Archive for the ‘Gaddafi’ tag
By Giordano Bruno
There are many different kinds of revolution; some more effective than others. Telling the difference between a successful revolution and a failed revolution can be tricky. Often, on the surface, they look exactly the same. The secret is to set aside what we would “like” to see, and be brutally honest about what was actually accomplished in the course of the dissenting action. Has power been fully rescinded by the offending government or regime to the people, or, to yet another corrupt bureaucracy with a slightly different face? Have the puppet strings of corporate globalists been severed from your country, or do they remain strong as ever? Has ANY corrupt official actually been punished for the crimes that led to the insurgency in the first place, or, did they fly off scot-free to their million dollar villas in Ecuador, drinking mojitos in wicker recliners and watching the disaster they created unfold on CNN? Who ultimately benefited from the event?
Today, the entire Middle East is on the verge of complete destabilization and possibly civil war. Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, and other nations are experiencing a shockwave of unrest not seen since the 1970’s. Western media sources are calling it a “people’s revolt”, one which the Obama administration is heartily embracing like an old relative. But are we witnessing the democratization of the cradle of civilization, or something else entirely? How will we be affected by this tide of confusion? Instead of falling into panic and fear over the growing chaos, what can discerning Americans learn from a social implosion on the other side of the world that will help us to survive a similar occurrence here? Let’s examine some of the distinct moments that have characterized the Middle East debacle, the underlying and corrupt influences that surround them, as well as certain historical facts of the region that globalist engineers would rather we forget…
Molding The Arab World
Are globalist interests involved in the breakdown of the Middle East? Most certainly. However, this much widespread resentment and pent-up collective rage is not something that can be easily fabricated. It is far more likely that anger over the feudal governing tactics of dictators in the Arab world (many of which were installed or supported by U.S. and European interests) is very real, and has been building for quite some time. So then, why are Western governments applauding the overthrow of despots they themselves placed in power?
The Mubarak regime was the second largest recipient of U.S. financial and military aid in the world. One third of ALL publicly reported U.S. foreign aid goes to Egypt and Israel:
Without this vast military aid from the U.S., Mubarak would not have been able to maintain his 30 year reign. This is a cold hard fact. So then, why go against a leader you already have firmly in your grasp?
When the Shah of Iran (a violent madman we anointed) was overthrown by popular revolt in 1979, the U.S. government responded with vitriol and saber rattling. When Hosni Mubarak (a violent madman we anointed) was overthrown this past month, the U.S. government responded with cheers and warm regards. What was the difference between the revolution in Iran, and the revolutions all over the Middle East today? Insurance…
Like most puppet leaders and figureheads, Mubarak was an errand boy, a conduit for implementing globalist policies in Egypt. His relinquishment of power was in reality nothing of the kind, because the power was never his to give back. It is important to take note that Mubarak’s cabinet and most of the existing government and military structure remains firmly entrenched:
Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, who leads the ruling military council and has been defense minister for about 20 years, took “temporary” control of Egypt after Mubarak ceded authority. Tantawi retains very strong ties to Washington D.C. and an unerring loyalty to Mubarak’s policies, which is perhaps why Barack Obama seemed so jubilant about Mubarak’s departure. In the recent and controversial Wikileaks release of private diplomatic cables, Tantawi is famously referred to as “Mubarak’s Poodle”:
The key here is that globalist circles support the change in Egypt exactly because nothing will change for the citizenry. The Egyptian people will not gain true influence in the politics of their own country, and they may have even less influence over their own lives if a military infrastructure remains embedded within their government. Their entire rebellion was diluted and redirected, because they naively focused on Mubarak as the source of all their ills, instead of the corrupt system he was a mere front-man for.
What about Libya? Muammar Gaddafi, the crazy bag lady of third world dictators, was the darling of the UN in 2009 when he was nominated the head of the African Union. He was just as much a monster then as he is today, and as far as I know his human rights record has remained dismal, but then again, he was helping the globalists by paying the AU dues of numerous countries with Libyan oil money and luring them towards centralization:
Apparently, Gaddafi has outlived his usefulness as international bodies now fully support the rebellion in Libya.
Remember Tunisia? That fight for freedom that the mainstream media essentially ignored until it was almost over and the two decade rule of Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali (another despot with a history of human rights violations who was also installed with the help of Western interests, primarily Italy) was finally overthrown? Well, now globalist proponents suddenly “love” Tunisia and are promoting it as a “model revolution”. Why? Maybe because the dastardly duo of McCain and Lieberman are in town to offer the new Tunisian government “training from the U.S. to help Tunisia’s military provide security”:
Yikes. These are the same guys who drafted the ‘Enemy Belligerents Act’ which would allow the U.S. government to treat any American citizen as an “enemy combatant”, removing Habeas Corpus and all Constitutional rights to a fair trial. I guess the lesson to Americans and most importantly the Liberty Movement is that if they can’t beat you, they’ll try to join you, and then co-opt you. My hope is that the Tunisians will turn down the Trojan Horse offerings of sewer rats like McCain and Lieberman, but if they do, I imagine the globalists will not be quite so friendly anymore.
What is happening in the Middle East is a perfect example of the manipulation of existing dissent towards establishment ends. The surface trigger for these events is obviously the doubling of food prices across the world in the past two years (you can thank the orchestrated devaluation of western currencies for a large part of this). People have a bad tendency to weather all kinds of atrocities as long as they are fed, but once certain necessities are taken from the masses, they WILL act, usually in a violent and unfocused manner. These revolutions are, for the most part, legitimate when they begin, but are co-opted as they progress, chiefly because the cultures involved do not understand where the real threat is coming from. Is centralization of the Middle East through catastrophe the goal? Perhaps, though, when all is said and done, I think the upheaval in the Middle East is much more about the U.S., than the Muslim world…
Déjà Vu All Over Again…
For those who really want a comprehensive sense of what is happening in the Middle East and why, I suggest a look into the last major Egyptian revolution of 1952. At that time, Britain was still the preeminent western power in the Arab world, and its control of the oil supply was absolute, much like the stranglehold the U.S. has enjoyed for many decades. Oil was pegged to the British sterling and any trade in crude required a conversion to the British currency. In fact, it was often said that the British Empire’s power after World War II was entirely dependent on its reserve currency status in oil markets. Any of this beginning to sound familiar?
In 1952, a revolution against the Egyptian puppet monarchy and its British overseers burst seemingly from nowhere, led by a group called the “Free Officers Movement”. In reality, the insurrection, fed by years of corrupt Aristocratic rule, was initiated and in some cases funded by both U.S. and Soviet agencies in tandem! In 1951-1952, nationalist police officers backed by the U.S. and Russia began supporting fedayeen terrorist groups using false flag attacks to weaken the region (is this sounding even more familiar?). Interestingly, this era was the birth of the so called “Muslim Brotherhood”, a group which has suddenly resurfaced in media discussion today.
Riots spread through Cairo, King Farouk was overthrown, the British were eventually run out, and their control of the Suez Canal was lost. But the story doesn’t end there…
The British and the French wanted the Suez back (at least that’s what they claimed), for control of the Suez meant control of Middle East oil markets. A plan was initiated by the two European powers to take back the canal using an Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip as a spring board. This time, Israeli agents were used by the British to conduct false flag attacks, which were presented as a pretext for Israel to move against Egypt. The British and French followed by landing troops near Cyprus and Algeria.
The plan would have worked, except for one thing, the British were financially weak after two world wars and were completely dependent on American investment in their treasury debt. In response to the British action, the U.S. along with the UN threatened to halt investment in British debt and to stop price support of the Pound Sterling. This led to the eventual fall of the pound as the world reserve currency, and the rise of the dollar.
Official history portrays this move by the U.S., Russia, and the UN, as an attempt to undermine the long reach of the English. It is rather convenient however that the pound was dethroned just as plans for the European Union were beginning to be implemented in the early 1950’s. It seems to me that the British elites were fully aware that their futile attempts to hold onto the Middle East would result in the fall of the Pound; it was simply the British people’s turn to be taken down a few notches, and centralized. The similarities between the British Empire’s decline over Middle East oil in the 1950’s and our decline over Middle East oil today, are startling.
If history was to repeat itself, I would guess that the U.S. will soon be embroiled in political or even military operations to control the Suez, and retain its dollar peg to oil, which will illicit a negative response by international investment, causing central banks to dump their U.S. treasury investments and the dollar as a reserve currency.
Think of it as a grand theater meant to amuse only global bankers…
Energy Crisis To Strike The U.S. And Protect Globalists
An unstable Middle East benefits very few people, and that, I suppose, is the point. As we have covered here in a multitude of articles, the U.S. is on the verge of engineered economic collapse, driven mainly by the steady and purposeful devaluation of the dollar and our quickly expanding national debt. If you are a corporate central banking group seeking the death of the greenback as the world reserve currency, you face the very serious problem of avoiding immediate blame or retribution for your actions. What better way to escape the torches and pitchforks of the furious populace than to find a scapegoat, or a distraction even more terrifying than poverty?
Middle East turbulence provides the perfect smokescreen for the inflationary destruction of the dollar.
First and foremost, it hides the already skyrocketing price of energy, which was inevitable due to our devaluing currency (oil is traded primarily in dollars), but can now be blamed entirely on “Middle Eastern instability”. Already, the cost of crude has spiked to $100 a barrel, with no sign of relenting. Certainly, many Americans will now blame Egypt or Libya for their empty wallets, instead of global banks.
To add to the confusion, various agencies are feeding the MSM with a rainbow of mixed messages, which leave Americans vulnerable to uncertainty, making them far more malleable. For instance, the IMF has recently stated that the world can easily withstand $100 oil (a lie), while the International Energy Agency has stated that $100 oil would be “very very bad”, leading to a complete derailment of the global economy (which was going to occur anyway):
Social and economic disaster ANYWHERE in the world today will invariably cut the thin threads of psychological faith in our so called recovery. The system was a sham to begin with, and the quantitative easing methods of the Federal Reserve were never intended to actually “save” our financial house from collapsing, just prolong the event until they were ready to sweep away the ailing remains and offer us an IMF controlled replacement. It is designed to fail, and fail spectacularly. However, these facts will sink into the fog of history if Americans are suckered into fixating on a single area of the planet as the sole source of economic catastrophe.
Finally, if the tension spreads to other nations such as Saudi Arabia and triggers violent in-fighting, or Israel is tapped as an asset to instigate wider conflict, we could be looking at all out war on an incredible scale. This would be the distraction to top all distractions.
Is American Upheaval Next?
If crude oil continues to climb above $100 for more than a couple months, the negative effects will be undeniable. If you thought we had inflation before, just wait until gas hits $5 to $6 a gallon, and shipping costs for goods explode. This doesn’t even take into account the very real possibility that once the Middle East is fully destabilized, and certain political influences are dissolved, OPEC will completely de-peg oil from the dollar. From there, the sky is the limit on gasoline values. Already, Mohamed El-Erian, chief executive officer at Pacific Investment Management Co. (PIMCO) is calling for a “stagflationary” market reaction to the turmoil in Libya:
What will be the U.S. government response to a crashing currency and climbing costs? Austerity! Although, they will probably use different terminology to describe it. The onset of cost cutting measures is becoming more visible, especially within the states, where municipal bond investment has run screaming off a cliff. Large scale protests are erupting in Wisconsin and Ohio due to state cuts designed to help them stay financially afloat:
The debate here becomes two sided; do state workers deserve to have their wages or benefits cut because state governments were fiscally irresponsible? Should states continue to run up incredible deficits just to appease state workers (who many consider overpaid) in the short term? They are both meaningful positions that need to be considered, however, these two sides miss the full picture.
The fact is, state governments are beyond broke, and eventually, they will have to nix spending and entitlement programs regardless of how anyone is affected, especially in the face of unchecked inflation. State employees and all people dependent on welfare are not necessarily the culprits behind financial clear-cutting either. The argument cannot be allowed to devolve into a mindless cage match over who deserves the money, because, first, there is no money, and second, this distracts from the original cause of the distress; the corporate banking elites who instigated the disaster in the first place. Already, I can see a certain subsection of the populace lashing out wildly at figureheads and opposition parties, just like in Egypt, instead of the corrupt system and the banking moguls who built it.
If an Egyptian or Libyan style revolt, driven by blind mob mentality, takes place in the U.S., we can expect several things to occur. Normal means of communication will be disrupted; both Egypt and Libya responded to protests by shutting down all internet and cell phone traffic. Martial Law will be enacted, and Constitutional rights suspended; continuity of government programs are already in place to legally bind states into bowing to DHS and FEMA authority in the event of any “national disaster”, including a dissenting citizenry. Immediate bank closures will follow, just as occurred in Egypt, causing a lack of liquidity in local markets and panic among those who were financially unprepared. Violence will unavoidably result, giving the Department of Homeland Security the perfect excuse to implement even more controls, all for our own “safety” of course.
Some may welcome such bedlam as a sign of change. I don’t see it that way. Revolution without direction, without a plan, and without a clear understanding of the source of the problem, is meaningless. We can allow ourselves to be herded by our own rage into even more pronounced tyranny, or we can stay focused, collected, and act with purpose by organizing our communities with the objective of self sufficiency and self protection. We can work with state legislators to bring support to Tenth Amendment issues, giving them the strength to withstand an economic collapse and the ability to turn down DHS or FEMA’s “help” when the time comes. We can organize intelligently, without centralized control, or we can hand over our destinies to yet another elite group of unaccountable autocrats. As impossible as it might seem, the choice really is up to us. How we act and react in the coming months will mean the difference between a free and prosperous America, or a scorch mark in the annals of history.
February 24, 2011
You can contact Giordano Bruno at: firstname.lastname@example.org
If you would like to contribute to our soon to be launched Alternative Market Project, visit our donate page here: http://neithercorp.us/npress/donate/
Today, the UK’s Telegraph is reporting that British government drones in Whitehall are figuring out the legal means to seize Muammar al-Gaddafi’s assets in Britain, which are said to total some £20 billion.
Notice that’s pounds sterling the equivalent of US$32 billion: Enough cash to plug up California’s and New York State’s deficits, and still have enough left over for a very respectable weekend at The Palms in Las Vegas.
That these assets are going to be seized is, according to the story, a done deal: The only issue seems to be the legal means by which to do so, which means that the British government isn’t worried about pissing off Gaddafi, which means that Gaddafi’s days in power are numbered: Whitehall would never dare seize his UK assets, unless they were sure that Gaddafi won’t be around to exact revenge or retribution. After all, the Brits let the Lockerbie Bomber go in 2009, in order to shore up relations with Gaddafi.
Now, for my patented History Flashback (All Rights Reserve, All Wrongs Deferred):
When the Shah of Iran was overthrown by the Islamic Revolution in January 1979, Iran’s oil production dropped from 5.75 million barrels a day to zero. Such was the chaos of the Revolution.
Production eventually picked back up in the days that followed, to a new average of 2.25 million barrels a day in 1980 but as they say, the damage was done: In short order, the price of crude shot the moon from $14.95 per barrel in 1978, to $25.10 per barrel in 1979 the inflation adjusted equivalent of $74.67 in today’s dollars. By 1980, even though Iran’s oil production was improving, the price situation was worse: Oil averaged $37.22 in 1980, the equivalent of $99.11 per barrel. (Data is here.) This led directly to the recession of ’79 and ’83, the worst since the Great Depression. Unemployment got to double digits, as did inflation. Gold famously went up to highs never seen before, as a hedge against that inflation, and it was all Paul Volcker could do to reign it in by inflicting 20% interest rates that’s right: 20%.
An Oil Shock is nothing to take lightly.
Today, Libya represents far less of the world’s total oil production than Iran did in 1979. As of last year, from the worldwide total of 84 million barrels per day, Libya produced just 1.79 million barrels per day, according to the CIA Factbook that’s less than 2% of world production, compared to Iran’s 5%. But what’s happening in Libya is not just limited to Libya: 2011 is shaping up to be the region’s very own 1848, as Anne Applebaum cleverly pointed out. What started in Tunisia and spread to Egypt has now spread to Libya. And now this morning, there are reports that of severe disturbances in Iraq (Iraq! Where the U.S. is sitting like an army of occupation, and there are popular riots!). The Saudis conspicuously ominously are giving free money and promising more benefits to their people.
Even before the revolutions in the Middle East, oil prices have been steadily rising along with food, precious metals and industrial metals as hot money flows to commodities. Regardless of what Krugman says, this rise in commodity prices is a direct product of the U.S. Federal Reserve’s zero interest rate policy (ZIRP, otherwise known as “free money”) and Quantitative Easing 2 (QE2, otherwise known as “money printing”).
So what does this all mean?
It means that, when Gaddafi falls, Libyan oil production is going to be hurt or outright interrupted. And just as Mubarak’s fall embolden Libyan dissenters, Gaddafi’s fall will embolden more waves of unrest in other parts of North Africa and the Middle East perhaps Iraq, perhaps Saudi Arabia, perhaps the U.A.E. putting more pressure on oil prices. Brent Crude is today at $112 per barrel and poised to rise even further. If Libyan production is tripped up or outright shut down, there’s every reason to believe that oil will reach its historic high of $140. Reach it, and surpass it. And if, say, disturbances in Iraq or Saudi Arabia or any other oil producing nation trigger further falls in oil production, then the price per barrel could rise even further and much more drastically.
In other words, we could be about to experience another Oil Shock just like 1979. Now, what happened after 1979’s Iranian Oil Shock? Like I said: Severe inflation, unemployment, and a Fed that had to raise rates catastrophically, in order to stop an inflation that was spiralling out of control. But back in 1979, there was no kindling for that inflationary fire. Federal Reserve money policies were fairly responsible. The Federal government’s total debt and liabilities was less than 50% of GDP. Back in 1979, the U-3 unemployment rate was about 5%, compared to over 9% today.
Back in 1979, there was no ZIRP, no QE2, no $1.6 trillion deficit. There weren’t so many freshly-minted dollars sloshing around, looking for yields like army ants looking for dead meat. There wasn’t a total government debt that was bigger than the total gross domestic product of the United States.
In short, back in 1979, the economy, the fiscal situation and the monetary policy were far healthier than they are today.
Yet the 1979 Oil Shock brought us the worst recession since the Great Depression.
And that is very, very bad for us today, in 2011.
When not if, but when Gaddafi falls, the bloodiest, longest-lived dictator in the Middle East/North Africa region will be gone. And that’s a good thing.
But in all likelihood, his fall will also trigger another Oil Shock which just might kill us.