World War Three?

I came across a curious article the other day while skimming through various news sources. The headline was:

The Queen has a SECRET speech prepared and ready for WORLD WAR 3

royal family

World War 3, anyone? A show of knees, please. The royals’ll be right there, of course – fighting them on the beaches etc.

Dear old Elizabeth, I thought. Well, she’s been sitting on that throne for a long time now, so you’d have to think she’s got pretty much every possible event covered. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, as we used to say.

The UK Express published this little piece as accusations against Russia were surfacing over the alleged poisoning of Sergei Skripal, former spy and double agent. Now talk of a Third World War seems to have become the latest buzz topic in the salons of the well-off.

“The Queen”, readers would no doubt have been comforted to hear, “has a speech prepared in case this terrible event does happen. It may have been written nearly forty years ago and is of its time, but it is still relevant today.”

‘Now,” says Lilibet, “this madness of war is once more spreading through the world and our brave country must again prepare itself to survive against great odds.’”

But, hang on – forty years ago? Yep. Apparently, this “incredibly prescient” speech was written on 4 March 1983, a year after the much-faded British Empire had launched an attack by land, sea and air on that major threat to world peace, Argentina, over a tiny archipelago 1,800 km from Buenos Aires, and 12,686 km from London. Great Britain, it seems, had claimed sovereignty over the Falkland Islands in 1690. There was some debate, however, in international circles over this claim, with Spain, France, Argentina and later the United States all expressing interest. The Brits, nevertheless, World Number One at the time, backed up their own argument in 1833 with the time-honoured strategy of gunboat diplomacy – and has exercised “de facto sovereignty” ever since.

soviet-union-is-the-focus-of-evil-in-the-modern-world-ronald-reagan-67-54-70

OK, they’ve gone – so who is it now?

1983: Geriatric former Hollywood actor, Ronald Reagan, was in his first term as President of the USA. He was much-mocked at the time – but his tenure has since come to be viewed with wistful affection in the light of subsequent horrors. Those were the days when Soviet Russia was, allegedly, still the main threat to world peace – and Reagan “The Gipper” was planning to locate missile bases in outer space to get a better coverage of earth-bound targets.

thetcher-1

There wasn’t much sadness when Maggie went on her last journey

Maggie Thatcher, a one-term wonder if ever there was one, had ensured her re-election to the UK premiership by waging that outrageous little war against a third-world South American dictatorship, swept back in on a wave of nostalgic jingoistic patriotism. “The Witch” then proceeded to destroy the unions, create widespread unemployment and poverty, and hand the UK economy over to the financial leeches of London City. The retributive hand of Divine Justice sentenced her to spend her declining years in demented insanity – before casting her into the fires of perpetual damnation. But of course, I don’t really believe in that stuff 😉

The really important question, however, is, whose mortal hand is working behind the scenes of these exemplary democracies to ensure that these looney ideologues are “elected” as leaders of the so-called “Free World”?

lawrence

Apparently he was quite keen on a spot of flagellation

I recently read a history of the First World War by John Keegan – lauded by some as one of the world’s great military historians. I have to say I found it pretty heavy-going, and I mostly skipped over detailed accounts of pointless battles of attrition on the Western and Eastern Fronts. I was really interested in the “theatres” that received little attention in the “history” I was brought up with – especially British attacks on Ottoman territory in Palestine and “Mesopotamia”. With the exception of TE Lawrence’s romanticised, self-aggrandising tales of sado-masochistic adventures in “Arabia”, we knew little of the British government’s plans to establish a Zionist state in Palestine, and seize the Middle Eastern oil-fields for themselves.

But empire-building was what that war was really all about – overcoming rivals to control the world’s resources and enslaving the poorer people in one’s own and other countries. State propaganda was widely used to persuade the public that war was necessary to preserve freedom and defeat an evil enemy. Thinking citizens who refused to believe the lies were ruthlessly punished.

A second more terrible war broke out a mere twenty years after that one ended. The propaganda was more sophisticated, but the Second World War was really a continuation of the First – a continuing struggle for world dominance by competing empires. And a conflict manufactured by financial-industrial oligarchs to establish a new world economic order after the disastrous depression they themselves had created.

With Germany and Japan defeated and laid waste, and the British Empire disintegrating, the United States emerged from that second war as the world’s number one military and economic power. “United” however, it certainly wasn’t. The North-South divide had never gone away. Racial tensions seethed below the glamorous surface illusion created by Hollywood and Madison Avenue. Extremes of obscene wealth and abject poverty were preserved by armed force when necessary. Relaxed open societies flourished in coastal cities contrasting with the religious conservatism of inland states. An existential danger posed by an outside threat was needed to unite a divided people – and for forty years Soviet Russia’s “evil empire” provided that unifying service.

So, what’s changed? Let’s list the changes:

rust belt

Rust Belt, USA

  • The United States’ economic engine has long-since stalled. Its manufacturing sector has been exported to poor countries where the labour force can be exploited to generate greater profits for owners and “shareholders”.
  • Once-great cities have been turned into deserts of poverty, crime and systemic unemployment, with enclaves of super-wealthy guarded by private police, high walls and razor-wire.
  • Real economic growth has ceased. An unsustainable illusion of growth has been maintained by media-driven consumption and shopping.
  • The USA has been transformed from the world’s banker into its greatest debtor.
  • The country’s pristine natural environment has been increasingly ravaged and sacrificed to the greed of industrialists and commercial interests.
  • The anarchy of the internet has brought into the open the dirty secrets of governments that had previously portrayed themselves as representatives of freedom, democracy, justice and equality. More and more people all over the world are discovering the real truth about how the US has used its military and economic power to overthrow democratically elected governments, install puppet dictators and condone their use of torture and murder.
  • The USSR fizzled out of existence, removing the long-standing danger that had prevented the “United” States from disintegrating into its multitude of component parts.

No credible external enemy has been found to replace the evil Soviets. They’ve tried Muslims, but Islam is just about as divided as Christianity – although retaining perhaps a little more faith and sincerity. No one can really believe in a unified Islamic monster opening its jaws to swallow Western civilisation.

trump-kin jong un

Who would you say poses the bigger danger to world peace?

North Korea? With a population of 25 million, and economy ranked 125th in the world, it’s hard to see Kim Jong-Un as a major threat, no matter how hard you try.

Russia again? It may be the largest country by land area, but according to Forbes, its economy is smaller than that of Texas. You may not like Vladimir Putin, but Russians seem to – and he has given them some self-belief back after the shame of the Soviet collapse. Nevertheless, Mr Putin’s probably got enough problems in his own backyard without challenging for world domination.

bankers-warsSo, are we on the brink of a Third World War? In whose interests would it be? Certainly not the tens or hundreds of millions of human beings who can expect to die quickly or slowly if it does break out. As in all other wars, it is the power elite who will do none of the actual fighting, suffer few of the hardships, but expect to reap major financial benefits. Who will start it? As in the past, it is that elite and their minions who will instigate provocations until some other government decides enough is enough and begins to fight back. Then they will be blamed for the ensuing conflagration.

God save us!

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “World War Three?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s