By Nicolas Bonnal
The US security presence is always a source of ambivalence everywhere in the world.
The incumbent US president
Obama has recently granted an arrogant interview to The Bilderbergs' voice, the Economist, in which he threatens all the so-called emerging countries, China, Russia but also South Africa! With his characteristic carelessness, the most deceptive president in American history (at least we knew who Bush was), sweeps the rest of the world (France is not even a country!) and even hurts his own mother tongue. Think that Obama just bombs in Iraq the rebels he finances and backs in Syria or in Libya to understand such character.
Since the end of the cold war, the western elite have tried to get back to the good old times of the open conspiracy described by HG Welles. So far, the Soviet Union, communist China and the rest of communist had prevented the fall of the way of life in western countries (see the confession of Jo Stieglitz whom I quoted recently) and had slowed down too the most blatant and cruel marks of imperialism.
This time is over, as we know. But we have assisted the emergence of a new front, composed of various countries of brilliant, ancient civilizations such as Russia, India and China. These countries have been joined by South Africa and Brazil, a local superpower and they represent a menace for the American system based on a phantom currency, an extraordinary debt, a military cruelty and a ubiquitous and mephitic dictatorship of symbols and images.
So, in this long and somewhat vague interview an inconstant Obama (he will never be very pro) marks the following points, including this rather trivial one:
And I do think that China has certain capacity, for example, to build infrastructure in Africa that's critical.
Yes, 'master president', China has almost alone developed or rebuilt post-colonial Africa and America has a certain capacity to destroy infrastructure anywhere! I was watching images of Germany or Japan after the brilliant democratic war...
Then the president comes to an unreal point:
On the other hand, China obviously has a need for natural resources that colours their investments in a way that's less true for the United States.
As we know, America never entered a war for economical or energetic reasons! How can he utter such stuff without laughing?
But it is true anyway that America enjoys starting wars for political and ideological reasons. A messianic and matricide land built by Illuminati, freemasons and cromwellian agents (the creators of Oceania, a theme that inspired Orwell in his famous novel), America adores to destroy for theological reasons. Tocqueville has remarked this trait. Courageous and creative director Oliver Stone has reminded us in his TV program on American forbidden history that Churchill and Truman the atomic bomb-dropper started the cold war, not Stalin. They built communist threat as they built later Islamic threat. In a messianic and bloodthirsty élan, adds Obama:
And in the 20th century and in the early stages of the 21st century, the United States continues to be the one indispensable power that is willing to spend blood and treasure on that.
Especially the blood of other nations as Korea, Vietnam or Afghanistan; Obama denies the right of nations to exist (this is the key to understand the Brzezinski agenda). They are just elements of some zones of influence, broken heaps of ex-empires. For him France does not exist, only as a part of a network:
France-the Francophone countries-obviously is going to be able to do certain things better than we can.
What the hell does he mean by 'francophone countries'?
He reminds me HG Welles when this lunatic writer, a friend of Roosevelt, speaks of a post-England replaced by the web of 'English-speaking countries'. For these guys there is no reality, no men and no cultures: there just a matrix, an elite consensus and a commercial mall. Do not forget of course the Holy Benjamin, the God whom we trust, do not forget the trade. Says Obama:
But I do think there remains a consensus within the American business community that ultimately we benefit from trade.
Then the distracted globe-ruler gets to the menaces, or the allusions, or the vicious and biased hints:
So when it comes to South Africa, we recognise a suspicion they may have about meddling too much in the affairs of Zimbabwe, for example.
And when it comes to Israel in Palestine, France in Libya or America in Iraq?
The Economist interviewer bitterly alludes to the emerging countries (once submerged by western capitalism) of the BRICS:
It's kind of depressing, because in fact, you see countries like China creating a BRICS bank, for instance-institutions that seem to be parallel with the system-and potentially putting pressure on the system rather than adding to it and strengthening it. Now, China you can understand. But India, Brazil, South Africa-those are countries that really belong in the system, that benefit from the system.
Obama adds weirdly that small countries don't want to be bullied by China (and by America?). Then he directly and coldly and somewhat irresponsibly threatens China:
One thing I will say about China, though, is you also have to be pretty firm with them, because they will push as hard as they can until they meet resistance. They're not sentimental, and they are not interested in abstractions. And so simple appeals to international norms are insufficient.
So what do the Chinese need, a sentimental bomb and an international punishment? Shall we send 666 of your best marines; of our best British or French soldiers on the China wall in order to calm down the ardour of these abstraction-haters (has he read Taoist thinkers)?
Then Obama reminds us his flaws in English:
Are we serious about this? But none of them are engaging in some of the nonsense that you're hearing out of the climate-change denialists. Denialists?
Eric Schultz (deputy press secretary): Deniers.
Forget the innocent barbarism. The use of the infamous word denier in the context of the climatic change is not hazardous; it reflects the trend to fascism in the vocabulary in western countries.
Then the casual politician alludes to Russia. Nothing new under the sun in his rhetoric:
Russia doesn't make anything. Immigrants aren't rushing to Moscow in search of opportunity. The life expectancy of the Russian male is around 60 years old.
Obama should know that nobody in England or France or in Texas consider the rush of immigrants being a chance. Then the second menace, as dangerous as it looks unconcerned:
The population is shrinking. And so we have to respond with resolve in what are effectively regional challenges that Russia presents. We have to make sure that they don't escalate where suddenly nuclear weapons are back in the discussion of foreign policy.
Who does escalate? President Putin or the pool of the néocons mixed with the Ukrainian junta that ecstatically invocated the third world war?
Poor president, poor American poor prison planet we are in. The making of a world safer for democracy (a Woodrow Wilson's lemma) will never be possible. The world is not pure enough for American Gnostic democracy.
And as far as we are concerned we know that the BRICS constitute now the new free world.
Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.
After the retreat of the Russian Armed Forces, it appears that the long-awaited success in the liberation of the Donetsk People's Republic is coming: Russia will soon take the city of Bakhmut