18+ 
Water wars. Part II
The US now uses the “war on terror” as the same fear-based strategy to maintain its world’s power, and it was the first war against Iraq that was used by President George H W Bush to announce the desire for a New World Order as the basis of the USA’s post-Cold War policy.
The USA is not a natural leader of any Western bloc or alliance with Europe. It is and always has been a misnomer to call the USA “leader of the Western world.” The USA at its founding arose as a dichotomy between Puritans and Freemasons. The USA has since the time of Woodrow Wilson regarded Europe is its vassal. The USA sought to unite Europe on US terms. America does not represent a new and vibrant nation, but an excrescence of the degenerate cycle of Europe emanating from Europe’s Age of Enlightenment, when Europe had repudiated its own cultural and spiritual roots, starting from the Reformation. Hence, the USA has forever been soulless, and money obsessed and offers no leadership, but relies on money, advanced weaponry and global cultural subversion in creating its New World Order. The US global agenda largely proceeds from cultural subversion, which is antithetical to traditional Western culture, and indeed all traditional cultures. Maj. Ralph Peters outlined the cultural offensive in an article for the Parameters in 1997. Here Peters states that the world is “entering a new American century”, in which America’s increased power will be concomitant with being “culturally more lethal.” He alludes to the “clash of civilisations” and democracy as the “liberal form of imperialism.” Peters wrote of how America would dominate through cultural subversion, stating, “Hollywood goes where Harvard never penetrated…. American culture is the most powerful in history, and the most destructive competitor of cultures. … Our military power is culturally based. … For the majority of our citizens, our vulgar, near-chaotic, marvellous culture is the greatest engine of positive change in history…. But American culture is infectious, a plague of pleasure…. But Hollywood is ‘preparing the battlefield’, and burgers precede bullets. The flag follows trade….”
Peters, retiring in 1998 as a lieutenant colonel, wrote the article in Parameters, entitled “Constant Conflict”, when he was attached to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence. He continues to be a commentator and writer on military strategy and foreign policy.
In the face of American globalism and cultural penetration Russia is the natural alignment for a European bloc if it is based around states that are historically resistant to US hegemony over Europe, such as France, a major player in the European Union.
The USA seeks to co-opt China into the world economy, as indicated previously with reference to the Soros comments and the long-running actions of the Rockefeller dynasty, and in turn is at the mercy of Chinese financial investment, creating a symbiotic relationship between the two. The USA has in the recent past sought out alignment with China in order to contain Russia. This is a possibility again, as it would be strategically plausible for the USA to back China vis-à-vis Russia.
Any repudiation of a mono-polar world based on US hegemony again centres on Russia, whose Governments after the end of the US-orientated Yeltsin era aim to restore Russian global influence. The alliance between China and Russia is contrary to history and ethnography and will not last. It is not a natural geopolitical alliance, for reasons outlined in this essay, and dealt with specifically in this writer’s paper Russia and China: an approaching conflict? China will confront India, Russia and Central Asia in a struggle for resources, especially including water, as I have attempted to show in this essay. Central Asia, India and other states as far away as Vietnam will gravitate towards Russia as China becomes increasingly hegemonic.
A Latin American bloc is emerging around Venezuela. Combined a South American bloc will have immense mineral and food resources. A Bolivarian revolution is taking place throughout Latin America under the inspiration of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. This Latin American bloc is forming in defiance of North American hegemonic ambitions, as it has traditionally done. This bloc is already in the process of formation and was launched as The Bolivarian Alternative for the People of Our America (ALBA) in 2004 by Venezuela and Cuba as an alternative to the U.S.- backed Free Trade Area of the Americas. By June 2009, ALBA had grown to nine member states, and the name was changed to the Bolivarian Alliance for the People of Our America. A Latin American bloc will consequently seek alignment with Russia, and Venezuela is already doing so.
New Zealand and Australia are being forced into Asia on economic grounds. Ethnography is not being taken into account, and therefore the prospect of an “Asian bloc” cannot work other than to submerge New Zealand and Australia as subordinate vassal sates to China, which will be the focus of any such bloc. Vietnam and India would not accede to an Asian bloc dominated by China. To view such an Asian bloc as a geopolitical evolution is not to consider the ethnographic and historical factors. New Zealand and Australia are outposts of European culture. They were founded as vibrant cultural expressions, but both were detached from their cultural roots, first by cutting off the allegiances to Britain, then by substituting the British cultural foundations for American cosmopolitanism and commerce. Britain and New Zealand were thereby denied the time during which to evolve their own national folk cultures, and now remain culturally and spiritually barren. Hence both are easy prey for parasitic global commerce and have readily accepted an Asian identity.
The concept of the Asian bloc under Chinese hegemony, and including Australia and New Zealand are the product of specific plutocratic interests in the USA centred around the Rockefeller dynasty in particular. John D. Rockefeller III set up the Asia Center in 1956 as a preliminary interest group to promote an Asia bloc. The by-line on the Asia Society’s website is: “Preparing Asians and Americans for a shared future.” Trustees currently include: Charles P. Rockefeller and John D. Rockefeller IV. To promote an Asia bloc as part of a global economic structure, the Trilateral Commission was established in 1973 by David Rockefeller, listed on the Commission’s website as the “Founder and Honorary North American Chairman (1977-1991).
The agenda of the Trilateral Commission has been widened in recent years to further the ‘new world order’ that is also being sought by similar think tanks, again with Rockefeller influence, such as the Council on Foreign Relations (David Rockefeller is CFR emeritus chairman), and the Bilderberg Group. Hence, the Trilateral Commission states that the regional groupings being incorporated into the Trilateralist scheme now include Mexico (reflecting the push for the NAFTA American Free Trade Agreement that includes Mexico), and the “Japan Group” has now become the “Pacific Asian Group” reflecting the push for a Pacific-wide union. The Trilateral Commission states of this:
“Two strong convictions guide our thinking for the 2006-2009 triennium. First, the Trilateral Commission remains as important as ever in helping our countries fulfil their shared leadership responsibilities in the wider international system and, second, its framework needs to be widened to reflect broader changes in the world. Thus, the Japan Group has become a Pacific Asian Group, and Mexican members have been added to the North American Group. The European Group continues to widen in line with the enlargement of the EU. …”
The widened Pacific Asia Group within the Trilateral Commission includes representatives from China and Hong Kong. Leading proponents of an East Asian bloc include Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and Japan’s Yukio Hatoyama. Rudd in particular considers the USA to be a focus of such a bloc. The U.S. signed a friendship pact with the Association of South East Asian Nations (Asean) in July 2009 to extend relations. China’s Assistant Foreign Minister Hu Zhengyue states China is “positive and open” to the establishment of an “East Asian community”.
Given the long history of relations between the USA and China, often covert, and often with a contrived façade of rivalry, New Zealand and Australia and other states in the Pacific, in addition to India, should not regard the USA as a reliable ally in the face of any Chinese threats.
