Private military and security companies (PMSCs) have been exploiting conflict and instability in war-torn regions whilst making gargantuan profits for the least 15 years – and they've only increased in numbers … Hundreds of new companies have been established in the last few years alone … "The UK is an important hub for the PMSC industry. At the height of the occupation, around 60 British companies operated in Iraq. Now there are hundreds of British PMSCs operating in areas of conflict around the globe, working to secure government and corporate presence against a range of 'threats' …" – SputnikNews
According to various reports, London is becoming the center of private militia activity. Mercenaries and weapons are flooding into a city that increasingly offers private military employment as well as involvement with black-market activities.
The implication is that the West's most powerful city is being put on a war footing by the private interests. The US is on a similar war footing, as sociopolitical messaging continues to emphasize the US wars abroad and the dangers of "terrorism" at home.
A recent article in Global Research, "The Super Bowl Promotes War. NFL to Publicly Display Love for Soldiers and Weaponry," reported the nation's most prominent events are used to showcase militarism and create public support for the nation's serial, unconstitutional wars.
Here, from the article:
And why shouldn't the military pay the football league to hype its heroism? It pays damn near everybody else. At $2.8 billion a year on recruiting some 240,000 "volunteers," that's roughly $11,600 per recruit.
The story of famous footballer Pat Tillman, as the article reminds us, is still posted on the NFL website … "as the one NFL player who gave up a giant football contract to join the military."
In fact, Tillman had changed his mind about US foreign wars after serving abroad and made it clear he intended to speak out against the Afghan war when he returned to the States.
Tillman never returned home, however, as he was killed by friendly fire – three bullets to the forehead at short range.
Another Global Research article, "U.S. Now Overtly at War Against Russia," explains how the US is now directly targeting Russia.
General Jens Stoltenberg announced on February 2nd that he approves of US 'Defense' Secretary Ash Carter's proposal to quadruple US armaments and troops in Europe, against 'Russian aggression'.
The US, in post-Soviet, post-communist, Russia, has turned around and become the aggressor – against the now democratic nation of Russia … We've switched roles. The US has turned to dictatorship, while Russia has turned to democracy. It's a super-switcheroo.
The author of the article, investigative historian Eric Zuesse, also writes, "The likelihood of a nuclear war has never been higher than it is now, except perhaps for the Cuban Missile Crisis, but the entire world was being informed about that then, and what about the situation now?"
Sputnik News reports that Turkey may invade Syria and mentions a further confrontation: "At the same time, Saudi Arabia has also expressed its willingness to send ground forces into Syria."
The Russian Defense Ministry, too, believes that Ankara may be planning an invasion after the breakdown of Syrian peace talks in Geneva. Russia is being blamed by the West, though Russia has not been the aggressor in any of the violence taking place around its borders.
The political leadership in both Turkey and Saudi Arabia is seen as weak and ineffective. Sustained and expanded conflict in Syria is one way that these regimes may seek to survive.
The article quotes Turkish journalist Erman Cete as saying, "I think to reach a political solution in Syria, Turkey and Saudi Arabia must be eliminated, because these two countries, right now, are preventing a peaceful solution in Syria."
This perception indicates that the war in Syria, far from being over, is going to expand and escalate. Inevitably, both the US and Russia will be drawn further into conflict.
Is all of this taking place merely by happenstance? The short answer is very obviously "no." The surge in militarism in the West and among Western allies is certainly tied to the continued and expanded Western economic crisis.
And the economic crisis has been created by the West's determination to build its economic and industrial might around a framework of monopoly central banking.
Zero-bound money printing has undermined Western solvency.
Citicorp recently released a report warning that four global economic forces were creating a "death spiral." These are: a strong dollar, weakening oil prices, diminishing trade and struggling emerging markets.
Each one reinforces the others and creates a further weakening. However, it is important to note that the depreciating price for oil, in particular, is a manufactured phenomenon, one that has been created in part to put economic pressure on Russia.
The forces now being arrayed on the world stage repeat a familiar pattern that we last saw early in the 20th century. Then, the establishment of the US Federal Reserve led first to the "Roaring '20s" and finally to a tremendous market crash and the Great Depression.
The Great Depression could have been cured if Roosevelt's "New Deal" had not distorted the economy and prolonged the underlying mechanisms of the Great Depression.
Likewise, today, central bank money printing has not allowed bankrupt facilities to collapse. As a result, healthier entities have been reluctant to do business and the larger economy has stalled. The Greater Recession has continued and deepened.
Central banks have reportedly printed something like US$250 trillion since 2008, and those in charge of this policy are well aware of its destructive effects.
And as happened during the Great Depression, military tensions are being cultivated to distract people from the ongoing economic disintegration.
This is the unholy duality of elite domination of Western sociopolitical and economic processes.
For those in a position to see how economic and military events are tied together, the answers should be obvious.
They have to do with ensuring one's self-reliance as much as possible. Purchases of precious metals, farmland and second homes in non-Western environments provide some surety that one may avoid the worst excesses of Western-centric militarism and economic destruction.
Various contrarian investment strategies may be employed as well. Importantly, one needs to accept that what is going on today is not simply going to cease.
The West and the world are not simply going to return to previous eras of peace and prosperity. Nor did they in the 1930s.
Conclusion: How bad are things going to get? If the example of the 20th century is any guide, we could see a continual deepening of militarism and economic dysfunction. With this in mind, one ought to be taking action now. There is no time to waste.