I was recently offered an opportunity to reflect on an essay by Tobias Stone in which he attempts to forecast the results of a Donald Trump Presidency and the exit of the UK from the European Union.
Check it out here: History tells us what may happen next with Brexit & Trump
Tobias put significant effort into producing his essay however, it starts to becomes clear about a third of the way through his article that he has developed a narrative. One of the hardest challenges to analyzing and explaining history is removing bias and emotion from the equation. For example, someone raised as a devout Christian will have a difficult time accepting discussion on sciences that are in contrast with the doctrine of the Bible. That person would need to be able to completely remove their bias and emotion which may not be possible.
Tobias seems to have difficulty removing his North American bias from his analysis which results in his purveying a narrative rather than an impartial analysis. He makes many good talking points and is consistently accurate with his historical references in respect to how that history is taught in North American schools. It’s important to acknowledge that it was the victors of war who wrote the books of our history.
Ancient Greece’s Herodotus learned that all too well. He faced criticism and scorn as his history accounts were in contrast to the narrative that the majority of Greece’s governments proclaimed. He was accused of being too Athenian and his books and teachings were banned from schools. Herodotus took a scientific approach to writing history and that, combined perhaps with his own arrogance, cast him in disfavor. Even today, though he is considered the father of history, – though the word history itself is derived from the title of his book ‘Histories’, – the accuracy of his accounts of Greece’s ancient history is still debated.
Tobias casts Hitler into the mix with Stalin, Putin, Mussolini and Mugabe which is quite illogical. It’s like throwing various fruits into a basket and declaring them to be the same simply because they are all fruits. Though Hitler was responsible for the holocaust, and while Mugabe, Mussolini, even Stalin to a smaller degree, committed crimes against humanity, one cannot draw a parallel comparison between them. I’m not sure why [Vladimir] Putin’s name is even listed and is perhaps the first indication that Tobias is forming a narrative.
Hitler’s rise to power can almost be credited the United States Black Tuesday, (1929 crash of Wall Street). US government corruption failed to contain rampant speculation on the markets which in turn triggered the Great Depression. It was this depression that gave opportunity for Hitler to advance his political career. Had Black Tuesday never happened then it’s possible Hitler and the rise of the Nazi Party would never have happened. Accrediting Black Tuesday to the rise of Hitler though would lead to many a heated debate and is in contrast to what we were taught in school.
Tobias is correct in identifying that history repeats itself, that mankind has a propensity to self-destruct and his references are classic examples. One thing Tobias doesn’t recognize is that his whole dissertation has already been recently presented. The current Russian president Vladimir Putin has been trying to press this concern to the United Nations and the world for many months now.
Check this out: 75 years after Germany Invaded Russia, Putin sees history repeating itself
“Security issues should not prevail over economic growth and well being, the president warned: “Security and international affairs are equally important, but there is nothing more important than economy and welfare.”– Vladimir Putin.
Tobias seems to have decided to look past Putin’s desire towards peace instead advertising the narrative carried by mainstream media.
Putin is a stringent advocate of peace and the Internet is awash of his efforts to pursue peace even when continually confronted by NATO and aggressive US Foreign Policy. Even though Putin is an advocate of global economic co-operation and peace the Western mainstream media makes efforts to put forth a different narrative and paints Putin as an aggressor.
Russia sees no value in the Baltic states, they were an economic drain on Russia during the U.S.S.R and offer no strategic military value against NATO. In today with advanced ICBM weapons systems the next world war will not have a “front line”. It will be fought by missiles in space and the stratosphere, delivered by rockets and high-altitude jets. Russia knows this and this is why we know they have no interest in invading the Baltics. Sadly though with NATO’s installation of anti-missile systems in some Baltic states (Poland) it guarantees that Russia’s first bombing strikes will be at those targets.
Near the middle of his essay Tobias makes his argument against Donald Trump. He draws many parallels between Trump’s rhetoric and historical events, but where he fails in his analysis is that similar parallels can be drawn about almost anyone. Our current crisis with Russia can be directly attributed to Bill Clinton.
See this: Bill Clinton’s Epic Double-Cross: How “Not An Inch” Brought NATO To Russia’s Border
Tobias reveals his disposition towards the Western narrative when he declares Russia a dictatorship which it is not. He declares Turkey, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia as “heading that way too.” His assumption is also incorrect. Although Turkey is in chaos due to a failed coup attempt what Western media is not revealing is that there is a clear documentation trail which investigators have revealed that identify a high ranking United States General was likely a leading actor in the coup attempt.
The details are hard to find online with sources seemingly to ‘disappear’ however, for the time being, you can learn more about this US Foreign Policy involvement here: The Man behind the Failed Coup in Turkey? US Army General John F. Campbell. Report. (The links I recently accessed to the CIA banking transfers no longer exist.)
Reading further it appears that Tobias encapsulates himself into the very admonitory he attempts to convey. He attributes the anger generated by Donald Trump, Nigel Farage (Brexit) and Vladimir Putin as the “Archduke Ferdinand” of the next apocalypse however, he misses the problem entirely.
First Russians are not ‘riled up’ or ‘angry’ at all. There is no video or publication online in which Putin attempts to instill animosity towards the West. In fact every video on YouTube of Putin speaking that has properly translated captions, has Putin saying or doing the exact opposite. Russians overall ar in fear of another war. They lived it first hand and know the hardships of war, something we in the West can’t yet comprehend. Attempts to associate Vladimir Putin and Russia are simply illogical and further discussion unwarranted at this time.
Trump however, does incite ire among his supporters. To that effect so does Bernie Sanders and Nigel Farage. These three ‘demons’ however, are not the butterfly, but rather they are the wind. The anger and frustration within the American people has existed for over a decade, perhaps two. Bernie started a movement in hopes to bring forth change and to finally shut down the Establishment. Trump on the other hand simply wants to be President and chose to instead yank the Band-Aid off the wound.
If we are to identify an “Archduke Ferdinand” then we are left with one choice. Bill Clinton. He chose to encroach NATO onto Russia, backed extremist rebels who committed crimes against humanity in Kosovo, invoked welfare reform which increased poverty, refined the “soft money” loophole that helped ensure Establishment candidates would always stay in power, created the “Clinton Foundation” whose use of funds is more elusive and hard to track than the CIA. Bill Clinton’s actions as President, beyond his intern exploits, was to strengthen the position of the establishment in government and law. Bill Clinton is of course not the only catalyst however, his actions 20 years ago gave birth to the anger and animosity that exists in today’s America.
The problem isn’t Trump, Sanders, Farage, or Putin. The problem is the ‘establishment’ that operates within the government and throughout the financial district of Wall Street and beyond. If we want to point fingers then the name at the top of the list would be the Rothchilds. Don’t expect to find much online on them though.
Tobias’ analysis and playbook on how World War 3 would escalate and play out is absolutely wrong. A proper analysis of his thesis is an ‘essay’ in itself, but to summarize quickly:
Russia would not invade the Baltics. With today’s technologically advanced weapons and missile systems there is no military advantage to occupying any Baltic state. Occupying or annexing a Baltic state would bring with it substantial economic costs over and above attempting to police a rebellious population. Russia would have to devote thousands of troops simply to police each state. Simply economically unfeasible. Russia’s only incursion into a Baltic state would be the launching of high-energy or nuclear missiles at NATO targets within that state.
Russia did not annex Crimea. As many European government officials and observers had publicly stated, the people of Crimea sincerely elected to secede from Ukraine and either create their own federation or to ask to join the
Russian federation. More than two-thirds of the people of Crimea are ethnic Russians and the government of Crimea did hold a fair and recognizable open election.
Trump has repeatedly stated that he would descalate tensions with Russia, end anti-Russian sanctions and scale-back the aggressiveness of NATO. Basically Trump would reverse some of the bad and aggressive decisions Bill Clinton did as President, and fix the missteps Hillary made as Secretary of State.
Tobias’ essay ends with an overtone of instilling fear into it’s reader. ‘If we don’t elect Hillary then it’s the end of the world.’ Tobias isn’t directly pushing the establishment narrative, but it seems clear that he’s been influenced by it and as such transitioned that narrative into his essay.
In closing it’s important that I too disclose my stance on America’s political campaign. If I was a voting American I could not vote for either Hillary or Trump. I would likely have voted for Sanders and in November would have wrote his name in on the ballot.
I would not vote for one candidate simply to keep another one out which is the argument the establishment candidate is currently trying to make. I don’t trust Trump; I trust Clinton even less. Trump is all about Trump, will he champion peace with Russia, likely, and that is good, but Trump is, and always will be, about Trump. The American middle-class and impoverished will suffer under Trump. Clinton is a champion for NATO and is perhaps the harbinger to World War 3.
Tobias suggests he might want to be remembered as being one who “saw it coming”. He would be right however, he might have misinterpreted the catalyst.
Sadly I feel that my American friends, and the world, are going to lose in November regardless of who is elected.
I think it’s important that we all take a moment to realize what is at stake here. It is US Foreign Policy that is nudging us closer towards the zero hour. Vladimir Putin warned us about it in 2007, then again at the 2016 UN Economic Forum in St. Petersburg , Russia.
This YouTube video recorded during the 2016 UNEF shows a visibly frustrated Vladimir Putin scolding the media and warning them of how close the world is to nuclear war.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqD8lIdIMRo]