October 7, 2016 By Joseph P. Farrell

If you've been listening to the Hysteria or Lunacy Indices lately, you'll have noticed that the diplomatic war of words between the USSA and Russia has been reaching new levels of bluster, to the point that it's becoming very difficult to parse the words for some sort of genuine reality or understanding. In the last few days, we've seen the USSA tell Russia that they weren't playing by our rulebook in Syria, and that as a consequence, we were very upset and going to sit in a corner and pout all by our-basket-of-deplorable-selves with our irretrievably dark hearts. Oh, wait, that's just what Darthillary thinks of people who don't like her... oh, wait, that's what she thinks of Mr Putin and all those people in Russia that don't like her. Wait a minute... I must have missed something, but when did the Russians become Republicans? It must have been when they hacked the DNC emails... oh, wait a minute, there's no evidence that they did that....

... sigh, it's becoming so difficult to follow the lamestream media narrative lately, but I'll keep trying.

Well, anyway, back to the Lunacy and Hysteria Indices (please note, these are analytical breakdowns for Catherine Austin Fitts' Shriek-o-Meter): the diplomatic language between Moscow and the Washington, District of Corruption, has reached new heights. Not only has the District of Corruption decided to sit in its foggy bottom and pout, but according to these stories shared by Mssrs. T.M. and B.G., Russia is using a slightly different language, language that as you might expect has me wondering all sorts of high octane speculations, and that may have the analysts (preferably the ones who are not recent graduates of American quackademia with degrees in gender sensitivity studies) in the Pentagram burning the midnight oil once again. Here's the CNBC version of it.

Russia warns US of potential 'terrible' consequences if Syrian forces attacked

And here's the SeeBS version of the story:

Russia warns U.S. of “tectonic consequences” in Syria

At least the SeeBS story gets the actual warning correct, so we'll focus our high octane speculation on that version of the story:

Russian news agencies quoted Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova as saying that a U.S. intervention against Assad regime forces in the five-year-old Syrian civil war “will lead to terrible, tectonic consequences not only on the territory of this country but also in the region on the whole.”

One has to wonder what, exactly, is meant by "tectonic consequences not only on the territory of (Syria) but also in the region on the whole." Presumably by "region" Ms. Zakharova means the Middle East as commonly understood, the Arabian peninsula, Mesopotamia, trans-Jordan, Syria, the Levant, and Asia Minor. Or, conceivably, she might mean the whole Islamic world in that region, from Libya to Iran and Pakistan. Given yesterday's News and Views from the Nefarium and the recent Libyan request for Russian aid, I suspect she means the latter.

And that leads us to what could she possibly have meant by such an unusual choice of words, what did Russia mean by "tectonic consequences"? There is, of course, the "geopolitical" reading, suggested of course by Ms. Zakharova's comments. The USSA's now decade and a half "war on terror" has hardly secured any of the objectives that were claimed for it: it has destablized Iraq, is attempting to destablize Syria, it has overthrown the secular state in Egypt and only narrowly avoided a completely radicalized government there, and again, overthrew Gaddafi in Libya, and created yet another mess. If the goal was to stabilize the region, gain its oil, and/or force those nations into the western central banking system, the whole thing looks somewhat less than successful. If you're a "zionist conspiracy" nut, then it seems to have fallen a bit short of the "greater Israel" project.

Granted, there have been "geopolitical" tectonic shifts in the entire region: the Russian intervention in Syria being one of them. Effectively, Russia has drawn the line, and simply will not allow the USSA to dictate an American imperium in the Middle East. As a consequence of this, we've seen the nearly 180 degree turn of Sultan Erdogan. The US-Iran deal, with its apparent ransom payment, is another sign of growing US weakness in the region. And as I pointed out in yesterday's News and Views, the Libyan request shows something else: the more moderate elements in the Islamic world remember what US and Western (largely French) intervention did to that country. As I also noted in recent days, there have been other "tectonic shifts" in the region, with special Chinese envoys to Damascus, and an open invitation from President Assad to India to join in the reconstruction of that country. So such invitation was extended to the European powers, or to the USSA.

So perhaps Ms. Zakharova's warning simple means "expect more of the same if you continue down this path," i.e., expect more defections from your allies, even, perhaps, those in Europe. (The subject of another blog I'm afraid).

But let me shift out of low gear into high gear high octane speculation. The Russians know the diplomatic game well; after all, they've been playing it for about a thousand years (a lot longer than the USSA in other words), and have been playing it with some of the best players on the planet: Byzantium, the Mongols, Venice, the British, the Poles, the Swedes, the Germans, the Chinese, the Vatican... you get the idea. They know how to send messages, particularly, messages with potentially several layers of meaning. It's those other less obvious, potential layers of meaning that intrigue me here.

The word "tectonic," in its most basic meaning, is a term of geophysics, and refers to the tectonic plates that comprise the pieces, the "bone structure" if you will, of the Earth's surface. When those plates shift or move, one gets earthquakes. We've been certainly watching tectonic plate shifts in the Middle East, but what if Ms. Zakharova's choice of words means something else? What if, parsing the phrase in its most basic and obvious means, she simple is talking about earthquakes themselves, and the means to produce them?

Years ago on Ms. George Ann Hughes' The Byte Show I spoke about the possibility of earthquake weapons - as destructive as the largest thermonuclear weapons - having been used around the time of the German reunification, as several severe earthquakes struck Georgia, home of then Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shervadnadze. Similarly, I maintained at the time of the Fukushima disaster that there were a number of indicators that suggested a tectonic weapon might have been used against Japan. Again, in the Haiti earthquake, and the earthquake that followed near Paral, Chile, shortly thereafter, I again suggested the use of earthquake weapons, and even of an actual earthquake war. Catherine Austin Fitts has suggested, on similar lines of reasoning - natural disasters closely following unusual political or economic activity - that the tsunami in Indonesia was a similar tectonic weapon in use. (Indeed, there were even World War Two studies on how to produce tsunamis prior to Allied amphibious invasions, with, incidentally, particular attention being given to their use against the Japanese home islands themselves... dig for it, it's out there, you'll find it.) There have been disastrous earthquakes in Japan and China, also during this time period and in key  industrial cities.

The Middle East is, of course, an earthquake prone region.

But so is California... the lower American plains...

And of course, the ultimate earthquake weapon would be one which could "crack" that "bone" structure, and create, and exploit, new fault lines.

So why the history lesson that I just reviewed of the potential use of such weapons? Well, for one thing, note that most of these occasions were against enemy states to affect a political outcome (the Soviet earthquakes and German reunification), or uses against friendly states appearing like they were going to go off the reservation (Japan and Fukushima. This, I suspect, is the "deep reason" in fact, behind Japanese rearmament). In other words, all uses in my short review suggest a "western" monopoly on the technology.

So perhaps Ms. Zakharova is really saying, "we know about it, and have it too." Think about that, for such a technology, equally destructive as any large nuclear weapon, has no radioactive after effects on the user of the weapon. And for such a statement, coming from the foreign ministry of a country that has recently shut down our most sophisticated missile frigates in the Donald Cook incident, and then performed the same task over all of Syria early in the Russian intervention there, this has to give those Pentagram analysts pause(that is, the analysts that are at least concerned with the defense of the nation, not the nutcases writing gender sensitivity  manuals for Ash Carter's "sensitive" military.)

In short, "tectonic consequences" might mean just that, tectonic consequences.

See you on the flip side...