by Lee Camp
May 2, 2018
THIS PRESCIENT ARTICLE WAS
FIRST PUBLISHED OVER A YEAR AGO!
By the end of this column, it
will be clear which country the United States will invade and topple next. Or
failing that, it will be clear which country our
military-intelligence-industrial complex will be aching to invade
next.
We all want to know why
America does what it does. And I don’t mean why Americans do what we
do. I think that question still will be pondered eons from now by a future
professor showing his students a video mind-meld of present-day UFC fighters booting
each other in the head while thrilled onlookers cheer (not for either of the
fighters but rather for more booting in the head).
But we all seem to assume that
America—the entity, the corporation—has some sort of larger reasoning behind
the actions it takes, the actions put forward by the ruling elite. And almost
all of us know that the reasons we’re given by the press secretaries and
caricature-shaped heads on the nightly news are the ripest, most fetid grade of
bullshit.
We now know that the invasion
of Iraq had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. We now know that
the crushing of Libya had nothing to do with “stopping a bad man.” If one does
even a cursory check of what dictators around the world are up to recently,
you’ll find that the U.S. doesn’t care in the slightest whether they are bad or
good, whether they’re using their free time to kill thousands of innocent
people or to harmonize their rock garden. In fact, the U.S. gives military aid
to 70
percent of the world’s dictators. (One would hope that’s only around the
holidays though.)
So if it’s not for the stated
reasons, why does the U.S. overrun, topple and sometimes occupy the countries
it does? Obviously, there are oil resources or rare minerals to be had. But
there’s something else that links almost all of our recent wars.
As The
Guardian reported near the beginning of the Iraq War, “In October
2000, Iraq insisted on dumping the U.S. dollar—the currency of the enemy—for
the more multilateral euro.”
However, one example does not
make a trend. If it did, I would be a world-renowned beer pong champion rather
than touting a 1-27 record. (I certainly can’t go pro with those numbers.)
But there’s more. Soon after
Libya began moving toward an African gold-based currency—and lining up all its
African neighbors to join it—we invaded it as well, with the help of NATO.
Author Ellen Brown pointed
this out at the time of the invasion:
[Moammar Gadhafi] initiated a
movement to refuse the dollar and the euro, and called on Arab and African
nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar.
John Perkins, author of
“Confessions of an Economic Hitman,” also has said that the true reason for the
attack on Libya was Gadhafi’s move away from the dollar and the euro.
This week, The
Intercept reported that the ousting of Gadhafi, which was in many ways
led by President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, actually had to do with Sarkozy
secretly receiving millions from Gadhafi, and it seemed that his corruption was
about to be revealed. But, the article also noted, “[Sarkozy’s] real military
zeal and desire for regime change came only after [Hillary] Clinton and the
Arab League broadcasted their desire to see [Gadhafi] go.” And the fact that
Gadhafi was planning to upend the petrodollar in Africa certainly provides the
motivation necessary. (It doesn’t take much to get the U.S. excited about a new
bombing campaign. I’m pretty sure we invaded Madagascar once in the 1970s
because they smoked our good weed.)
Right now you may be thinking,
“But, Lee, your theory is ridiculous. If these invasions were about the
banking, then the rebels in Libya—getting help from NATO and the United
States—would have set up a new banking system after bringing down Gadhafi.”
Actually, they didn’t wait
that long. In the middle of the brutal war, the Libyan rebels formed their own central bank.
Brown said, “Several writers
have noted the odd fact that the Libyan rebels took time out from their
rebellion in March to create their own central bank—this before they even had a
government.”
Wow, that sure does sound like
it’s all about the banking.
Many of you know about Gen.
Wesley Clark’s famous quote about seven countries in five years. Clark is a
four-star general, the former head of NATO Supreme Allied Command, and he ran
for president in 2008 (clearly he’s an underachiever). But it’s quite possible
that 100 years from now, the one thing he’ll be remembered for is the fact that
he told us that the Pentagon
said to him in 2002: “We’re going to take down seven countries in five
years. We’re going to start with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, then Libya,
Somalia, Sudan. We’re going to come back and get Iran in five years.”
Most of this has happened. We
have, of course, added some countries to the list, such as Yemen. We’re helping
to destroy Yemen largely to make Saudi Arabia happy. Apparently our
government/media care only about Syrian children (in order to justify regime
change). We couldn’t care less about Yemeni children, Iraqi children, Afghan
children, Palestinian children, North Korean children, Somali children, Flint
(Michigan) children, Baltimore children, Native American children, Puerto Rican
children, Na’vi children … oh wait, I think that’s from “Avatar.” Was that
fiction? My memories and 3-D movies are starting to blur together.
Brown goes even further
in her
analysis of Clark’s bombshell:
What do these seven countries
have in common? … [N]one of them is listed among the 56 member banks of the
Bank for International Settlements (BIS). That evidently puts them outside the
long regulatory arm of the central bankers’ central bank in Switzerland. The
most renegade of the lot could be Libya and Iraq, the two that have actually
been attacked.
What I’m trying to say is:
It’s all about the banking.
So right now you’re thinking,
“But, Lee, then why is the U.S. so eager to turn Syria into a failed state if
Syria never dropped the dollar? Your whole stupid theory falls apart right
there.”
First, I don’t appreciate your
tone. Second, in February 2006, Syria
dropped the dollar as its primary hard currency.
I think I’m noticing a trend.
In fact, on Jan. 4, it was reported that Pakistan
was ditching the dollar in its trade with China, and that same day,
the U.S. placed it on the watch list for
religious freedom violations. The same day? Are we really supposed to believe
that it just so happened that Pakistan stopped using the dollar with China on
the same day it started punching Christians in the nose for no good reason? No,
clearly Pakistan had violated our religion of cold hard cash.
This leaves only one question:
Who will be next on the list of U.S. illegal invasions cloaked in bullshit
justifications? Well, last week, Iran finally did it: It switched
from the dollar to the euro. And sure enough, this week, the U.S.
military-industrial complex, the corporate media and Israel all got together to
claim that Iran is lying about its nuclear weapons development. What are the
odds that this news would break within days of Iran dropping the dollar? What.
Are. The. Odds?
The one nice thing about our
corporate state’s manufacturing of consent is how predictable it is. We will
now see the mainstream media running an increasing number of reports pushing
the idea that Iran is a sponsor of terrorism and is trying to develop nuclear
weapons (which are WMDs, but for some strange reason, our media are shying away
from saying, “They have WMDs”). Here’s a 2017
PBS article claiming that Iran is the top state sponsor of terrorism.
One must assume this list of terror sponsors does not include the country that
made the arms that significantly
enhanced Islamic State’s military capabilities. (It’s the U.S.)
Or the country that drops
hundreds of bombs per day on the Middle East. (It’s the U.S.) But
those bombs don’t cause any terror. Those are the happy bombs, clearly.
Apparently, we just drop 1995 Richard Simmons down on unsuspecting people.
Point is, as we watch our
pathetic corporate media continue their manufacturing of consent for war with
Iran, don’t fall for it. These wars are all about the banking. And millions of
innocent people are killed in them. Millions more have their lives destroyed.
You and I are just pawns in
this game, and the last thing the ruling elite want are pawns who question the
official narrative.
No comments:
Post a Comment