Dear friends,
Last month I have had, once again, the real pleasure to have a one hour long conversation with Catherine Austin Fitts, the president of Solari, Inc., the publisher of The Solari Report and managing member of Solari Investment Advisory Services. Normally, the Catherine’s interviews are for subscribers only, but she has kindly agreed to make it available for free to our community.
Here is the main page of the interview: https://solari.com/blog/the-saker-a-uni-polar-vs-multi-polar-world/
You can listen to the interview here: https://solari.com/audio/sr20160407_InterviewHQ.mp3
You can get the transcript in PDF format here: https://solari.com/00archive/web/solarireports/2016/sr20160407_1.pdf
I highly recommend that you check out the rest of the Solari Reports and the Solari Books.
Enjoy!
The Saker
Thanks. Great education sprinkled with humanity and humor.
Barring a Clinton tantrum, looks like a multi-polar world coming to every neighborhood.
But for us pawns in the game what will change? Looks like more of the same.
I have found a way to use what’s good in the system while avoiding most of the toxins. For example, there’s this vineyard which is like an oasis in the wasteland.
I have a continual battle to keep my head above water emotionally but at least I have not yet gone down in the flood. I came closer earlier when I threw a tantrum shouting at love: “I hate you.” She didn’t seem to care one way or the other.
This secret garden of intellectual delights and comforting fare gets me through the day so I am more likely to have sweet dreams at night.
Ironies abound here but that just adds spice to the sauce. Love is my main dish which is not on the menu here but “bring your owns” is allowed and even encouraged at the maverick cafe. I haven’t met such a bunch of misfits since I left Venice Beach and Hotel California.
I’m feeling good today but yesterday I felt like a Dying to Dive denizen short of air at twenty fathoms. Fortunately there are people here, there and everywhere who seems to love me so I take comfort and reject despair. Now I need to learn how to love in return.
The Saker and Fitts help keep me fit so I am less inclined to quit when the going get rough. Tough love is not my forte; I prefer gentle foreplay. You two describe the world pretty well. Where it’s really at who can tell?
As a summary:
Yes, America is a mistake; a gigantic mistake, but a mistake.
Sigmund Freud
———————————
Writing in Freud: Political and Social Thought, Paul Roazen says:
There is a well-known irony in the ease and extent of Freud’s American triumph. For he had the utmost disdain and contempt for American life. “America,” he joked, “is a mistake; a gigantic mistake, but a mistake.” He denied “hating” America; he merely “regretted” it. His reasons for his difficulties in adjusting to American customs on his trip in 1909 ranged from the absence of public toilets, the quality of the water and the food, to the more common complaints about America–the manners, the sexual hypocrisy, the general lack of culture, the brash wealth.
——————————
Hmmmm, not much change in the last 107 years, except that best public toilets are in the places serving the worst food.
Regards, Spiral
Your apparent disdain when reacting to Catherine’s reference to an astute observation on the relationship and fabric between the state & commercial apparatus of the western empire is revealing. In essence it suggests that you will always have a limited capacity to reach accurate assessments in respect of western bloc intentions, means, and capacity.
The above also says you are likely to understate the essential requirement for pre-eminence in economic capacity & the arrow projections of commercial power of it that is required to sustain great powers essential political influence over geo-politically aligned or contested states.
In the commentary space you have created for yourself you cannot credibly ignore people bearing Paul Kennedy’s argument, or tell them to talk to your hand because the imposed thoughts of policy wonks within the directorate of plans are all that matters.
However, one must also be scathing in respect of Catherine’s beliefs in respect of Kennedy’s intentions and the multi polar world. As expressed they are simply piffle and another romantic fabrication supporting the Camelot myth. His New Pacific Community concept tilt at winning the cold war based on this campaign in the Asia Pacific from 1961-63, his continuity with Eisenhower when enacting measures to displace the European powers from Asia, and the parallel complicity in the long-gestated military and intelligence effort to take-down the politically independent Sukarno; a campaign that merely culminated with an LBJ (who had lesser aspirations & far less input into the project than JFK & Eisenhower). This has been chronicled by Conboy-Morrison and McCoy among others.
I have no idea what are you trying to say.
Regards, Spiral
The rise and fall of empires is now being extrapolated to the multi-polar monster that Russia is sucked into. The fall of the multi-polar beast will be something to behold. In Kennedy it’s being partly foretold.
Sorry, but I have no idea of what I’m talking about, or maybe I do.
I,too, have little idea of what you are trying to say. But to respond to some part of it, re Kennedy:
Many observers are of the opinion that Kennedy’s June 3, 1963, speech at American University may have been what sealed his fate. He told the world that he wanted to seek a peaceful rapprochement or, rather, look for a modus vivendi with the Soviet Union, totally ban nuclear weapons, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_University_speech
Stop dissing Kennedy. He was this country’s last, best hope.
The “lone gunman” theoryh only becomes more ridiculous with the passage of time, as we see more and more clearly, in hindsight, what the loss of Kennedy and his vision for peace in a multipolar or at least bipolar world has meant to this country and to millions around the world: Disaster upon disaster.
Katherine
You give romantic life to your fabricated JFK strategic vision based upon one speech? His enemies were dangerous to him, and they were SOB’s, but turning on those already set on coming after you is not the making of heroics. The counter-point to this one speech was a comprehensive strategy that JFK had got into in earnest during the Eisenhower administration and had attempted to roll out between 1961-1963. The Dulles brothers created a criminal family stronger than JFKs then extant mafia mates. JFK shouldn’t have taken out Lansdale’s good mate Diem. And yes, just like you, there were apologists like Prados still in 2003 making claims that JFK didn’t explicitly order him wacked … but of coarse that hasn’t stood any test of credibility.
JFK was as much a grub behind the Camelot veil in his public life as he was in his private life. He thought he was onto the slam-dunk winning strategy for the cold war with his New Pacific Community construct. To prove its impact note that Bubba tried to resurrect it in the 1990’s as he got into his heroes agenda pursuing empire, and then around it rolls around again under Obumma. This strategic play was all the more personal for JFK because the Pacific was his most grounded domain outside the US political circus given his WWII experience.
Most of the names of those hundreds of thousands of dead Indonesians popped off in LBJ’s time will prove to have already been on lists coordinated out of Hawaii by the time Kennedy went down. It was JFK that sent Bobby in to beg Sukarno to release Pope without a glint of embarrassment while all the while plotting the false flag & coup to overthrow him. That was the same Pope who had bombed the Indonesian navy while all while the US ambassador made smiley faces in Jakarta. Pope was no dummy like those that went down in China though – he took all his papers with him in the cockpit – and the suckholes in DC couldn’t plausibly deny he was on their mission. So the game plan was to ally with the Indonesians in order to kick out the Dutch – lay claim to the Sumatran refineries and the Freeport mine in New Guinea for US commercial interests – and then double-cross Sukarno. They had earlier been parrying with the Brits in their intelligence led actions fermenting rebellion in Sumatra which coalesced with all the games playing in Malaya that drip-drip-drip pressured the Brits into accepting a better (if you discount the French managing to remain in the Pacific while the Brits lost were giving up all east f the Suez) colonial exit strategy than suffered by the French in Indo-China.
No small wonder why Menzies in Australia wouldn’t buy into JFK’s New Pacific Community or the tactical nuclear weapons in the field for S.E.Asia that Rusk was pushing. The said US diplomatic style in Indonesia might even have inspired the smiley faces and token commitments that accompanied every piece of adventurism the US got into from Rusk onwards even given the notable audio tape on LBJ’s special greeting for Hasluck at the White House after his speech in San Francisco. It wasn’t much different in tone from LBJ to the takedown of Goulert of Brazil tape.
And Catherine, the significance of your reference to the state dept department’s means of engagement with the US commercial and trade communities was noteworthy.
It is just as significant to adamantly say that the Kennedy’s were no heroes and that the dissing is well deserved, as is the even break long owing to the assessment of Nixon’s record.
You have it right Katherine. Word was that he opened talks with Khrushchev via Rome.Let’s end the cold war now.A fatal mistake.My assessment of the Kennedy’s in general was that they loved their party life,nekkid pool parties,etc.All of them together could not muster two brain cells worth of OPSEC which gets you killed(or blackmailed) quickly in that segment of society.Vlad has his OPSEC down pat.As an aside,this Trump/Hillary circus is the forerunner to disaster here and abroad.More info here on those two clowns and the great ‘Murican (gemme moar) info-tainment industry. (mindcontrolblackassassins. com/)
Re Kennedy: An important big book is ‘JFK and the Unspeakable, Why he died and why it matters’, voluminously footnoted, author James W. Douglas.
Another important little book is Donald Dixon’s ‘Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency.’ “Was JFK the tool of the Eastern Establishment, or was he its bitterest enemy? Don Gibson challenges the conventional wisdom and asserts, with powerful support from Kennedy’s own words and actions-and those of his enemies-that Kennedy was always on the side of economic, political and social progress. To achieve his goals of government for the people, JFK crossed swords courageously and vigorously with the real centers of power. They punished him with the ultimate sacrifice – his own life, and fifty years of crushing defeats of our American ideals. In this intriguing and penetrating analysis, Gibson looks at what JFK himself said, wrote, and did, contrasting that with the words and actions of his enemies-the Wall Street Journal, Fortune magazine, and the corporate and banking magnates themselves, who, as this book shows, truly despised the President. Conventional wisdom depicts Kennedy as a cautious president committed to the status quo and to the Establishment. This book makes a compelling case to the contrary, showing that President Kennedy was always willing to do battle for his progressive policies, even in the face of vicious attacks. With its clear and lively style, this book is a revelation to the general reader and to the specialist, opening the way to a new understanding of the meaning of Kennedy’s legacy.”
Rubbish! Facing economic collapse in 1960 (especially so in consumer purchasing power) he took the eastern lawyer’s quick fix to bail out the elite and kick the can down the road option …. unfunded government liabilities that were always to see the plebs eaten from the inside out. It also let the military-industrial estate boondogglers off the budget cut hook. And Obummacare pulling down on the same oratory…. really? It was a bailout for private medical insurers and big pharma. It just goes round and round in JFK’s Camelot besotted ‘merica – and it is narrative b/s.
When Nixon came to power he found that the gold backed dollar’s fate was set by the actions of JFK in ’60. The unfunded liabilities & continued welfare-warfare spending under the Dems meant the fiat dollar’s path was locked and loaded. Only an ever-expansionist military led empire that facilitated the export of US inflation and maintenance of US consumer purchasing power could hold it up. Yes that was Garrett’s summation of the effects of FDR’s New Deal too, but there you go….
Eisenhower did a military-industrial estate confessional speech urging policy change when he was washed up. JFK made a speech in ’63 that challenged the statists and corporatists that had already decided his fate – both had the same efficacy? Both Eisenhower and JFK (moreso the latter) were obsessed with intelligence-led warfare and COIN. Searching for “Secret war in….” (Tibet, Laos, Indonesia, Philippines) now provides ample evidence from accredited historians. The Petraeus / Kilcullen COIN and useful idiot insurgent adventurism were directly derived of the rosey arsed views of that same pair. They proved equally effective in the field too yet noone pays a price and it is down to the JFK apologists that are fully supported by the beltway.
Another little gem of the JFK administration is his pairing up with little mate BK Nehru, and when India was starving and desperately needed food aid, how they just happened to decide that they were going to undertake attacks on the Chinese across the Northern control line. And how the CIA flew their Khampa useful idiots up to the India-China conflict front lines to support the Indians, those same that they had been covertly training and funding Nepali camps (together with air drop support) for insurgency operations into Tibet. And on this ’62 conflict matter, the Russians knew sufficient about BK and his little Hungarian zionist wife’s work with JFK and the beltway establishment that they decided to side with the Chinese (evenwhile they were otherwise on the brink of conflict with them) over their otherwise stated ally in India. But still the US won even as the Indians got their tails spanked and hence the “domino theory” of Chinese aggression and the southward march of Maoism was reinforced – which politically meant that the regular US troops to Vietnam were from that point onward locked and loaded.
Pointers towards reading lists are nightmares for JFK apologists, but given that he was a product of his times, and they were made of pre-conditions, it is better to rewind. Another for the list today as mentioned above is Garret Garrett’s work in 1953 – The People’s Pottage.
This is off topic, but I thought this item from an article about Clinton’s email scandal might be interesting to this blog:
http://original.antiwar.com/andrew-p-napolitano/2016/05/11/a-perfect-storm/
While all of this has been going on, intelligence community sources have reported about a below the radar screen, yet largely known debate in the Kremlin between the Russian Foreign Ministry and the Russian Intelligence Services. They are trying to come to a meeting of the minds to determine whether the Russian government should release some 20,000 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails that it obtained either by hacking her directly or by hacking into the email of her confidante, Sid Blumenthal.
That was a very informative interview. Thank you and also thanks to Catherine for making it available to the community.
I know this comment will sound very exotic, but what we are seeing in the world now is a replay of the period leading to the destruction of Atlantis. Most, if not all, of those players are back and this time, they have to get it right or we will have another nuclear holocaust which will take the planet back to the Stone Age. What I have seen so far gives me great hope that this time, humanity will finally make it. You have absolutely no idea of the scale of the resources that has been brought into play to ensure a positive outcome.