Reliquification And War

Is the Anglo-Zionist war on the world fundamentally a desperate effort on the part of the West to find a way out of the debt trap they’ve landed themselves in? A desperate effort to make their economies liquid again? The idea would go something like this: If we can’t seize liquid assets from Russia and recolonize other resource rich parts of the world, enforce cheap energy prices on energy producers, we’ll—gulp—have to either repay our debts or default. Solution? Talk the Ukrainians into self destructing in a crazy war on Russia, so we can swoop in later and reap the benefits. Is that the real Great Reset? Rip off Russia to reliquify our economies and start the process all over again?

That topic was one among many in a recent video discussion:

War is Inevitable - Alastair Crooke, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen

Mercouris doesn’t participate in the discontinuous portions of the conversation that I’ve transcribed. See what you think:

AC: I saw you had Mr [Martin] Armstrong on recently and he talked about debt, but he missed saying the crucial part, in my view, which is that the whole of the West has a sort of inverted pyramid of fiat currency, of options, and of derivatives--huge trillions. And what's at the base of this inverted pyramid, there is no collateral, no real security. There may be a few bars of gold here and there or something like that, but there's no collateral on which all these claims and all these ephemeral products hang. They are without any sort of collateral so that if they start collapsing everyone's going to say, 'Yeah, but where's something solid? Where's something of value? Where's the value that we can have? If it's all collapsing, all these derivatives are moving in a single direction, I want value. I want something, I want at least 50% of my money back where I get it and you can't get it.' So that's why you get people like Lindsey Graham saying, 'Look, Ukraine has real materials, has real energy, coal, and things worth 12 trillion dollars. We can't let that slip, we can't let it go to Putin!' They need it to reliquify this great inverted pyramid of fat nothingness. So this is the “reset,” in a sense. I mean [Armstrong] started off down that path but I'm just taking it into the world of geopolitics and conflict.

I don't want to paint a gloomy picture because I'm not actually gloomy at all. I feel change is inevitable and we're on the cusp of big changes. It's not going to be pleasant, but we're at an inflection point and this is how change happens. It's not abnormal, but we're going through an intense period of change at the moment. Everything that we can see 6 months hence will look completely different, will be completely different. That will be my prediction. Whatever we see today, six months hence it'll be quite different.

GD: But it seems things can't continue like this anyway, because I very much agree with this idea that the system has to be, well, reliquified, as you said. It's running dry. But it seems every effort to do so has the opposite effect. So, for example, the sanctions on Russia. Breaking Russia could have been a good way of rebooting the system, but instead we saw that Russians could diversify their economic connectivity to the East. Europeans could not. And now, as you mentioned, the same with the Chinese. With the Americans trying to break [the Chinese] chip industry, the Chinese were able to pursue self-sufficiency and diversify while the Americans lost, especially Intel, their most important client, so they cut 15,000 jobs and now you see they're going from bad to worse. So it does seem that every effort [to get out of the hole through aggressive means] is counterproductive. It begs the question, ‘When do we stop doubling down and instead absorb these losses and try something different?’

AC: That won't happen because these structural things--how do you change the financialized structure of the United States? I mean, even if you had an imperial president who was capable of doing it, how would you set about? You have to change the whole economic structure--the corporations, the structures, the financial, the banking system, everything is geared to a hyper financialized consumer economy. How do you?

Now, Russia is changing it, and has changed it in 10 years and moved towards a real economy, and changed its whole basis away towards the sort of sense of sort of saying: The prime responsibility of an economy is to provide employment sufficient so that your people can afford to buy a house, can afford medical assistance, can go to school, and can live normal lives, and that you have a responsibility for the welfare of the community--not a responsibility for the welfare of oligarchs and corporations. I mean, you have to have a strategic view about how to manage a real economy, and Russia has that too, but you have also got to sort of ground it in the fact that, you know it was Friedrich List in the 19th century who kept predicting against Adam Smith, and he said if you move to more and more of a debt-based consumer society after a while you'll get to the point where you're unable to provide employment for your people, there will not be the means for people to have full employment if you financialize the whole economy and move away from a real economy. Then ultimately you will have the problem that there is not the ability there to give people employment and a life. He saw this danger long ago. So did Count Witte, who was the Prime Minister of czarist Russia at the time.