"Insiders: Peddlers of Glibness"

The mainstream media (MSM) constantly warns us of imminent disasters. Once they identify these "disasters" they serve the public interest by providing a forum for such "experts" who attempt to educate the otherwise hopeless masses. These experts demonstrate their wisdom by citing their resume, usually consisting of stints working for the elites. Much of their expertise is based on nothing more than serving elites, which, stated another way, is their using the textbook logical fallacy of claiming knowledge of subjects by "authority." Thus, their citing their credentials should preemptively silence critical discussions of their claims. 

Listen to Rickards' comments beginning at approximately 15:20 in this video. He of course is one of the infamous "insiders" who possesses knowledge how of the "system really works," and he as a contemporary Prometheus has a conscience compelling his shining the light on the true evil that awaits us. 

Two questions come to mind. First, insiders like him always recount recent conversations with highly placed persons of the elite who candidly disclose to him a cascade of doom just moments from its falling on the masses. He can't cite specific names, but trust him. Question: if he were truly an insider would any elite member of the establishment divulge to him any foreknowledge of known calamities? Second, why do supposed insiders like Rickards cite false narratives to support their conclusions, deduced from both their own special knowledge/expertise and knowledge of fellow insiders?

He claims China colluded with Russia to dump Treasuries to soften the impact of the predictable sanctions imposed on the latter when they "invaded Crimea." That sounds like a..........conspiracy theory.

Russia did sell a large quantity of its U.S. Treasuries. From April 2014 to April 2015 Russia's holdings of U.S. Treasuries declined from $116.4 billion to $66.5 billion. [1]. But would their selling such assets really cause a protracted decline of the U.S. dollar? No, because Russia's dollar holdings prior to its "invasion" of Crimea accounted for too small of a percentage of the total for it to inflict much damage upon the world's reserve currency.

Russia certainly had reduced their holdings of U.S. Treasuries during 2014 and this trend continued through the early part of 2015. But, during May 2015 Russia began increasing their U.S. dollar holdings. The ruble tanked during 2014 no doubt from the combined impact of U.S. sanctions and declining oil prices. But, the question here is did Russia sell its dollar-denominated assets as a tactical move in anticipation of their seizing Crimea? This question begs additional questions.

What about China? Did they decisively ditch the U.S. dollar? Not really. China's holdings of U.S. Treasuries from April 2014 to April 2015 remained virtually unchanged at slightly over $1.2 trillion. [2]. But, both Norway and Thailand sold significant amounts of U.S. Treasuries during the same period. [3]. Were they both selling for geopolitical reasons? Should we suspect that both nations sold significant amounts of U.S. Treasuries to occupy more significant moves on the geopolitical chessboard? Probably not but anybody asserting Russia's selling of its U.S. Treasuries portended imminent military aggression is an a-priori claim at best. Don't bother worrying about the motivations of those two posers like Norway and Thailand whose actions don't matter, lest they weaken the anti-Russia/China narrative.

India, though, has increased its holding of U.S. Treasuries from April 2014 to April 2015 from $68.7 billion to $110.3 billion. [4]. Why would a fellow BRICS member increase their holdings of dollar denominated assets? Maybe India only maintains BRICS membership (after subsequently adding South Africa) in order to sabotage it?
  

Still Russia invaded Crimea?

An important discussion that should occur given Rickards' claim (and shared by the MSM) is that Russia invaded Crimea. An invasion usually implies an act of raw and unprovoked aggression. This conclusion ignores the critical nature of the events preceding Russia's annexing of Crimea. A revealing conversation had occurred on February 25, 2014 between insiders Catherine Ashton-Foreign Affairs Chief of the European Union-and Urmas Paet-Estonia's Foreign Minister. The transcript of this phone call certainly suggests that Victor Yanukovch was not responsible for the violence erupting in the Maidan days prior to his regime being overthrown. Both Ashton and Paet discuss the Maidan revolt in Kiev which destabilized Ukraine, creating a different filter through which Crimea is seen as increasingly vulnerable to Ukranian occupation rather than victim of Putin's imperialism.

Also, an invasion involves the occupier denying legitimate sovereignty to the occupied. The Crimean referendum also weakens claims that Russia coerced and intimidated their desired result:

Both before and after Crimea left Ukraine and joined Russia in a public referendum on 16 March 2014, the Gallup Organization polled Crimeans on behalf of the U.S. Government, and found them to be extremely pro-Russian and anti-American, and also anti-Ukrainian. (Neither poll was subsequently publicized, because the results of each were the opposite of what the sponsor had wished.) Both polls were done on behalf of the U.S. Government, in order to find Crimeans’ attitudes toward the United States and toward Russia, and also toward Ukraine, not only before but also after the planned U.S. coup in Ukraine, which occurred in February 2014 but was actually kicked off on 20 November 2013, the day before Ukraine’s democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych publicly announced that Ukraine had received a better economic offer from Russia’s Eurasian Economic Community than from America’s European Union. (The EEC subsequently became the Eurasian Economic Union, now that it was clear that Ukraine was going with the EU.) [5]

In addition to Rickards' glib repeating in the video noted above the factually-challenged claim that Russia invaded Crimea, he also repeats the MSM's instant myth in his book Currency Wars that Russia invaded Georgia in 2008. He states this claim that Russia invaded Georgia to prevent the EU/US- created and supported oil gas company Nabucco from challenging Gazprom's dominant position:

One of the critical links in the larger Nabucco scheme is the South Caucasus Pipeline that runs through Georgia. With the invasion of Georgia in August 2008, Russian armored columns were used to threaten Nabucco and support Gazprom's dominant position. [6].

The U.S. government review of the sequence of events leading up to the military conflict of Georgia and Russia reveals the former was more a prime mover in this case than the latter's acting to protect Gazprom's dominance.

The U.S. publicly condemned this brief combat action as a resurgent Russian bear; meanwhile, copies of documents published by Wikileaks showed the U.S. blindly accepted Georgia's self-serving claims that Russian-support South Ossetians provoked this conflict, and that the U.S. Embassy staff in Tbilisi relied only on the claims coming directly from the Georgian government:

By 2008, as the region slipped toward war, sources outside the Georgian government were played down or not included in important cables. Official Georgian versions of events were passed to Washington largely unchallenged......The last cables before the eruption of the brief Russian-Georgian war showed an embassy relaying statements that would with time be proved wrong....

'Deputy Minister of Defense Batu Kutelia told Ambassador at mid-day August 7 that Georgian military troops are on higher alert, but will not be deploying,' one cable noted, as Georgian heavy military     equipment was enroute to the confilct zone....Mr Kutelia's assurance did not stand, even in real time. In of the few signs of the embassy's having staff in the field, the cable noted 'embassy observers on the highway' saw about 30 government buses 'carrying uniformed men heading north.'.....Still the embassy misread the signs, telling Washington that while there were 'numerous reports that the Georgians are moving military equipment and forces,' the embassy's 'initial impressions' were that the Georgians 'were in a heightened state of alertness to show their resolve.'.........

In fact, Georgia would launch a heavy artillery-and-rocket attack on Tskinvali, the South Ossetian capital, at 11:35 p.m. on Aug. 7, ending a cease-fire it had declared less than five hours before.The bombardment plunged Georgia into war, pitting the West against Russia in a standoff over both Russian military actions and the behavior of a small nation that the United States had helped arm and train. 

A confidential cable the next morning noted that Georgia's Foreign Ministry had briefed the diplomatic corps, claiming that 'Georgia now controlled most of South Ossetia, including the capital.' The cable further relayed that 'Saakashvili has said that Georgia had no intention of getting into this fight, but was provoked by the South Ossetians and had to respond to protect Georgian citizens and territory.'

Rather than emphasize the uncertainties, it added, 'All the evidence available to the country team supports Saakashvili's statement that this fight was not Georgia original intention.' Then it continued: 'Only when the South Ossetians opened up with artillery on Georgian villages' did the offensive begin.

This exceptionally bold claim would be publicly echoed throughout the Bush administration, which strongly backed Georgia on the world's stage. The cable did not provide supporting sources outside of the Georgian government. Instead, as justification for the Georgian attack the previous night, a Georgian government source, Temuri Yakobashvili, was cited as telling the American ambassador that 'South Ossetians continued to shoot at the Georgian villages despite the announcement of the cease-fire.'

The cable contained no evidence [sic] that Ossetian attacks after the cease-fire had actually occurred and played down the only independent account, which came from military observers in Tskhinvali from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. [7]. 

Given the U.S. public condemnation of Putin as the puppet master pulling the strings that caused this military aggression, and the subsequent revelation of Georgia's military provocation in Ossetia, why has the U.S. continued its constant demonizing of Putin and its blatant attempts to weaken and punish Russia? Rickards' parrots this demonizing though doing so more subtly because his main thesis is not to convince the reader to conclude Russia is a existential threat to peace and prosperity in Eastern Europe. Rather his anti-Russian statements are inserted as self-evident facts that function as integral components to his main thesis that a global economic catastrophe is imminent.

Why does studying the actual causes of the Crimean secession from Ukraine and the military conflict between Georgia and Russia matter? Because these examples provide insight into a dangerous mindset pedaled by these insiders. Rickards sees the death of the dollar as a fait accompli. Its die has been cast. But, he claims that Russia's neo-imperialistic agenda explains its dumping dollars to offset the damage suffered from predictable and inevitable U.S. imposed sanctions. He cites other factors too, but his emphasizing that the dollar's downfall occurs to some degree at the hands of the Kremlin and its accomplice in Beijing obscures the U.S. empires's harmful actions. His focus on Russia's and China's collusion to destroy the dollar implies more so a moral justification of U.S. countermeasures. Or, if not a moral justification, it at least provides the U.S. a rationale for taking actions to strengthen the dollar which entails their opposing Russia asserting any influence in Ukraine. Next, once we accept this implication, then we neglect to consider how the U.S. has abused its "exorbitant privilege" of holding the reserve currency. Meanwhile, insiders promote glibness while the elites whom they allegedly know so well push us closer to World War Three.

History is often written by the victors while the empire writes our present.

   

1. "Major Foreign Holders of Treasury Securities." Department of the Treasury/Federal Reserve Board June 2015. http://www.treasury.gov/ticdata/Publish/mfh.txt 

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. Zuesse, Eric. "Crimea: Was it Seized by Russia, or Did Russia Block its Seizure by the U.S.?" Global Research February 22, 2015. http://www.globalresearch.ca/crimea-was-it-seized-by-russia-or-did-russia-block-its-seizure-by-the-u-s/5432694

6. Rickards, James. Currency Wars: The Making of the Next Global Crisis. Penguin. 2011. Kindle version. p. 156 of 254.

7. C.J. Chivers. "State's secrets: a cache of diplomatic cables provides a chronicle of the United States relations with the world." The New York Times. Dec 1, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/world/europe/02wikileaks-georgia.html?_r=0