User Answers


April 3, 2018 By Joseph P. Farrell

Both before and after the BREXIT vote took place, I was offering the hypothesis that Great Britain had little to lose and everything to gain by getting out of the European Union. The latter entity is what results when one follows the goofy 1942 plans of the Reichsbank and I.G. Farben for a Grossraum in which the Grossraumkartel can operate. (For that story, one may take a look at my book The Third Way.) Fundamentally, the view of the technocrats and other sprouts in Brussels is an inhuman one, for they care little about culture or cultures, and everything about regulation and bureaucracy. I've always thought it both ironic and highly apt that the leader of the E.U., Jean Claude Juncker, carries a surname synonymous with the worst features of Prussian bureaucracy and and its worship of the all-powerful state.  All that the E.U. lacks is a Hohenzollern to lead it.

In Britain's case, I was - and remain - of the opinion that with the "soft power" card being played so much on the world stage these days (think only of Vladimir Putin in this respect), one of its crucial advantages is the British Commonwealth. With the BREXIT vote, I thought, Britain would have a golden opportunity  perhaps to lead and mold the Commonwealth into a more cohesive bloc, and I predicted that it would even extend some sort of "Associate Member" status to the former colonies now calling themselves "The United States of America." This hypothesis was based upon what for me was the signal event which occurred prior to the BREXIT referendum: the Queen's "little dinner" with the Vice Premier. Normally when the monarch invites one around for tea and dinner at the palace, the conversations remain private and only the most glittering generalities are shared with the public. In this case however, "somehow" the subject of the conversation became public, and the subject of the conversation appeared to have been the Queen asking the Vice Premier if he could name three good things about the E.U.

My suspicion is that Angela Merkel and Jean-Claude Juncker were not at the top of the palatial list.

Then came the visit of the now newly-anointed Emperor of China, Mr. Xi Jinping which was, let us be quick to recall, a state visit (for those of you in Sacramento, Nuttyfornia, that means a visit with the Queen).

Something was afoot, I thought, and my suspicions were all but confirmed when, after the BREXIT vote, voila the British Commonwealth extended an invitation to President Trump to forget about all that 1776 and 1812 stuff, and become some sort of associate member. Mr. Trump, in an unusual display of abnormal decorum, indicated that he'd think about it.

What does all this mean? With the American tax cuts, the drain of dollars from Europe as they "reshore", the move of the Bundesbank now to include Chinese reminbi as a reserve currency, it would appear that Mr. Globaloney (which to my mind is always associated with the "Anglo-Sphere", the City of London, Wall Street &c.), has decided to reconfigure and revitalize its power base: North America, and the Commonwealth.

Why am I bothering you with all this review, however? Because Ms. K.M. noticed the following article by M. Thierry Meyssan, which, while differing in some particulars of analysis, is basically saying the same thing:

Theresa May’s Foreign Policy

The May Government's timing is impeccable, for the recent German elections have so weakened Mad Madam Merkel's government, and the Italian elections have thrown such a huge monkey wrench into that 1942 plan for a "European federation" (led by guess who), the stage is right and ripe for such a "rethink". Notably, notes Meyssan, this rethink includes the following (and note Meyssan's usage of Russian political philosopher Alexander Dugin's use of the term "thalassocratic" to designate that bloc opposed to the Eurasian land powers, i.e., Russia and China):

In any case, Global Britain today may be defined as follows :
- the promotion of international free exchange, but exclusively in the thalassocratic context, in other words with the United States against the Chinese communication routes;
- and the attempt to exclude Russia from the Security Council and cut the world in two, which implies the on-going manipulation with chemical weapons in Syria, and the Skripal affair.

The price of excluding Russia from the UN Security Council might come too high however, i.e., at the admission of Germany and Japan as permanent members, but that's another story. But in any case, the bottom line here is that the turn-of-the-century insights of British geopolitician, Halford Mackinder, about the struggle between the sea-powers and the land powers are still operative. The difference now, of course, is that it is not sea power, but space power, which will be the ultimate arbiter.

What's the goal of all of this? What's my high octane speculation?

This is where it becomes difficult to tell, for under certain circumstances these developments could be very good things. But under other circumstances, this could indicate that the plutocrats running the western world have decided to limit their pillaging of the globe to a less ambitious project: the rape of North America in the guise of "privitaization" and "limited government" by selling off public assets for pennies on the dollar: the post-Soviet "rape of Russia" scenario, but applied to North America.

That model and its explanatory power makes sense of quite a few dots, but you'll have to wait for the latest Solari quarterly review with former Housing and Urban Development Assistant Secretary Catherine Austin Fitts to post in the members' area to see how and why. But I think it's well worth your consideration.

See you on the flip side...