Daily News


As many of you know, I like the UK's Daily Bell, the libertarian-Austrian economics-oriented internet site that, until a few weeks ago, was a regular feature here. Then The Daily Bell suddenly "quit", and, as many of you know, is now back. While I have questions and disagreements with aspects of Austrian economics, their perspective is always valuable and worth considering. And none more so than now, in the wake of Russian President Vladimir Putin's intervention into the growing diplomatic quagmire that Syria is turning out to be for the USA and its allies. Fundamentally, I've never understood either the logic or rationale of backing "rebels" who espouse the very ideology that the USA claims to be against in its "war on terror."  The thought has been constantly in the back of my mind (and I'll wager, has been in the back of the minds of many readers here) why such a nonsensical policy was being pursued, not to the stability of the region, but to its apparent instability. And the only thing I have been able, in the final analysis, to conclude tentatively is that the powers that be want to see the region massively destabilized, and that they want to see some sort of radical Islamic regimes in the region. After all, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, they needed an enemy. It's good for business.

But then came Zbigniew Brzezinski's cautions against unilateral military solutions, and that whole interpretation had too be reassessed. Now the Daily Bell's  Ron Holland has weighed in with a perspective, and, in the light of the developments concerning the gold repatriation drives, the developments of what I have been calling the "BRICSA entente cordiale" or the growing bloc challenging American-led unipolarism of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, it is an interpretation readers here will find worth considering:

Did Putin Quietly Play the Debt Card Over Syria?

Let's focus on two sets of paragraphs here that, I think, go to the heart of the matter, and what may have happened, and they are, I think, the best explanations to date of the sudden policy reversal the Obama administration showed. Here's the first set:

"My question is: What motivated the sudden, overnight change of mind by Obama himself seemingly only hours away from a military strike on al Assad and Syria? It appears to have caught his advisors and the military totally by surprise.

"Yes, thanks to the Internet Reformation, the administration was not able to manipulate public opinion and the people and Congress were increasingly opposed to the minimal military action, though this has never stopped a Washington attack before. Even the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) efforts came to naught and the US backed down from the attack.

"I believe both Russia and China covertly played the Treasury debt card in order to protect their client states, Syria and Iran, from the impending US invasion. An attack would undoubtedly have escalated with troops on the ground, opening the way for a land assault against Iran, the ultimate real target. After all, the gas pipeline for Washington's Sunni client states that even offering to pay for the military action is far less important than taking Iran down."

Plausible? Yes, reasonable? Yes. Would the Russians and Chinese have threatened such an extreme move? Yes. But there's more to that than meets the eye, and I'll get too that in a moment.

Then there is this:

"I would suggest that Putin's apparent last minute Chemical Weapons "deal" was just a face-saving gift for the Obama Administration in order to provide cover and a reasonable excuse for the sudden change of orders to halt the Syria attack. I'll also bet that this deal had been worked out long before it was offered to Obama...

"Putin wins again. He gets the credit for stopping the US; Russia, as usual, never fires a shot and Washington retreats. You'll know whether I'm right on Putin playing the debt card if on occasion, with very important questions on global affairs and diplomacy, America begins to slowly retreat – as do all empires when they overreach economically and begin to decline militarily."

Mr. Holland is correct, I believe, in that (1) Washington is badly overstretched, both militarily and economically, and (2) that one now has to watch the manuevering, not only in the Middle East, but Africa, the Pacific, and South America very carefully, for Mr. Holland is implying, correctly I believe, that this diplomatic strategem by Mr. Putin probably heralds a new and more vigorous long-term strategy that Russia and China will pursue, in a steady "push-back" on American influence around the world.

There is, however, a hidden context here that does not get mentioned in this article, and I believe it must be mentioned. That is: why did the Obama-Kerry mannequins collapse their position so quickly. There is no need to comment on the ineptitude of American diplomacy or policy here. That would seem to be self-evident. Nor is there need to comment, as some American talk show hosts did in an almost hysterical and quite jingoistic fashion, on Mr. Putin's letter to the New York Times. It was not, in my opinion, a letter really addressed to the American people, but to the corrupt and criminal oligarchy running the country for their own profit, and with little regard to the rest of the population or, for that matter, the world. It was a letter warning them of dire consequences if they really wanted to pursue the course they were on.

So why did they back down? After all, the mannequins in the White House and State Department are only following orders. I suspect that Mr. Holland is right: Russia and China not only played the debt card, but also that the back down had to occur because the current moves by the Anglosphere oligarchs are not yet completed. Don't know what those moves are? You probably don't, because they get little time on the lamestream American media, but it's a story well-known in Indonesia, Malaysia, and other "developing nations," namely, the West is pulling their capital out of those countries quickly, and all this while pushing the 3-d printing "meme." I have advanced the hypothesis - which, to be fair, one analyst called "nonsense" - that the Anglosphere oligarchs are trying to retrench after a rampant and unrealistic overextension in the wake of the Soviet collapse.

Mr. Holland invokes the image of Mr. Putin's maneuver being akin to the operational strategies and tactics of General Stonewall Jackson, or Field Marshall Erwin Rommel (personally, I would have compared Mr. Putin's manuever to be more like Field Marshal von Manstein's "backhand blow" of 1943). To invoke the military analogy of Mr. Holland, the Syria venture was America's Unternehmung Blau (Operation Blue), the vast offensive of German Army Group South in 1942, that led to a huge over-extension of Axis lines deep into the Caucuses and all the way to the Volga River...

...and a place called Stalingrad.

When von Manstein assumed command, he did the only feasible thing: he retreated to a position where the lines were no longer over-extended. The backdrop here, seems to me, is not only the diplomacy of maneuver - "this far and no farther" - that Mr. Putin demonstrated, to the great embarassment of American and great enhancement of Russian prestige on the world stage, but also the deeper story of that retrenchment into less over-extended lines.

To put it as succinctly as possible, folks, that means that both sides are manuevering for a new, long game of geopolitics. You're watching the beginning of a new Cold War, one fought with economic and diplomatic weapons.  Brazil has signaled, in no uncertain terms, that it is fed up with the USA. Many other nations are as well. The oligarchs would do well to look at the policies that have so tarnished their image and reputations, and consider their next long term goals very carefully.

See you on the flip side.



  1. Aside from the impending clash of civilizations in the middle east, arming and directing these bloodthirsty rebels is not much different than what the banksters did 100 years ago financing the communists and anarchists across the globe. It is a wealth transfer mechanism where an old order is purged and a bankster spawned new order is installed. In this process all wealth, assets , industry, etc. are handed over to the employees of the banksters who pose as the insurgent leadership. They in turn kick the stolen wealth to their banksters bosses in London and New York who then give the rebel leaders a cut and the license to rule the newly conquered country. It is not much different than the communist coups of yesteryear– seize power, liquidate those with wealth, and declare their assets the property of the revolutionaries. I don’t know for certain, but I would guess anyone running a successful business in pre-attack Iraq or Libya has been killed or run out of the country and their assets stolen. I guess the key (garnered no doubt from their ancient play books) is to make the insurgent force as radical and antithetical to the existing order as possible thereby allowing for no compromise and a thorough transfer of wealth.

    Beyond that, there are numerous other reasons for these bankster spawned upheavals– psychological trauma on a mass scale thereby shocking the medium, retribution for some “crime” against the banksters in the past– usually the forced eviction of banksters at some time in that poor nation’s history (sometimes thousands of years prior), or maybe just for plain old demonic fun– the white collar demons unleashing their blue collar demons on innocent victims for a bloodletting for all demons to enjoy. I imagine in Israel, the thought of so much bloody rampage taking place so close to their borders in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, etc makes the average Israeli dance that much more furiously in the Tel Aviv nightclub, or eat that much more food on a “holy” day. The death pangs coming from across the borders, especially those wretched cries from the child victims, becomes like a warm blanket to the average Israeli– covering them with a cozy feeling of comfort while providing the fuel to their Jerusalem altar– the altar which they believe has given them omnipotence. Carefree they go about their idle days, gorging on the stolen wealth of others in the safety of their well protected pirate base, while so close, so many misfortunate others are experiencing a living hell at the hands of the Israeli government and their agents in the United States in Europe.

    But he who dances must one day pay the fiddler.

    1. I’m not sure how to take this. Just for the record, though, my late brother-in-law, Mayer Tabias Cohen, is in the dedication of my book Reich of the Black Sun. Were it not for his kindness, his warmth, and his generosity, my books would never have got off the ground. And he cared for my dying sister in a way few others would have. I am no friend either to the concept or philosophy of Zionism – of a “master race” – in ANY form, as anyone who has read my books knows. But to tar a whole group of people – as you have with your “average Israeli” comments – is nothing more than pure vitriol.

      1. Dr. Farrell,

        With all due respect, I have friends, neighbors, colleagues and in-laws as well who are jewish, yet I never hear a single one stray from the party line being dictated out of Tel Aviv. And it is this party line that is always beating the war drum which so far has given us over a million casualties in Iraq and 200,000 in Syria. Everywhere I turn, while the majority of Americans are opposed to these evil wars, there is an agent of Israel pushing for war–whether it is in the government or media. I just read a nearby college paper recently and the editorial was nothing but an anti-Syrian tirade and a call for immediate war. (I believe the editor’s name was also Cohen). I nearly vomited. That was a college that once served as a bastion in the anti-Vietnam war movement.

        While some can claim to have had positive experiences with Israelis, I can not. My first experience with an Israeli was in Brooklyn when a ceiling mounted heater fell on a Guatemalan worker and gashed open his side. When the Israeli landlord showed up, he told the other workers to put duct tape on the wounded man and get him back to work. I drove the Guatemalan to the hospital where he received over a hundred stitches. He was fired the next day because he did not show up for work. Then there was the time a co-worker embezzled six million dollars from the business I was working for, nearly putting it under and hundreds of people out of work. He absconded to Israel where the American courts were unable to extradite him. And I won’t even mention what happened on 9/11 when I saw my business and some of my colleagues pulverized into rubble while a bunch of Israelis were videotaping the carnage across the river in New Jersey and celebrating. While the Israelis may only be second tier conspirators in that massacre as you posit, they clearly seem to have been willing accomplices. So as far as I am concerned, Israelis should be viewed no differently than Japanese after Pearl Harbor.

        Make no mistake– their brand of entertainment, murder and destruction, will make its way to the United States if the evil doers are not openly identified and denounced loudly and with vitriol. I’m sure this same dialogue took place numerous times in pre-bolshevik Russia. Unfortunately, the conversation wasn’t loud enough and undoubtedly both commentators perished at the hands of the bolsheviks.

        That is my two cents. Out of my utmost respect for you, I will try my best to refrain from commenting on your website on this thorny subject as best I can.

        Also, I am well aware that I may be being played like a fiddle by those who may be setting up a different kind of clash of civilizations– the one we read about in Orwell’s 1984 with the arch-villian Goldstein. I’m very receptive to this idea and one of the reasons I visit your website is to uncover if this is indeed the case. But from where I am sitting, the zionists are doing a pretty good job on their own making themselves loathed.

      2. Hi Dr. Farrell and Frankie,

        sorry to “lump ya” both both in my response to the both of you but this is a subject upon which I feel very strongly so I can’t keep my orthographic mouth shut- so now I will tread on thin ice-

        we all know a small few always spoils it for the rest and we can only judge the world upon our own personal experiences- me included-

        obviously international Jews via the banking system control the world (so who is controling THEM?)-

        Dr. Farrell, obviously you’ve had a very positive experience in your life via your brother-in-law helping your dying sister (and God bless your sister, her help, etc. for it)-

        but let me tell you about me singing as a young student in ‘reformed’ Synagogues: I was tolerated, handed a healthy fist-full of money and was subsequently ignored: and all in the congregation subsequently after the service and condemnation of Germany and Germans during the service (talk about vitriole)-they all piled into their VWs, Mercedes, BMWs, Porsches, etc.- all German-made-

        we simply cannot deny that the world is in Jewish hands due to the international banksters (are we to assume they have Jewish interests at hand?- not in a long shot- they have no-ones interests at hand- only their own- and they are hiding behind the guise of Judaism- just try to critsize them- the “anti Semitic” card will be played immediately-

        please stay well Dr. Farrell, Frankie and all-

        Larry in Germany

  2. American policy is easy-as-pie to understand: it is psychopathic in nature and driven by the corporatist-financial-AIPAC complex, aka the Cabal. (The military part of the equation have been reduced to just pawns and the industrial part was shipped to China a generation ago).

    I don’t understand why everyone professes surprise at American lunacy; this is the only thing you should expect.

  3. The last sentence of the third paragraph of the first set doesn’t seem to make any sense. “After all….Taking Iran down”.

  4. That doesn’t look like Russia holds a great deal of US treasury debt, if M Snyder is to believed anyhow.

    China is not the biggest holder of US treasury debt; that would be the Federal Reserve and then I believe in second place the Social Security Admin.

    No, the Daily Bell misses two things, one very much confirmed. The UK Parliament voted “no” on this stupidity, and the government nearly fell. And not so confirmed, but Obama himself doesn’t seem real inclined to start these things. Hillary Clinton is someone who really pushed the Libya war.

    Also the Daily Bell is wrong to assert that missile strikes would have necessarily lead to US ground troops in Syria. Could have, but that may have been in ten years.

    This just looks like the DB trying to recover some value lost speculating on gold. Missing the UK Parliament vote is more than a staggering omission. It’s like they can’t read.

  5. Watching the financial python strangling the US is tragic indeed. The American people are getting the best government money can buy, and as the so called government shutdown looms, the bigger picture is being obfuscated and hidden.

    The elites are sitting on their hands for the moment, but rest assured they never let a chaos pass buy. So I’m watching for Russia and China to pull some sort of major card out of the pack, this story isn’t over by a long shot.

    Watch this space.

  6. The change in strategy could have been brought about by Michelle, if she could get that close, whispering into Obama’s ear “don’t forget your legacy dear”. All these sock puppets begin to worry about their legacy at some point in their second term, and also one that will involve Saudi Arabia paying for another Presidential Library.


    1. I think you have a point. Obama’s already followed the path of GWBush too many times.

      Of course the Daily Bell made the huge omission of the “no” vote in the UK Parliament.

      Then there’s the fact that on Aug 27, the NYTimes reported from Beruit, albeit in no great detail, that improvised launchers were used for the rockets carrying poison gas on Aug 20. And try as they might, the editors of the Times couldn’t take back that responsible reporting.

    1. Baalbeck in the Begaa Valley, you know controlled by Shia types (with Persian backing) in Lebanon, on the border with Syria.

      The Romans built a temple atop something very very old and made with stone of a size not seen anywhere except at the temple of Osiris in Giza.

      That seems like a real possibility.

  7. Remember those kids who would only play Monopoly as the Banker, and would flip the game-board and scatter all pieces to the wind when a loss was imminent…?

    …I think they’ve all grown up and built subterranean military installations, so how about a game of Clue, instead?


  8. one clear point on American policy, it is never based on logic,

    As for China and Russia, those are 2 nations that hid behind walls while America collapsed in the crime of the century.

    1. I would contend that all American Policy (if what we’re speaking of may accurately be referred to as such) is based on logic—which, I should point out, is not by any means an objective qualification.

      The problem is NOT that we don’t know everything; the problem is that we may know nothing at all.

Comments are closed.