The War between Earth and Water: The dispute of the two apocalyptic “beasts”
The War between Earth and Water: The dispute of the two apocalyptic “beasts”
By Thiarles Soares; 2026
In traditional biblical language, water represents chaos, the nations, the primordial world, the bowels of social life in dispute and continuous mutation. Earth, on the other hand, represents religion, order, established civilization, a hierarchy of perennity, and the solidity of generations. For this reason, throughout history, savage nations have always been related to the sea—the foreigners who come from the sea—and Earth [has been related to] the civilized inhabitants of cities, or the simple hearts of villagers living there century after century. The Phoenicians were the people of the sea, as were the Greeks, whereas the Israelites were a people of the earth, and the Persians, a people of the earth. It is interesting to note that there are prophecies against Tyre, the capital of the sea, upon which justice falls implacably, while on the other hand, we have Nineveh, the capital of the earth, a city that receives mercy. The people of the sea do not perform penance, while the people of the earth do: they clothe themselves in sackcloth and ashes, men and animals repent before God. The peoples of the sea, by contrast, take their proud ships and sail the seas as if they were gods, and their king feels like an incarnate god. The result is that the Phoenicians are destroyed by the terror of judgment, and the city of the earth is forgiven.
The difference between both lies in important details: both have a king, but not in the same way. The king of Tyre, the king of the sea, is a merchant; the king of Nineveh, the king of the earth, is a king of the people and the animals, a king of the entire visible world. He governs men, animals, and property; he has the power to compel everyone to perform penance; as his heart goes, so goes his people. The king of Tyre, however, does not; he is only himself, he is pride, he is the modus operandi, he cannot escape this, he is a loose piece, one more ship in his own fleet. The city of the sea must be destroyed, and the city of the earth can be forgiven.
Do you want another example? Carthage, the city of the sea, is destroyed by the Romans, and the city of the Earth, Rome, the religious city, is converted into the city of the Christians. The former represented the chaos of the waters—it was not forgiven, it was destroyed; the latter was forgiven, it was transfigured to be the city of religion, because it was already the city of religion, the city of order, the city where there was a king, and this king was its heart.
Why do we speak of this? What is the importance of this curious knowledge for us today? Because it is basically the core of the dispute between two nations: the United States and Russia; both are opposing nations, the former is a nation of the waters, the latter is a nation of the earth. But this definition was not given by me, but by the theorists of both modern nations themselves. Whether this conceptual overlapping is true or not, what matters is that it is at the heart of geopolitical disputes, it is their cultural background, and if we do not understand this, we are not capable of understanding future events.
A fundamental characteristic of the water nations is that their power is decentralized; they possess no king, and if there is a king, this king is merely one more ship in their fleet. Likewise, one cannot speak of the power of the United States without speaking of the many kings who are not kings in that country, among them the Federal Reserve. This institution, which commands economic power, is one of the powers—one of the heads of the "beast" of the waters—that cannot be easily defeated. It is a leviathan that dominates all people of the world, rich or poor; it is capable of dictating future power because it holds the power of money, the financial power, which in turn dominates economic power. Whoever contests it shall stumble, and if they fight it, they shall be shattered, devoured by its "vomited river." The power of the waters is impetuous, violent, and destructive, whereas the power of the earth is ordering; even when there is an earthquake, it declares only one command: rebuild everything. The dispute between the two most powerful nations in the world—the first in the order of waters, in the power of money; the second, in the power of the earth, to destroy in order to rebuild—is essentially the symbolic core of the current wars throughout the world. Fundamentally, the war between the United States-Israel against Iran signifies a dispute between water and earth, for the first Judeo-Western bloc does not wish to rebuild Iran, but rather to destroy it; for what purpose? Merely to destroy, to see what might remain afterward. And to this end, they use the weapons of the sea: financial, economic, and military power (the latter sustained by financial power, since the United States government under Donald Trump, the king who is not a king, but one more ship in his own army, ordered an explosive increase in the U.S. military budget based on the financialization of its military power, which is already quite dependent on financing). We have here an evident example: military power thus directed by financial power represents that river vomited against the woman. On the other hand, we have Iran, a country of the earth, a modern theocracy, rigid and ordering in its own arguments, disputing a religious and cosmological foundation with the U.S.-Israel axis. It is a land interspersed with ancient mountains, capable of being shaken only by earthquakes. Iran’s weapons today are its dominance over the Strait of Hormuz, which curiously is today the backbone of the planetary economy and locomotion, capable of shaking the economic and financial structure of the world. Petroleum, though found beneath the sea, is a power of the earth—a power hidden in the bowels of the earth—and only an overwhelming economic power can extract it from the depths and turn it into a commodity. Yet today it is not even a real product of the real economy, but rather a fictitious power, the petrodollar, used to sustain global financialization. The war between the U.S. and Iran emphasizes the world’s fragility and financial dependence on the system created by the United States, which will inevitably lead to the collapse of the nations that depend upon it.
The power of the United States, and this systemic strategy it has adopted in the financialization of the economy, will only work, or endure, to the point at which financialization itself remains possible, which means that we are reaching the limit of this endurance. The power of water is quite elastic, quite deceptive, due to the turbulence of the waves, but the larger the wave, the greater the destruction, and what remains afterward is less than one might have thought. So, if one thinks that the U.S. today possesses a strategy to win the wars in which it involves itself, they are mistaken; the dispute has long since become emotional and a matter of "calling the bluff," basically since the beginning of the Russo-Ukrainian War. This war is also another case to be demonstrated: Russia wants to "destroy" parts of Ukraine to rebuild it according to its Eurasian macro-vision of world order, whereas the U.S. intervened to help Ukraine—along with the other countries of the West—with the repudiable aim of letting Ukraine be destroyed, and whatever is left, we will pick up later. That is to say, the vision of both blocs differs greatly in their approach to war. Another striking and tragic example: the Gaza war has become merely a war of destruction of Gaza, something that was already known to all Western politicians, but which was ignored until the destruction of Gaza became irrefutable, in all of its social and political structures. Israel initiated a war it had no intention of stopping, and the excuse of combating terrorism became an argument for a just war, when in truth it is seen that there is no plan whatsoever for the restructuring of a Gaza free from the excesses of "Friends and Enemies Inc." If anyone thinks the war is nearing its end, they are mistaken, for it is only beginning with the dangerous approach of financial, economic, technological, military, and media powers—five heads of an apocalyptic monster about to devour the entire world.
1. This significant budget increase aims at the desperate perpetuation of an old war strategy that has persisted since World War II—one in which the war industry is part of the war itself; driven by the need for profit, war has become an end rather than a means to achieve an objective.
Comments