists who question the legitimacy of the U.S. government and its actions, once considered champions of free speech, could easily be labeled “treasonous” during wartime by authorities and the frightened masses. (If the government is willing to use the Internal Revenue Service against us today, just think about who it will send after us during the chaos of a losing war tomorrow.) A lockdown of civil liberties could be instituted behind the fog of this national panic.

Primarily, war tends to influence the masses to agree to more centralization, to relinquish their rights in the name of the “greater good”, and to accept less transparency in government and more power in the hands of fewer people. Most important, though, is war's usefulness as a philosophical manipulation after the dust has settled.

After nearly every war of the 20th and 21st century, the subsequent propaganda implies one message in particular: National sovereignty, or nationalism, is the cause of all our problems. The establishment then claims that there is only one solution that will solve these problems: globalization. This article by Andrew Hunter, the chairman of the Australian Fabian Society, is exactly the kind of narrative I expect to hear if conflict arises between the United States and China.

National identity and sovereignty are the scapegoats, and the Fabians (globalist propagandists) are quick to point a finger. Their assertion is that nation states should no longer exist, borders should be erased and a one-world economic system and government should be founded. Only then will war and financial strife end. Who will be in charge of this interdependent one world utopia? I’ll give you three guesses...

The Fabians, of course, make no mention of global bankers and their instigation of nearly every war and depression for the past 100 years; and these are invariably the same people that will end up in positions of authority if globalization comes to fruition. What the majority of people do not yet understand is that globalists have no loyalties to any particular country, and they are perfectly willing to sacrifice governments, economies, even entire cultures, in the pursuit of their "ideal society". "Order out of chaos" is their motto, after all. The bottom line is that a war between China and the United States will not be caused by national sovereignty. Rather, it will be caused by elitists looking for a way to END national sovereignty. That’s why such a hypothetical conflict, a conflict that has been gamed by think tanks for years, is likely to be forced into reality.


Compare to this scene - a fictional narration, nevertheless so true:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-Fq228lR2A

[Tchocky]

Right.



Sure.

[Oberon]

If this was the case, then surely Germany would be buried under about 50 feet of irradiated debris from a nuclear exchange from the USSR and US? :hmmm:

[Skybird]

Nuclear war only is an option if only one side has nukes. Global themorcnuclkear exchnage is no war option.

Check Africa, how France, America, China, Russia, and individual corporations from more countries, over the years and decades have fueled wars there to gain influence and access to rare resources, like ore, gems, gold, rare earths. Also check how the world bank and the ICF have been involved in and have fostered this. Their criminal reputation comes not from nothing.

Same could be said about South Africa, and in the not so distant past: FE Asia. But especially in Africa it is being done like this until today. Especially by the Chinese, who have systematically bought themselves influence there over the past one or two decades, and the use that to exploit regions and populations to the max.

[mookiemookie]

Right.



Sure.

It's Zerohedge, what else do you expect?

[Dread Knot]

It's Zerohedge, what else do you expect?


Ah, yes. Zero Hedge, that monotone zoo of pessimistic financial blogging. A delightful, entertaining niche at the intersection of The X-Files, finance and tireless anti–Goldman Sachs–ishness.

Going to ZeroHedge is like visiting a site that predicts your eventual death. If only they could predict when.

[mookiemookie]

One of the best (and funniest) takedowns of Zero Hedge I've ever read -

Are You A Perma-Bear? Take The Zero Hedge Test:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/03/are-you-a-perma-bear-take-the-zero-hedge-test/

[Oberon]

Nuclear war only is an option if only one side has nukes. Global themorcnuclkear exchnage is no war option.

Check Africa, how France, America, China, Russia, and individual corporations from more countries, over the years and decades have fueled wars there to gain influence and access to rare resources, like ore, gems, gold, rare earths. Also check how the world bank and the ICF have been involved in and have fostered this. Their criminal reputation comes not from nothing.

Same could be said about South Africa, and in the not so distant past: FE Asia. But especially in Africa it is being done like this until today. Especially by the Chinese, who have systematically bought themselves influence there over the past one or two decades, and the use that to exploit regions and populations to the max.

Then surely, since nuclear war is the only option in a clash of superpowers in the manner in which the US/USSR and US/PRC would clash (particularly in a land war, aka never fight a land war in Asia) then war between the US and PRC is not an option. The PRC cannot win a naval war, and the US cannot win a land war without resorting to use of nuclear weapons, therefore war is unlikely to occur. The preparation for war, and the weapons industry, sure, it's a lucrative market, and it's been going for centuries, as paranoia insures that each nation strives to have the best weapon, look at the naval arms race in Europe in the 1890s, but the industry works best in small bush wars, it struggles to keep up with demand in massive scale wars, and nations struggle to afford the weaponry to fight them.

[Tribesman]

Then surely, since nuclear war is the only option in a clash of superpowers in the manner in which the US/USSR and US/PRC would clash (particularly in a land war, aka never fight a land war in Asia) then war between the US and PRC is not an option. The PRC cannot win a naval war, and the US cannot win a land war without resorting to use of nuclear weapons, therefore war is unlikely to occur. The preparation for war, and the weapons industry, sure, it's a lucrative market, and it's been going for centuries, as paranoia insures that each nation strives to have the best weapon, look at the naval arms race in Europe in the 1890s, but the industry works best in small bush wars, it struggles to keep up with demand in massive scale wars, and nations struggle to afford the weaponry to fight them.
Don't go bringing practicalities into it:nope:

One of the best (and funniest) takedowns of Zero Hedge I've ever read -

Are You A Perma-Bear? Take The Zero Hedge Test:

I scored 60:yeah:
In my opinion my devotion to the theories which are not really conspiracy ones merits me the extra five points

[Tchocky]

The basic premise is that the global financial elite will engineer a war because their feelings are hurt.

My eyes are now open, I can see clearly now.

[Skybird]

Then surely, since nuclear war is the only option in a clash of superpowers in the manner in which the US/USSR and US/PRC would clash (particularly in a land war, aka never fight a land war in Asia) then war between the US and PRC is not an option. The PRC cannot win a naval war, and the US cannot win a land war without resorting to use of nuclear weapons, therefore war is unlikely to occur. The preparation for war, and the weapons industry, sure, it's a lucrative market, and it's been going for centuries, as paranoia insures that each nation strives to have the best weapon, look at the naval arms race in Europe in the 1890s, but the industry works best in small bush wars, it struggles to keep up with demand in massive scale wars, and nations struggle to afford the weaponry to fight them.

Yoiu seem to imagine US troops invading China. Well, that is a path I let you travel on alone. It'S out of the question, like a nation-wide ground invasion in Iran. I disagree that the Chinese cannot win at sea. I take it as a given that they can already disrupt USN operations in the regional waters, and that their still growing strength will enable them to increase the range of their operational zone. And technologically, they are not exactly like the Iraqis. Today, they landed a rover on the moon. Their arsenal of dedicated shipkilling missiles, is huge. They probably can overflood any defence zone an Aegis protected fleet could establish. Guess who runs out of ammo first, the Americans or the Chinese...? Guess who pays the higher price in money? Guess who can afford losses easier and has the more stable society to digest them?

A regional war in which the US gets "trapped" due to its network of military and economic treaties (which it has boosted in recent years), not necessarily or automatically must turn nuclear. The Us could very well stumble into such a war, triggered by local circumstances beyond its direct influence and control.

You sound like the others here, Oberon: It cannot be what should not be. But the globalised banking system knows no national loyalties, like internationally operating cooperations - they have governments in their pockets, not the other way around.

The Chinese aim at and will make use of their dollar comittments, and the dependency of China on good ties to the US gets hopelessly overestimated in especially America. Because Americans started to realise that without the good will of China, their fiscal system is gone. I am saying this since quite some years now, that America lives by the good will of China currently. The Chinese will have economic losses and fiscal losses if the dollar collapses - the point is they can survive them and digest them much more easily than many in the West want it to be true (because these people want China being seen as vulnerable so that it serves as an incentive not to abandon the status quo).

These people are in for a very bad wakeup call, I tell you. Sooner or later. Maybe the West does not want it to happen. It's just that the West has little to say in these things anymore. China wants regional dominance, and it will get it, no matter whether Washington agrees, because Washington, a fiscally dead body in the water, is in no position to demand anything anymore in an ultimate manner. For that the Chinese obviously will not shy away forever from confrontation. And they have strong tools that could be used as weapons: numerical missile superiority of all kinds. Short logistical lines. Cyberwarfare. Finances. The ability to deny the USN free operation in regional waters. I know that many people in the West opportunistically put these arguments in question. But I disagree with these people, to me they are a desperate expression of their realization of that the balances are shifting against them, and that already now they do not have things under control anymore.

Our FUBAR fiscal system, our cruel jokes of a currency, and us drowning in our debts, is our Archilles heel. It makes us vulnerable to corrupted political elites and the globalised banking mafia, and to the Chinese who sooner or later silently but mercilessly will strangle us with our own sins. It also means that we cannot afford the military uparming needed to keep the Chinese in check in that region of the world without accepting that we disrupt our own fiscal status and economy even more.

I think we cannot complain. We will reap the harvest that we have sown in our own folly, megalomania, and silliness.

Thank God that it cannot be what shall not be. That way we are saved. :yeah:

[Tchocky]

http://i.imgur.com/hxVQN1Z.jpg

[Oberon]

I wrote a long reply to this...but you know what, I just don't have the energy anymore. If you want to believe this, go ahead, order me a sweet and sour chicken balls when the Chinese banktroopers arrive. I give up.

[Dread Knot]

I wrote a long reply to this...but you know what, I just don't have the energy anymore. If you want to believe this, go ahead, order me a sweet and sour chicken balls when the Chinese banktroopers arrive. I give up.



There'll be eggrolls over,
The white cliffs of Dover
Tomorrow,
Just you buy our goofy conspiracy

[mapuc]

Going to use this thread(link to it) in an another thread

Markus

[Wolferz]

In our military loose threads are burned off with the flick of a Bic.