The Imperial Collapse
Playbook
By Dmitry Orlov
First Posted
December 30, 2014
March 28, 2019 "Information
Clearing House"
- "
- Some people enjoy having the Big Picture
laid out in front of them—the biggest
possible—on what is happening in the world
at large, and I am happy to oblige. The
largest development of 2014 is, very
broadly, this: the Anglo-imperialists are
finally being forced out of Eurasia. How can
we tell? Well, here is the Big Picture—the
biggest I could find. I found it thanks to
Nikolai Starikov and
a recent article of his.
Now, let's first define our terms. By
Anglo-imperialists I mean the combination of
Britain and the United States. The latter
took over for the former as it failed,
turning it into a protectorate. Now the
latter is failing too, and there are no new
up-and-coming Anglo-imperialists to take
over for it. But throughout this process
their common playbook had remained the same:
pseudoliberal pseudocapitalism for the
insiders and military domination and
economic exploitation for everyone else.
Much more specifically, their playbook
always called for a certain strategem to be
executed whenever their plans to dominate
and exploit any given country finally fail.
On their way out, they do what they can to
compromise and weaken the entity they leave
behind, by inflicting a permanently oozing
and festering political wound. “Poison all
the wells” is the last thing on their
pre-departure checklist.
• When the British got tossed out of their
American Colonies, they did all they could,
using a combination of import preferences
and British “soft power,” to bolster the
plantation economy of the American South,
helping set it up as a sort of anti-United
States, and the eventual result was the
American Civil War.
• When the British got tossed out of
Ireland, they set up Belfast as a sort of
anti-Ireland, with much blood shed as a
result.
• When the British got tossed out of India,
they set up Pakistan, as a sort of
anti-India, precipitating a nasty hot war,
followed by a frozen conflict over Kashmir.
• When the US lost China to the Communists,
they evacuated the Nationalists to Taiwan,
and set it up as a sort of anti-China, and
even gave it China's seat at the United
Nations.
The goal is always the same: if they can't
have the run of the place, they make sure
that nobody else can either, by setting up a
conflict scenario that nobody there can ever
hope to resolve. And so if you see
Anglo-imperialists going out of their way
and spending lots of money to poison the
political well somewhere in the world, you
can be sure that they are on their way out.
Simply put, they don't spend lots of money
to set up intractable problems for
themselves to solve—it's always done for the
benefit of others.
Fast-forward to 2014, and what we saw was
the Anglo-imperialist attempt to set up
Ukraine as a sort of anti-Russia. They took
a Slavic, mostly Russian-speaking country
and spent billions (that's with a “b”) of
dollars corrupting its politics to make the
Ukrainians hate the Russians. For a good
while an average Ukrainian could earn a
month's salary simply by turning up for an
anti-Russian demonstration in Kiev, and it
was said that nobody in Ukraine goes to
protests free of charge; it's all paid for
by the US State Department and associated
American NGOs. The result was what we saw
this year: a bloody coup, and a civil war
marked by numerous atrocities. Ukraine is in
the midst of economic collapse with power
plants out of coal and lights going off
everywhere, while at the same time the
Ukrainians are being drafted into the army
and indoctrinated to want to go fight
against “the Muscovites.”
Are You Tired Of
The Lies And
Non-Stop Propaganda?
|
But, if you notice, things didn't go quite
as planned. First, Russia succeeded in
making a nice little example of
self-determination in the form of Crimea: if
it worked for Kosovo, why can't it work for
Crimea? Oh, the Anglo-imperialist
establishment wishes to handle these things
on a case-by-case basis, and in this case it
doesn't approve? Well, that would be a
double-standard, wouldn't it? World, please
take note: when the West talks about justice
and human rights, that's just noise.
Next, the Russians provided some amount of
support, including weapons, volunteers and
humanitarian aid, to Ukraine's eastern
provinces of Donetsk and Lugansk, which
declared themselves People's Republics and
successfully fought Ukraine's so-called
“anti-terrorist operation” to a stalemate
and an imperfect, precarious cease-fire.
Very significantly, Russia absolutely
refused to get involved militarily, has
withheld official recognition of these
republics, has refused to consider breaking
up Ukraine, and continues to insist on
national dialogue and a peace process even
as the bullets fly. According to Putin,
Ukraine must be maintained as “a contiguous
political space.” Thus, the Russians have
responded to the Anglo-imperialists' setting
up of an anti-Russia in the form of Ukraine
by setting up an anti-Ukraine in the form of
DPR and LPR, thereby shunting the
Anglo-imperialist attempt to provoke a war
between Ukraine and Russia into a civil war
within Ukraine.
You might also notice that the
Anglo-imperialists have been getting very,
very angry. They have been doing everything
they can to vilify Russia, comparing Putin
to Hitler and so on. This is because for
them it's all about the money, and they
didn't get what they paid for. What the
Anglo-imperialists were paying for in
corrupting Ukraine's politics was a
ring-side seat at a fight between Ukraine
and Russia. And what they got instead is a
two-legged stool at a bar-room brawl between
Eastern and Western Ukraine. Eastern Ukraine
accounts for a quarter of the Ukrainian
economy, produces most of the coal that had
formerly kept the lights on in the rest of
the country, and contains most of the
industry that had made Ukraine an
industrialized nation. Western Ukraine is
centered on the unhappy little rump of
Galicia, where the political soil is so
fertile for growing neo-Nazis. So, paying
billions to watch a bunch of Ukrainians
fight each other inconclusively while Russia
gets to play peacemaker is not what the
Anglo-imperialists wanted, and they are
absolutely livid about it. If they don't get
the war they paid for PDQ, they will simply
cut their losses, pack up and leave, and
then do what they always do, which is
pretend that the country in question doesn't
exist, which, the way things are going in
the Ukraine, it barely will.
Note that leaving, and then pretending that
a place doesn't exist, is something the
Anglo-imperialists have been doing a lot
lately. When they left Iraq, they did
succeed in setting up a sort of anti-Iraq in
the form of Iraqi Kurdistan, but that all
blew up in their face. Their attempts to set
up an anti-Syria or an anti-Libya died in
their infancy, and they don't seem to have
any plan at all with regard to Afghanistan,
unless it is to repeat every single blunder
the Soviets made there as carefully and
completely as possible.
What's more, it's starting to look like they
are about to get kicked out of Eurasia
altogether. Most of the major Eurasian
players—China, Russia, India, Iran, much of
Central Asia—are cementing their ties around
the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, to
which the United States isn't even admitted
as an observer. As for the European Union,
the current crop of EU politicians is very
much bought and will be paid for upon
retirement by the Anglo-imperialists, but
the only reason they are still in power is
that there are lots of older voters in
Western Europe, and older people tend to
cling to what they know even after it stops
working—for them or, especially, for their
kids. If it was up to the young people, the
Anglo-imperialists would face open
rebellion. In fact, the trends in voting
patterns show that their departure from the
region is a matter of time.
Here is a preview of possible coming
attractions. On their way out, the
Anglo-imperialists will of course try to set
up an anti-Europe, and the obvious choice
for that is Britain. Of all the European
nations, it is the most heavily manipulated
by their Anglo cousins from across the pond.
It would take minimal effort for them to
hurt Britain economically, then launch a
propaganda campaign to redirect the blame
for the bad economy toward the continent.
They wouldn't even have to hire translators
for their propaganda—a simple
“spelling-chequer” (or whatever) would
suffice. And so, to make sure that their
efforts to provoke a large-scale, hugely
destructive, festering conflict between
Britain and Europe fail, Europe would do
well to set up an anti-Britain within
Britain.
And the obvious choice for an anti-Britain
is of course Scotland, where the recent
independence referendum failed because of...
the recalcitrance of older voters. A
dividing line between the Anglo empire and
Eurasia running through the English
Channel/La Manche would be a disaster for
Europe and moving it somewhere west of
Bermuda would pose a formidable challenge.
On the other hand, suppose that line ran
along Hadrian's Wall, with the traditionally
combative and ornery Scots, armed with the
remnants of North Sea oil and gas, aligning
themselves with the Continent, while England
remains an ever-so-obedient vassal of the
Anglo-imperialists? That would reduce the
intercontinental conflict to what Americans
like to call a “pissing contest”: not worth
the high price of admission. Yes, there
would be some strong words between the two
sides, and some shoving and shouting outside
of pubs, and even some black eyes and loose
teeth should diplomacy fail, but that should
be the extent of the damage. That I see as
the best-case outcome.
So that's the big picture I see heading into
2015, which I am sure will be a most
tumultuous year. Not to make a prediction as
to timing (don't worry, you won't ever get
one out of me!) but 2015 could be the year
the Anglo-imperialist franchise finally
starts shutting down in obvious ways. We
know it will have to shut down eventually,
because failing all the time is not
conducive to its survival. The bonus
question is, what sort of anti-America will
these parasites set up inside America before
they abandon their host and scatter to their
fortified compounds in undisclosed locations
around the world? Or will they not even
bother, and just provoke a war of all
against all?
I would think that they would at least try
to leverage their expensively engineered
red/blue divide within the United States.
This fake cultural/political divide, with
all the pseudoliberal/pseudoconservative
indoctrination and university- and
church-based brainwashing that put it in
place, cost them a pretty penny. It was
engineered to produce the appearance of
choice at election-time while making sure
that there isn't any. But could it not be
pressed into service in some more extreme
manner? How about leveraging it to organize
some sort of rabidly homophobic racist
fundamentalist separatist enclave somewhere
down south? Or perhaps one somewhere in the
north, where zoophilia is de rigeur
while heterosexual intercourse requires a
special permit from a committee stocked with
graduates in women's studies? Now, fight,
you idiots! Don't you see how well that
could work in practice? Would they waste
such a nice opportunity to set up a system
of controlled mayhem? I think not!
I leave all of that up to you to imagine.
Happy New Year!
Dmitry
Orlov is a Russian-American engineer and a
writer on subjects related to "potential
economic, ecological and political decline
and collapse in the United States,"
something he has called “permanent crisis”.
http://cluborlov.blogspot.com
Do
you agree or disagree? Post your comment
here
======
Note To ICH Community
We ask that you assist us in
dissemination of the article published by
ICH to your social media accounts and post
links to the article from other websites.
Thank you for your support.
Peace and joy