Part 1(extracted from the original report prepared by the author in August 2001)
In order to understand why the attacks of September 11(2001), in New York, took place, we will have to do some background. And it all has to do with the quest for American dominance of 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 19th 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 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. 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 Landbridge, which she called the “New Silk Road”, 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 2 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 19th 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 20th 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 key to the economic future if Eurasia lies not in the mere creation of efficient transcontinental and other transport lines, but rather transforming these lines into what we call “infrastructure development corridors”, thereby unleashing the most intense period of large-scale investment, city building, and agro-industrial development in the history of mankind. As an aside, this has the potential of creating 1.5 billion new jobs!
By transforming long-distance lines of transport, energy, or water infrastructure into “development corridors, we vastly increase the efficiency and economic impact of the infrastructure lines themselves.
Consider for example, the construction and operation of a long-distance railroad line linking City A and City B across a large underdeveloped and underpopulated area. As long as the regions along the railroad line remain underdeveloped, they appear only as a ‘cost’ factor in providing for the transportation of goods and persons between points “A” and “B”. The time and effort spent in traversing the distance between “A” and “B” is simply lost, with no positive economic effort. In fact, one of the major economic weaknesses of the economy of the former Soviet Union was the enormous transport costs incurred as a result of having to link together isolated raw material deposits, processing and production centers, separated from each other by immense, relatively empty spaces.
What happens when we develop a dense fabric of population centers, agricultural and industrial activities located along the entire length of a railway line? In that case, the distance A-B is transformed into an economic “multiplier”. Immediately, the degree of utilization of the railroad and other infrastructure is greatly increased. The larger the density of exploitation of a transit route, the more efficient the transport system becomes, i.e., the lower the investment and operating costs per ton and per ton-kilometer transported.
The region along the line is both a large market, and a large supplier of goods. By this kind of development, the railroad between “A” and “B” takes on the role of a giant “production line” , in which value is added to a portion of the goods as they move from one point to another. Obviously, therefore, a ‘continuous corridor of development’ formed in such a way, is economically much more viable than an isolated island of investment activity. These advantages become greater, when the corridor in question coincides with, or is closely linked to, a major axis of transcontinental transport, energy, and communications of Eurasia as a whole.
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 20th century. It began with a Eurasian geopolitical threat, and is ending with one.”
It is essential to understand the real history of the early part of the 20th 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.
Geopolitical Insanity
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 called: 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 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.
The SCO Forms
On June 15, 2001, the Presidents of six Eurasian nations held the founding summit of the SHANGHAI COOPERATION ORGANIZATION, in Shanghai. This summit meeting was a turning point in Eurasian and world affairs, and has far-reaching potential, in the coming period, to shift the global strategic situation. The six leaders are Putin (Russia), Jiang Zemin (China),Nursultan Nazarbayev (Kazakstan), Askar Akayev (Kyrgystan), Emomli Rakhmonov (Tajikistan), and Uzbekistan’s Islam Karimov.
These six leaders focused on three issues: their nation’s security and territorial integrity; and economic cooperation. Since 1996, the original “Shanghai 5” nations, now joined by Uzbekistan, have moved rapidly forward, and are well aware of their real, and potential, political and economic capabilities.
Since the end of the Soviet Union, Russia has undergone an economic debacle. China, still a developing nation, must develop economic security for the world’s largest population, 1.26 billion people. The Central Asian republics are poor, isolated, and face dangerous insurgencies in the region, supported by the intelligence agencies of Britain, Israel and the US. Lack of development of vital resources, especially water and transport, is putting serious constraints on all the nations of the SCO.
Yet, at the same time, their potential is incalculable. All of this is making London and New York extremely nervous. They just cannot allow a development as the above to proceed. It would prove fatal to their plans. We shall see just how the two networks plan to topple this emerging Eurasian economic development.
Do note that this program was started by China in 1993. It gained momentum when Russian leader Boris Yeltsin went to China in early 1995, and appealed for help, in the immediate aftermath of the Chechnya fiasco. Thus, the first meeting took place in 1996. Yearly meetings followed. When the US bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999, it gained an added urgency. This bombing occurred when NATO bombed Serbia in order to extract Kosovo. The US claimed it was mistakenly bombed. Five missiles were fired at the embassy. No one bought this story.
We shall continue this in the next issue. One other point to note is that some, not all, of the above was taken from a Special Report written in August 2001. It’s now 15 years later, and it’s amazing to find that it’s very much applicable now, and maybe better understood.
