@anonymint: More elaboration

WW3 Coming Within a Decade or So?

Western Civilization Unraveling

[…]

QUESTION: […] When looking at your war cycle with Russia that started in 2014 and supposedly cycles roughly 25 years, I noticed that correlates nicely with your ECM on Russia peaking around 2039. Coincidence? Is it becoming pretty clear World War 3 between east and west seems just over the horizon past 2032?

ANSWER: Socialism is dying and in the process, we are witnessing the rise in even domestic violence. In the United States, this hatred of Trump-inspired by the Democrats has unleashed the destruction of the United States as we have known it. The United States will most likely cease to exist after 2034 and the same result will impact Russia by 2038.

The crisis we face is that governments have made so many worthless promises that cannot be funded. When that takes place historically, the political states collapse internally. However, before that happens, they will turn to international war as a means to retain power and distract the people from the real economic crisis which is befalling civilization.

@Jim admits that Trump has unleashed the dogs of war by being lured (unwittingly?) into a false-flag. TPTB of course want war to distract Western civilization’s attention from the economic and financial crises that are about to befell them. And to concentrate power and other geopolitical-economic aims. Trump probably also has a political motive. Sigh.

And while censoring my attempts to point this out, @Jim (aka James A. Donald) censors my rebuttals of his ongoing nonsensical arguments advocating for the retaliation as some inexplicable/illogical/insane means to peace by creating power vacuums in the region that the U.S.A. is entirely incapable of capturing and hodling onto, yet there’s no benefit for U.S.A. citizens in deploying the U.S. military in far-flung clusterfucks. Again I repeat what I explained in §Thucydides Trap of this blog that nuclear war isn’t a scorched earth threat to humanity, and instead is a media sensationalized bugaboo to scare the populace into allowing TPTB to swing the U.S. military as their big dick around the world as they please. @Jim is either an unwitting, overzealous idiot or a disinformation agent.

The following are from (possibly liberal-biased) Philippines newspapers.

[…] It has been almost 17 years since America invaded Iraq. Since then, every attempt has been made to replace the repressive peace maintained by the cruel regime of Saddam Hussein with something more enduring and democratic. But the leadership vacuum left by the ouster of Iraq’s strongman triggered colossal infighting among warring ethnic tribes and religious sects. Before anyone would realize it, Iraq had become the breeding ground of a radical extremism that envisioned the formation of an Islamic Caliphate that would cut across national boundaries […] With Isis out of the picture, the most powerful countries in this part of the world began to maneuver to assert their influence in those societies that had been destroyed by the American war machine. Because of their wealth and military capability, three regional powers in particular have been busy trying to shape developments in these war-ravaged countries — namely, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Still, America and Russia have remained the principal players in this volatile region, nurturing and arming their respective proxies in a landscape already teeming with mercenaries and paramilitary units […] the United States has remained generally unperturbed by the disastrous outcomes of its unwarranted 2003 invasion of Iraq and its 2011 intervention in Libya. Today, under Trump, it appears to be itching to start a war with Iran […] President Trump promptly sent a tweet of the American flag with no words […] Soleimani had supposedly said: “Mr. Trump, the gambler!… Come we are waiting for you. You know that a war would mean the loss of all your capabilities. You may start the war, but we will be the ones to determine its end.”

Thus, the world teeters on the edge of war mainly because of the unbridled machismo […]

Shortly before unleashing his million-strong army on European soil, the Persian Emperor Xerxes confidently rebuffed the misgivings of his cautious adviser […] However, for ancient historians, Xerxes’ failed invasion of Greece marked the beginning of the end for the world’s first global empire. To critics, Donald Trump is the modern Xerxes, who would spell the end of the American empire by embarking on misguided foreign policy campaigns based on a hubristic belief […] Or, in the acerbic wisdom of Gore Vidal, “It is not enough to succeed. Others must fail.” […] as leading historian John Gaddis pithily warned, “‘with great power comes great responsibility … but also the danger of doing dumb things.”

Last week, to the shock and consternation of even leading American politicians, Trump, citing “self-defense,” ordered the killing of one of the most powerful military commanders in recent memory, Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani […] In response, Tehran has promised “severe revenge,” raising the prospect of all-out war in the world’s most unstable region.

Soleimani, who played a central role in mobilizing Iraqi forces to drive out the Islamic State terrorists from much of Iraq, was no ordinary general […] he was also a statesman who combined the roles of vice president, defense minister and head of overseas security operations in a major Asian country […] Trump, now facing a tough reelection bid under the shadow of impeachment and economic slowdown, had warned earlier this decade: “In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran.” (Note: The article is partly based on the author’s latest book, “The Indo-Pacific: Trump, China and the New Struggle for Global Mastery”)

[…] Bush’s predecessors, it’s said, knew all along about Soleimani, but refused to move against him because it would further destabilize an already-fraught part of the world […] President Duterte has already publicly declared that the country will support the US in any coming fighting. This leaves us not only vulnerable to retaliatory actions, what with Islamic State-influenced groups already embedded in our territory, but also suspect among our neighbors with huge Muslim populations

To the extent the following article represents reality, if “killing Soleimani” wasn’t a false-flag at the behest of TPTB, it was at least in the interest of Iran.

[…] the Iranian regime could yet benefit from recent developments. Iran has been taking drastic steps to ameliorate the severe regional and domestic challenges it currently faces. For example, it recently confronted a sudden upsurge in Iraqi nationalist fervor over its influence in that country. Iran’s diplomatic outposts were burned, and its goods boycotted. Even the Iranian-born Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq’s highest Shia cleric, has spoken out against foreign (meaning Iranian) interference in Iraqi affairs.

In a clear effort to divert this anti-Iranian sentiment, Soleimani’s allies in Iran — particularly the newspaper Kayhan, a mouthpiece for Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei — suggested in October that Iraqis should occupy the US embassy in Baghdad. Iran needed to change the discourse in Iraq by redirecting nationalist fervor toward the US. And in the event, the conversation in Iraq has indeed changed following the drone strike on Soleimani: many Iraqis are now wondering not when Iran will leave, but when the US will.

Meanwhile, Iran has also been dealing with a significant domestic challenge. The regime has moved with shocking brutality to repress massive demonstrations over deteriorating economic conditions, killing several hundred people and arresting thousands more. Since then, Khamenei has been besieged, drawing criticism even from his traditional base over his mishandling of the situation. As with the explosion of discontent in Iraq, he needed a way to change the story, and the US has now temporarily obliged.

To the outside world, Soleimani was the mastermind of the regime’s terrorist activities outside Iran, and the puppet master of its proxies across the region, not least Hezbollah in Lebanon. Yet to Iranians, he was a more complicated figure. While regime hardliners regarded him as a hero, many Iranians who have lost loved ones in peaceful demonstrations, or who object to the regime’s attacks on Iranian dissidents in the diaspora, saw him differently.

Nonetheless, over the past few years, the regime has pushed a clever public relations campaign to depict Soleimani as a Napoleon- or Caesar-like warrior-poet. And as one of the few Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders not tainted with allegations of corruption, he was mooted as a likely presidential candidate in the next election. Thus, inasmuch as there was public sympathy for Soleimani, it will now extend to the regime, at least in the short run […] the US, too, might have miscalculated, by underestimating Iran’s own ability and willingness to respond. Given the state of the economy and the level of discontent in Iran, Khamenei must keep the IRGC and loyal militias firmly on his side. And right now, those forces are clamoring for revenge […] the Trump administration has been operating under the assumption that the Iranian regime is so bereft of legitimacy and enfeebled by domestic discontent that it could never countenance a major war with the US. And this dangerous assumption has been reinforced by Trump’s own oft-stated belief that a war with Iran would be very short. But, in fact, the Iranian regime has deep cultural, economic and intelligence ties throughout the region, and particularly in Iraq. It has mastered the art of asymmetrical war, and it now has no choice but to respond in some way to Soleimani’s death […]

The next insightful article contemplates if Trump is attempting to fight back against the imminent economic decline of Western Civilization by igniting the war economy?

Why has US President Donald Trump raised the likelihood of another major war? Is it to divert attention from his impeachment, as already being guessed by many? Is it to help boost the US economy, now threatened by the unfolding consequences of his trade war with China? […] War spending was one sure way to pump up government spending, and not a few economists believe that it was actually World War II (and not President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal policies) that got the US economy out of the Great Depression […] In a 2013 article, Steven Horwitz and Michael McPhillips wrote: “Even though the war ultimately involved the destruction of much of what was produced, the standard argument — still made today by Paul Krugman — was that a large enough increase in the demand for labor and capital for any purpose whatever was sufficient to generate overall recovery.” War is argued to stimulate the economy primarily because of its employment impact. The authors observed: “…the war effort wiped out unemployment almost completely. In 1939, more than 17 percent of Americans in the labor force remained without a job. By 1943, nearly every able-bodied man was at work.” […] Other observers have also noted how the American economy has tended to thrive as it engaged in subsequent wars in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, Syria and others. A recent editorial noted the irony in how the United States has actually been at war for more than half a century, even as that period has been called “the postwar era.” But according to some analysts, the bigger beneficiaries of such a war-driven economy have not been the ordinary workers, but big businesses. Historian Stuart D. Brandes noted that in 1942-1945, the net profits of America’s top 2,000 firms were more than 40 percent higher than in the period 1936-1939. This “profit boom,” he argued, came about because the state ordered billions of dollars of military equipment, but failed to tax profits enough.

Have American presidents been waging wars not so much to pursue political objectives as more for economic reasons?