*YAWN!*
Wake me when Kim Jong-un looks serious.
You know what folks around here are really scared of? They are scared that the US will use N. Korea as an excuse to come in an colonize the region once again. 'Colonize' because the US is a colonial power, though it may refuse to address itself as such. And 'again' because it has taken over various parts of the South Pacific at least two other times in the past 150 years.
N. Korea is the barest slip of land sandwiched between two massive economic powers. Because the country is little more than the jewel in the crown of a megalomaniacal family. Granted they have a couple of nuclear pop guns, but compared to what would be raining down on their heads if they used one, even the Kim family isn't that stupid.
So they much be getting provoked. In other words, someone is poking a stick in the hornet's nest in order to stir up the critters into a fighting mood. And right now, there is only one power in the entire world that has shown the willingness and ability to use military might to get what it wants: Washington DC.
Now I use 'Washington DC' as opposed to 'America' because the country is not represented by its government. The powers that slither through the halls of DC are a rogue bunch of banksters and oligarchs who have little or no connection to the average person in the rest of the country, save for the few that actually buy the propaganda, and they are relatively few.
The US, after World War 2, was the last man standing, based mostly on the fact that it had no land bridge to the rest of the world, and so was protected by the expense of projecting power that far at that time. To a certain extent, South America enjoyed the same benefit, though it didn't have the technological infrastructure to become a surviving power at the time.
As such, the US felt it had the right of the conqueror, and to some extent the moral responsibility, to rebuild the world in its own image. This position offered certain advantages in business dealings, which one can hardly blame them for exploiting. And since America's culture was built on the mass-produced repeatable experience (McDonald's, Holiday Inn, etc.), it was ready-made for export to the prostrate world. The world accepted with open arms, as something was better than nothing.
As a consequence, the US economy boomed like none before it. Being fueled with loot and technology captured from Nazi Germany, and fanned by the City of London banksters and ex-colonialists looking to recapture past glory, the US quite easily took over the world, especially since its only major rival was the Soviet Union, whose political system was antithetical to most people's sensibilities.
All was good until the world started to recover. By the end of the 20th century, a great many nations had grown technologically and economically to the point they were ready to find alternatives to the one-sided trade deals offered by the now-imperialistic US-UK axis.
Thus, a clash of interests. The US-UK axis built a system in which they pictured themselves atop a global pyramid, while the rest of the world saw themselves as building a bunch of smaller pyramids where more folks could enjoy being on top.
These outsiders had copied and improved on the technology that the US-UK axis had exported when exploiting the cheap labor and lack of regulation in these client states. As such, they had built themselves into booming economies that were increasingly outside the control of the US-UK colonialists. Furthermore, these nations were limited by having to deal with each other in dollars, which not only gave the US-UK axis a cut of the pie, but injected control mechanisms into the burgeoning economies.
So they decided to break away and form their own trade blocs. Perfectly reasonable and sensible under a capitalist system. One always seeks deals that provide greater benefits to one's self. This increases profits and overall well-being, which is the centerpiece of capitalism.
But the US-UK axis didn't see things quite that way. They liked skimming profits from deals they had nothing to do with, and they enjoyed exerting control over nearly every transaction in the world. Gee, who wouldn't, but that doesn't serve the interests of all parties, which again, is a central part of capitalism.
In order to protect their status, the US-UK axis had to exert force in order to maintain privilege. Since the instrument of control was increasingly backed by nothing but hot air (i.e., the dollar), the banksters and oligarchs turned to the only tool they had left to maintain dollar hegemony -- the military. Their chosen means of injecting their military power was to create tensions and conflicts where they didn't exist before in order to justify intervention and re-orientation.
Enter N. Korea.
It is no mistake that this latest flap in Southeast Asia occurs on the heels of the BRICS announcing the formation of a trading bank to compete with the IMF and World Bank, know as the International Development Bank. It is little mystery that this new international bank will not trade in dollars and will actively seek the membership of as many emerging world economies as possible.
What to do if you are a US-UK bankster facing thsi sort of rebellion to your global system of control? You could use the Libya/Egypt/Syria option, but Russia, China and India are a bit large and intimidating for that sort of direct interference.
Planted in the heart of the occident is a tailor-made situation. The N. Korean leadership is...shall we say, unstable? They have nukes as a result of left-over technology from Japan's WW2 development efforts. And they have an ongoing war that has never been resolved.
Few folks think about the fact that the Korean War (1950s) never ended. It was fought to a cease-fire, but neither side surrendered. Thus, hostilities have simmered for lo these 60-odd years.
Enter the stick in the hornet's nest.
Stir up Pyongyang with covert threats, possibly even actual boots on the ground doing what covert ops do best. Get Pyongyang to saber-rattle and move toys around in overtly belligerent maneuvers. Use these events as justification to move your toys into Southeast Asia and position them in ways that would otherwise be roundly castigated. Finally, use all the bluster and thinly veiled threats to distract attention away from other pursuits, such as, oh you know, setting up rival banks of international development that don't benefit the US-UK axis.
Sure, Kim Jong-un is a wild-eyed lunatic (runs in the family), but even he knows that people who don't eat or have productive labor soon rebel en mass. He also knows his little firecrackers and underfed army are little match even for his southern neighbors. The only thing that would provoke his current actions would be a direct threat.
That the aforementioned direct threat serves the purpose of the US-UK axis makes this scenario all the more credible. There has been a low-level war going on between the US-UK and the BRICS for some time. They poke and prod each other's defenses and test the sensitive underbellies looking for weaknesses. N. Korea is just another poke and prod in that effort, but one designed to be a little bit hotter, so as to enable the US-UK to position some hardware in the area and demonstrate their resolve to be the only economic playground in the neighborhood.
What is disturbing about all of this is not whether or when the dollar will be deposed. That is inevitable. It is that all these events belie a sort of maneuvering of the global chess board for some major onslaught. At some point, one side or the other will feel the time is right, or at least won't get better, to strike in open conflict to protect their back board.
If the US-UK axis feels that it is sufficiently losing its control over global trade and economics, it will strike at its best possible opportunity. If the BRICS or other group grow frustrated enough and feel ready to challenge the existing structure in hot conflict, they will strike. In the meantime, we will continue to see massive cyber attacks, regional conflicts, saber rattling, and positioning of belligerent hardware in strategic locations.
When one positions one's self as king of the mountain, whether in a child's game or in geopolitics, one is ripe for challenge. Ultimately, whether game or global, the king is always toppled and new powers emerge, and they in turn are toppled as new powers emerge. It is the nature of humanity to want to be on top even though history tells us that the top is the target.
So we close with one final question...
Have you ever noticed that every major city on the face of the planet has a China Town?
