BY MIKE HAINES
This post is the second part of a series about the New World Order. See Part I here. Normally, this blog is about sexual strategy and picking up girls. If you’re more interested in seduction and game, see some of my classic posts.
CORRUPTION IS WHAT KEEPS US SAFE AND WARM — Syriana
In the first part of this series, What If The Illuminati Are The Good Guys?, I suggested to you that:
1. The world is secretly controlled by a small, cohesive oligarchy, centered in international finance and the U.S. military industrial complex.
2. The ultimate objective of this group is to create a World Government, the primary purpose of which is to protect the free market system and crush resistance to capitalism
3. The aims of this secret government are basically good, even if their methods are sometimes brutal and unjust
This view of power is particularly useful when trying to assess American foreign policy in the Middle East since 9/11.
Why was the U.S. government so desperate to go into Iraq before they even knew whether or not Saddam had WMDs?
Why is America currently bombing 7 different countries?
What’s the underlying logic of U.S. intervention in Syria?
And how does U.S. imperialism fit into the context of the “New World Order” that I’ve been describing in this series?
These are the questions I’ll attempt to answer definitively in this post.
THE GRAND STRATEGY OF THE AMERICAN EMPIRE:
A “SYSTEMS THEORY” ANALYSIS OF U.S. POWER
Here’s my basic argument in a nutshell:
1. American power is based upon the U.S.’s ability to force oil-producing countries to accept payment for oil exclusively in dollars (this is sometimes referred to as the Petrodollar System)
2. America’s ability to enforce “dollar hegemony” in oil payments artificially strengthens the US dollar and allows American banks to loan as much money as they want without fear of inflation
3. U.S. banks can create money out of nothing, with few consequences, due to the military-backed dollar hegemony system. And this is principally what has made America the richest country on earth.
The U.S. Empire is a system. This system has two major “nodes”:
- the financial sector
- the military industrial complex
Each of these nodes are interdependent and symbiotic.
The military industrial complex needs MONEY to support itself. It gets this from BANKERS.
The bankers, in turn, need a STRONG MILITARY to force the oil-producing countries to sell oil in dollars, thus propping up the dollar so that the bankers can create money out of nothing without worrying too much about inflation.
What makes the U.S. imperial system invincible is its flywheel structure.
> Being the richest nation on earth allows the U.S. to spend more money on its military…
> More military spending makes it easier to enforce “dollar hegemony” in world oil markets…
> Dollar hegemony allows the U.S. banking sector to print money at will without it causing inflation…
> Endless money printing sustains America’s wealth and keeps it the richest nation on earth…
…and so on, ad infinitum.
The American Empire is a system. It’s not just based on military force. And it’s not just based on money.
It’s based on a symbiotic relationship between the two, which mutually strengthen and guarantee each other.
It is a beautifully designed system.
Most people think that American foreign policy is ugly and chaotic — and it seems that way on the surface.
But the secret principle that underpins American power is in fact deeply elegant.
Real genius went into designing this system. And only genius will sustain it.
THE VULNERABILITY OF THE SYSTEM
The system’s only vulnerability is that you need to control the oil-producing countries.
If you lose control of how oil is priced, you lose everything.
As it stands, the fact that oil sales are denominated in dollars basically gives America a license to print money.
But if the OPEC nations or other major oil producers stop selling oil in dollars, the whole system breaks down — and the U.S. will no longer be able to print money without it causing hyperinflation.
And that’s why the U.S. invaded Iraq.
In October 2000 Saddam Hussein tried to mess with this arrangement, by announcing that Iraq would accept payment for oil in euros instead of dollars.
Consequently, Iraq was invaded and Saddam’s regime was replaced with one that switched the policy back to accepting payment for oil in dollars.
This was the real reason for the war in Iraq. Everything else is merely misdirection.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. 9/11 was simply a good opportunity to market the Iraq war to the American people.
It was a war that had to happen — and that the US establishment was going to make happen one way or another — long before the first plane hit the WTC.
That’s why within hours of the WTC coming down, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was already trying to seek justification for a war in Iraq:
“On the afternoon of 9/11, with part of his building still burning and smoke eddying through the corridors, Rumsfeld was already pondering how to shift attention in a new direction.
At 2:40 pm, still in the command center, he told General Richard Myers to find the ‘best info fast… judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. @ same time — not only U.B.L.’
S.H. was of course Saddam Hussein, while U.B.L., in [the] preferred spelling, was Usama bin Laden.”
— excerpted from Rumsfeld: An American Disaster, by Andrew Cockburn, p. 9
Most people see the Middle East as a massively confusing clusterfuck of shifting alliances.
But when you look at the Middle East through the Petrodollar Filter, everything becomes much clearer.
Selling oil in dollars (like Saudi Arabia and Qatar do) makes you an ally of the U.S.
And eventually the U.S. will take out these enemies, and install in their place friendly regimes whose primary qualification will be obedience to dollar hegemony.
It’s only a matter of time.
THE GRAND CHESSBOARD
Ok, so our “systems theory” analysis of the U.S. empire and the petrodollar gives us a coherent rationale for why the U.S. invaded Iraq.
Iraq went off the petrodollar in 2000 — thus threatening the symbiotic U.S. banking and military system — and so it had to be punished.
Syria went off it in 2006, precipitating ongoing U.S. intervention in the region.
But this naturally begs the question:
Why did Iraq go off the petrodollar?
Why do any of these shit-kicking little regimes do so — if they know the result will be massive military retaliation and becoming a global pariah?
The short answer is that they’re being backed by rival superpowers like Russia and China, who naturally want to make the U.S. weak so that they can expand.
Generally speaking, U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has little to do with the region itself, and everything to do with “the Great Game” of global superpower politics.
You can’t understand the wars that are going on unless you see them within a larger context — as plays on a much bigger chessboard.
The principal players in this chess game are the U.S. and Russia. (China is a wild-card who could decide to ally with either side and thus give them a preponderance of overwhelming force.)
THE COLD WAR NEVER ENDED
THE SOVIET UNION NEVER REALLY COLLAPSED
In 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed and the U.S. found itself the world’s only superpower.
But there was a problem.
Countries like Japan and China were rising fast, and if trends continued, they looked poised to overtake the U.S.
And Russia wouldn’t be out of the game long either.
In fact, in 1984 a former KGB major named Golitsyn predicted that the Soviet Union would fake its own collapse, in order to lull the West into a false sense of security.
But that’s just some crazy defector, right?
But it’s interesting to note that in his book Wedge: The Secret War Between The FBI And CIA, Mark Riebling states that “of Golitsyn’s falsifiable predictions, 139 out of 148 were fulfilled by the end of 1993— an accuracy rate of 94 percent.”
So in the 90s, U.S. imperial policymakers were skeptical that the post-Soviet utopian world would continue to persist. And they had good reason to be.
It was only a matter of time before Russia got back on its feet.
And before that could happen, it was imperative to take the advantage and secure a favorable global order for America.
Hence the much maligned and much misunderstood neocon movement.
Here’s Four Star General Wesley Clark summing up the mood among the neocons in 1991.
(The relevant part begins at 2.54)
“[In 1991] I had [a meeting] with Paul Wolfowitz. In 2001 he was Deputy Secretary of Defense, but in 1991 he was the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. It’s the number three position of the Pentagon…
And I said to Paul — and this is 1991 — I said: ‘Mr. Secretary you must be pretty happy with the performance of the troops in Desert Storm.’
And he said ‘Well, yeah, but not really, because the truth is we should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and we didn’t…
But one thing we did learn, [was] that we can use our military in the region… and the Soviets won’t stop us.
And we’ve got about five or ten years to clean up those old Soviet client regimes: Syria, Iran, Iraq — before the next great super-power comes on to challenge us.’…
And here’s General Clark telling the story of how he first found that the U.S. was going to war in Iraq, less than 2 weeks after 9/11:
“About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz.
I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in.
He said, ‘Sir, you’ve got to come and talk to me a second.’…
He says, ‘We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.’
This was on about the 20th of September.
I said, ‘We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?’
He said, ‘I don’t know… I guess they don’t know what else to do.’
So I said, ‘Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?’
He said, ‘No, no… There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq… I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.’…
So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing Afghanistan.
I said, ‘Are we still going to war with Iraq?’
And he said, ‘Oh, it’s worse than that.’
He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, ‘I just got this down from upstairs’ — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — ‘today’.
And he said, ‘This is the memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off, Iran.’
I said, ‘Is it classified?’
He said, ‘Yes, sir.’
I said, ‘Well, don’t show it to me.’
And I saw him a year ago, and I said, ‘You remember that?’
He said, ‘Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!’ ”
WAS THE IRAQ WAR A “FAILURE”?
Most people think that invading Iraq was a mistake, and that the U.S. should get out of the Middle East.
But when looked at through the Petrodollar Filter, we see a very different picture.
The U.S. had no choice but to go into Iraq.
If Saddam had started selling oil in euros — and hadn’t been made an example of — it would project U.S. weakness, and other oil states could start challenging the petrodollar too.
Likewise, it would be strategically foolish for the U.S. to leave the Middle East now, for the same reasons.
“INTRODUCE A LITTLE ANARCHY…”
Maybe you think that American intervention in the region is counter-productive to U.S. interests because it’s done nothing but cause chaos and instability.
Yet according to General Clark, destabilization is itself the goal:
See this video from 5:16.
“[In 2000] this country was taken over by [the neocons]: Wolfowitz, and Cheney, and Rumsfeld, and… a half-dozen other collaborators from the Project for a New American Century. They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control.”
Let that last phrase sink in.
“They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control.”
This statement seems confusing initially.
Destabilizing something in order to bring it under control seems like a contradiction in terms.
This is because we typically tend to think of “control” as a process of making something more ordered.
But in fact (and there parallels to PUA here), destabilizing something is indeed the best way to control it.
Think of martial arts. The whole idea is to put your opponent off balance.
When you can destabilize his center of gravity, you can take the advantage.
Same thing with U.S. policy in the Middle East. If the U.S.’s foreign wars seem chaotic, it’s because creating chaos was the whole point.
Chaos and instability allows you to justify a permanent military presence in the region.
And what’s the advantage of having a permanent presence in the region?
That’s right — you can continue to enforce compliance to the petrodollar standard on the oil states.
It’s the classic divide et impera strategy of the Romans.
Split up your enemies into rival factions. Empower different groups at the expense of others. Then, when on group gets too powerful, switch sides.
In this way, you attain a balance of power which allows you to rule.
Chaos and instability gives you a reason to pour troops into the region and set up bases and infrastructure.
And once that infrastructure of control is securely in place, you can then establish peace and order — when it’s profitable to your interests to do so.
One day — sooner or later — that time will come.
But it won’t happen until the U.S. has achieved a permanent center of control in the region which is invulnerable to challenge by Russia or China.
And that’s going to take a while.
Because that’s the hard part.
THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE
Maybe you think it’s terrible that the US went to war in Iraq purely to maintain its empire.
Maybe you even think that it’s criminal for the US to invade other countries in order to enforce the hegemony of the dollar so that US banks can create money out of thin air to enrich the top 1%.
And this may be so. But what’s the alternative?
The alternative is to let a rising power like Russia get a hold off the region.
And what will happen if they do?
1. First, they’ll use military force to pressure the oil producing countries to accept payment for oil in euros, or in a basket of currencies, rather than in US dollars.
2. The result of this would be to collapse the dollar, plunging the U.S. into hyperinflation. (Remember, this was the situation that pertained in the 1970’s when the U.S. was an economic wasteland, and was the original problem which the petrodollar system was invented to solve.)
3. Living standards would plummet and American citizens would be unable to afford food, energy, and basic resources.
4. The U.S. government would be unable to pay its debts, precipitating a global financial crisis which would make 2008 look like a child’s tea party.
5. The global economy would crash, triggering financial armageddon via the collapse of trillions of dollars of derivatives
6. Possible outcome: civil war in the U.S., protracted by foreign intervention and eventually followed by occupation of American soil by a foreign power.
U.S. MILITARISM IS A NECESSARY EVIL
Maybe you think I’m being overly dramatic about the U.S.’s inability to withstand the demise of the petrodollar system.
Or maybe you think that if upending the petrodollar would have such catastrophic results for the global financial system, then no country would be crazy enough to do it — not even Russia.
But I think this is to misjudge Russia’s incentives.
Sure, a global financial crash would be terrible for America, Europe and China.
But Russia — as the least indebted of all the major military powers — would not be as badly hurt by a global financial collapse.
In fact, as one of the world’s largest producers of oil, they would actually be in a position to profit from skyrocketing oil prices triggered by hyperinflation.
And militarily, in the power vacuum that would be created by a U.S. collapse, Russia could invade Europe (which is their stated goal).
Ultimately, we would be looking at an entirely new configuration of global power in which America takes a greatly reduced role, and Russia is the world’s primary superpower.
And whatever the potential benefits of living under such a system, I suspect that democracy, freedom of speech, and free markets would all take a hit, and living standards for everyone would be lower as a result.
The powers that be cannot let such a thing happen, nor should they.
And so the U.S. will continue to have a strong military presence in the Middle East in order to enforce the petrodollar.
Because the result of failing to do so would be catastrophic.
Of course, the American foreign policy elite can never openly admit that this is the calculus governing their decisions.
Most people are too simple-minded to see the “three-dimensional chess game” which those in power are playing.
And so people debate the War in Iraq, or the US intervention in Syria, in a simplistic way — taking the public pronouncements of the US government at face value.
The real truth of the matter is that the US has no choice but to continue to intervene in the Middle East in order to justify a strong presence in the region.
The alternative would be to countenance the collapse of the entire system and the implosion of America’s economy, for a start, followed by a probable Russian invasion of Europe.
Imperial oil wars may not be pretty. But they were, and are, necessary.
As Henry Kissinger said:
“While we should never give up our principles, we must also realize that we cannot maintain our principles unless we survive.”
Are you a single man with high standards?
Increasingly, men today are unable to attract a woman they consider worthy of being “girlfriend-material”.
If this is a problem you have, you should check out my book The Domination Principle, because it will teach you how to use the power of dominance to attract beautiful women and make them “sexually addicted” to you.
Learn more here.