European Union Versus United States

Reserve Currency Fight to the Death? Part 2: Looking at pros and cons of major monetary competitors to see whose currency will collapse first



In part 1, there was background on why United States can now proceed with attempts to financially collapse the European Union. Although Washington-Wall Street Complex completely mismanaged the socioeconomic functions of North America for 40 years now, until 1999 there was always time and breathing room to kick the debt problem further into the future. The appearance of the euro on the scene automatically made EU a dangerous rival. This antagonism is more acute than ever in 2010. That's because the upcoming second dip of the economic collapse inside US would cement euro's role as world's reserve/best safety destination and send human resources (in form of American braindrain) back to the old world.

It is now common (and increasingly publicly admitted by the parasitical elites) knowledge that US and UK are worse off than EU in terms of debt and structural inability to do anything about it (rapidly export and grow their way out of the hole). However, the competition in whose reserve currency will pop first will still be close since each union has substantial strengths and weaknesses that are unique to itself.

The credit rating agency attack dogs have been unleashed ( ripping into those European players who were already weakened by banksters) around the time when world was moving away from the dollar in the fall of 2009. The PIGS countries problem can be seen as a grand diversionary tactic to distract from USA's fatal condition. EU, led by Berlin, has fired back recently in the form of American style 1 trillion euro bailout meant to make EU outlast United States. US will correspondingly now throw everything but the kitchen sink. Lets look at the match up.

EUROZONE: 

Pros -

1) Stronger political safeguards against banksters on average. There are better mechanisms at popular and pragmatic resolution of conflicts (proportional representation for most member states and also at continental level). People in member states have just a tad bit more say/power compared to financial parasites than people in individual states in US. It is slightly more difficult to loot Europe to the same extent as occurs(ed) in North America. This was evident in more rapid and gently more intense implementation of regulatory financial reform by EU member states since 2008. Less third world-esque socioeconomic conditions in general.

2) Trade balance with the rest of the world better than USA's. Depreciation of the euro helps European exporters more than American ones since they have more industry to make desired exports in the first place. EU has powerful states that can actually produce and export more value added needed goods such as cars and nuclear technology that non-Western world is ravenous for. Germany and France are more equipped than Texas and California in this regard (potential ability to keep non-producing states afloat and to strengthen the reserve currency via industrial production). Countries like Ireland have their healthy relatively debt free counterparts within the zone. Substantial gold reserves are present on the continent.

3) There is stronger infrastructure centric focus to give confidence to major world players in long term soundness of the euro. The continent is a lot more interconnected by high speed rail than US to keep real trade and growth going. Welfare state provisions in staples like education and health keep more money in the hands of poorer consumers to keep continental trade going on an individual level. In other words, Main Street is not as dingy, miserable, and desperate compared to its Anglo counterpart. This translates to better trained and educated workforce as a human reserve.

4) Direct investment business from abroad logistically easier. There are more neighboring non-euro using economies with a stake in the eurozone who bolster it through meaningful trade (fiscally prudent states like Norway, Sweden, and Russia). Hundreds of millions of  Eurasian peoples know who they'd rather see collapse.

5) Concentrations of ambitious oligarchs and political elites who understand the war preventing historical grand nature of EU project as a whole and who will go to radical measures to save it. Comparison can be made to elites behind US constitution (vast majority of ordinary people had no input in 1780s).

Cons -

1) Lack of American style centralized imperial leadership on continental level allows for same nationalistic problems that plagued US in early 19th century. Harder to justify subsidies to weaker nations even if their books and infrastructure are better than California's. Conversely, harder for leaderships of small nations to justify staying in the union. Threat of economic and political secession a lot more real. EU also has fewer and less powerful mechanisms to exploit and loot non-EU states the way US does. It therefore makes the continent more vulnerable to exploitation by oligarchs in US, China, and Russia.

2) Lack of numerical parity for euro use in the world compared to the dollar. Dollar still dominates and there is historic psychological comfort, investment, and commitment to it among the elites of the world. It's difficult to very rapidly disentangle due to professional careful research needed.

3) Lack of equally powerful credit rating agencies to hit back at credit worthiness of US states in retaliation. Lack of similar ability to project imperial power via naval and land forces to bolster euro as reserve and to humiliate dollar centric societies. Lack of European bases and troops on US soil as a form of intimidation. Pathological reliance on American elites for military protection and even ideological guidance. Not as capable (as Anglo counterparts) to create new financial instruments to throw against opponents.

4) Urban educated population a lot less controllable and less likely to go along with plans of EU leadership compared to their counterparts in New York, Portland, etc.


UNITED STATES: (one of course can just reverse what's listed above but here's a few key things to keep in mind)

Pros -

1) Physical ability and enormous propaganda megaphone to do mass diversions to distract from domestic and dollar problems. This can include anything from engineering a crisis such as a war or an economic implosion of EU's allies. The sheer amount of thermonuclear power that US has gives confidence to its "zone" as safety for the rich the world over. US is also able to manipulate price of oil more than any other entity and thus mess with the energy finances of the EU. Not mentioning the ability to just tell millions of investors the world over to not invest in Europe by downgrading credit worthiness. This will actually work briefly as a destabilizing tool when combined with other measures. Amazingly, enough people still believe in what credit rating agency swindlers say.

2) Better ability to do under the table deal making with Russia and China against EU's interests in order to preserve the dollar as reserve a while longer. Of course it may seem unlikely that Beijing and Moscow will go with Americans over Europeans but US has more things to offer with its military might. We don't know what a cornered animal is capable of in terms of switching policies and bargaining (see alliance building with Maoist China in the 1970s).

Cons -

1) Washington's bailout came way before EU's and now that it is running out there is danger EU can just outlast its monetarist competitor. US has already been looted thoroughly by the banks and there is little left to do in terms of paper shuffling. Similarly, there is little left to cut in US in terms of infrastructure and services. Unlike Europeans, Americans never created a solid welfare state to deconstruct and what existed was already reduced greatly over the past 30 years. If social unrest in US reaches Greek levels, then major powers will see the writing on the wall that (the historically tolerant) US peasantry has reached its breaking point.

2) Financial parasites in London may throw their lot with Europe thus creating infighting between Wall Street and London as centers of oligarchic power. This will depend on political decisions of the new British government. To see where rats from a sinking ship are headed (and what ship they're running from) will hint at what follows (note Wall Street higher ups getting increased police protection before the 2008 crash).

Overall it appears the European Union has an edge for short term survival of its currency. However, US has historically proven that it is capable of rather intense actions to bolster itself. We'll see what else is indirectly thrown at Brussels, Berlin, and Paris in weeks ahead and if they are able to muster equally intense counter attacks.

Progressive Libertarian Coalition

Can cats and dogs get along in an alliance of convenience? Extreme economic national emergency calls for a unifying common platform. Here's a 9 point platform that can unite them.



The bipartisan removal of incumbent dinosaurs in congressional primaries and the sheer energy involved now provides hope for an alliance of convenience between all major nationalist factions in United States. By nationalist, I mean those producerist conservatives and progressives who believe in making America stronger by protectionist build up of domestic industry/infrastructure and by diminishing the power of the financial transnational oligarchy. In other words, to go back to the better days of FDR style attempts to preserve and enhance the physical non-paper shuffling capitalist core of American economy.

Citizens across the political spectrum are in total agreement on the need to completely clean congress of everybody presently in it. The hope is that newcomers in November are not as bought off as current congressmen and that it'll take time for corporations to buy them out (thus giving a few months where the new politicians may act relatively autonomously due to weak connections to the oligarchy). However the extreme economic national emergency calls for a unifying common platform to multiply the power of newcomers and to pressure the congressional senior citizens with easy to understand concepts.

How would a common political platform look like? The platform has to be balanced by things people are for and things people are against to give it depth and traction. Lets begin:

1) Protectionism. This means higher tariffs on imports as a source of national income and a way to reduce unemployment in the blue collar sector. Historically, protectionism not only works splendidly for every major society that engages in it but is also backed by the blue collar muscle of the rural and urban discontents. Majority of the factions within the tea party will be for this through proper use of the China card. The less numerous younger libertarian faction may object on ideological grounds but is unlikely to split over this (side with transnational corps exploiting Chinese labor over the interests of their fellow blue collar T partiers). Libertarians have a lot of severe cultural disagreements with other (formerly GOP) T party factions but still remain. After all, Ron Paul's people pretty much started T Party in the first place.

2) Glass-Steagall separation between commercial and investment banking. The passing of Glass-Steagall will deal a mortal blow to parasites on Wall Street and its effectiveness has been verified ever since G-S was originally passed in 1933. The bipartisan McCain-Cantwell amendment already brought this issue into national discourse. Reintroduction of Glass-Steagall is also the most effective filtering tool for congressional candidates in November since those who support it stand against the speculators. Quest for and achievement of G-S would additionally satisfy the psychological craving for justice among activists across the political spectrum as its implementation destroys the Wall Street oligarchy in its current too big to fail casino manifestation. Since the importance of G-S also makes it a danger to Obama's oligarchic backers, the issue must be approached carefully yet forcefully. Swaths of T party movement who have not been co-opted by corporations should jump on the proposal. This will ultimately allow the infrastructure thrust of the rest of the platform listed bellow

3) Nuclear Energy. The job creating and environmental benefits make fission and fusion energy an obvious political rallying point. Younger progressives may need to drag their older brethren along on this one. They can point out that fission allowed for the socioeconomic optimism in 1960s, is ridiculously clean/safe, and will make advanced green transport infrastructure possible. The more intense nationalists in the T party will love the idea of switching focus from oil to nuclear (after all it still makes some older democrats uneasy), achieving energy independence, and peacefully competing with Russia in the fission reactor industry.

4) Constitutional Convention. The purpose of a ConCon is elaborated upon in depth here. The primary reasons for demanding a historic convention are: a) create unity and excitement among both T party and progressive activists b) create dialogue that leads to settlement of the culture wars through agreement to disagree until the ConCon occurs c) send a powerful message to the political class that even cleaning house is not enough and that the structural blocks on people's will are to be resolved d) rechannel the energy from potential social unrest towards pursuit of a constitutionally legal restructuring of the country's governance

5) Thorough audit and demasking of the Federal Reserve's finances, history, and functioning. This will uncover more dirt than most people can imagine and most likely either end or severely transform the fed's functioning. This will be the ultimate muckraking and like G-S, satisfy the popular sense that some justice is being done. Now that the Goldman Sachs investigation triggered similar investigations into other casino giants, people's appetite to discover who stole hundreds of billions of tax payers dollars is greater than ever. Since the Fed is the parasitic heart behind our imperial socioeconomic system, it will be the hardest nut to crack. The difficulty of the full scale audit (that Ron Paul and many progressive economists desire) demonstrates why the T Party/Progressive alliance of convenience is essential. The impudence of the federal reserve also provides an overarching point of focus for the anti-bankster activists.

6) Proportional Representation on the state level and ultimately on the federal level (either through an amendment or Constitutional Convention). PR is another politically neutral concept of agreement that goes an incredibly long way towards giving people better representation and thus reduces corporate influence. It puts the first nail in the coffin of the hated two party oligarchic duopoly. Replacing all incumbents in Congress does not resolve the fundamental and glaring structural inadequacy when it comes to electing state and national representatives. It will take a bit of education to spread the concept but its elegance and widespread use throughout the world (even Brits are discussing it) should provide an exciting new structural alternative in the process of streamlining the American democracy. Just like direct election of senators, it is a prudent evolutionary step (that can begin to be implemented on a state by state basis through decentralized activism).

7) Congressional term limits. This fits perfectly with the anti-incumbency strides of recent months and proportional representation reform. Instead of allowing society to deteriorate to the point of collapse for congressional dinosaurs to be sent packing, term limits do it automatically. There will always be gusts of fresh air with such limitation. Considering that entrenched and totally out of touch 80 year olds in power were one of the main reasons why Soviet Union began to stagnate, this is a matter of outmost importance. American gerontocracy has to be ended since people that old, secure, and corrupt are dramatically less mentally flexible and capable compared to when they first got into office decades ago. More on the problem of congress being a senior citizens home here.

8) Rebuilding the nation's water infrastructure. The quality of the "drinkable" water in most regions in US is horrendous. The outdated and overstressed water systems are also a source of danger in terms of insufficient supply for the agricultural sector. Besides age and lack of funds, climate change puts new unforeseen stresses on water infrastructure in almost every state. Lets not wait for another Dust Bowl event to compliment the current depression. Although it may seem odd to have it on the list, this is a vital economic issue for rural communities and a public health issue for urban areas outside of the northeast.

9) Isolationism. Another obvious way to stop dumping resources into a hole in the ground. This has to be marketed to T partiers and progressives in different ways. Conservatives are always fine with idea of not helping the "ungrateful world solve its own problems anymore" due to refocus on domestic rebuilding. Libertarians are ideologically predisposed to isolationism while progressives are of course sick of imperial adventures. Isolationism also allows the alliance of convenience to expand to some former reform party paleoconservatives. Obviously the empire and the influence of the most powerful lobby (the military) cannot be ended rapidly (one of the key reasons being the sheer number of high tech blue collar jobs that military corporations provide inside the US). Isolationism serves as a way to refocus conversation towards domestic nation building and reemphasizing the pro-infrastructure focus of the T Party/Progressive alliance.

That is it for now. There are many more unifying points of contact but these 9 are the most important and self reinforcing. Glass-Steagall, Constitutional Convention, Term Limits, Protectionism, Nuclear Power, Proportional Representation, Federal Reserve Audit, Isolationism, and Water Infrastructure Development. If one allows the sheer transformative nature of these unifying goals to sink in, then differences such as over gay marriage seem petty and insignificant. I was tempted to add high speed rail and transport infrastructure to the list but am content with nuclear energy and water development for now. That is because nuclear energy has to come first in order to power real jumps in train technology (like transcontinental MagLev trains) and discussion over trains in a predominantly car centric society can lead to major disagreements instead of unity. Meanwhile, water development is as important to country and city alike and non-controversial. However, high speed train development can be integrated into the platform depending on the state by state basis. There are definitely many conservatives who fully support and understand the issue of building up next generation logistics with all the job creation that it'll bring.

The end result is something that looks like a Main Street Party (emphasis on real economy, job creation, anti-wall street, etc) without culture war nonsense to distract from the mission of reforming this socioeconomic system in a major way.

Energy Independence: How Much Nuclear Power Do We Need?

Fission and fusion power is the green cake of the future. Solar and geothermal is the icing. Lets make more cake.

The urgency and opportunity has never been greater for the world to engage in a large scale effort to mass produce third and fourth generation nuclear power plants. Only fission and then fusion projects can provide the concentration of energy (bang for your resource buck) needed to effectively power 21st century infrastructure like MagLev trains, desalination plants, and terraforming projects to turn deserts into farmland.

First, the recent nuclear disarmament treaty between Washington and Moscow provides substantial amounts of ready to use highly enriched uranium. Currently, 45% of nuclear power and 10% of total power in United States is already provided by dismantled Soviet warheads. The supply from new and future arsenal cuts (US has recently revealed it has 5,113 warheads overall) will push back peak uranium worries and create a situation where there is a lot more nuclear fuel than power plants to utilize it. Thousands of ready made warhead fuel cores are waiting to be used as we speak.

Second, there are signs that increasing numbers of America's oligarchy are concerned about being humiliated by the Chinese and Russian elites when it comes to making money off nuclear reactors internationally and acquiring corresponding prestige. This is significant in that the luddite rich kid baby boomers, former ivy league hippies, and gravediggers of FDR's infrastructure policies are coming around to the idea of reawakening the nuclear engine of growth in the 50s and 60s. This was noted in Obama's semi acceptance of McCain's nuclear energy proposal during the state of the union speech. The number of new reactors pushed by the administration is inexcusably low now but they can be a political foot in the door towards future construction. Additionally, a key player in the military establishment (General Electric) has used its propaganda arm (NBC) to start a national nuclear energy discussion with the documentary The Nuclear Option right around the time when GE was swinging financial and propaganda support towards Obama's election. National discussion of any serious issue with potential for massive societal uplift and transformation is very rare these days so the mere existence of a widely broadcast pro-nuclear energy documentary is significant (imagine if there were documentaries on NBC that slam federal reserve, military industrial complex, and insufficient taxation of the rich).

Third, the historic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has the potential to be "oil's Chernobyl". That is, to psychologically imprint on the youtube generation's mind that pushing Hubbert's peak through shale and offshore is very costly and deadly compared to fission. Nuclear energy serves as an important point of political contact and agreement between young (educated) environmentalists and young conservative nationalists. De Gaulle's nationalistic model of energy independence for France through safe clean mass nuclear power serves as a continuing example to emulate and rally behind. Since Russia recently spurned French nuclear industry (through an alliance with Germany to mass construct nuclear reactors for sale abroad), US has a chance at genuinely constructive and mutually beneficial outreach to Paris.


So how much nuclear energy do we need?

As much as can be made at any given time. The need resembles bullet making in wartime. What people need to remember is that nuclear science does not stand as relatively still as coal/oil burning science. Third and fourth generation reactors stand to be exponentially more powerful (think Richter scale) than their first and second generation cousins. Fission technology is evolving and will continue to produce more and more energy per pound of uranium until new sources of high intensity energy are ready for application (fusion). US would have been energy independent long time ago if construction of newer and newer reactors continued at same pace as in the 50s and 60s.

As of 2006, world's energy production rose to 472 quadrillion Btu from 283 quadrillion Btu in 1980 (66% increase). World's population in same period has grown from 4.5 billion to 6.5 billion (44% increase).

That is pathetic and criminal if one looks at it from perspective of enforcing the UN charter of human rights.

In more than 25 years since third generation nuclear reactor technology became a reality, there has been just 18% growth in how much average energy is available to a human on this planet (73 million Btu per person versus 62 million in 1980). This would obviously be horrifying even without the fact of exponentially disproportionate use of energy by some homo sapien over others. The amount of available energy per person should always be exponentially increasing if humanity is to survive and prosper through terraforming, high tech agricultural/water projects, and space exploration.

Western technological luddites and fear mongers always explain how each person on the planet cannot have the same "way of life" as a middle class Westerner (living in poorly designed suburban sprawl) . The current planetary energy policy (or lack of it) makes that statement not only true but hints at the genocidal implications if it is continued. The problem boils down to:

a) Necessity of people in the southern hemisphere to skip the inefficient suburban residential infrastructure lifestyle step (lifestyle that young westerners are moving away from through migration to urban centers) and go straight into high tech urban living (the way some rural areas of India went from no telephone straight to wireless broadband)
b) Insufficient energy available to world's poorer people to power machines that extract/refine commodities, power machines in utilization of these commodities for construction, power the new construction in order to even have the inefficient suburban infrastructure that they need to skip

Solution to this two part problem lays in mass production of new reactors that are spread over the planet in a way so there is roughly same amount of energy available per human. This average energy amount would be growing annually. Such kind of energy egalitarianism would bring enormous environmental benefits as 2 billion poorest people leapfrog over (instead of repeating) the 20th century residential construction process in the West. Of course, this new energy could be used for suburban construction but if average income Westerners and Asians acquire ability and will to build and maintain high density futuristic cities (that make Portland seem inefficient and provincial), then that becomes the role model lifestyle instead of American style urban sprawl.

The growth in total energy available to humanity should always be accelerating and not be pegged to population growth (such as energy growth 3-4 times the world population's and no more). This would prevent global violence and struggle over commodities by allowing advanced nations to build mass infrastructure for themselves as well as for southern hemisphere simultaneously. Most importantly, with sufficient growth in amount of reactors, oil and coal fueled suburban lifestyle will actually be more expensive in comparison to planned nuclear urbanization. Same way as suburbia powered by burning wood would be ridiculous in comparison to an oil powered city. In the process of moving straight from subsistence living to a concentrated density nuclear city, a lot of environment and human dignity is saved. As of today, urbanization is still happening around the world but only in the horrid slum expansion variety. Poorer countries have plenty of resources to barter in exchange for reactors. There are even small floating reactors being developed now that can be towed to client's ports.

Imagine the possibilities and what people would have done if 1000 modern coal power plants appeared in 1880s America. Similar societal gain is possible with international UN/G20 backed fission/fusion campaign. The entire world would become equally developing since the concept of Western suburban house and an electric car near it would seem ridiculously archaic and inefficient goal to strive towards. With sufficient power, completely reimagined and modular cities of the future are possible that are linked by MagLev trains spanning entire continents. With enough power you can have enclosed organic farms in the most inhospitable of areas. With enough power you can utilize larger and more advanced mechanized forces do extract more resources out of the ground cleanly and better reuse materials harvested from older cities/buildings. Most importantly, more energy production allows power to be basically free for individuals and small light industry businesses.

Fission power today is only 15% of world's energy production but can be rapidly expanded to over 50% with sufficient international cooperation. BRIC countries are already engaged in slowly revving up potential for mass production of third generation reactors. The trick towards entering the 21st century rests on tapping the economies of scale for large capital intensive projects. Each additional reactor will be cheaper than the last as well as the retooling machinery upgrades. The process needs to be international in scope and streamlined the way some weapons manufacturing is during wartime.

Hopefully USA's oligarchy will finally accept reality and necessity of collaborative nuclear power plant construction sooner than expected (as much as they'd hate the side effects of empowerment, improved quality of life, and better infrastructure for the peasants that it'll bring). Geothermal and solar do have their complimentary roles to fission and fusion but as an icing on the cake of macro technological progress.

Euro Versus Dollar

PART 1 of why reserve currencies are now fighting to the death. The road that led to Washington's attempt to slow down USA's collapse by collapsing a rival for reserve currency



It appears that the American regime believes that its geopolitical survival through postponement of structural economic collapse depends on collapse of the Euro zone first. This involves making sure that the financial gambling elites around the world prefer the dollar over the euro as the safety reserve investment of choice. Within the global monetarist system that is collapsing on itself (drastically more debt than money in the world), this course of action makes temporary "sense". Although a lot more states within American Union are severely more bankrupt than states in European Union, having E.U. "pop" first would artificially prolong the existence (and therefore looting by Wall Street) of regions like California and U.S. in general.

In the 1990s, Washington was always split between promoting the EU monetary union (thus weakening Russia by absorbing and transforming her neighbors in a neoliberal NATO dominated oligarchical structure) and retarding EU as a project itself (thus maintaining dollar as primary reserve so Washington's money borrowing could continue). United States chose the middle path of trying to weaken EU and Russia through destabilization campaigns to demonstrate the impotence of both. An example was the Anglo led Yugoslavian bombardment and occupation that showed Germany, France, and Russia that the Balkans was now an American backyard. The regional players were too self absorbed to meaningfully deal with such shocking behavior that was not the business of a player thousands of miles away (imagine EU bombing Mongolia for supposed human rights abuses).

Post-Soviet world saw frantic efforts to peddle dollars everywhere, even if it meant creating propped narcostates like Kosovo to do it. As US was busy stripping and cannibalizing the economies of Eastern Europe (and pumping dollars into the region to preemptively compete with the Euro), Germany was an introvert and consolidating its now united territory. Meanwhile Russia was totally focused on inner management of its 1998 controlled national bankruptcy (US, UK, Greece, Spain, etc can take notes on how to say no to financial overseas parasites and then recover).

Just a few years after euros appeared in the hands of Europeans and gave a glimmer of competition to the dollar, Germany was able to shrug off its imperial masters in DC. Berlin now took a proactive role in expanding the Eurozone eastward (thus becoming coequal with France in the continental project), began close bilateral economic cooperation with Moscow, and actually said no to the heavy pressure to participate in the aggression against Iraq in 2003. There was an attempt ("new Europe" vs "old Europe") by Washington to gain a permanent foothold in central Europe but that possibility began to rapidly erode during the international financial crisis (more on dangers of potential power vacuum in the area).

In the last 10 years every course of action in Europe, that was suggested in 1997 by Zbigniew Brzezinski in The Grand Chessboard (in regards to maintaining American imperial base for expansion in Western Europe), was not done or done very poorly. Peddling dollars could only go so far. The fruits of Bush administration's total geopolitical incompetence was recently seen in 2010 with France declaring the same desire to engage in cooperation with Russia as Germany was doing for years. The recent agreement to sell NATO Mistral carriers to Moscow was just a beginning. Recently there has been talk of Russian Federation being able to sell its weapons to NATO countries in exchange for help in Afghanistan. Cooperation in weapons trade and perhaps eventual cooperation in development would further marginalize American influence on the continent (and cut into profits of the only U.S. lobby stronger than the financial one, the military-industrial complex). Major NATO allies taking matters into their own hands, bypassing Washington, and independently managing the continent with Moscow is unacceptable to the pentagon (even though that is desperately needed right now to maintain security).

Such a combination of factors may now create a consensus among US power elites (military and financial) to start pushing for a severe economic collapse in Western Europe. It would have been unthinkable to do this to NATO allies before but desperate times call for desperate measures. For this, Washington has amazingly effective historic weapons at its disposal. Primarily, they are the three major credit rating agencies that are all based in United States and which have always given Cold War NATO allies best triple A ratings while suppressing investment ratings of geopolitical enemies and collapsing entire nations so they can be looted by Washington's allies on Wall Street. More on the absurdity of these organizations here. The mere fact that instruments of the Anglo international financial oligarchy such as IMF, World Bank,  Moody's, and Standard and Poor's are still effective at shaping reality (and psychologically influencing entire governments and mobs of gamblers) is an absurd phenomenon that is on its last legs.

It would be too obvious and blatant for the Washington-Wall Street complex to order credit rating agencies to sink Greece, Spain, Portugal, and others all at once. To maintain an illusion of competence and wage effective informational warfare, the totally discredited (no pun intended) and fraudulent credit agencies need to subject their target countries to a death by a thousand cuts stretched over months. Allies in the corporate media do everything possible to help in the project of building mass perceptions of reality. Although the US and UK have become very skilled at cannibalizing entire societies, the current project is curious in that the legalized organized crime that is the Anglo financial houses is also destroying last life support systems of the very societies that maintain it. That doesn't really matter for organized thieves who deal internationally who in time will try to find new hosts in Brazil, China, or Russia.

Part 2 will focus on pros and cons of both the American and European unions to try to see who will prevail in achieving monetary collapse last.