Ok, after speculations on quiet "warfare" taking place between the USA and Germany, and weird correlations with the Churchill-Lord Halifax moment of history, Version 2.0, it's time to get down to high octane speculation and weirdness once again. Last Thursday on the News and Views from the Nefarium, I reviewed Thierry Meyssan's excellent analysis of the recent Bilderberg meeting in Chantilly, Virginia, a meeting which by his accounts was the first in its long post-war history to exhibit genuinely deep divergences of analysis of the world situation, and what to do about it. To greatly oversimplify Mr. Meyssan's analysis, he thinks two basic factions were arguing it out at Chantilly: a pro-Islamic terrorism faction, and an anti-Islamic terrorism faction. The "pro" faction, representing a significant portion of the British Deep State, wants to continue the western policy of covert support of radical jihadist groups as a means of installing terrorist puppet governments in the region, and continuing, from behind the scenes, the western domination of the region and its resources, nevermind the consequences of such forms of Islam on the many people who have to live under such regimes. The "anti" faction, conversely, wants to end that policy, and sponsor measures to reform the ideology, and hence the region and its stability, and bring it into more genuine "partnership" relations.
The catch here - again radically oversimplifying Mr. Meyssan's analysis and argument - is that Mr. Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia and the arms deal he made with it, comes at a price: Saudi Arabia had to drop its sponsorship of radical terrorist groups. Now, there is something to be said about that possibility, as this short article suggests:
Note this statement:
Trump, King Salman bin Abdulaziz and Abdel Fatah al-Sisi were pictured standing with their hands on the miniature globe at the opening event for the new Global Centre for Combating Extremist Ideology on Sunday.
O.K. Suppose, for a moment, that the (out)house of Saud is ruled by genuine, thinking people who are tired of living in the Middle Ages when they're at home, and having to sneak off to the West in their private jets to have a drink in a bar or sneak a bacon, lettuce, and tomato sandwich. As such, you'd realize (1) We've inherited a genuine mess from our backward forebears, and (2) we've got to do something about it, and that means (3) somehow we have to reform and move away from "Extremist Ideology" which we're exporting all over the place in our financially-sponsored and supported mosques. So, we show our seriousness by building a "Global Centre for Combating Extremist Ideology".
On that "Meyssan-esque" reading, it makes sense, and I wait with baited breath and hopeful patience for the first Church to be open in Riyadh and built with Saudi money, as a sign of the Openness and Tolerance to Come.
But I cannot help but wonder if our friends at the Guardian in the U.K. might have, through their clumsy diction, have inadvertently given us the clue as to the real target of the (out)House of Saud when they called it "The Global Centre for Combatting Extremist Ideology on Sunday," the extremist ideology in question being that practiced on Sundays by billions of Christians.
In any case, I am, of course, deeply skeptical of any Saudi claims to be combating "extremism" until I see absolute and certain proof; and thus far, that's not forthcoming. If it happens, I'm expecting it to be more along the lines of the Nazis telling the Croatian Ustashe to tone down the atrocities because they're too much even for Nazis. But hey, it's a move in the right direction, right?
However, believe it or not, all the foregoing is just tangential to today's high octane speculation, because the title of the Guardian article is highlighting a very odd feature of Mr. Trump's visit to the outhouse (of Saud, I mean), for the thing that has been buzzing on the internet is that weird, glowing globe that the Egyptian president, Mr. Trump, and King Salman (who has a very puzzled look on his face for some reason), are holding.
The Guardian apparently didn't notice, nor am I aware that anyone else has noticed, just how strange that supposed glowing globe really is. If one looks at the top image in the article, one see the various continents of the world all in their appointed positions. But when one looks at the bottom picture, one has to look closely. What appears, at first glance, to be North America, has been shunted up to the North Pole; South America is completely missing (given it's the Saudis behind this, it's not hard to figure out why); and Australia has been moved over to where South America should be, but isn't.
At least, that's the way it looked to me the first time I saw this image.
But then I had to look even closer, and when I did, it became even more bizarre, for what looks like a wildly mis-positioned North America also looks somewhat like Antarctica, which has been flipped (through 180 degrees) and then moved to the North Pole, with Australia, once again, even lower in latitude than it really is.
It's probably nothing of course; maybe the little continent cut-outs were moved in the course of so many people touching the flowing globe during the course of the photo-op. I don't know. But, on the other hand, in a world where symbols are important message-conveyors (recall the recently-elected Vice Chancellor of France, Emmanuel Macron, giving his inaugural at the Louvre, in front of the pyramid) one has to wonder if, by some slim thread of "perhaps," the same thing is going on here.
See you on the flip side...