-------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 20:49:02 -0400 From: "elliot.walter" <•••@••.•••> Subject: RE oil, EU etc To: <•••@••.•••> X-Priority: 3 Hello, Excellent article. My question : If Germany, France are under control with the USA of the NWO what's the game? Dismantle USA? China is free from international finance, Japan I think largely, India undecided. If NWO is facing biggest threat from China why divide EU from USA and UK.? Best wishes ---------- Hi Elliot, Nice to hear from you. The roles of Germany and France are a bit difficult to fathom. With the Merkel bid for German Chancellor, for example, we are probably seeing an attempt at 'regime change' on behalf of the globalists. The situation is volatile, and the US. - and Wall Street - have many ways to pressure and blackmail European leaders. When we see attempts to create an EU military force separate from NATO, and attempts to broker a deal with Iran contrary to Washington's wishes, we see evidence that part of the EU picture involves seeking independence from Anglo-American domination. As regards free trade and neoliberalism, it is possible that European leaders believe they need to follow that path in order to effectively compete economically with the U.S.-Anglo alliance. China may be strong in in its financial resources, but its economy depends on massive exports, and it must import massive quantities of fuel, food, and other commodities. China could, theoretically, dump some of its dollar reserves and collapse the American economy, but then it would lose its biggest customer: mutually assured collapse acts as a deterrent to outright financial warfare. Uncle Sam is the big bully on the block, but everyone has to deal with him in order to keep the global economy ticking over. At the same time, the other players seem to be seeking ways to combine together, in various ways, to counter the bully. In response to global financial pressures, they are also being pushed into collaborative ventures for their mutual benefit. The emerging alliance between Russia-China-Iran-India-Brazil-Venzuela is formidable from an anti-bully perspective, and also from a mutual-benefit perspective. They are working together in the face of a common adversary, and the natural spirit of comradery that arises leads to an atmosphere of voluntary and fair cooperation. As such world leaders try to work within the current system, while they simultaneously are seeking to undermine it, we are bound to notice inconsistencies and reversals in their day-to-day policies. Like a boxer, they must roll with the punches, and pick their shots. It seems that what they need to do, if they want to hope for stability outside the U.S.-Anglo axis, is to establish their own 'alternate 'global economy' while the current one continues. This might mean, for example, that China, with its large financial reserves, would need to be prepared to act as the 'alternate IMF', providing investment funds within the 'alternate zone', on mutually beneficial terms. Iran, Russia, and Venezuela would be the core of an 'alternate OPEC', supplying the zone's energy needs, at reasonable prices, or in barter for needed commodities, technologies, or assistance. To the extent this alternate zone begins to take shape, the synergy between that and the EU grows ever greater. The Euro would provide a suitable currency in place of the dollar, particularly for petroleum transactions - freeing everyone from the the petrodollar - and mainland Europe would benefit from the alternate oil market. We need to keep in mind that if such an alternate zone went on line, it would not necessarily mean that a state of open hostility or confrontation would exist between the two global economies. The Brits and Americans can't use all the oil they can produce, and they will still be willing to sell it to all comers, most likely at a reduced price given the new competing oil market. We might have a multi-power world, but hopefully without the Cold War hostile polarization. Before a decisive move could be made, such as the establishment of a Euro-based oil market, or any wholesale dumping of dollar assets by China, the entire alternate infrastructure must be in place, including lines of supply, tanker fleets, comprehensive agreements, and adequate mechanisms of mutual self defense against intervention. We might note that the priority targets of the PNAC campaign are aimed at preventing the formation of such an alternate infrastructure. Iraq had begun selling oil for Euros, and Germany and Russia had invested in oil deals with the Saddam regime. Those developments were reversed by the occupiers. Iran is in a similar position today: an important piece of a potential alternate infrastructure, and also the well-signalled next target of PNAC expansion plans. Venezuela, another important oil exporter, and also enthusiastically in alignment with the vision of an alternate global economy, has also clearly been in the sights of Washington interventionist thinking. One CIA-sponsored coup attempt failed, and Washington frequently berates Chavez for his 'unfriendly' policies. U.S. troop buildups have also been reported, e.g., in Paraguay. The alternate infrastructure could go ahead without Iran, but if Iran can be included it would be that much stronger. In that sense Iran does not necessarily represent an ultimate confrontation between the blocks, but is more a border-dispute skirmish. But border disputes do sometimes lead to full-on confrontation, if both sides see the dispute as being strategically critical. We can be sure Washington does see Iran as being strategically critical: to back off now would send a signal that a new infrastructure will not be prevented by force. It is more difficult to tell how Russia and China view the skirmish. They may be content to let the Iranians exact a fair price by sinking a few U.S. carriers, blocking shipping in the Gulf, and raining missiles on Israeli cities, while they continue establishing the rest of their infrastructure. Or they might feel that Iran is the place to draw the line, to take a stand, against Washington's illegal campaign of conquest. you raise interesting questions in interesting times, rkm -- http://cyberjournal.org "Apocalypse Now and the Brave New World" http://www.cyberjournal.org/cj/rkm/Apocalypse_and_NWO.html List archives: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=newslog Subscribe to low-traffic list: •••@••.•••
