by Michael Krieger
Prepare for a
If pressed to describe what I think the next several years will look
like as concisely as possible, I'd simply provide the following
quote, often misattributed to Lenin:
"There are decades
where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades
There will be many such
weeks from now until 2025, with the end result an emergence of
a multi-polar world that will permanently unseat
the unipolar U.S. imperial
Since World War 2, the U.S. has successfully sustained a position of
global dominance unlike anything the world's ever seen. Virtually
each and every corner of the planet has been subject to inescapable
and overwhelming (North) American influence, both culturally and
This root of this power
didn't just emerge from GDP strength and the USD, but from
Hollywood, popular music and TV shows. The impact of the U.S. empire
on the planet over the past 70 years has been extraordinary but,
like all things, it too shall pass.
I believe this end will
be realized by around 2025...
When I say this sort of stuff people think I'm calling for the
end of the world. I suppose that's what it may feel like to
many, because a paradigm change of this magnitude will indeed have
monumental global implications.
Yet the world will go on,
it'll just be very different place.
That said, Americans
should not see this as an apocalyptic thing. It's not healthy
or sustainable for one nation to dominate the planet in such a
manner. Many of us like to think that a benevolent global empire led
by philosopher kings is just fine, but the problem is this is utter
What happens in real
life, to quote Lord Acton, is that,
"power corrupts and
absolute power corrupts absolutely."
This is precisely what's
happened in the U.S.
The country's been looted
and pillaged with rapacious fervor in recent decades while an
unaccountable class of people I refer to as
top-tier predators operate at will
with total impunity. The man on the street's thrown in jail for the
smallest offense, while financiers who destroyed the global economy
with fraud retire comfortably to their mansions.
The U.S. empire no longer
benefits the average (North) American, but instead systematically
funnels all the spoils to a smaller and smaller segment of the
population. Most of the world already sees it, and the average U.S.
citizen is starting to see it as well.
This is not good for the
This is also why the U.S. status quo constantly lies to the public
with its nonsense narrative that U.S. military action overseas is
based on humanitarian concerns and a desire to spread democracy.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact, all significant
U.S. military action overseas is driven by money and power.
play zero role. Not even a small role, zero...
Caitlin Johnstone recently
summarized what's going with
geopolitics perfectly with the following paragraph:
mass media narrative factory
tries to make it about chemical weapons, about election
meddling, about poisoned ex-spies, about humanitarian issues,
but it has only ever been about expanding the power and
influence of the oligarchs and allied intelligence/defense
agencies which run the western empire.
All the hostilities
that we are seeing are nothing other than an extremely powerful
conglomeration of forces poking and prodding noncompliant
governments to coerce them into compliance before global power
into a multipolar world.
The biggest problem for
the U.S. establishment right now is people are no longer buying the
They certainly aren't
buying it overseas, and even here in America, U.S. citizens are
finally starting to see the "humanitarian bombings" for the shams
they are. It'd be one thing if your average (North) American was
benefiting from U.S. empire, but they aren't.
Rather, the spoils are
all going to a small handful of people from the top tier predator
class, while life for tens of millions is characterized by
broken healthcare system
unaccountable Wall Street looting
a decimation of
of civil liberties
precarious economic existence that seems modeled off of the
The only people who don't
see how dysfunctional the U.S. empire is are the people running it.
The U.S. establishment,
which consists of a diverse assortment of elites from,
military-industrial complex, etc.,
...disagree on many
things, but one thing they agree on completely is the U.S. empire -
that it should not only be preserved, but expanded.
The major problem for
them is this isn't 1995 anymore, they just haven't got the memo yet.
The U.S. establishment is either too busy making boatloads of money
or playing keyboard warrior with other people's lives to acknowledge
what's happening both here and abroad.
A disconnected, greedy
and unaccountable elite class filled with hubris and an insatiable
hunger for power is a core ingredient in any imperial collapse, and
this exists in America in droves at the moment.
A reckoning is coming...
Russia and China Have Had Enough
Part 1 of this series focused on
how the U.S. empire no longer provides any real benefit to the
average (North) American citizen.
Rather, the spoils of
overseas wars, the domestic surveillance state and an overall
corrupt economy are being systematically funneled to a smaller and
smaller group of generally unsavory characters.
The public's starting to
recognize this reality, which is why we saw major populist movements
emerge on both the traditional right and left of the political
spectrum in 2016.
As millions of Americans emerge from their long slumber, much of the
world's been aware of this reality for a long time. They don't see
the U.S. as a magnanimous humanitarian empire, that's a
fairytale more suited for children's books and the mass media.
In fact, it seems clear
that the billions of humans who live in various sovereign nations
around the world would certainly prefer to be in control of their
own destinies as opposed to mere vassal states of the U.S., they
simply haven't possessed the military or economic power to stand up
and chart their own course.
But things are
The most significant geopolitical change of the 21st
century is the
emergence of China, and the
reemergence of Russia, as globally
significant military powers. This is the core driver behind the
establishment's panic about Russia.
It has nothing to do with
Putin's authoritarianism or human rights abuses,
that's just marketing directed at a heretofore extremely gullible
In reality, those determined to perpetuate a unipolar world run by
the U.S. are appalled and concerned about the fact Russia was able
to become involved in Syria and prevent another regime change
Russia very publicly, and
very successfully, stood up and said "no" to U.S. imperial ambitions
in Syria. This isn't just historically significant, it's seen as
blasphemous and recalcitrant by the U.S. status quo.
With that out of the way, let's revisit a few things I wrote over
the weekend in
my first thoughts on the latest
are not a bunch of fools, nor will they back down.
After last night,
they know for certain the U.S. empire is determined to castrate
them globally at all costs in order to impede an inevitable
emergence of a multi-polar world.
I don't think Russia or Iran will respond with a shock and awe
attack any time soon, nor will this likely spiral out of control
in the near-term. It's more likely we'll see this all play out
over the course of the next 5 years or so.
I also don't expect this to go nuclear, but I think the chances
the U.S. experiences an imperial collapse similar to that of the
USSR (or like any historically unmanageable and corrupt empire)
has become increasingly likely.
My view at this point
is the U.S. and its global power position will be so
dramatically altered in the years ahead, it'll be almost
unrecognizable by 2025, as a result of both economic decline and
major geopolitical mistakes.
This will cause the
public to justifiably lose faith in all leadership and
The more I reflect on
what's going on, the more I'm convinced the U.S. is trying to goad
Russia into a response with these provocations. I think the Russians
know this, which is precisely why they're responding with cool heads
to a blatantly illegal and unconstitutional strike likely based on a
In fact, we still don't
have any reliable or rock solid evidence of what happened.
Naturally, this didn't
stop Donald Trump from bombing without consulting Congress, nor did
it stop Theresa May from doing the same without consulting
Parliament. Please tell me again about our illustrious Western
democracies. I suppose that's just another fairytale for public
Moreover, Russia's lack of a military response shouldn't be seen as
a sign of weakness, but as an intentional and well thought out
The Russians seem to
think the U.S. (and UK) are acting like desperate feral lunatics and
the best thing they can do is sit back, play defense, and let the
short-sighted fools running the (North) American empire ruin
The erratic and
demonstrably thuggish and shady manner in which the U.S., UK and
France behaved in this latest criminal act has not been lost upon
the populations of the world, including considerable portions of the
(North) American and British populace who are disgusted at what
these governments are doing in our names.
Russia's strategy is to
look reasonable on the global stage compared to a U.S. which seems
increasingly crazy and unhinged. It seems to be working.
That being said, Russia by itself isn't capable of successfully
standing up to the U.S. empire in the long-run. This is where China
comes into play. Chinese leadership have also had enough but are,
like the Russians, holding back and acting like the reasonable
adults in the room.
We saw this most recently
with the Chinese cooling down the trade wars.
U.S. pundits cheered
this as a sign of weakness, but I think the opposite. China's
playing the same game as Russia. Allow U.S. leadership to continue
to look like insufferable bullies on the world stage until everyone
gets completely sick of U.S. dominance.
A reader who lives in Europe wrote the following comment on my last
post, which seems like a fair representation of global public
opinion at this point:
The Soviet empire
fell because the cost of the arms race depleted the rest of the
society to such a degree that a collapse was inevitable.
I believe the U.S. are
in a similar state now. The current wars are carried out by
technology at distance, or by proxy warriors, and not by actual
(North) Americans on ground.
How long can the
citizens carry that burden?
At the same time the
U.S. is losing the moral support within the public among their
allies, as I know first hand, by being from a European allied
Although our domestic
politic leadership and mainstream press are supporting the U.S.,
especially when they launch some rockets, opposition and
disbelief is large and growing among normal people.
The U.S. has lost its
position as our leading star, not just among the leftist, but
all over the spectrum. The insanity and lies are becoming so
evident that it is impossible to deny it.
The U.S. is rapidly
losing support and confidence at the grassroots level, both at home
We see the lies and we
see the disregard for the Constitution. The U.S. and its pet allies
like the UK and France will all be increasingly seen as rogue states
by much of the world if they keep this up.
Finally, for those of you who doubt which side China is on in this
global drama, let me point out the following excerpts from a recent
editorial published in the state-sponsored
Global Times earlier this week:
The facts cannot be
This military strike
was not authorized by the UN, and the strikes targeted a legal
government of a UN member state. The U.S. and its European allies
launched strikes to punish President Bashar al-Assad for a
suspected chemical attack in Duma last weekend.
However, it has not
been confirmed if the chemical weapons attack happened or if it
did, whether government forces or opposition forces launched it.
International organizations have not carried out any
The Syrian government has repeatedly stressed that there is no
need for it to use chemical weapons to capture the
opposition-controlled Duma city and the use of chemical weapons
has provided an excuse for Western intervention.
government's argument or Trump's accusations against the "evil"
Assad regime, which one is in line with basic logic? The answer
is quite obvious.
The U.S. has a record of launching wars on deceptive grounds. The
Bush government asserted the Saddam regime held chemical weapons
before the U.S.-British coalition troops invaded Iraq in 2003.
coalition forces didn't find what they called weapons of mass
destruction after overthrowing the Saddam regime. Both
Washington and London admitted later that their intelligence was
Washington's attack on Syria where Russian troops are stationed
constitute serious contempt for Russia's military capabilities
and political dignity.
Trump, like scolding a pupil, called on
Moscow, one of the world's leading nuclear powers, to abandon
its "dark path."
Washington seems to have become addicted to mocking Russia in
this way. Russia is capable of launching a destructive
retaliatory attack on the West. Russia's weak economy is plagued
by Western sanctions and squeezing of its strategic space.
That the West
provokes Russia in such a manner is irresponsible for world
The situation is still fomenting. The Trump administration said
it will sustain the strikes. But how long will the military
action continue and whether Russia will fight back as it claimed
previously remain uncertain.
Western countries continue bullying
Russia but are seemingly not afraid of its possible
breeds risk and danger.
China and Russia will
work together, often behind the scenes, to convince the rest of the
world that the U.S. has become a rogue state, and will use this
argument to build international support for a multi-polar world.
The only thing that could
slow this process down is if the U.S. stops acting like a rogue
state, something that appears increasingly unlikely with Mike Pompeo
as Secretary of State and John Bolton as National Security Advisor.
Back to Asia - The Reemerge of a Giant
Back to Russia and The EU
USD Dominated Financial System Will
It's our currency,
but it's your problem.
Treasury Secretary John Connelly to European Finance Ministers,
Today's post will cover a
topic that consumed my thoughts for many years, but one I haven't
discussed much lately:
the terminal nature of a
financial system being propped up artificially by central bank
First, it's crucial to understand that at the very core of our
global economy is a financial system dominated by the U.S. dollar.
The USD is a
fiat currency directly backed
by nothing, the supply of
which can be arbitrarily altered and manipulated by a group of
unelected bureaucrats in charge of
the Federal Reserve
This money system
represents the most powerful tool of centralized power on planet
The USD is unique in that it grants the U.S. the "exorbitant
privilege" of having a national currency which at the
same time serves as the global reserve currency. This was solidified
toward the end of World War 2 with the
Bretton Woods agreement, and
was accepted because the U.S. agreed to offer sovereign nations
holding dollars a right to exchange these dollars for gold at a
This fell apart in 1971,
but was shortly replaced with an unofficial "petrodollar" system,
which allowed the USD to remain the world reserve currency despite
no longer being redeemable in gold.
Before moving on, I want to share a few excerpts from an article I
read yesterday titled,
The De-Dollarization in China:
when Henry Kissinger dealt with King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, after
"Black September" in Jordan.
The agreement was
Saudi Arabia had
to accept only dollars as payments for the oil it sold, but
was forced to invest that huge amount of U.S. currency only in
the U.S. financial channels while.
In return, the United
States placed Saudi Arabia and the other OPEC neighboring
countries under its own military protection.
Hence the turning of
the dollar into a world currency, considering the importance and
extent of the oil market.
Not to mention that
this large amount of dollars circulating in the world definitely
marginalized gold and later convinced the FED that the demand
for dollars in the world was huge and unstoppable.
An unlimited amount of liquidity that kept various U.S. industrial
sectors alive but, above all, guaranteed huge financial markets
such as the derivatives - markets based on the structural
surplus of U.S. liquidity.
Pricing key commodities
such as oil, which everyone in the world needs, in USD creates a
massive structural support for the dollar versus other government
If other nations
constantly have to convert to USD before purchasing commodities,
there's a constant underlying global demand to buy USD on a daily
basis. No other country has this sort of structural support for its
currency, and it allows the U.S. to be far more fiscally
irresponsible than other countries without suffering devastating
currency devaluations on the global market.
Despite the tremendous advantage such a system offers the U.S. on
the world stage, there haven't been any rival countries that could
realistically challenge it given (North) American economic
This is no longer the
As also noted in the article highlighted earlier:
Still today, the U.S.
GDP accounts for 22% of world's GDP, while 80% of international
payments are made in dollars.
Hence the United
States receives goods from abroad always at comparatively very
low prices, while the massive demand for dollars from the rest
of the world allows to refinance the U.S. public debt at very low
This is the economic and political core of the issue…
Therefore the United States is about to be
ousted as world's
currency due to its continuous series of wars and military
failures and, like everyone else, it shall pay for its public
debt, which is huge and will be ever more its problem, not ours.
Former President Cossiga always told me:
States is always on the warpath and up in arms, but then it is
not able to get out of it".
This is absolutely key.
There's now a huge
mismatch between the use of USD in the global financial system and
the U.S. share of the world economy. China and Russia are acutely
aware of this and have been taking major steps to transition to a
more multi-polar currency world.
There can be no
multi-polar geopolitical world without a multi-polar currency world,
which is why they're working toward dethroning the USD.
I believe they will
Specifically, I think by 2025 the world will have a completely
different global financial system from the one chaotically birthed
in the 1970s. The USD will lose its total dominance on the world
stage, resulting in major implications geopolitically as well as at
Though plenty of people
see this coming, everybody has their own opinion on what comes next.
While it can be fun to engage in speculation, nobody really knows
what the world financial system will look like in ten or twenty
Plenty of bureaucrats
have their well-oiled plans, and plenty of bloggers are convinced
they know, but I promise you, nobody really knows...
Cryptocurrencies have expanded the possibilities greatly. Thanks
to Bitcoin, we now have a decentralized, voluntary, open source,
free-market global currency. This is one of the most extraordinary
creations in human history, and opens up possibilities for our
species that never existed before.
Sure, nation-states won't
just roll over and give up their money creation addiction any time
soon, but the point is we finally have other options and can choose
to opt out while still conducting global transactions.
In summary, the next few
years will be characterized by currency wars, not just between rival
nation-states, but also between paranoid and authoritarian
nation-states and new free market currencies.
Readers know what I want to see. I will never get excited about
transitioning away from the USD just to be under the thumb of
another oppressive nation-state currency from Russia or China.
If we want to evolve, explore the limits of human potential and
usher in a world of monetary freedom, it's important to support the
key principles represented by Bitcoin.
"I like the idea, but
it'll be shut-down."
That's giving up the
battle without a fight. I genuinely think we can create a new
paradigm for humankind.
We have the tools, we
just need the will.
Back to The Global Banking System
A Very Bright Future If We Demand It
Whenever all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in
great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all
power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one
government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive
as the government from which we separated.
letter to C.Hammond, 1821
The first three parts
(above reports) of
this series focused on the obvious reality that
imperial America is
not just increasingly being seen as a rogue state around the world,
but that it's also become harmful and parasitic to its own people.
It's become abundantly
clear that empire is not compatible with Constitutional government.
As power and resources have become increasingly centralized in
Washington D.C., the (North) American people have suffered. We've
suffered from an increasingly rigged economic and financial system,
continued security-state encroachment in the form of mass
surveillance and a militarization of police, and a war industry
which relentlessly funnels more and more wealth toward protecting
imperial dominance overseas.
As anyone who's read the U.S. Constitution knows, this is not the
way the union was supposed to function. Indeed, the founders were
obsessed with avoiding the pitfalls of European empires since they
knew how that story ends.
At the federal level, a
separation of powers between the three branches of government:
...was a key component of
The specific purpose here
was to prevent an accumulation of excessive centralized power within
a specific area of government.
While this separation of powers still exists on paper, it's been
eroded to a very dangerous degree. When it comes to war, which the
legislative branch is supposed to declare, Congress has chosen to
abdicate its responsibility and simply allows the executive to do
whatever it wants.
We saw this
with Obama and we see it
The separation of powers
is being ignored completely when it comes to state-sanctioned murder
and this is no small thing.
Equally concerning, a
'fourth branch' of government has also emerged. Completely lawless and
unaccountable, the extraordinarily dangerous power wielded by U.S.
intelligence agencies (CIA,
NSA and more...) provides another example of how far we've
strayed as a people.
Beyond a separation of powers at the federal level, the founding
founders made sure that the various states had tremendous
independent governance authority in their own right in order to
further their objective of decentralized political power.
This was enshrined in the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which reads as follows:
The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.
The reason I'm pointing
all of this out is because the founding fathers intended the U.S. to
be a project in political decentralization.
Not only was regional
(state) power supposed to be extensive by design, but they also made
sure to separate powers at the the federal level. It seems clear
that the primary intent behind the Constitution was to prevent an
accumulation of excessive power (centralization) in any one person
or group of people.
This was revolutionary
for its time.
If you take an honest look at the U.S. today, you won't see
Constitutional government. Politicians don't care about it,
intelligence agencies don't care about it, and the average person
doesn't really care either.
Our national evolution
into the world's dominant imperial force has transformed the
Republic into a centralized super-state.
Most of you already understand all this. Where things get
interesting is that this centralized super-state, aka
empire, is likely to experience a serious collapse in the years
ahead under the weight of,
(North) American citizens
are rapidly climbing the learning curve as to how things really work
and they're not too happy.
I believe such a collapse is essentially inevitable at this point,
which means we should be focusing our energy on what comes next.
Many Americans have been living in total denial for decades.
A considerable portion of
the public either hasn't admitted the U.S. is a global empire in the
first place, or they consider it a good or just thing. Moreover,
they accept the current centralized structure of U.S. governance as
appropriate and logical.
There's this erroneous
belief that the key thing we need to do is "elect good people."
disagree... What we need are more appropriate political structures.
The more I live and learn, the more I become convinced that the vast
majority of decisions should be made at the local level, by people
living in the communities directly affected. The idea that we need
to argue and bicker endlessly in order to convince a small majority
of Congress to vote in a particular manner to pass legislation that
will then apply to 325 million people, is idiotic.
In a country as large and
diverse as the U.S., you're guaranteed to make almost everybody
unhappy all the time.
While I accept that some issues transcend
local governance, these issues are far, far fewer that we're led to
believe. Almost all decisions that
affect how people live their everyday lives should be decided at the
local level by communities, not by a bureaucratic and easily
corruptible behemoth thousands of miles away.
As the U.S. empire weakens in the years ahead, the worst thing we
could possibly do is give Washington D.C. more power. It's an
excessive accumulation of wealth and power in that swamp which got
us to the point of collapse in the first place.
Rather, I hope we think
about the original intent of our founding document and rediscover
the importance of decentralized political power.
Moreover, we now have access to tools our founding fathers never
could have dreamed of. Instant communications and access to the
world's information at our fingertips have made representative
democracy obsolete (voting for someone to vote for you), and we've
never had a better opportunity to restore sovereignty to the
This isn't to say I
foresee a world with no governance structures. I think human beings
tend to gravitate toward creating rules-based communities and that's
not a bad thing.
The key principle is that
such collaboration should be voluntary and organic, unlike the
political structures which currently dominate our planet.
As things stand, we're each born into particular nation-states, and
most of us must then live the rest of our lives under a governance
structure we never agreed to in the first place. The primary factor
determining what sort of government you live under is which piece of
dirt you happened to be born on.
You essentially have no
choice to how you're governed, it's all determined by the randomness
Does this actually make
sense to anyone?
It doesn't make sense to me because I believe individual human
beings should have an opportunity to live how they want to live.
Moreover, the paradigm we need to move toward consists of governance
structures characterized by rules without rulers.
Critically, these rules
must be agreed to voluntarily by the various participants in a
multitude of decentralized political units I'd like to see emerge
You'd also ideally want
to have a great deal of fluidity for humans to move from one unit to
another. Someone at a particular stage of life might find one type
of self-governing community ideal, but become interested in a very
different model as they grow.
In 2018, pretty much everyone is born into a particular governance
model/nation-state (not of their own choosing) and then stays stuck
in it for the rest of their lives. This seems like a very primitive
and un-free way of structuring political life for human beings.
The future model I'd
prefer to see would be rooted in ethical governance systems that
value freedom and flexibility over the coercion and rigidity which
dominate political life throughout the world today.
Governance should be
decentralized and political relationships should be voluntary.
Believe it or not, I think the key obstacle we face to making this
sort of vision a reality is ourselves. Most of us tend to think too
inside the box, anchoring what can be achieved by what's been
achieved thus far.
However, the truth of the
matter is we can create whatever sort of world we want. If enough of
us simply begin to believe our current political structures are too
centralized, bureaucratic, corrupt and un-free, then we can and will
discard them and evolve toward a new paradigm.
Which is why I always
like to say,
we already have the tools, we just need the will...
When you go to the grocery store your options for toothpaste and
shampoo are almost endless, yet when it comes to the really
important stuff, such as what sort of rules/governance we live
under, or what sort of money we use, we're given virtually no choice
Bitcoin's emergence on
the scene has already challenged this static rigidity when it comes
The next area to tackle
will be governance...