Just
one of many views being presented
Will
Globalists Use North Korea To Trigger Catastrophe?
Brandon
Smith of Alt-Market
blog,
3
April, 2013
Whenever
discussion over North Korea arises in Western circles, it always
seems to be accompanied by a strange mixture of sensationalism and
indifference. The
mainstream media consistently presents the communist nation as an
immediate threat to U.S. national security, conjuring an endless
number of hypothetical scenarios as to how they could join forces
with Al-Qaeda and attack with a terroristic strategy. At the same
time, the chest puffing of the late Kim Jong-iL and the standard fare
of hyper-militant rhetoric on the part of the North Korean government
in general seem to have lulled the American public into a trance of
non-concern.
In
the midst of the latest tensions with the North Koreans, I
have found that most people are barely tracking developments and
that, when confronted by the idea of war, they shrug it off as if it
is a laughable concept. “Surely”
they claim, “The North is just posturing as they always have.”
The
high-focus propaganda attacking North Korea on our side and the
puffer fish methodology on their side have created a social
and political atmosphere surrounding our relations with the Asian
nation that I believe places both sides of the Pacific in great
danger.
North Korea has the potential to become a trigger point for multiple
economic catastrophes, and there are people in this world who would
be happy to use such crises to serve their own interests.
The
mainstream view being espoused by globalist-minded politicians and
corporate oligarchs with an agenda is that North Korea is a nuclear
armed monstrosity ready to use any subversive means necessary to
strike the United States. The
idea that the North is working closely with Al-Qaeda has been
suggested in everything from White House briefings to cable news to
movies and television. The concept of pan-global terrorist collusion
and the cartoon-land “axis of evil” has been prominent in our
culture since the Administration of George W. Bush. It has even been
making a resurgence lately in the MSM, which presented countries like
Iran, Syria And North Korea as the primary culprits interfering with
the success of the U.N.
Small Arms Treaty.
Of
course, what remains less talked about in the mainstream is the fact
that these nations refuse to adhere to the treaty because carefully
placed loopholes still allow major powers like the United States to
feed arms into engineered insurgencies. Why
would Syria or any other targeted nation sign a treaty that restricts
its own sovereign ability to trade while giving teeth to internal
enemies trained and funded by foreign intelligence agencies?
The
establishment brushes aside such facts and consistently admonishes
these countries as the last holdouts standing in the way of a new
world order, a worldwide socioeconomic cooperative and
pseudo-Utopia. The
path to this wonderful global village is always presented as a battle
against stubborn isolationists, non-progressives who lack vision and
cling desperately to the archaic past. The values of personal and
national sovereignty are painted as outdated, decrepit and even
threatening to the newly born world structure. The image of North
Korea is used by globalists as a kind of straw man argument against
sovereignty. North Koreans’ vices and imbalances as a culture are
many; but this is due in far larger part to their communist insanity,
rather than any values of national independence. It is their domestic
hive-mind collectivism we should disdain, not their wish to maintain
a comfortable distance as a society from the global game.
As
far as being an imminent physical threat to the United States, it
really depends on the scenario. The
North Koreans have almost no logistical capability to support an
invasion of any kind. The nation has been suffering from epidemic
famine for well
more than a decade.
To
initiate a war outright has never been in the best interests of the
North Koreans,
simply because their domestic infrastructure would not be able to
handle the strain. However, there is indeed a scenario in which North
Korea could be influenced to use military force despite apprehension.
With
the ever looming threat of famine comes the ever looming threat of
citizen revolution. When
any government is faced with the possibility of being supplanted, it
will almost always lash out viciously in order to maintain power and
control, no matter the cost. Sanctions like those being implemented
by the West against North Korea today, at the very edge of national
famine, could destabilize the country entirely. I believe the North
would do anything to avoid an internal insurgency scenario, including
attacking South Korea to acquire food stores and energy reserves, as
well as other tangible modes of wealth.
North
Korea’s standing army, obtained through mandatory two year
conscription, is estimated at about 1.1 million active personnel;
very close to the numbers active in the U.S. armed forces. But
North Korean reserves are estimated at more than 8 million, compared
to only 800,000 in the United States. If made desperate by economic
sanctions, the North Koreans could field a massive army that would
wreak havoc in the South and be very difficult to root out on their
home turf. Asian cultures have centuries of experience using
asymmetric warfare (the kryptonite of the U.S. military), and I do
not believe it is wise to take such a possible conflict lightly, as
many Americans seem to do. It is easy to forget that the last Korean
War did not work out so well for us. At best, we would be mired in
on-ground operations for years (just like Iraq and Afghanistan) or
perhaps even decades. Like North Korea, we also do not have
the logistical economic means to enter into another such war.
The
skeptics argue that we will never get to this point,
though, because North Korea has brandished and blustered many times
before, all resulting in nothing. I
see recent events being far different and more urgent than in the
past, and here’s why:
1) The
West needs to realize that North Korea is under new leadership.
The blowhard days of Kim Jung Il are over, and little is known about
his son, Kim Jong Un. So far, the young dictator has followed through
on everything he said he would do, including the multiple nuclear
tests that the West is using as an excuse to exert sanctions. To
assume that the son will be exactly like the father is folly.
2) Many
people claimed that North Korean threats to abandon the Armistice in
place since 1953 were empty, yet they dropped it exactly as they said
they would at the beginning
of March.
3) The
North has begun cutting off direct communication channels to the
South, including a cross-border hotline meant to help alleviate
tensions through diplomatic means.
4) The
North has officially declared a state of war against the South. This
has been called mere “tough talk” by the U.S. government, but the
speed at which these multiple developments have occurred should
be taken
into consideration.
5) North
Korea has just announced the reopening of a shuttered nuclear reactor
used to render weapons grade materials.
6) The
DPRK has suddenly locked
down the Kaesong Industrial Zone;
a region which holds manufacturing centers for both North and South
Korea. Southern manufacturers operating there employ nearly 50,000
Northern workers. Nearly 1000 Southerners also work there. The
arrangement generates approximately $2 billion a year for the North.
The joint industrial zone has existed since 2000, and the North has
never locked down access until this past week. The fact that
the DPRK is willing to restrict this area and possibly lose a sizable
income signals that the situation is not as “mild” as some would
like to believe.
7) At
the beginning of this year, silver purchases by the North from China
surged. For the entire year of 2012, the government purchased $77,000
worth of precious metals. In the first few months of 2013, North
Korea has already purchased $600,000 in silver. The exact size of the
North’s precious metals stockpile is unknown. Though seemingly
small in comparison to many purported metal holdings by major powers,
this sudden investment expansion would indicate a government move to
protect internal finances from an exceedingly frail economic
environment. Metals are also historically accumulated at a high
rate by nations preparing for war or invasion in
the near term.
Again,
all that is needed to instigate an event on the Korean Peninsula are
tightened sanctions.The
establishment knows this, though another Gulf of Tonkin incident (an
openly admitted false flag event) may be on the menu as well.
Given
that the chances of a shooting war are high if sanctions continue, it
might be wise
to consider the consequences of conflagration in Korea.
Dealing
with a large army steeped in asymmetric and mountain warfare will be
difficult enough. In fact, an invasion of North Korea would be
far more deadly than Afghanistan, if only because of the sheer number
of maneuver elements (guerilla-style units) on the ground. But
let’s set aside North Korea for a moment and consider the greatest
threat of all: dollar collapse.
As
I have discussed in numerous articles, China,
the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt, has positioned itself to
decouple from the American consumer and the dollar. This
is no longer a theoretical process as it was in 2008, but a very real
and nearly completed one. Mainstream analysts often claim China would
never break from the dollar because it would damage their export
markets and their investment holdings. The problem is, China
is already dumping
the dollar using bilateral trade agreements with numerous developing
nations, Australia
being the latest to abandon the greenback.
China
isn’t just talking about it; China is doing it.
The
development of a decoupled China is part of a larger push by
international banks to remove the dollar as the world reserve
currency and replace it with a new global currency. This currency
already exists. The
International Monetary Fund’s Special Drawing Rights (SDR) is a
mechanism backed by a basket of currencies as well as gold. The
introduction of the SDR on a wide scale is dependent on only two
things:
- First, China has been designated the replacement consumer engine in the wake of a U.S. collapse. They have already surpassed the United States as the No. 1 trading power in the world. However, they must spread their own currency, the Yuan, throughout global markets in order to aid the IMF in removing the dollar. China has recently announced a program to sell more than $6 trillion in Yuan denominated bonds to foreign investors, easilyfulfilling this need.
- Second, China and the IMF need a scapegoat event, a rationale for dumping the dollar that the masses would accept as logical. A U.S. invasion of North Korea could easily offer that rationale.
While
China has been playing the good Samaritan in relations with the
United States in dealing with North Korea and has supported (at least
on paper) certain measures including sanctions, China will never be
in support of Western combat actions in the Pacific so close to their
territory.
The kind of U.S. or NATO presence a war with North Korea would
generate would be entirely unacceptable to the Chinese, who do not
need to respond using arms. Rather, all they have to do to get rid of
us would be to fully dump the dollar and threaten to cut off trade
relations with any other country that won’t do the same. The domino
effect would be devastating, causing U.S. costs to skyrocket and
forcing us to pull troops out of the region. At the same time, the
dollar would be labeled a “casualty of war” rather than a
casualty of conspiratorial global banking designs, and the financial
elites would be removed from blame.
Ultimately,
we should take the North Korean situation seriously not because of
the wild-eyed propaganda of the mainstream media and not because they
are “doing business with terrorists” or because they are a
“violent and barbaric relic of nationalism,” but because a war in
North Korea serves the more malicious interests of globalization. No
matter what happens in the near future, it is important for Americans
to always question the true motives behind any event and ask
ourselves who, in the end, truly benefited.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.