PRIVATIZING (CORPORATIZING) WARFARE

January 4, 2019 By Joseph P. Farrell

Mr. G.P. spotted this important story from Russia's RT site, and passed it on. As you might have guessed from the title of today's blog, it has my high octane speculation motor running in overdrive, for earlier this week I blogged about Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s interview with Fox Network personality Tucker Carlson on the legal immunities afforded to the vaccine industry/Big Pharma, speculating on the possibility that some of his remarks during that interview might indicate that some sort of quiet "mafia war" might be taking place in the mafia mobocracy that is Globaloneyism.

There's another indicator that such might be taking place, and it's this:

‘We are coming’: Chilling Blackwater ad triggers fears of Trump seeking to privatize Mideast wars

In a nutshell, the article speculates that the recent resignation of General Mattis from the Trump administration might not be quite the harbinger of a policy change in Syria that many think it to be. The policy may indeed have changed, according to the article, but not necessarily in such a fashion that the USA is getting out of Syria, but rather, turning over operations to a corporate proxy and actor:

The resurrection within the military contractors’ market of notorious Blackwater, which, after numerous scandals and several rebrandings, is now known as Academi, has analysts looking deeper into US intent to withdraw from the wars in the Middle East. The advertisement in Recoil, made public after Defense Secretary Jim Mattis announced his resignation, prompted concerns that president Donald Trump might be seeking to privatize ongoing American engagements in Afghanistan and Syria, following the declared troops' withdrawal from the region.

The main supporter of the idea of privatizing the US fighting in the Middle East has been Erik Prince, the former head of Blackwater. The longtime Republican sold the company in 2010 but has maintained communications with Trump, reportedly trying to lobby his inner circle to replace the US military presence in the region with mercenaries. Mattis, who served in the Persian Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq, firmly rejected the idea.

“With Mattis now gone it is conceivable that Trump now may reevaluate” Prince's proposal, Michael Maloof, former Pentagon security analyst, told RT.

But whether or not Mr. Trump eventually green lights Mr. Prince's proposal to "privatize" (and thus, in my opinion, to piratize) middle eastern conflict, I suspect the real story here is that we're getting a first major-media public glimpse at a trend that is bound to increase, regardless of what Mr. Trump may or may not decide to do. Mr. Globaloney has been preaching about the need to turn over global governance to corporations and big banks for a long, long time. Think only of vowel-less Zbgnw Brznsk's books The Technotronic Era and The Global Chessboard or David Rockefailure's Memoirs where he openly boasts about advocating treasonous views. Think, also, of Mad Madam Merkel's recent pronouncements about giving up national sovereignty, and ignoring the clear and express wishes of national citizenries, all to inaugurate the New World Order. Or, conversely, think only of Russian President Putin's remarks against the globaloneyist dogmas.

Any way one slices it, corporations and banks, if they're truly going to "run" things, will have to have militaries in order to enforce their will. Thus far, they have hidden behind national militaries. But indeed, with corporate (defense contractor) control of advanced technologies and the increased reliance of governments on such corporations for their communications, record-keeping, security and so on, there's really no reason to prevent corporations from announcing their de facto sovereignty by recruiting their own security and mercenary forces.  (And besides, if my speculation about the Middle Eastern wars being as much about acquiring and holding ancient records and technologies and archeological sites be true, privatizing the whole enterprise puts yet another veil of security around the operation). And there's another reason perhaps pressuring the move to military corporatization: what if corporation X is unsatisfied with the result, say, of a recent government contract bid, or, indeed, if a government contract has been awarded without any competition at all, to corporation Y? Corporation X feels it has been slighted, that the scales are deliberately tipped against it. How will it enforce its interests against corporation Y?

In other words, and to put it country simple, we might be looking at a future when wars are fought, not just between countries, but between counties like Russia (clearly not interested in being a player in Mr. Globaloney's vision of a tyrannical corporate future), and corporations, or for that matter, between corporations themselves.

And corporations, unlike countries, are not signatories to things like the Geneva convention or treaties outlawing the use of certain types of weapons. Their corporate charters do not enshrine, nor are they required to enshrine, any statements of recognition of human rights such as are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. They do not subscribe to "rules of engagement."

There is one thing that might stand in the way of such a grizzly future, besides Russian hypersonic thermonuclear cruise missiles, but I'll let you figure that one out for yourself...

See you on the flip side...