by The Saker
"Missing the forest for the trees"
is an apt metaphor if we take a look
at most commentary describing
the past twenty years or so...
This period has been remarkable in the number of genuinely tectonic changes the international system has undergone.
It all began during what I think of as the "Kristallnacht of international law," 30 August September 1995, when the (American) Empire attacked the Bosnian-Serbs in a direct and total violation of all the most fundamental principles of international law.
Then there was 9/11, which gave the Neocons the "right" (or so they claimed) to threaten, attack, bomb, kill, maim, kidnap, assassinate, torture, blackmail and otherwise mistreat any person, group or nation on the planet simply because,
During these same years, we saw Europe become a third-rate U.S. colony incapable of defending even fundamental European geopolitical interests while the U.S. became a third-rate colony of Israel equally incapable of defending even fundamental U.S. geopolitical interests.
Most interestingly looking back, while the U.S. and the EU were collapsing under the weight of their own mistakes, Russia and China were clearly on the ascend:
Most crucially, Russia and China gradually agreed to become symbionts which, I would argue, is even stronger and more meaningful than if these two countries were united by some kind of formal alliance:
The Chinese have now developed an official, special, and unique expression to characterize that relationship with Russia.
They speak of a,
This is the AngloZionists' worst nightmare, and their legacy ziomedia goes to great lengths to conceal the fact that Russia and China are, for all practical purposes, strategic allies.
They also try hard to convince the Russian people that China is a threat to Russia (using bogus arguments, but never-mind that).
It won't work, while some Russians have fears about China, the Kremlin knows the truth of the matter and will continue to deepen Russia's symbiotic relationship with China further.
Not only that, it now appears that Iran is gradually being let in to this alliance.
We have the most official confirmation possible of that fact in words spoken by General Patrushev in Israel after his meeting with U.S. and Israeli officials:
I could go on listing various signs of the collapse of the AngloZionist Empire along with signs that a new, parallel, international world order is in the process of being built before our eyes.
I will submit that the AngloZionists have reached a terminal stage of decay in which the question of "if" is replaced by "when."
But even more interesting would be to look at the "what":
I rarely see this issue discussed and when it is, it is usually to provide all sorts of reassurances that the Empire will not really collapse, that it is too powerful, too rich and too big to fail and that the current political crises in the U.S. and Europe will simply result in a reactive transformation of the Empire once the specific problems plaguing it have been addressed.
That kind of delusional nonsense is entirely out of touch with reality.
And the reality of what is taking place before our eyes is much, much more dramatic and seminal than just fixing a few problems here and there and merrily keep going on.
One of the factors which lures us into a sense of complacency is that we have seen so many other empires in history collapse only to be replaced pretty quickly by some other, that we can't even imagine that what is taking place right now is a much more dramatic phenomenon:
But first, let's define our terms.
For all the self-aggrandizing nonsense taught in western schools, Western civilization does not have its roots in ancient Rome or, even less so, in ancient Greece.
The reality is that the Western civilization was born from the Middle-Ages in general and, especially, the 11th century which, not coincidentally, saw the following succession of moves by the Papacy:
These three closely related events are of absolutely crucial importance to the history of the West.
The first step the West needed was to free itself from the influence and authority of the rest of the Christian world.
Once the ties between Rome and the Christian world were severed, it was only logical for Rome to decree that the Pope now has the most extravagant super-powers no other bishop before him had ever dared contemplate.
Finally, this new autonomy and desire for absolute control over our planet resulted in what could be called "the first European imperialist war":
To put it succinctly:
The name of the Empire of the Franks has changed over the centuries, but not its nature, essence, or purpose.
Today the true heirs of the Franks are the AngloZionists (for a truly 'superb' discussion of the Frankish role in destroying the true, ancient, Christian Roman civilization of the West, see here).
Over the next 900 years or more, many different empires replaced the Frankish Papacy, and most European countries had their "moment of glory" with colonies overseas and some kind of ideology which was, by definition and axiomatically, declared the only good (or even "the only Christian") one, whereas the rest of the planet was living in uncivilized and generally terrible conditions which could only be mitigated by those who have 'always' believed that they, their religion, their culture or their nation had some kind of messianic role in history (call it "manifest destiny" or "White man's burden" or being a Kulturträger in quest of a richly deserved Lebensraum):
It looks like most European nations had a try at being an empire and at imperialist wars.
Even such modern mini-states like,
...once were feared imperial powers.
And each time one European Empire fell, there was always another one to take its place...
The canonical answer is "China"...
And I think that this is nonsense.
Empires cannot only trade. Trade alone is simply not enough to remain a viable empire. Empires also need military force, and not just any military force, but the kind of military force which makes resistance futile.
The truth is that NO modern country has anywhere near the capabilities needed to replace the U.S. in the role of World Hegemon:
But even more crucial is this:
These two countries have finally understood the eternal truth, which is that,
Yes, not only are all empires always and inherently evil, but a good case can be made that the first victims of imperialism are always the nations which "host the empire" so to speak.
Oh sure, the Chinese and the Russians want their countries to be truly free, powerful and sovereign, and they understand that this is only possible when you have a military which can deter an attack, but neither China nor Russia have any interests in policing the planet or imposing some regime change on other countries.
All they really want is to be safe from the U.S., that's it.
This new reality is particularly visible in the Middle-East where countries like,
...are currently only capable of deploying a military capable of massacring civilians or destroy the infrastructure of a country, but which cannot be used effectively against the two real regional powers with a modern military:
But the most revealing litmus test was the U.S. attempt to bully Venezuela back into submission.
For all the fire and brimstone threats coming out of (Washington) D.C., the entire "Bolton plan(s?)" for Venezuela has/have resulted in a truly embarrassing failure:
The fact is that an increasing number of medium-sized "average" countries are now gradually acquiring the means to resist a U.S. attack.
So if the writing is on the wall for the AngloZionist Empire, and if no country can replace the U.S. as imperial world hegemon, what does that mean?
It means the following:
This time around, neither Spain nor the UK nor Austria will take the place of the U.S. and try to become a world hegemon.
In fact, there is not a single European nation which has a military even remotely capable of engaging the kind of "colony pacification" operations needed to keep your colonies in a suitable state of despair and terror.
Well... except Poland, of course, which dreams of some kind of Polish Empire between the Baltic and the Black Sea; let them, they have been dreaming about it for centuries, and they will still dream about it for many centuries to come…
Now compare European militaries with the kind of armed forces you can find in Latin America or Asia?
There is such a knee-jerk assumption of superiority in most Anglos that they completely fail to realize that medium and even small-sized countries can develop militaries sufficient enough to make an outright U.S. invasion impossible or, at least, any occupation prohibitively expensive in terms of human lives and money (see here, here and here).
This new reality also makes the typical U.S. missile/airstrike campaign pretty useless: they will destroy a lot of buildings and bridges, they will turn the local TV stations ("propaganda outlets" in imperial terminology) into giant piles of smoking rubble and dead bodies, and they kill plenty of innocents, but that won't result in any kind of regime change.
The striking fact is that if we accept that warfare is the continuation of politics by other means, then we also have to admit, that under that definition, the U.S. armed forces are totally useless since they cannot help the U.S. achieve any meaningful political goals.
The truth is that in military and economic terms, the "West" has already lost...
The fact that those who understand don't talk, and that those who talk about this (denying it, of course) have no understanding of what is taking place, makes no difference at all.
In theory, we could imagine that some kind of strong leader would come to power in the U.S. (the other western countries are utterly irrelevant), crush the Neocons, like Putin crushed them in Russia, and prevent the brutal and sudden collapse of the Empire, but that isn't going to happen.
If there is one thing which the past couple of decades have proven beyond reasonable doubt is that the imperial system is entirely unable to reform itself in spite of people like,
...all men who promised meaningful change and who were successfully prevented by the system of achieving anything meaningful.
Thus the system is still 100% effective, at least inside the U.S.:
So what is likely to happen next...?
But - crucially - this time around no empire will come to take the place of the AngloZionist one...
Instead, a loose and informal coalition of mostly Asian countries will offer an alternative economic and civilizational model, which will be immensely attractive to the rest of the planet.
As for the Empire, it will very effectively disband itself and slowly fade into irrelevance...
Both U.S. Americans and Europeans will, for the very first time in their history, have to behave like civilized people, which means that their traditional "model of development" (ransacking the entire planet and robbing everybody blind) will have to be replaced by one in which these U.S. Americans and Europeans will have to work like everybody else to accumulate riches.
This notion will absolutely horrify the current imperial ruling elites, but I wager that it will be welcomed by the majority of the people, especially when this "new" (for them) model will yield more peace and prosperity than the previous one!
Indeed, if the Neocons don't blow up the entire planet in a nuclear holocaust, the U.S. and Europe will survive, but only after a painful transition period which could last for a decade or more.
One of the factors which will immensely complicate the transition from Empire to "regular" country will be the profound and deep influence 1000 years of imperialism have had on the western cultures, especially in the completely megalomaniac United States (Professor John Marciano's "Empire as a Way of Life" lecture series addresses this topic superbly - I highly recommend them!):
Finally, the current rather nasty reaction to the multi-culturalism imposed by the western ruling elites is no less pathological than this corrosive multi-culturalism in the first place.
I am referring to the new theories "revisiting" WWII and finding inspiration in all things Third Reich, very much including a revival of racist/racialist theories.
This is especially ridiculous (and offensive) when coming from people who try to impersonate Christians but who instead of prayers on their lips just spew 1488-like nonsense.
These folks all represent precisely the kind of "opposition" the Neocons love to deal with and which they always (and I really mean 'always') end up defeating.
This (pretend) opposition (useful idiots, really) will remain strong as long as it remains well funded (which it currently is).
But as soon as the current megalomania ("We are the White Race! We built Athens and Rome! We are Evropa!!!") ends with an inevitable faceplant, folks will eventually return to sanity and realize that no external scapegoat is responsible for the current state of the West.
The sad truth is that the West did all this to itself (mainly due to arrogance and pride!), and the current waves of immigrants are nothing more than a 1000 years of really bad karma returning to where it came from initially.
I don't mean to suggest that folks in the West are all individually responsible for what is happening now.
But I do say that all the folks in the West now live with the consequences of 1000 years of unrestrained imperialism. It will be hard, very hard, to change ways, but since that is also the only viable option, it will happen, sooner or later.
But still - there is hope. IF the Neocons don't blow up the planet, and IF mankind is given enough time to study its history and understand where it took the wrong turn, then maybe, just maybe, there is hope.
I think that we can all find solace in the fact that no matter how ugly, stupid and evil the AngloZionist Empire is, no other empire will ever come to replace it.
In other words, should we survive the current empire (which is by no means certain!) then at least we can look forward to a planet with no empires left, only sovereign countries...
I submit that this is a future worth struggling for.