An earlier 1952 map of the division of the world, one of a number of scenarios presented to government. Most know that governments don't think for themselves - they accept advice from qangos such as this one.
In case anyone hadn't noticed, there's a global cold war in its early stages and it has been on the drawing boards for quite some time, depending for its implementation and for the supposed defence of the various players, on alliances:
October 28, 1939 John Foster Dulles [later U.S. Secretary of State] proposed that America lead the transition to a new order of less independent, semi-sovereign states bound together by a league or federal union.
July 1948 - Sir Harold Butler, in the CFR's "Foreign Affairs," asks: "How far can the life of nations, which for centuries have thought of themselves as distinct and unique, be merged with the life of other nations? How far are they prepared to sacrifice a part of their sovereignty without which there can be no effective economic or political union?"
Actually, it's a smokescreen for the real agenda of the hidden power referred to by Woodrow Wilson and their agenda is supposedly the destruction of the intelligentsia and the affluent middle class, in favour of a form of serfdom for 85% of the population [see Friedman's thesis] and unelected rule by "elements in the major centres".
1966 - Professor Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton's mentor at Georgetown, authors "Tragedy and Hope" in which he states: "There does exist and has existed for a generation, an international network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical right believes the Communists act.
In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records.
I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies, but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known."
The players in the smokescreen conflicts visible to the world [Cold War, World Wars 1 & 2, Vietnam etc.] currently comprise U.S.A/Canada/Mexico on one team, the EU on another and Russia/China on another.
Japan must decide where it is in all this, as must Britain. The Islamic world is a fourth player and the small nations can align themselves as they wish.
Britain therefore is critical to the issue because it can unbalance the hegemony by leaning towards one camp or the other and the name of the game is hegemony here.
Thus the utter shock to the U.S. by the recent EU move to circumvent the U.S. plan to control the net and at the same time to place it under government control, which in turn means "under the control of the elements who control the unaccountable EU":
"It's a very shocking and profound change of the EU's position," said David Gross, the State Department official in charge of America's international communications policy. "The EU's proposal seems to represent an historic shift in the regulatory approach to the Internet from one that is based on private sector leadership to a government, top-down control of the Internet."
Of course, to a Joe Blogger, it might be a surprise to discover that anyone is actually trying to control the net and putting programmes in place to do so. How far behind the times is Joe?
A little snippet from our own nation here is that since Microsoft's invasion last year [first time in any meaningful way], police have been carrying out raids on all computer hardware and software sellers, taking their harddrives and prosecuting anyone with non-registered software.
The significance is not in the cooperative effort to eliminate computer piracy but that there is such co-operation at all at the corporate level, given the new nationalist stance at governmental level.
Michael Pillsbury, of the National Defense University Press, wrote of China's own macro-strategies:
Colonel Liu Chungzi of the National Defense University Strategy Department states that "in the 1990s, the world entered a multipolar era very similar to the time of Sun Zi."
General Gao Rui, former Vice President of the Academy of Military Science (AMS), wrote that the era is "extremely distant from modern times, but still shines with the glory of truth" and "the splendid military legacy created through the bloody struggles of our ancient ancestors and today has a radiance even more resplendent."
The director of research at the General Staff Department of the People's Liberation Army published six volumes of studies on ancient statecraft in 1996 that contained specific advice on how to comprehend the current and future security environment.
An essential aspect of this assessment is to determine the rank order of the power held by the various warring states. Although today's Chinese concept of Comprehensive National Power (CNP) was invented in the early 1980s, it originally stemmed from traditional military philosophy.
States which rise too fast suffer attack, dismemberment, and even complete extinction. Chinese strategic policy has always been to form a coalition that stands for several decades against the predatory hegemon of the time.
The solution is in alliances and an examination of Russia's recent natural reserves alliances with China makes interesting reading.
Deng Xiaoping wrote: China must "hide brightness and nourish obscurity," or as Beijing interprets it: "to bide our time and build up our capabilities" and to "yield on small issues with the long term in mind."
Liu Jinghua, of CASS, has warned that by 2020, the policy of "concealing abilities and biding time" will not be sufficient and "once the flood begins, we must have a Great Wall which cannot collapse."
One part of this Great Wall must be a partnership with Russia, to defeat Western containment, attempted by restricting access to capital markets and technology, promoting Western values and using military power " as the core" against China.
So, to draw all this together, there are four separate battles going on:
1. The surface parliamentary and presidential battle which is largely irrelevant in terms of who is the puppet at the top and not of great interest to me personally;
2. The "more real" battle to shore up the continental power bases in the war for hegemony which is very much part of the Nietszchian style of perpetual conflict and the Chinese "warring states and glorious blood" scenario which is Euphemi-speak for thousands of dead young people in mud and rain, dislocated families, rape, atrocities, cruelty but still, a contrived battle;
3. The limits of the underlying temporal agenda which is to create a global state of feudalism to enable the Enlightened Masters to carry out their own Ancient and Sacred bestial ends of subjugating the lower echelons of humanity, i.e. the lower 85%;
4. The final agenda which you can read in Ephesians 6:12 [and it's largely irrelevant whether we accept this or not as there's not much any of us can do against this sort of power].
On the off chance that you do see the scenario along these lines, the obvious question is what can be done. On a macro-level, zilch, zero - it's all factored in.
On a micro-level, some things and this blog has been urging people to do certain things to cut off the power supply to the juggernaut, e.g. eliminating credit and debt and rediscovering spiritual roots which empower the individual but it would only work on a mass basis.
A perfect example is the monks who resisted and are now incarcerated, naked and being tortured in Burma. They provided the spark but self-interest, self-preservation and lack of leadership of a good kind prevented the nation taking up the cudgels and using them.
As for the rest of the world, it made noises about sanctions and the rest of us held a non-blogging day.
Burma
The advantages sneak up on you but first the nuisances: 
