Western mechanisms of world enslavement

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Over the past centuries, the concept of Western colonialism has remained practically unchanged. Having become more sophisticated, its mechanisms have remained approximately the same as at their dawn. As before, countries that do not have resources, but usurped technologies, as well as control over the emission of currencies, exploit and threaten those who have subsoil resources and cannot give back.

Exploitation is supported by the early elimination of competitors, and therefore any state that has tried to throw off the "colonial" yoke in recent decades has certainly been subjected to attempts at external chaos. Such work, as a rule, is carried out by hybrid methods, and not always in a military manner.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the bloc of countries isolated from the US dollar, a "unipolar" system began to form in the world. The process was deliberately not forced and proceeded in a measured manner solely because the elites of the West sincerely believed in the coming time of the “end of history”.

The money from the plunder of the USSR was planned to be gradually redirected to the ideas of globalism, neutralizing the independence of nation states with the hands of the United States, and as a result, quietly transferring the world into the “caring” hands of financial elites and corporations.

In practice, a lot has gone completely wrong. In particular, it was assumed that the gradual withdrawal of numerous assets from the Soviet half of the planet, as well as the inflation of new dollar bubbles for decades, would cover the costs for the spread of globalization and a unipolar world; instead, a momentary effect was obtained.

During the presidency of Bill Clinton, the growth in the well-being of American households was truly impressive, but by the end of the 90s, the pace began to slow down, and since the beginning of the 2000s, it completely dropped. Profits from the new "colonies" decreased, while the appetites of the metropolis increased.

The West, accustomed to super profits over the years, felt a lack of funds and again began to search for a new facility for operation. Such, despite the risks, was the transfer of production to Southeast Asia and China.

In general, the export of capacities in itself correlated with the globalization project, since it prescribed the division of the planet into different zones: "factories of the world", "world design bureaus", "emission centers", "resource appendages", zones of "eternal chaos" and so on. further, however, not all elites were on the way with this transfer. Later in the Trump election, this played a role.

This was followed by a new round of appetite growth and a new need to find sources for new ideas. At that time, tidbits were long over, and therefore, in order to cover the costs of the global process, transnational elites returned to traditional methods. Having expanded the arsenal of approaches worked out in the XX century, they supplemented it with the capabilities of the XXI century.

Since then, hiding behind the ideas of economic growth, the West has launched its first mechanism through supranational institutions - global lending. He made the life of states on credit a principle of development and thereby arrogated to himself the right to determine which path a country should take under the yoke of the exclusive levers of the United States on the world financial system.

Outwardly, it looked like lending and "support" to countries in a difficult situation, but in practice conditions have always led only to directing the development of the state in the direction necessary for the creditor.

Credit mechanisms were primarily focused on those who were strategically important for the expansion of Western hegemony - countries with favorable geographic locations, such as Ukraine, or states with logistic potential, such as the SAR. At the same time, the process itself provided not only the imposition of loans, but also the development of special economic strategies prescribed to debtors and other countries.

In particular, having purposefully started total lending to Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the West planned to push through solutions that were beneficial for itself. And while the credit load was growing, the leadership in Moscow was completely satisfied with the "civilized" world.

However, as soon as the country began to pay its interest in the 2000s, the Anglo-Saxons immediately became concerned about the Kremlin's "dictatorship", as well as signs of the "undemocratic" regime.

"Independent" media immediately began assessing the Kremlin's "unpatrioticity", accused the leadership of refusing to "inject money into their own economy," and Britain and the United States vied with each other to offer Moscow generous terms for restructuring loans and postponing debt payments. That was not why the mechanism of "credit" control was involved, so that Russia would suddenly throw off this yoke.

Nevertheless, by 2006, the main debt of $ 45 billion to the Paris Club had been paid off, and by 2017 Russia had paid off all of its debt. The debt stranglehold, tied around the country's neck since 1993, when not only the debt burden of the USSR was hung on Moscow, but also the debts of all former Soviet republics, the Russian Empire and, of course, the state debt of the Russian Federation itself, was thrown off, and the credit mechanism of Western control was thrown off.

Unfortunately, the second lever for external influence remained in the work - “special strategies for economic development”, international “recommendations” and private “advice” of the World Bank, IMF and the Central Bank's lines, directing the economy of the state in the right direction. These destructive moments lasted much longer, right up to the start of the sanctions war.

In general, the sanctions, in addition to negative aspects, created unique conditions for the long-awaited recovery of domestic production, and given the significant successes in import substitution, large-scale national programs, the purge of the power ranks and the emerging personnel reserve, the Kremlin clearly began preparing for this much earlier.

History lessons

When the method of economic “recommendations”, sanctions and a credit needle does not work for one reason or another, the West, as a rule, uses the third approach. So, in particular, it was in the notorious Libya …

In 2011, this long-suffering country, which plays a key role in the Saleh and Maghreb region, became a target for Western intervention, and the reason for this was that all other options for influencing it did not work.

Under sanctions, Colonel Gaddafi not only refused to take out loans, but instead hatched audacious plans to turn a dried-up Africa into a prosperous continent.

Not only did the title of this man always irritate the West: "The fraternal leader and leader of the September 1st Great Revolution of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya", but also the grandiose desert irrigation project threatened to impoverish Western transnational corporations, depriving them of the eternal stranglehold in Africa from food shortages and water.

The same was true of Libya's plans to introduce the golden dinar, which risks completely isolating Africa from the US dollar

Muammar Gaddafi intended to create not only Libya independent of transnational capital, but an African Union independent of it. And the gold-backed dinar should be made the main currency not only of the Muslim states of Africa, but also of other countries of the continent as a whole.

Essentially, any of these points was enough for the Anglo-Saxon invasion, but Gaddafi made an unforgivable mistake.

To implement his plans, he decided that using an alliance with a strong alternative - Beijing and Moscow - would mean getting heavily dependent on them, and therefore preferred a system of checks and balances with Britain and the United States itself. And although Russia at that time would hardly have been able to play the current international role of an arbiter, and China would not have abandoned neutrality, an attempt to play on the "friendship" field with the Anglo-Saxons looked even more dangerous. And so it happened.

While Gaddafi has been attracting the West to oil production since 2003, proclaiming a course towards economic liberalization, democratic reforms and a new path, the West publicly welcomed his initiatives, and privately sharpened the "ax of war."

Having relied on tying the hands of the West with trade prospects, Gaddafi announced the curtailment of nuclear programs, let Western corporations into the country, went on rapprochement with the capitals of Europe and contacts with the United States, and spent the bulk of the money from the sale of energy resources to buy shares in the largest Western corporations.

The Libyan leader hoped to use the famous rule: "he who trades does not fight" and miscalculated. The reason for this was simple - The West never pays for what it can get by force.

Having pulled out all that was possible from Libya and realizing that Tripoli would soon begin to demand something back, Britain and the United States immediately began to convince the Europeans of the benefits of the war. The EU was promised compensation, and the heads of European corporations were promised a map on which all Libyan deposits had long been divided.

As a result, almost 80 percent of exports redirected from Russia and China to the countries of Western Europe and America, Libya was not kept from the war. And the fact that Gaddafi turned his back on Beijing and Moscow, left him alone with the West.

The same thing happened at one time with Saddam Hussein, when the head of Iraq similarly stated that as soon as the embargo imposed by the UN under pressure from Washington ceases to exist, he will start selling even gasoline for the euro.

Nevertheless, a forceful scenario, a credit needle and international financial instruments are not the only option for the West. In addition to the two described above, there is a third - a hybrid scenario, the appearance of which can be considered 1953.

It was the overthrow of Mohamed Mossadegh in Iran that became the first classic "color" revolution in history, which opened a long way for man-made coups. Moreover, the reasons for creating this approach were exactly the same.

Throughout the first half of the last century, oil production in Iran was controlled by British capital, and therefore, as soon as in November 1950 Mossadegh submitted the refusal of the “oil contracts” to parliament for consideration, he immediately became “dictator”, and Iran became “threat number one”. From the United States, Kermit Roosevelt, the grandson of Theodore Roosevelt and the head of the CIA's Middle East department, arrived in the country, along with millions of dollars, accompanied by the British Secret Service.

The Anglo-Saxons began to undermine the country from within, began to buy up Iranian officers and civil servants, oversee a powerful information campaign that affects public opinion, and filled Iran with paid riots, leaflets and posters. While some provocateurs chanted slogans about the death of an objectionable prime minister, others disguised themselves as communist symbols staged pogroms and terrorist attacks attributing them to Mossadegh and Moscow.

The high-ranking military bought by the Anglo-Saxons took to the streets the troops and, to the fanfare of the international press, returned the government supported by the "world community" from exile. The puppet of London and Washington was put on the "throne", Mossadegh was arrested, and the head of the Iranian Foreign Ministry, as the most vocal supporter of independence, was demonstratively and brutally killed.

The first thing the new management did was to sign an agreement to form a consortium to develop Iranian oil. 40% was given to the Anglo-Iranian oil company, which received the well-known name "BP", 40% - to corporations from the United States, less than a fifth - Shell, and 6% - to the French.

So London and Washington discovered a universal scheme for the conquest of countries and peoples, consisting of three simple steps. Credit needles, “recommended development strategies”, color revolutions that include sanctions, information warfare and “cold” mechanisms, and in extreme cases, war.

All this turned out to be inexpensive and quite effective, and it worked almost always. The toughest nut to crack today is Russia, its society and the "regime" undesirable to the West. In spite of a much higher-quality fine-tuning of modern mechanisms, Moscow managed to withstand the consolidated blow, go through the stage of combined aggression and by now get a relative break.

"Spraying" the focus of Western pressure towards Beijing has opened up additional opportunities, and now it depends only on Russia whether it will be able to use the historical chance - to make a leap or be left behind forever.