What you write fits a certain script which has some merit, but what doesn’t fit is the Global Bankers preferring Trump known for being anti-war over Harris who is a pushover. Thoughts on this discrepancy?
I concur with this analysis by Responsible Statecraft which makes the case for the first Trump presidency being a continuation of the US's commitment to war:
I think Trump "known for being anti-war" is based on his rhetoric and not his actual record. The link above is reasonably compelling in supporting that conclusion.
As for his upcoming 2nd presidency, he has appointed a cabinet that is more Zionist than Netanyahu's. That doesn't mean the US and/or Israel WILL go to war with Iran, but if I were a betting man, that's where my money would be. I made that pretty clear in the article above. Harris would have been equally willing to start a fire in Iran, but it might have been more difficult for her to drag the Democratic base along. With Ukraine winding down, Trump and his Make-Israel-Great-Again team is a better choice for a pivot to Iran.
I'm unmoved by Trump's statements of intent to end the Ukraine war because that war was over a long time ago. Trump will be made to look good by presiding over a peace deal in Ukraine that has probably already been drafted and agreed. This will make a pivot to Iran easier.
All speculation of course. Let's have this discussion again in December 2025!
The only thing I would add is that — similar in their barbarism to the infamous “we think the price is worth it” (Albright) sanctions on Iraq — almost five years of Caesar sanctions had reduced/condemned Syria to 90% poverty. This set much of the table for the current situation. Here's a short somewhat relevant ditty ... https://redpillpoems.substack.com/p/de-rigueur
Worth repeating:
“When the US-NATO empire uses its terror outfits to terrorise us, they are called terrorists. When the empire uses its terror outfits to smash its enemies, they are called rebels.”
“Those with eyes to see accept that the entire West is a plutocracy in which the major political parties contesting national elections are controlled by powerful vested corporate interests. We also understand that global financial capital has subsumed national government power and that the covid-19 psychological operation was the first salvo in a global coup d'état by a financial technocracy.”
“But rest assured that either way, war is the ‘problem’ presented to the people, and the ‘solution’ remains the same – a global public-private partnership fronted by the UN, in which local freedom and autonomy are sacrificed at the altar of a carbon-rationed, global digital gulag. And all the global world powers, under the direction of the OCGFC, are firmly signed up to that dystopia. Every manufactured crisis, every war, is designed to lead us into that pen.”
Good point about sanctions. They are used by the parasites precisely because they work. They pulverise the general population which causes them to become resentful towards their leaders whose living standards remain unaffected. Then, when the regime change operation happens, the population is more amenable to it because they've had enough pain.
"My interpretation of this is that Russia has done a deal with NATO powers. It has traded Syria for a favourable settlement to the conflict in Ukraine, which may see Ukraine remaining a neutral country and Russia keeping the territories in the East that it has taken. The larger question behind this speculation is the extent to which deals made by all of these so-called sovereign powers are ultimately mediated by the true global hegemon – the Owners and Controllers of Global Financial Capital (OCGFC)."
Absofuckinlutely
lol
What you write fits a certain script which has some merit, but what doesn’t fit is the Global Bankers preferring Trump known for being anti-war over Harris who is a pushover. Thoughts on this discrepancy?
I concur with this analysis by Responsible Statecraft which makes the case for the first Trump presidency being a continuation of the US's commitment to war:
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/01/20/trump-the-anti-war-president-was-always-a-myth/
I think Trump "known for being anti-war" is based on his rhetoric and not his actual record. The link above is reasonably compelling in supporting that conclusion.
As for his upcoming 2nd presidency, he has appointed a cabinet that is more Zionist than Netanyahu's. That doesn't mean the US and/or Israel WILL go to war with Iran, but if I were a betting man, that's where my money would be. I made that pretty clear in the article above. Harris would have been equally willing to start a fire in Iran, but it might have been more difficult for her to drag the Democratic base along. With Ukraine winding down, Trump and his Make-Israel-Great-Again team is a better choice for a pivot to Iran.
I'm unmoved by Trump's statements of intent to end the Ukraine war because that war was over a long time ago. Trump will be made to look good by presiding over a peace deal in Ukraine that has probably already been drafted and agreed. This will make a pivot to Iran easier.
All speculation of course. Let's have this discussion again in December 2025!
I believe Pres rump will play his role of new sheriff in town very well. For how long, remains to be seen. He has one shedload of enemies.
As usual, excellent analysis!
The only thing I would add is that — similar in their barbarism to the infamous “we think the price is worth it” (Albright) sanctions on Iraq — almost five years of Caesar sanctions had reduced/condemned Syria to 90% poverty. This set much of the table for the current situation. Here's a short somewhat relevant ditty ... https://redpillpoems.substack.com/p/de-rigueur
Worth repeating:
“When the US-NATO empire uses its terror outfits to terrorise us, they are called terrorists. When the empire uses its terror outfits to smash its enemies, they are called rebels.”
“Those with eyes to see accept that the entire West is a plutocracy in which the major political parties contesting national elections are controlled by powerful vested corporate interests. We also understand that global financial capital has subsumed national government power and that the covid-19 psychological operation was the first salvo in a global coup d'état by a financial technocracy.”
“But rest assured that either way, war is the ‘problem’ presented to the people, and the ‘solution’ remains the same – a global public-private partnership fronted by the UN, in which local freedom and autonomy are sacrificed at the altar of a carbon-rationed, global digital gulag. And all the global world powers, under the direction of the OCGFC, are firmly signed up to that dystopia. Every manufactured crisis, every war, is designed to lead us into that pen.”
Good point about sanctions. They are used by the parasites precisely because they work. They pulverise the general population which causes them to become resentful towards their leaders whose living standards remain unaffected. Then, when the regime change operation happens, the population is more amenable to it because they've had enough pain.
Precisely!
They're yet another manifestation of "The Management of Savagery" ... as applied to economies by the DC-London-Brussels-TelAviv axis of evil.
It's siege warfare and goes back 2000 years plus minus.
Is Syrian "rebel" leader Al Jolani a Mossad deep cover mole?
https://www.winterwatch.net/2024/12/who-is-the-mossad-impostor-mole-mohammed-al-julani/
I wouldn't dispute a word of that. Fine summary of The Scary Now.
Indeed:
"My interpretation of this is that Russia has done a deal with NATO powers. It has traded Syria for a favourable settlement to the conflict in Ukraine, which may see Ukraine remaining a neutral country and Russia keeping the territories in the East that it has taken. The larger question behind this speculation is the extent to which deals made by all of these so-called sovereign powers are ultimately mediated by the true global hegemon – the Owners and Controllers of Global Financial Capital (OCGFC)."