Is there a Strategy in the US’ BLM craze?

Spread the Word

Claudiu Secara

September 15, 2020

For many years I’ve been telling my friends how I explain the last 40 years of living history, and why I didn’t feel compelled to have it all written down in an essay. It seemed counterproductive. As the sayings goes: “Those who know don’t talk, and those who talk don’t know.” In other words, the real story of the last 40 years is so different from the one that people are made to think it was/is, that it is hopeless to try to debunk their perception. Nobody would believe you anyway. At least, among those who talk but do not know. On the other hand, what is the point of trying to explain, in a very speculative way, something to those who know it in detail, but don’t talk? Besides, how to prove it? A few major watershed events would need to be entirely reprogrammed even in the mind of a few skeptics of the official story.

Now, here is what I think.

Every reference these days has a few landmarks that are set out as conventional truths: “the collapse of the Soviet Union,” “the spread of the capitalist/democratic system,” “the 9/11 terrorist attack,” “the covid-19 pandemic,” etc.

There are at least 3 major schools of opinion vis-à-vis these events: Those who believe that everything is fine, just a hiccup, and everything will be OK, don’t worry. The clever ones who think that the Western Plutocrats are staging a world takeover through cyber surveillance, bio and police control, trans-humanism, etc. Let’s not forget the anti-white (in general), or anti-white supremacy, Jewish pro-BLM conspiracy, etc.

Others think that the West is definitely in a final stage of defeat in its confrontation with the emerging powers of the East, China and Russia and it is preparing for the day after.

This is the strategy for the day when the Western hegemony is past history, when the Chinese are in charge of the world and white supremacy is a footnote of history. From colonial power to neocolonial power to the position of joining the rest of the world colonies… America is now fighting a revolutionary, liberation war against the new “colonial” China. America is now the leader of Black Africa, of the Brown Latinos and the Brown Muslim world. The slogan “Black Lives Matter” can now be understood to imply that “Yellow Lives Don’t Matter.”

The fake pandemic offers the opportunity to stop the unwinnable economic race with China, while the Black Lives Matter movement changes the position of the country from the unipolar hegemon to the champion of the “oppressed peoples of the world.”

The US is running out of both energy resources and human resources, while accumulating debt of colossal proportions. The windfall from fracking is over — and not because of the low prices for oil and gas, but because the Permian and Bakken are 85% depleted, with nothing to replace them. In 2008, when Obama began his presidency, the federal debt was $8 Trillion; by the end of his presidency in 2016, it was up to $18 Trillion. Last year, it went to $22, and by the end of this year it is expected to be somewhere near $30 Trillion. And all of this while the real GDP is nowhere close to the official numbers. In 2010, a study by the Chinese Dagong Global Credit Rating Co., Ltd. showed that:

In 2010, China’s main credit rating agency Dagong argued for the first time that the U.S. economy was actually much closer to $5 trillion rather than $15 trillion” […] It is predicted that the average real GDP per year of the United States will not reach 6 trillion U.S. dollar and per capita GDP will be less than 20,000 in the coming 3-5 years.

How did we get here?

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the all-powerful US took a beating from the Soviet Union/Russia, by falling for the charade that the Soviet Union lost the Cold War. No, the Soviet Union could not have lost the war at the very height of its military power. It was already matching, or even outclassing, the US in virtually all military weapons categories by the end of the 1970s.

But the most severe blow was applied by the poor Communist Chinese, who were viewed, even by foreign policy experts, as some lower equivalent of the overcrowded Indians or the Bangladeshi. They could not possibly beat us at our own industrial/electronic game. They were just hungry little ants, not capable of strategic thinking.

At this stage, faced with imminent disintegration, the US is split between two options: circle the wagons and prepare for an all-out war against the newly emerging powers, or finally, after 20 or more agonizing years, change tack. The singular Trump and his sidekick Pompeo are dreaming of bygone times when MAGA may have been an option. He and his nostalgic “deplorables” see only the precipice facing the nation and envision a heroic fight to the last man. This is the phase a formerly great country resorts to when only a clown can pretend to be the new restorative statesman and distract the public. The rest of the political class is using the clown as the scapegoat while preparing a strategic realignment.

Let’s look back a few decades. I wrote in The New Commonwealth, in the 1990s:

“For anyone who has followed closely the events in Eastern Europe for the past thirty years, the systematic absence of one possible scenario from the mainstream media dialog is baffling — namely that today’s Russian troubles may be only a shield behind which a more powerful regeneration is in progress. The New York Times Magazine, August 10 1997, brings up one of many questions to which modern history awaits a convincing answer. On the occasion of former Defense Secretary McNamara’s revisiting Vietnam, it reminds us of one such unelucidated inconsistency: “If the reason [for the war in Vietnam] was to fight communism, why did the U.S. not help [imperial] China in 1949, or why did the U.S. not help the Batista regime in Cuba in 1959?” There are indeed significant and puzzling inconsistencies in the story of the Soviet Union’s “collapse.”

Consider the artfulness, bordering on the Machiavellian, and the lengthy effort that went into its demise and one has sufficient grounds for a different tale. The process of “collapse,” basically from 1983 on, came about as the country’s establishment applied blow after blow to the highly coherent and resilient Soviet system. The most intriguing aspect of this incredible series of events is that behind it was the political will of the elite — the Soviet elite who had decided that the Soviet system must be dismembered, while the so-called disgruntled masses played a minor role. That amounts, but only on a superficial look, to the impression that the elite itself might have voluntarily decided to dismantle and demobilize its own lines of defense and submit to a condition of servitude to its adversary.

From socialism to capitalism and back to a superior form of socialism is how the old Marxist dialecticians would phrase it. By compromising both models — the old communist orthodoxy as well as the newer aspirant, casino capitalism — the power establishment makes it possible to bring the country safely back to socialist capitalism.

The centuries long Russian-Anglo-American love-hate relationship has been evolving dramatically from late 1978 until today, that is clear. However, one might notice that it is being redesigned in such a way as to accommodate in the long run a more assertive, more successful and more powerful Russia overlording its European and southern peripheries.

It might be useful it to remind ourselves of the true balance in nuclear warheads between the two superpowers:

In fact, compared with the 17,000 warheads in the U.S. arsenal at the time, the Soviet arsenal crested in 1986 at 45,000 warheads, a number that gives a better sense of the Soviet war machine’s outstanding performance. Amazingly enough, the actual Soviet stockpile nearly matched the Western estimate at that time of a total of 50,000 nuclear warheads for the US, Russia, France, Great Britain, China and Israel combined.

In despair, in 1970s the Amerikanski turned to China in a vain attempt to meet the demand for both guns and butter, on a large scale, as pursued since the 1960s — plus to scare the hell out of the Russians by this new alliance. We know the net result of that. By 2010, China overtook the US in terms of GDP on the basis of PPP, see Global Research outmatching the US in just about every technological and scientific field, though less so in the semiconductors field where the race is still on for a few more years.

So, when did the US actually lose the race to the new aspirants? In the year 2020, due to high debt and technological un-competitiveness? Maybe earlier, in 2008, with the sub-prime bubble? Or maybe on 9/11/2001, when it was supposedly “attacked” on its own territory? Maybe earlier still, in 1973, when the dollar was converted into fiat money, coupled with the loss of the Vietnam War? Or a decade earlier, with the John F. Kennedy assassination and the ensuing race riots? Or was the loss of the Korean War the moment?

Technically speaking, the US had already lost the race in the 1930s, only to be saved, briefly, by the engineering of World War II. The US extended its survival precisely at the expense of all the other capitalist countries and the colonization of half the world. The communists were right in that the West/US was already entering the terminal phase of its demise as Lenin predicted in the early years of the 20th century. And so were predicting many outstanding intellectuals at the time, most famous among them being  Oswald Spengler in his two-volume The Downfall of the Occident. Convolution after convolution increased the spiral of debt, more military adventures, more dumbing down of its population, more selling of the “family patrimony,” that is, the nation’s industry, to its very adversaries for one more day’s lunch, more self-indulgence, indolence, drugs and promiscuity and the destruction of its golden asset — its human capital.

So why then the so-called “collapse of the Soviet Union”? Why didn’t the Soviet leaders choose the Chinese model and maintain its evolutionary course rather than the break up? First, let us bear in mind the two most critical and immediate challenges that the Bolshevik Revolution had had to face in 1918: the nationalities problem and the need for agrarian reform. Imperial Russia, as opposed to China, was a multi-ethnic conglomerate of historical distinct nations and any relaxing of the authoritarian system would have had the rapid consequence of the disintegration of the Russia empire. China has an overwhelming Han population (92%) with small ethnic minorities. The Muslims in Xinjiang, highly exploited by the West propaganda, are only 0.87%, Tibetans are 0.47%. They are incapable of destabilizing the foundations of the Chinese state.

The second urgent demand was the peasant pressure for agrarian reform, which was counter to national need for large scale agricultural development that could support the interests of Russia’s need for industrialization and national economic development.

An authoritarian state was necessary to keep these two centrifugal forces in check so that the Soviet Union for 100 years avoided the breakup of the Russian state into smaller and smaller statelets. Only by the time the Soviet Union was secure militarily, and was competitive economically, with a very strong domestic scientific elite and with an educated labor force at its core, was it finally capable of withstanding those centrifugal forces without the use of heavy-handed coercive authority.

That’s when the “collapse of the Soviet Union” was in fact possible as a way to end the war economy and re-integrate into the world economy as a sovereign nation.

A key article in Red Star in 1984, written by Marshal Nikolai Vasilyevich Ogarkov, Chief of the General Staff of the USSR, between 1977 and 1984, goes into even greater detail on the matter of the major changes taking place within the sacrosanct world of nuclear weapons. According to Ogarkov, three major changes had occurred in recent years in military affairs. The first was the decreasing value of nuclear weapons as a result of their quantitative proliferation. The second was the increasing importance of conventional high-technology weapons systems. The third major change, he argued, was “the rapid development of science and technology in recent years [that] creates real preconditions for the emergence in the very near future of even more destructive and previously unknown types of weapons based on new physical principles.” Work on such weapons, Ogarkov warned, was already under way; and, he went on, it would be a serious mistake not to consider their implications “right now.”

In 2020, those prophetic words revealed what he meant when Gerbert Yefremov, a renowned engineer who played a key role in designing Russia’s newest missile systems, including the Avangard glide vehicle, told Rossiyskaya Gazeta:Our experiments with these types of things began in the Soviet times, when Obama was still a teenager… He was still a schoolboy when we were already experimenting with hypersonic tech,” said the 87-year-old designer.

And in Putin’s words:

The country had been playing catch up with the US since the Cold War in terms of military technology, but “now they are chasing after us, trying to catch up”.

So, where are we now? The US is confronting a number of catastrophic economic challenges that it cannot overcome. Since these problems have no solutions, the country can only continue to operate by borrowing money and printing money for a short period.

  • · In order to cover the shortfall in domestic energy resources, the US has attempted wars of conquest in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Libya, Syria, etc., but the walls of defenses supported by Russia and China set a red line that the US could not cross. It didn’t work.
  • · In order to fight back, the US undertook a desperate direct attempt to disrupt their economic livelihood by threatening both of the two powers through sanctions and bad press. It didn’t work.
  • · In order to divide and weaken the two rivals, it also attempted to drive a wedge between them, first attempting to woo China, then switching to wooing Russia, by hook and by crook. It didn’t work.
  • · Finally, in order to damage the world economy dominated by China, the US set out to crash the whole world economy through trade tariffs. But this backfired, damaging its own economy most. So far, it hasn’t worked.
  • · In a desperate attempt to collect rents and dividends from around the world, it created a scamdemic to promote a new GloboCop vaccine industry; with a collateral attempt to pin the blame on China, in hopes of collecting “reparations” from, for the “Wuhan Flu.” So far, it doesn’t seem to be working.
  • · In order to buttress its flagging corporate profits, it attempted to steal more of the mature, successful companies from around the world, with the latest targets being China’s Huawei and TikTok. So far, it doesn’t seem to be working.

Unfortunately the naked truth remains that the US casino & gangster economy has reached the end of its natural life.

The US superpower status is only an illusion. The US is in fact a third-world country with nukes. The US has demoted itself to the ranks of the impoverished world’s South and it is now also joining the front of Black Africa.

Yes, the upcoming Brown and Black “New America” is looking for a new persona, anti-White, pro people of color. Hence the new movement of BLM. The new continent has exhausted itself while the old and resilient civilizations of Asia and Europe are reclaiming their historical status.

By the same author, see also:

Test… Test… Test… — No, It’s About Collecting Your DNA!

Vaccines for the Useless Eaters

Why the Crash of the US is Mathematically Inevitable

Just When is the US Going to Collapse?

The Specter of a Chinese Future

Trump and the Failed (Bio)War against China

Is there a Strategy in the US’ BLM craze?

 

28530cookie-checkIs there a Strategy in the US’ BLM craze?Share this page to Telegram
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

1 Comment
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Anonymous
Anonymous
1 year ago

I find your review of history and understanding of human nature catastrophically flawed. It is right to question and compare what we learn and observe with demonstrable facts and truths. But your analysis has ignored much of what common sense reveals.