The British Empire is Losing, But Wants to Take the World Down With It

March 30, 2016
British Prime Minister David Cameron meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G20 Summit in Turkey, November 2015.

The Empire is in turmoil. Putin has defeated them in Syria, and is beginning to win over the sane elements of the populations in the West. Their banking system is unraveling, with all the money printing they have unleashed unable to stop it, nor to stop the world from turning to China's Silk Road and the new BRICS financial institutions for credit, for real development. Their culture is descending into satanism, as their leaders glory in killing—by drones, by hunger, by disease, and by suicide—even as the revived Confucian culture of China reaches out to the world with win-win development, classical education, and collaboration in space exploration.

The response to this Chinese and BRICS "threat" to their dying empire is to prepare for war—military and economic. US Deputy Defense Secretary Tony Blinken on Tuesday told a Washington forum that China simply must accept the massive US military buildup on their border, and "trust us" that we are not targeting them. China's Foreign Ministry spokesman responded that the THAAD missiles being prepared for deployment in South Korea are not a "technical issue," but a direct threat to peace and stability.

The Empire's leading economic voice, the Financial Times of London, issued a similar threat through journalist Martin Wolf, who wildly claimed that China is responsible for the "Great Depression" that he sees coming soon, unless Beijing accepts the "cooperative management" of the Chinese economy!

A scholar from Australia, Tim Winter, objected to the distortion of China's Silk Road process by western governments and the western press in a truthful analysis titled: "One Belt, One Road, One Heritage - Cultural Diplomacy Along the Silk Road." The cultural, people-to-people aspect of China's program, he said, must not be dismissed as merely China's "soft power" effort to gain geopolitical influence. Rather, it is the crucial basis for the development process necessary to turn the world towards cooperation rather than confrontation. He quotes Xi Jinping from the recent Boao Forum, saying that "the Belt and Road will promote inter-civilizational exchanges to build bridges of friendship for our people, drive human development and safeguard the peace of the world."

Such thinking is sneared at by most of the western elite, trained in the mechanical, mindless pseudo-thinking of the Empire's Bertrand Russell, having forgotten (or suppressed) the creative spirit which gave birth to the United States, and which guided our greatest presidents. This spirit was largely snuffed out with the British assassination of John Kennedy, the launching of a colonial war in Asia, the gutting of America's space program, and the British Opium War against the United States, resulting in the current President who delights in warfare and has legalized drugs.

The remoralization of the American and European populations is essential if war is to be avoided and the economy revived. The leadership in the West capable of achieving that task is represented by the EIR Special Report inspired by Lyndon and Helga Zepp LaRouche, The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge. The rest of the world recognizes the urgency of this policy, as it has now been translated into Chinese and Arabic, with several more languages in the works. The trans-Atlantic nations must follow this lead, face the fact that everything productive is being shut down around them, and join the New Silk Road.

Sign me up for daily updates.



Obama's New Nuclear Cruise Missile: Another Nuclear Weapon Intended To be Usable

The Obama Administration's nuclear modernization plans fly in the face of Obama's claim that he is reducing the role of nuclear weapons in national security strategy. It's clear that the Pentagon, through these programs, particularly the B61-12 bomb and the Long Range Standoff (LRSO) cruise missile, is seeking nuclear weapons that are more tactically useful. Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists has been persistent in pointing this out. In a March 25 blog posting, Kristensen highlighted the questions that Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) asked in a recent hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee, during which administration officials tried but failed to convince her of the need for the LRSO.

"The so-called improvements to this weapon seemed to be designed, candidly, to make it more usable, to help us fight and win a limited nuclear war. I find that a shocking concept," Feinstein said. "I think this is really unthinkable, especially when we hold conventional weapons superiority, which can meet adversaries' efforts to escalate a conflict."

NATO commander Gen. Philip Breedlove, Kristensen reports, argued in a separate hearing that the new B-21 bomber and its new cruise missile are needed to break anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) measures. This is so that the bombers can break through air defenses in order to get close enough to destroy their primary targets. Those A2/AD targets would include Russian S-400 air-defense, Russian Bastion-P coastal defense, and Chinese DF-10A land-attack missile launchers.

Frank Klotz, the director of the national Nuclear Security Administration, made a bumbling effort to convince Feinstein of this argument but failed miserably. "No you didn't convince me," she said.

"Because this just ratchets up warfare and ratchets up deaths. Even if you go to a low kiloton of six or seven it is a huge weapon. And I thought there was a certain morality that we should have with respect to these weapons. If it's really mutual deterrence, I don't see how this does anything other—it's like the drone. The drone has been invented. It's been armed. Now every county wants one. So they get more and more sophisticated. To do this with nuclear weapons, I think, is awful."

Kristensen concludes by showing that the argument that the LRSO is needed to "bust" A2-AD defenses means that this is not a weapon of last resort, as nuclear weapons ought to be, but a weapon which brings nuclear use to the forefront of a conflict. This argument, Kristensen writes, "sounds eerily similar to the outrageous threats that Russian officials have made over the past several years to use nuclear weapons against NATO missile defense systems," but instead, the US calls it "deterrence and reassurance." Worse, still, the targets that they say the LRSO is to be used against, are reachable with conventional weapons that are currently in service. One flaw in Kristensen's argument is that he takes at face value Obama's promise, made in his speech in Prague in 2009, to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Kristensen thinks that the problem is that the nuclear warfighters in the Pentagon are out of control and need to be reined in, when in reality it's Obama that is creating the conditions for nuclear confrontation with not only Russia, but China as well.