Part 1

 Several factors converged to start the colonial empires of Europe. In 1453, the Ottomans conquered Constantinople (Istanbul). The Silk Road transporting goods between east and west intersected Istanbul-which gave it a huge advantage in global trade. In 1493/5 the Muslims and Jews were thrown out of Spain, when the Christian ruler. Ferdinand defeated the Moors. Not long after that, the Spanish and Portuguese began searching for a new route to reach China, in order to by-pass the toll-road “chokepoint” of the Ottomans.

And so began the rise of European powers. This eventually gave rise to sea-power as a key to global empire. Over the next 3 centuries, the British became the dominant global power, based upon its dominating navy. When the British Empire collapsed in 1919, the Americans took over. From the end of the Second World War in 1945, the US became the dominant global power. It is noticeable that Japan, Britain and the US became powerful due to their reliance on dominating maritime trade routes, backed by their powerful navies. All three are island powers.

  Both the British and the Americans knew that if the East manages to connect with the West through overland trade routes, then there would be no need to rely upon the naval power of these two nations. Thus, there was a motive to destabilize any initiative by nations to achieve connectivity between the two ends of Eurasia. In short, if transportation corridors are established in Eurasia, then the stranglehold that Britain and America hold will be broken.

Until recently, the leading analysts of geopolitics have debated whether land power was more significant than sea power and what specific region of Eurasia is vital to gain control over the entire continent. One of the most prominent, Harold Mackinder, pioneered the discussion early in the 20^th  century with his successive concepts of the Eurasian “pivot area” (which was said to include all of Siberia and much of Central Asia) and, later, of the Central-East European “heartland” as the vital springboards for the attainment of continental domination. He popularized his heartland concept by the famous dictum:” Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; Who rules the World-Island will control the world.” The World-Island is Eurasia.

The Fight for Control of Eurasia

The region from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and from Egypt to Pakistan including Central Asia, is known as Eurasia. Halford J Mackinder was a geopolitical studies professor, in London. Around 1905, he wrote a book on Eurasia, and his one statement will be sufficient to summarize the whole issue. This is what he had to say; “Whoever controls the Eurasian Heartland controls the world”. The Eurasian Heartland comprises the region of Ukraine to Central Asia, and includes the Middle East. We will now show how true this is.

 Since the late 19^th century, industrial and scientific knowledge has been focused on building a transportation corridor across the region, linking Asia to Europe, via the Middle East and Central Asia. This development posed a serious geopolitical threat to the British Empire, then the most powerful in the world, and in the grip of the Rothschild family. In order to stop these developments, the British launched a Russian civil war in 1905, in order to stop the completion of the Trans-Siberian Railway. Then, between 1900 and 1914, the Berlin-Baghdad Railway was being built. In order to stop this, the British initiated World War 1.

 After the Second World War, America became the dominant power in the world. Not much development took place in Eurasia due to the Cold War, between East and West. Do remember, that World War 2 was fought on the two extremes of Eurasia – in Europe, and East and South East Asia, plus North Africa. It was only after the demise of the Soviet Union, in 1991, that attention was once more focused on this region.

 Beginning in 1993, just went China became a net oil importer (in November), China launched a major initiative to build the Eurasian  Land-bridge, which she called the “New Silk Road” This was based on the ideas of American economist Lyndon LaRouche, and which LaRouche made a presentation of in Berlin in 1989.. This initiative had the potential to ignite a process of rapid economic development – a true ‘economic miracle’ – throughout the length and breadth of Eurasia. To understand fully what that means, it is necessary to look at the system of “development corridors” which will be the main vehicle of Eurasian developments in the coming decades.

 The locations of these corridors are basically determined by considerations of economic geography and physical economy. Most of them have a long history, going back over centuries to the ancient overland trading routes which linked the civilizations and population centers of China, India, the Middle East, Europe and Africa. Indeed, the famous “Silk Route “of ancient times was only part of a Eurasian-wide trading network.

  From the earliest times, the history of the great trading routes was connected with the development of cities, promoting the spread of knowledge and culture over the entire vast area. One of the most notable events in that long history was the great city-building campaign of Alexander the Great, which extended from the Mediterranean into Central Asia all the way to the Indus Valley. Not surprisingly, Alexander’s military exploits (as countless others before and after him) tended to follow the already- established patterns of roads and trade routes. 

The present distribution of population-density in Eurasia reflects the combined effect of the natural routes, and in recent times, man-made canals, roads, and railways. It is a remarkable and highly significant fact that some 25% of the entire population of Eurasia, and 70% of its urban population, are concentrated within only 3 main transport corridors, each 100-km wide, connecting Europe with Asia.

 The enormous economic importance of this fact should be evident even to the most simple-minded salesman: every infrastructural improvement in these 3 main corridors means improved access to a potential ‘market’ of more than 3 billion people! More generally, concentrating investment into modern transport, energy, and water and communications infrastructure within these corridors provides the most efficient means to develop the economy of Eurasia as a whole.

Here, technology plays a crucial role, as development of railroads demonstrates. While transcontinental trade has always involved a combination of land and sea transport, the relative importance of these modes has often shifted under the influence of political and technological changes.  Aside from the invention of the wheel itself, it was the 19^th century emergence of railroads, which brought the greatest revolution in overland transport. Without railroads, the large-scale industrial development of Eurasia would have been impossible. Not only did railroads greatly increase the speed and efficiency of land transport, but they for the first time provided the means to open the landlocked interior regions of the continents – the vast “hinterlands” – for rapid economic development. This was demonstrated in the most spectacular manner by the history of the United States, where the world’s first intercontinental railroad was built. With North America as a precedent and inspiration, it was not long before the idea of an intercontinental railroad network linking Europe, Asia, and Africa began to take concrete form. It was clear, that the creation of such a network would entirely revolutionize the economic and political map of Eurasia. We shall not go into the fascinating and turbulent history here, except to note the fact, that the creation of an intercontinental rail network in Eurasia was bitterly opposed by the British Empire, from the very beginning up until the present day. The British opposition to this has been a chief cause of the two world wars and a decades-long “cold war “in the 20^th century. As a result of such geopolitical manipulation, more than 100 years after the completion of the Atlantic-to-Pacific railroad in the United States, only a SINGLE transcontinental line was actually realized in Eurasia: the famous Paris-Vladivostok link via the Trans-Siberian railroad. Although railroads were constructed at various times along the major sections of other corridors, until most recently, crucial gaps in a unified Eurasia system have remained unfulfilled.

Now, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, we have reached a turning point in the struggle to create an integrated railroad network for Eurasia as a whole. Bearing in mind the size of the populations which are directly and indirectly linked up by the “Eurasian Bridges” – these lines are destined in the future to carry enormous amounts of freight. The creation of these corridors means the greatest periods of large scale infrastructure construction in all of human history.  It will be one of the most profitable investments in history, as measured in terms of the resulting, gigantic increase in production and consumption of useful physical wealth in the participating nations.

 In July 1996, a leading British strategist, whose specialty is “classical geopolitics”, said, : “This Euro-Asian railroad project, involving China, Iran, and other countries, require us to revive Halford Mackinder and basic geopolitics. This has enormous geopolitical and strategic potential, and is a real danger, because, as you can see, it is not accessible to the Anglo-American maritime powers. What worries me is the economic multiplier effects of building railways. There is enormous multiplier effect, in terms of materials, and logistical infrastructure. Think of the implications of this, for movements of troops and materials. The United States should be very worried about such developments.”  “The best way to think of this is to recall the effects on the Soviet economy, of building the BAM (Baikul-Amur – Mainline) railway, north of Lake Baikal, in the 1970s. This had an enormous impact. The actual building of the railway had a multiplier effect, which kept the Soviet economy chugging along, by opening the uninhabitable parts of Siberia. This is the kind of thing that could happen now, with the Euro-Asian railway project, only on a bigger scale.”  “We’ve come full circle now, in the 20^th century. It began with a Eurasian geopolitical threat, and is ending with one.”

 It is essential to understand the real history of the 20^th century, to grasp what is happening in the world today. The battle to develop Eurasia is meeting the same enemies, using the same methods, as were used a century ago. The real content of Mackinder’s “warning” was the danger to the survival of the Anglo-American maritime empire in the face of a group of “land-based” industrial nation-states, allied in their own interests.

The First Phase (1990-2001)

In 1990/91, the Soviet Union collapsed. This brought to an end the ideological war between capitalism and communism. From now on, it will be a contest played out on the economic field.

The dominant power in America is the Rockefeller family, and its allied families .The age-old dream of the Rockefeller Empire is to establish a one world government, which would be built up and be a controlled entity within the family’s orbit Please read the other articles on our site, for further elucidation. As such , the head of the family, David, has many brilliant strategists around him, advising the best way forward in achieving this aim. The ultimate prize for the family is to control all aspects of energy flows in the world. As another of David’s advisors stated in 1974: “Who controls oil controls the destiny of nations”. Thus, we find that all the geopolitical battles raging in Eurasia has to do with oil and gas, and its associated pipelines.

Zbigniew Brzezinski was another of David’s strategists. He came out with a book in 1997, called THE GRAND CHESSBOARD. To understand the mentality, thinking, and strategies employed by the Rockefeller Empire, through its chief vassal, the US government, we shall put some quotes from the book here.

The following statement was made more than twenty-five years ago in a book by Brzezinski which he wrote while a professor at Columbia University:

1.”Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power.”

2.“…The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power (America) has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world’s paramount power. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power…”

3. “America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe’s central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America’s global primacy and to America’s historical legacy”. “For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia. “

4. “It is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.”

5. “With warning signs on the horizon across Europe and Asia, any successful American policy must focus on Eurasia as a whole and be guided by a Geo-strategic design. In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly hostile to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last.”

6. “How America ‘manages’ Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa’s subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world’s central continent. About 75 per cent of the world’s people live in Eurasia, and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources.”

7. “The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role.“
8.”It is conceivable that at some point a truly united and powerful European Union could become a global political rival to the United States. “

9. It follows that America’s primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it.”

10.“To put it in a terminology that hearkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together.“ Here, the “barbarians” refer to India, China, Russia and Iran.  The “vassals” refer to nations under American domination-be it in Europe, or the Middle East.

11. Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America’s status as a global power”

12. “That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America’s primacy.”

13. “A coalition allying Russia with both China and Iran can develop only if the United States is shortsighted enough to antagonize China and Iran simultaneously.”

14. “It cannot be stressed enough that without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire.”

15. “The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role.”

16. “In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last.”

17. It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America’s power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being. “

18.  Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly a multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.

19. “Uzbekistan, nationally the most vital and the most populous of the central Asian states, represents the major obstacle to any renewed Russian control over the region. Its independence is critical to the survival of the other Central Asian states, and it is the least vulnerable to Russian pressures.” “Uzbekistan is, in fact, the prime candidate for regional leadership in Central Asia.”
20. “Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves are located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold.” By manipulating this “global zone of percolating violence”, Brzezinski proposes to further contain and weaken Russia and china.

21. “The public supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.”

The BAC Control – The Raw Materials Cartel

The BAC stands for the British-American-Commonwealth. This means the cartels of the two families. Here, we will deal with the combined entity of the London- New York axis as one. At the heart of the BAC clique, run by the super wealthy families of the oligarchy, is a combined economic and financial power greater than any single nation-state on earth. The BAC has been busy, in preparation for the biggest financial implosion in history, which some insiders are acutely aware of.

 Under BAC control are some 3-4,000 corporate entities. Although they maintain the fiction of corporate independence, their boards of directors are so multiply interlocked that it is difficult to tell one corporation from another. THEY ARE REALLY ONE ENTITY. In groups of 10 to 50 firms, they are formed into cartels, which dominate 30 – 90 % of the economic activity in critical sectors: precious metals, base metals, strategic minerals, oil and energy, food supplies, and finance.

 As the rate of financial disintegration has accelerated, the BAC clique has hoarded commodities, often buying the source of production, from the mines to the oil fields, from which the commodities are extracted or produced. The two families behind the BAC reason thus: “the mountain of financial instruments in the world will soon collapse and be worth very little. If, when the dust clears, we can own 70% of food, energy, metals, strategic minerals, and so on, we will dominate the world.”

Through consolidation of 70% or more ownership of raw materials, the BAC has put within its grasp the power to cut back the production-flow of every kind of agricultural produce and raw material that is needed for the people to eat, or, worked up from raw materials to capital and other finished goods, that is required for modern society. By squeezing off these flows, production would be crippled, to the point that mankind would be reduced in population numbers.

 The immense physical goods and financial power of the BAC cartel is not reported in university textbooks or in the media. The latter focus on how much Bill Gates of Microsoft is worth or other issues, but it has given little coverage of how the BAC cartel has been building up immensely its power.

 The approximately 5,000 financier-oligarch’s who comprise the ruling councils of these two networks, own and manage the affairs of an interlocking corporate apparatus that dominates “choke points” within the global economy, especially finance, insurance, raw materials, transportation, and consumer goods. This cartel is known as the Club of Isles, in London, and RF & A in New York. RF & A stands for Rockefeller Family & Associates. Its center of policy-making and power is in the one square mile known as the City of London; and in a canyon in lower Manhattan known as Wall Street.

There is nothing coincidental in the process leading to catastrophe and World War 3. In essence, this confrontation is the strategic goal which the Anglo-American financier elite, better known as the British (Rothschild)-American (Rockefeller)-Commonwealth, or BAC, have been pursuing relentlessly since 1989, when the Berlin Wall came down. At that time, there were two radically opposed views in the west, as to what the post-communist world should look like. One the one hand, there were voices of reason such as Deutsche Bank chairman (Europe’s largest bank) Alfred Herrhausen in Germany. Then there are the forces of the two families who had plans to embark on a more sustained looting program for the world, based on a new policy to emerge, and which came to be known as “ globalization”. Alfred Herrhausen had a detailed plan for extension of long-term low interest credits to the East, to generate massive technology transfers and develop its economies along the lines that similar methods had generated the economic recovery and boom of post-war Germany. Herrhausen was to deliver a speech on his project, in New York, on December 4, 1989. Instead, on November 30, he was assassinated in an extremely sophisticated attack, which was attributed to the Red Army faction, a CIA-front terrorist operation active in the 1970s. The defunct terrorist capability had miraculously come alive, to intimidate anyone merely thinking along the lines of Herrhausen.

 Instead of economic development, the nations of Eastern Europe and Russia were forced to accept the economic recipes of the IMF, which gutted their countries. At the same time, outright aggression was organized. As if working from a map of the continent, the two networks proceeded systematically to set fires leading to regional and international conflicts on the Eurasian continent, many of which have continued to the present day.

The story continues in Part 2 – – –https://behindthenews.co.za/the-sco-the-wests-worst-nightmare-part-2-of-a-3-part-series/