What's new

The Coming War on China

Sauron Rules in Washington: Neocons Firmly Believe They Can Win a Nuclear War against Russia and China

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts - Global Research, May 05, 2017

Sauron-400x225.jpg

Image. Sauron in J. R. R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings

“The problem is that the world has listened to Americans for far too bloody long.” — Dr. Julian Osborne, from the 2000 film version of Nevil Shute’s 1957 book.

Their insane plan is as follows: Washington will ring Russia and China with anti-ballistic missile bases in order to provide a shield against a retaliatory strike from Russia and China. Moreover, these US anti-ABM [Sic] bases also can deploy NUCLEAR ATTACK MISSILES unknown to Russia and China, thus reducing the warning time to five minutes, leaving Washington’s victims little or no time in which to make a decision.

russia-china.jpg

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping

The neoconservatives think that Washington’s first strike will so badly damage the Russian and Chinese retaliatory capabilities that both governments will surrender rather than launch a response. The Russian and Chinese leaderships would conclude that their diminished forces leave little chance that many of their ICBMs will be able to get past Washington’s ABM shield, leaving the US largely intact. A feeble retaliation by Russia and China would simply invite a second wave US nuclear attack that would obliterate Russian and Chinese cities, killing millions and leaving both countries in ruins.

In short, the American warmongers are betting that the Russian and Chinese leaderships would submit rather than risk total destruction.

There is no question that neoconservatives are sufficiently evil to launch a preemptive nuclear attack, but possibly the plan aims to put Russia and China into a situation in which their leaders conclude that the deck is stacked against them and, therefore, they must accept Washington’s hegemony.

To feel secure in its hegemony, Washington would have to order Russia and China to disarm.

This plan is full of risks. Miscalculations are a feature of war. It is reckless and irresponsible to risk the life of the planet for nothing more than Washington’s hegemony.

The neoconservative plan puts Europe, the UK, Japan, S. Korea, and Australia at high risk were Russia and China to retaliate. Washington’s ABM shield cannot protect Europe from Russia’s nuclear cruise missiles or from the Russian Air Force, so Europe would cease to exist. China’s response would hit Japan, S. Korea, and Australia.

The Russian hope and that of all sane people is that Washington’s vassals will understand that it is they that are at risk, a risk from which they have nothing to gain and everything to lose, repudiate their vassalage to Washington and remove the US bases. It must be clear to European politicians that they are being dragged into conflict with Russia. This week the NATO commander told the US Congress that he needed funding for a larger military presence in Europe in order to counter “a resurgent Russia.”

https://www.rt.com/news/387063-nato-counter-resurgent-russia/

Let us examine what is meant by “a resurgent Russia.” It means a Russia that is strong and confident enough to defend its interests and those of its allies. In other words, Russia was able to block Obama’s planned invasion of Syria and bombing of Iran and to enable the Syrian armed forces to defeat the ISIS force sent by Obama and Hillary to overthrow Assad.

Russia is “resurgent” because Russia is able to block US unilateral actions against some other countries.

This capability flies in the face of the neoconservative Wolfowitz doctrine, which says that the principal goal of US foreign policy is to prevent the rise of any country that can serve as a check on Washington’s unilateral action.

While the neocons were absorbed in their “cakewalk” wars that have now lasted 16 years, Russia and China emerged as checks on the unilateralism that Washington had enjoyed since the collapse of the Soviet Union. What Washington is trying to do is to recapture its ability to act worldwide without any constraint from any other country. This requires Russia and China to stand down.

Are Russia and China going to stand down? It is possible, but I would not bet the life of the planet on it. Both governments have a moral conscience that is totally missing in Washington. Neither government is intimidated by the Western propaganda. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said yesterday that we hear endless hysterical charges against Russia, but the charges are always vacant of any evidence.

https://sputniknews.com/politics/201705041053274379-lavrov-russia-us-relations/

Washington-_War-300x225.jpg


Conceivably, Russia and China could sacrifice their sovereignty for the sake of life on earth. But this same moral conscience will propel them to oppose the evil that is Washington in order not to succumb to evil themselves. Therefore, I think that the evil that rules in Washington is leading the United States and its vassal states to total destruction.

Having convinced the Russian and Chinese leaderships that Washington intends to nuke their countries in a surprise attack (see, for example, http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/04/us-forces-preparing-sudden-nuclear.html), the question is how do Russia and China respond? Do they sit there and await an attack, or do they preempt Washington’s attack with an attack of their own?

What would you do? Would you preserve your life by submitting to evil, or would you destroy the evil?

Writing truthfully results in my name being put on lists (financed by who?) as a “Russian dupe/agent.” Actually, I am an agent of all people who disapprove of Washington’s willingness to use nuclear war in order to establish Washington’s hegemony over the world, but let us understand what it means to be a “Russian agent.”

It means to respect international law, which Washington does not. It means to respect life, which Washington does not. It means to respect the national interests of other countries, which Washington does not. It means to respond to provocations with diplomacy and requests for cooperation, which Washington does not. But Russia does. Clearly, a “Russian agent” is a moral person who wants to preserve life and the national identity and dignity of other peoples.

It is Washington that wants to snuff out human morality and become the master of the planet. As I have previously written, Washington without any question is Sauron. The only important question is whether there is sufficient good left in the world to resist and overcome Washington’s evil.

The original source of this article is Paul Craig Roberts
Copyright © Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, Paul Craig Roberts, 2017

Paul_Craig_Roberts.jpg

About the author:
Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal, has held numerous university appointments. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Dr. Roberts can be reached at http://paulcraigroberts.org



Sources:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/sauron...-nuclear-war-against-russia-and-china/5588846

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/05/05/sauron-rules-washington/
 
Last edited:
America’s Top Scientists Confirm: U.S. Goal Now Is to Conquer Russia. “Disarming Enemies with a Surprise Nuclear First Strike”

The key turning-point that led up to the present crisis was the gradual and increasing acceptance, on the American side, of the concept of using nuclear weapons for conquest instead of only for deterrence

BY ERIC ZUESSE - Global Research, May 04, 2017

US-_Russia.jpg


The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists published a study, on 1 March 2017, which opened as follows:

“The US nuclear forces modernization program has been portrayed to the public as an effort to ensure the reliability and safety of warheads in the US nuclear arsenal, rather than to enhance their military capabilities. In reality, however, that program has implemented revolutionary new technologies that will vastly increase the targeting capability of the US ballistic missile arsenal. This increase in capability is astonishing — boosting the overall killing power of existing US ballistic missile forces by a factor of roughly three — and it creates exactly what one would expect to see, if a nuclear-armed state were planning to have the capacity to fight and win a nuclear war by disarming enemies with a surprise first strike.”

It continues:

Because the innovations in the super-fuze appear, to the non-technical eye, to be minor, policymakers outside of the US government (and probably inside the government as well) have completely missed its revolutionary impact on military capabilities and its important implications for global security.

This study was co-authored by America’s top three scientists specializing in analysis of weaponry and especially of the geostrategic balance between nations: Hans Kristensen, Matthew McKinzie, and Theodore Postol.

Their report continues:

This vast increase in US nuclear targeting capability, which has largely been concealed from the general public, has serious implications for strategic stability and perceptions of US nuclear strategy and intentions.

Russian planners will almost surely see the advance in fuzing capability as empowering an increasingly feasible US preemptive nuclear strike capability — a capability that would require Russia to undertake countermeasures that would further increase the already dangerously high readiness of Russian nuclear forces. Tense nuclear postures based on worst-case planning assumptions already pose the possibility of a nuclear response to false warning of attack. The new kill capability created by super-fuzing increases the tension and the risk that US or Russian nuclear forces will be used in response to early warning of an attack — even when an attack has not occurred.

The authors explain why an accidental start of World War III or global annihilation would be more likely from Russia than from the U.S.:

Russia does not have a functioning space-based infrared early warning system but relies primarily on ground-based early warning radars to detect a US missile attack. Since these radars cannot see over the horizon, Russia has less than half as much early-warning time as the United States. (The United States has about 30 minutes, Russia 15 minutes or less.)

In other words: whereas Trump would have about 30 minutes to determine whether Putin had launched a blitz-first-strike attack, Putin would have less than 15 minutes to determine whether Trump had — and if at the end of that period, on either side, there is no certainty that no blitz-first-strike attack had been launched by the other, then that person would be obligated to launch a blitz attack against the other, upon the assumption that not to do so would result not only in a toxic planet with nuclear winter and universal starvation, but also in a humiliating and scandalous absence of retaliation against that perpetrator, which would be a humiliation on top of an annihilation, and thus a sharing of blame along with the actual perpetrator, which sharing, for whatever term might remain during that passive party’s continued existence, would probably be an unbearable shame and result quickly in suicide, if that national leader’s own surviving countrymen don’t execute him before he kills himself.

Inevitably, the strictly personal morality and self-image of a nation’s leader in that type of situation are factors other than the very public global consequences that will determine the person’s decision; but, with only (at most) 15 minutes to decide on the Russian side, and 30 minutes to decide on the American side, there is an inestimably high chance now, that a nuclear war will terminate the lives of everyone who currently exists and who doesn’t soon die from the ordinary causes before then. Even the most dire projections of the dangers from global warming come nowhere close to matching that danger.

The question, now, then, is: How did the world come to this extraordinarily ominous stage? The co-authors repeatedly refer to the secretiveness at the top of the American government as one essential source, such as “… which has largely been concealed from the general public …” and “… policymakers outside of the US government (and probably inside the government as well) have completely missed …,” and these passages refer to an ordinary phenomenon in conspiracies at the top of a large criminal operation such as corporate criminality, where only a very small circle of individuals, commonly a half-dozen or even less, are made aware of the operation’s chief strategic objective and of the main tactical means that are being put into place so as to execute the plan.

In this particular instance, it wouldn’t include the head of every Cabinet department, nor anything nearly so broad as that; but, clearly, since the key decision, to implement the “super-fuze” on “all warheads deployed on US ballistic missile submarines” was made by Obama, he is the principal person reasonably to be blamed for this situation.

However, Trump as the person who has inherited this situation from his predecessor has, as yet, given no indication at all of reversing and eliminating the now-operative top U.S. strategic objective of conquering Russia. The more time that passes without Trump’s announcing to the public that he has inherited this morally repulsive operation from his predecessor and is removing all of the super-fuses, the more that Trump himself is taking ownership of Obama’s plan.

Typically in such a situation, the leader who has inherited such a plan will be assassinated if he gives any clear indication of an intention to reverse or cancel it (the key insiders are typically obsessive about ‘success’, especially at so late a stage in it); and, so, if Trump were to try to do that, he would almost certainly try to hide that fact until the inherited plan has already become effectively deactivated and no longer a threat.

The key turning-point that led up to the present crisis was the gradual and increasing acceptance, on the American side, of the concept of using nuclear weapons for conquest instead of only for deterrence — the prior system, for deterrence, having been called “MAD” for Mutually Assured Destruction, the idea that if the two nuclear superpowers were to go to war against each other, then the entire world would be destroyed so catastrophically as to make any idea of a ‘winner’ and a ‘loser’ in such a conflict a grotesque distortion of the reality: that reality being mutual annihilation and an unlivable planet. A landmark event in the process of reconceptualizing such a war as being ‘winnable’, was the publication in 2006 of two articles in the two most prestigious journals of international relations, Foreign Affairs and International Security, both formally introducing the concept of “Nuclear Primacy” or the (alleged) desirability for the U.S. to plan a nuclear conquest of Russia.

Until those two articles (both of which were co-authored by the same two authors), any such idea was considered wacky, but since then it has instead been mainstream. As the final link above (the article that’s linked-to immediately before) explains, the source even prior to George W. Bush goes all the way back to 24 February 1990 when his father, then also the U.S. President, secretly initiated the operation ultimately to conquer Russia, and within that article are links to the ultimate source-documents about that origin of the path toward world-ending nuclear war; so, getting to the original causes of the steady progression after 24 February 1990 in the direction of a conquest of Russia by the U.S. (assisted by its allies) can now be addressed by historians, even though only now is it finally being revealed to the public as news, though 27 years after it had actually begun in a very fateful decision by George Herbert Walker Bush, which has already cost American taxpayers trillions of dollars for no good purpose and resulting perhaps in the ghastliest ultimate end.

This article is being submitted for publication to all news-media without charge, in the hope that the current U.S. President will comment publicly upon it, even if only to ridicule it so as to avoid being assassinated for referring to it at all. This is an extremely dangerous time in history, and Donald Trump is now on a very hot seat, which any intelligent and accurately informed person recognizes to be the case. If ever the world needed courageous great leadership, now is the time; because, without that, we might all soon be entering hell. To avoid it, starting now 27 years after the U.S. government initiated this path, would be enormously difficult, but not yet totally impossible. This is where we are at the present time; and, ever since the coup in Ukraine in 2014, the purchases of ‘nuclear-proof’ bunkers have been soaring as a result.

This extreme danger is the new global reality. If the elimination of the threat does not come from the U.S. White House, the culmination of the threat will — regardless of which side strikes first. The decision — either to invade Russia, or else to cancel and condemn America’s decade-plus preparation to do so — can be made only by the U.S. President. If he remains silent about the matter, then Putin can reasonably proceed on the assumption that he’ll have to be the one to strike first. He didn’t place himself in that position; the U.S. regime did. Let’s hope that the U.S. will stand down the threat, now.


The original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright © Eric Zuesse, Global Research, 2017

Article links:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/americ...-with-a-surprise-nuclear-first-strike/5588524

How US nuclear force modernization is undermining strategic stability: The burst-height compensating super-fuze | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
http://thebulletin.org/how-us-nucle...tability-burst-height-compensating-super10578
 
Last edited:
Why do they think China no first use policy is stumbling block? As if USA can really wiped out all China nuclear weapon in first strike? Some of the underground bunker are even estimate to be 200m deep. And then there is the SSBN already started the patrol. I will not even be surprised there are some China merchant container ship hidden with ICBM on patrol ready for these scenario of counter strike on USA. There is no way USA can ensure China retaliation strike is not possible.

The question is, Can USA afford a dozen hydrogen warhead landed on USA in exchange for destruction of whole China?

Can you afford to be a cripple if that is the price to kill an enemy?
You have no idea about the real might of China .
There are thousands miles of underground "Great Wall" beneath the continuous mountains which could accommodate strategic missiles and troops and rails and logistic device and supply and anything needed to fight an ultimate war.

This program never stop even when China is in the poorest era .
Assured harshly damage could not meet China's demand ,but an assured mutually destruction.

Since we have supercomputer for many years , the work of simulating nuclear tests in order to impove the nuclear weaponry consistently carry on .

China could annihilate USA totally, although US have the ability of destroying China many times.
But a time of destruction is enough.
 
Last edited:
Please note that fakenewswatch com lists GlobalResearch ca among "Clickbait websites are sites that take bits of true stories but insinuate and make up other details to sew fear." Such articles mentioning "coup in Ukraine in 2014" quite often retort to similar propaganda as was used in Stalin's times. The term was "architects of human minds". You better cross check the information.
 
Please note that fakenewswatch com lists GlobalResearch ca among "Clickbait websites are sites that take bits of true stories but insinuate and make up other details to sew fear." Such articles mentioning "coup in Ukraine in 2014" quite often retort to similar propaganda as was used in Stalin's times. The term was "architects of human minds". You better cross check the information.
What do you think of "fakenewswatch" to have such authority to tell us the reader what is fake what is not fake??? Who grant it such authority? "fakenewswatch" is a name that comes from nowhere just exists after Donald Trump popularizes the FAKE NEWS media!

Do you want to accuse following contributors to GlobalResearch.ca are fake personalities?

- Dr. Paul Craig Roberts - http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/
- Ron Paul - http://ronpaulinstitute.org/

Also Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, a Canadian economist and author, a professor emeritus of economics at the University of Ottawa, has been the president and director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (globalresearch.ca / .org) since 2001... do you accuse him a fake personality?

Then you may wish to carry on that RT.com Sputniknews.com... are also fake???

- What happened in Ukraine in 2014 was a coup d'état indeed... any sane reader who does not want to swallow those FAKE NEWS manufacturers aka. the Mainstream media (MSM) knows this fact.
Victoria 'F*ck the EU' Nuland ==> Nuland Cookies; original family name was Nudelman, a Jewish.

Btw, PDF is not a Yahoo board! If articles from GlobalResearch are too much for you to digest, then go to the CNN, BBC and their cohort!

Btw you just be here for the first day... what kind of craps you're telling us here??? :hitwall::hitwall::hitwall:

-
 
china lives on exports it can't sustain itself in a war or even a prolonged proxy war , like a vase breaking into a hundred pieces, this fact has already been proven on the soviets
 
china lives on exports it can't sustain itself in a war or even a prolonged proxy war , like a vase breaking into a hundred pieces, this fact has already been proven on the soviets
Your intellect is so shocking.
Do you mean india's lack of capability of producing industrial goods give india an advantage during wartime ?

Tell me which power in the world can sustain itself if it's isolated .
It is the times of globalization.

China could export lots of goods ,cause we have good capability of manufacturing , just like Germany && Japan .
Although what you said is nonsense, i hope all indian would have the the same idea as you. :yahoo:
 
china lives on exports it can't sustain itself in a war or even a prolonged proxy war , like a vase breaking into a hundred pieces, this fact has already been proven on the soviets
China, more than any other nation, does not need to engage in war to be prosperous and get advanced, instead China has opted a peaceful rise and this principle is reaffirmed repeatedly. But a peaceful approach should not be mistaken as a position of weakness!

It has been quite obvious that China, again more than any other nation in the world, has been doing so well through the economy development and commercial engagement that war is definitely not a choice of method to achieve its objectives, war is China's last resort in defending its core interests.

Ambassador Chas W. Freeman summarized the Chinese stance and thinking wisely when he wrote following lines in his quite recent article “Avoiding War with China”, which was posted here:

The bottom line is that while Chinese warnings must be taken seriously, Chinese aggressiveness should not be overestimated. China tends to act militarily with prudence, upon warning, not rashly. Its wealth and power are growing, giving it an incentive to defer confrontations to the future, when its relative strength will be greater and new opportunities to win without fighting may arise.

The record shows that China adheres to limited objectives, limited means, and limited time scales. On the other hand, it is characteristically determined, once the die is cast, to invest whatever level of effort is required to achieve its objectives. China has been notably careful to avoid “mission creep” in the wake of success. There is no evidence that its ambitions are open-ended or unbridled. If given an inch, it is unlikely to seek to take a mile.
 
Last edited:
Please note that fakenewswatch com lists GlobalResearch ca among "Clickbait websites are sites that take bits of true stories but insinuate and make up other details to sew fear." Such articles mentioning "coup in Ukraine in 2014" quite often retort to similar propaganda as was used in Stalin's times. The term was "architects of human minds". You better cross check the information.
Weapon of mass destruction. Still remember who was lie. Past twenty years new US president. and american government officer must pass new curriculum call. Lie-ology.

china lives on exports it can't sustain itself in a war or even a prolonged proxy war , like a vase breaking into a hundred pieces, this fact has already been proven on the soviets
From what you say is. indicates that many India read less than 1 paragraph per day.
 
Last edited:
What do you think of "fakenewswatch" to have such authority to tell us the reader what is fake what is not fake??? Who grant it such authority? "fakenewswatch" is a name that comes from nowhere just exists after Donald Trump popularizes the FAKE NEWS media!

Do you want to accuse following contributors to GlobalResearch ca are fake personalities?

Then you may wish to carry on that RT com Sputniknews com... are also fake???

- What happened in Ukraine in 2014 was a coup d'état indeed... any sane reader who does not want to swallow those FAKE NEWS manufacturers aka. the Mainstream media (MSM) knows this fact.
Victoria 'F*ck the EU' Nuland ==> Nuland Cookies; original family name was Nudelman, a Jewish.

Btw, PDF is not a Yahoo board! If articles from GlobalResearch are too much for you to digest, then go to the CNN, BBC and their cohort!

Btw you just be here for the first day... what kind of craps you're telling us here???
-
Notes on Reliability of Sources:
General picture:

There are huge differences between various cultures, various organizations and various people in how to behave towards such things as telling the truth and keeping up agreements. Those extremely different views on proper behavior collide all the time.

Western MSM has heavy bias against China and some smaller socialistic regimes. Real or imagined failures and all kinds of negative speculations are a constant theme. Very limited space is given for achievements or prospects of future progress. Sometimes they still may have good articles from outside correspondents.

Chinese sources are generally reliable but leave things untold. It's not at all the usual stuff 'the secret police is cruel' but something totally unique more like a monk organization.

Russian media added nationalistic and propaganda themes some years back.

There are many local hostilities that affect local news. Say the conflict between Pakistan and India.
Add some local sources to this and you may find the most likely picture.

More explanation:
When CIA was created around 1950 it was assigned the task to forward anti-communist propaganda outside of USA. Even lying was permitted "as the communists do it anyway". In 1970 during later part of Vietnam war some whistle blowers appeared. They revealed that most news media in US had eagerly taken a voluntary part in those operations. CIA analysts, who are supposed to present a true picture to US leadership, were frustrated when they understood to have used such misinformation as basis of work. Later in 1980 CIA was able to return with even bigger coverage.

For a considerable time after the collapse of Soviet Union some Russian media provided good coverage of various subjects. The collapse of the economy as guided by Russian and US Harward economists caused deep and lasting distrust. Then with Chetchenian, Georgian and Ukrainian wars came re-establisment of propaganda machinery in new forms. Wladimir Putin and some of his close associates have background in such an organization where loyalty is essential. Part of that is capability to believe own propaganda. Sites like rt com and sputniknews com are important as they convey Russian views but they do not always search the unbiased truth. Old Soviet Union, especially in Stalins time, had an enormous 'double talk' problem. The official claim told in schools was that socialism is the highest form of humanity. The men in secret police knew that the boss wants all those suspect or questionable people to be eliminated before dawn. There are no innocents, only persons who have not been interrogated properly.

Communist China has a tradition of telling the truth but not all truths. It may come partly from Confusian "man of integrity" tradition and partly from military needs to get good and bad news just as accurately, I can't say. Xinhua has a large network of correspondents but they are seen as semi-official diplomats. This means they generally convey local government views and are unable to say much from rebel sources, say Iraqi or Syrian situations. Citizens are required to "keep military secrets, keep state secrets and keep the three secrets".

(Actually I appreciate much the work that Samsara does to find information but some sources really have problems.)
 
Notes on Reliability of Sources:
General picture:

There are huge differences between various cultures, various organizations and various people in how to behave towards such things as telling the truth and keeping up agreements. Those extremely different views on proper behavior collide all the time.

Western MSM has heavy bias against China and some smaller socialistic regimes. Real or imagined failures and all kinds of negative speculations are a constant theme. Very limited space is given for achievements or prospects of future progress. Sometimes they still may have good articles from outside correspondents.

Chinese sources are generally reliable but leave things untold. It's not at all the usual stuff 'the secret police is cruel' but something totally unique more like a monk organization.

Russian media added nationalistic and propaganda themes some years back.

There are many local hostilities that affect local news. Say the conflict between Pakistan and India.
Add some local sources to this and you may find the most likely picture.

An afterthought to the previous:
I'm not quite sure but I think that in 1960's as China - Soviet relations soured the Soviet medias started to borrow much Western material related to China. Such CIA inspired news could explain a couple of things:
1. Even today many Russian leaders seem to be somehow at a loss concerning China. They just can't understand what China is asking and what not and how the economy is guided and how not.
2. Even today many left leaning persons and organizations in the West are heavily anti-China. As the Western communist parties followed quite closely in Soviet footsteps it may be that those people are not all evil or stupid, they just received in their youth a heavy dose of propaganda and believed it all to keep their ratings as sensible persons.
 
The Reset

It presents the thesis that The Age of Capital has ended. It’s over and finished, the System known as Capitalism is presently defunct. All chapters were authored by numerous subject experts. For example, content pertaining to Nuclear destruction of Russia is authored by those with working knowledge of such. The reader should understand content is not theoretical, actual power factions are presently and actively pursuing this proven solution, as they believe such a war is winnable. That also highlights the level of desperation at the Top.

You see, the alternative is The Reset which is just as dangerous. How to change the System Framework within which the economy operates, alongside operational and legal changes to ownership, without System and social disintegration? Think of all the people you know, and how they’ll react. The Reset is dangerous and that’s why ‘the can’ has been kicked for ten years. I’d like to personally thank the FED and other public officers for keeping the System stable for so long. It is popular to criticize such public servants, but as you’ll come to understand, such criticism is, at best, misdirected. Of course they’re responsible for building the biggest Ponzi scam in human history which is on the brink of collapse; but as you’ll see, they had no choice. Capitalism is a Usury driven system of growth which demands that future production is always greater than past production. If it isn’t ‘growth’ must by synthesized by magic money; and before you complain contemplate the alternative: Collapse of the System which keeps you alive. It is assumed that the reader has read volume 1 and 2, without which, universal understanding is not possible.

https://beforethecollapse.com/2017/05/23/the-reset/
 
Back
Top Bottom