The rumblings of war are getting louder. In an interview on April 27, Donald Trump stated that although he was seeking a “diplomatic solution” to North Korea’s belligerent moves, he also cautioned the possibility of “major, major conflict.” He stated that he was relying on President Xi Jinping of China for his efforts to resolve the dispute over North Korea’s missile and nuclear weapons programs, but he cautioned that diplomatic efforts might fail. He praised the Chinese leader for his erstwhile efforts, saying “I believe he is trying very hard. He certainly doesn’t want to see turmoil and death. He doesn’t want to see it”.
Turmoil and death, indeed. If that comes to pass, it will be of our own choosing. Trump for his part seems unconcerned about the scope of that potential bloodshed, or at the very least ignorant of what he is really getting into. But is he? Or is he in on a larger game that is being played by global financial interests? Let me explain.
North Korea has had a nuclear program for years, and has yet to build an ICBM which is capable of reaching the United States. Even if it could, the likelihood of actual use would be minuscule, since it would mean a massive, instant counterstrike that would essentially devastate their country. Even a conventional military strike against North Korea would almost certainly result in military strikes by the hermit kingdom against South Korea. We are talking about state against state, not this asymmetrical stuff we’ve been engaging in. Massive bloodshed would be sure to result.
So why is Trump talking up war so loudly? Given his rhetoric, it almost seems inevitable. U.S. war rhetoric hasn’t been so pervasive or intense since the second invasion of Iraq – and all over missile tests which have been standard fare for North Korea for many years. With whispers by Trump aides of a possible 50,000 boots on the ground in Syria, and open discussion of preemptive strikes in North Korea, this time armed conflict is highly likely.
Why would this be? North Korea has the potential to become a trigger point for multiple economic catastrophes. And there are people in this world who would be happy to use such crises to serve their own interests. Although China considers a North Korea an asset, the fact is that there is an end game for them in a US/North Korean conflict which would suit one of their known long-term goals exceedingly well.
The mainstream view espoused by globalist-minded politicians and corporate oligarchs is that North Korea is a nuclear-armed monstrosity, ready to use any subversive means necessary to strike at the United States. However, this does not seem to be fairly reflective of the reality on the ground. As far as being an imminent physical threat to the United States, that would be a stretch. The North Koreans have almost no logistical capability to support an invasion. The nation is beset by malnutrition among its citizenry, which by and large lives in a 19th century mode, with most lacking access to even television. To initiate a war has never been in the best interests of the North Koreans, simply because their domestic infrastructure would not be able to handle the strain.
What purpose would military action against North Korea actually serve? Well, if one (such as Putin, for instance, although others fit into this category) were seeking to destabilize Western alliances, the best way to accomplish that would be to engineer the collapse of the dollar.
China is by far the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt. The country has positioned itself to decouple from the dollar, long the world’s reserve currency, already. Although analysts often claim China would never break from the dollar because it would damage their export markets and their investment holdings, the fact is that China has already made big moves to get away from the dollar through bilateral trade agreements with numerous developing nations.
The Chinese moves away from the dollar are part of a larger effort by international banks to remove the dollar as the world reserve currency. The mechanism for this already exists. The International Monetary Fund’s Special Drawing Rights (SDR) is a mechanism backed by a “basket of currencies” as well as gold. The introduction of the SDR on a wide scale is dependent on only two things:
First, China would have to be viewed as the replacement consumer engine in the wake of a U.S. collapse. The country has already surpassed the United States as the No. 1 trading power in the world. However, there must be increased demand for the yuan (also called the renmibi) throughout global markets before the IMF removes the dollar from the SDR or downgrades its weight. China, in fact, has undertaken programs to spread the yuan throughout the world global markets, selling trillions in yuan-denominated bonds to foreign investors – and they have made other similar moves as well. This isn’t fiction: It’s detailed in an exhaustive report from the Brookings Institution published in February of 2016, China’s Efforts to Expand the International Use of the Renmibi. And the renmibi was added to the IMF’s “basket of currencies” after long lobbying efforts to that end in October of last year.
Second, China and the IMF need a scapegoat event – a rationale for dumping the dollar that the markets would accept as logical. A U.S. invasion of North Korea could easily offer that rationale, especially if the U.S. passes severe domestic tax cuts that grow the debt to tremendous levels in the midst of a conflict, making the possibility of a U.S. debt default a scenario that gets serious consideration. Already in the past, Republican refusals to extend the debt ceiling and keep the government running have resulted in analysts toying with a downgrade in the bond rating of the U.S. America bankrupting itself fighting a war in Asia that it is dependent upon China to fund would render us exceptionally vulnerable.
China has been playing the “good guy” role in relations with the United States in dealing with North Korea, and has even accepted and supported sanctions. Trump thinks Xi is a great guy. He’s definitely a smarter guy, but that’s another issue.
If we were to invade North Korea, though, it might set up a situation where China could, by raising sovereignty concerns, retaliate without firing a single shot and rapidly move toward establishing the yuan as the world’s reserve currency. This would only take the Chinese announcing that they are dumping the dollar, and threatening to cut off trade relations with any other country that won’t do the same. They could merely rely on the perceived financial risks of sticking with an unstable currency as their basis for doing so. The effect of this could be devastating, causing U.S. war costs to skyrocket and forcing us to pull troops out of the region. The dollar would be labeled a “casualty of war” rather than a casualty of conspiratorial global banking designs, and the financial elites would be removed from blame.
This is the type of thing that would benefit our real geopolitical foes – including those that we already know meddled in the election. Think about the implications of that. The fact that the Chinese seem to be softening on U.S. war rhetoric indeed seems to be a sign that war is coming, and that there is an end game for the Chinese in that war.
If the Chinese allow us to wade into war in their own backyard, you should take that as a sure sign that our war with North Korea would only be means to a greater end for the Chinese – and it would suit the ends of many elite globalist interests as well.