The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Alfred McCoy Archive
The Demolition of U.S. Global Power
Donald Trump’s Road to Debacle in the Greater Middle East
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_677535094

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The superhighway to disaster is already being paved.

From Donald Trump’s first days in office, news of the damage to America’s international stature has come hard and fast. As if guided by some malign design, the new president seemed to identify the key pillars that have supported U.S. global power for the past 70 years and set out to topple each of them in turn. By degrading NATO, alienating Asian allies, cancelling trade treaties, and slashing critical scientific research, the Trump White House is already in the process of demolishing the delicately balanced architecture that has sustained Washington’s world leadership since the end of World War II. However unwittingly, Trump is ensuring the accelerated collapse of American global hegemony.

Stunned by his succession of foreign policy blunders, commentators — left and right, domestic and foreign — have raised their voices in a veritable chorus of criticism. A Los Angeles Times editorial typically called him “so unpredictable, so reckless, so petulant, so full of blind self-regard, so untethered to reality” that he threatened to “weaken this country’s moral standing in the world” and “imperil the planet” through his “appalling” policy choices. “He’s a sucker who’s shrinking U.S. influence in [Asia] and helping make China great again,” wrote New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman after surveying the damage to the country’s Asian alliances from the president’s “decision to tear up the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership free-trade deal in his first week in office.”

The international press has been no less harsh. Reeling from Trump’s denunciation of South Korea’s free-trade agreement as “horrible” and his bizarre claim that the country had once been “a part of China,” Seoul’s leading newspaper, Chosun Ilbo, expressed the “shock, betrayal, and anger many South Koreans have felt.” Assessing his first 100 days in office, Britain’s venerable Observer commented: “Trump’s crudely intimidatory, violent, know-nothing approach to sensitive international issues has encircled the globe from Moscow to the Middle East to Beijing, plunging foes and allies alike into a dark vortex of expanding strategic instability.”

For an American president to virtually walk out of his grand inaugural celebrations into such a hailstorm of criticism is beyond extraordinary. Having more or less exhausted their lexicon of condemnatory rhetoric, the usual crew of commentators is now struggling to understand how an American president could be quite so willfully self-destructive.

Britain’s Suez Crisis

Blitzed by an incessant stream of bizarre tweets and White House conspiracy theories, observers worldwide seem to have concluded that Donald Trump is a president like no other, that the situation he’s creating is without parallel, and that his foreign policy is already a disaster without precedent. After rummaging around in history’s capacious closet for some old suit that might fit him, analysts have failed to find any antecedent or analogue to adequately explain him.

Yet just 60 years ago, a crisis in the ever-volatile Middle East overseen by a bumbling, mistake-prone British leader helped create a great power debacle that offers insight into the Trumpian moment, a glimpse into possible futures, and a sense of the kind of decline that could lie in the imperial future of the United States.

In the early 1950s, Britain’s international position had many parallels with America’s today. After a difficult postwar recovery from the devastation of World War II, that country was enjoying robust employment, lucrative international investments, and the prestige of the pound sterling’s stature as the world’s reserve currency. Thanks to a careful withdrawal from its far-flung, global empire and its close alliance with Washington, London still enjoyed a sense of international influence exceptional for a small island nation of just 50 million people. On balance, Britain seemed poised for many more years of world leadership with all the accompanying economic rewards and perks.

Then came the Suez crisis. After a decade of giving up one colony after another, the accumulated stress of imperial retreat pushed British conservatives into a disastrous military intervention to reclaim Egypt’s Suez Canal. This, in turn, caused a “deep moral crisis in London” and what one British diplomat would term the “dying convulsion of British imperialism.” In a clear instance of what historians call “micro-militarism” — that is, a bold military strike designed to recover fading imperial influence — Britain joined France and Israel in a misbegotten military invasion of Egypt that transformed slow imperial retreat into a precipitous collapse.

Just as the Panama Canal had once been a shining example for Americans of their nation’s global prowess, so British conservatives treasured the Suez Canal as a vital lifeline that tied their small island to its sprawling empire in Asia and Africa. A few years after the canal’s grand opening in 1869, London did the deal of the century, scooping up Egypt’s shares in it for a bargain basement price of £4 million. Then, in 1882, Britain consolidated its control over the canal through a military occupation of Egypt, reducing that ancient land to little more than an informal colony.

As late as 1950, in fact, Britain still maintained 80,000 soldiers and a string of military bases astride the canal. The bulk of its oil and gasoline, produced at the enormous Abadan refinery in the Persian Gulf, transited through Suez, fueling its navy, its domestic transportation system, and much of its industry.

After British troops completed a negotiated withdrawal from Suez in 1955, the charismatic nationalist leader Gamal Abdel Nasser asserted Egypt’s neutrality in the Cold War by purchasing Soviet bloc arms, raising eyebrows in Washington. In July 1956, after the administration of President Dwight Eisenhower had in response reneged on its promise to finance construction of the Aswan High Dam on the Upper Nile, Nasser sought alternative financing for this critical infrastructure by nationalizing the Suez Canal. In doing so, he electrified the Arab world and elevated himself to the top rank of world leaders.

Although British ships still passed freely through the canal and Washington insisted on a diplomatic resolution of the conflict, Britain’s conservative leadership reacted with irrational outrage. Behind a smokescreen of sham diplomacy designed to deceive Washington, their closest ally, the British foreign secretary met secretly with the prime ministers of France and Israel near Paris to work out an elaborately deceptive two-stage invasion of Egypt by 250,000 allied troops, backed by 500 aircraft and 130 warships. Its aim, of course, was to secure the canal.

On October 29, 1956, the Israeli army led by the dashing General Moshe Dayan swept across the Sinai Peninsula, destroying Egyptian tanks and bringing his troops to within 10 miles of the canal. Using this fighting as a pretext for an intervention to restore peace, Anglo-French amphibious and airborne forces quickly joined the attack, backed by a devastating bombardment from six aircraft carriers that destroyed the Egyptian air force , including over a hundred of its new MiG jet fighters. As Egypt’s military collapsed with some 3,000 of its troops killed and 30,000 captured, Nasser deployed a defense brilliant in its simplicity by scuttling dozens of rusting cargo ships filled with rocks and concrete at the entrance to the Suez Canal. In this way, he closed Europe’s oil lifeline to the Persian Gulf.

Simultaneously, U.N. Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld, backed by Washington, imposed a cease-fire after just nine days of war, stopping the Anglo-French attack far short of capturing the entire canal. President Eisenhower’s blunt refusal to back his allies with either oil or money and the threat of condemnation before the U.N. soon forced Britain into a humiliating withdrawal. With its finances collapsing from the invasion’s soaring costs, the British government could not maintain the pound’s official exchange rate, degrading its stature as a global reserve currency.

The author of this extraordinary debacle was Sir Anthony Eden, a problematic prime minister whose career offers some striking parallels with Donald Trump’s. Born into privilege as the son of a landholder, Eden enjoyed a good education at a private school and an elite university. After inheriting a substantial fortune from his father, he entered politics as a conservative, using his political connections to dabble in finance. Chafing under Winston Churchill’s postwar leadership of the Conservative Party, Eden, who styled himself a rebel against hidebound institutions, used incessant infighting and his handsome head of hair to push the great man aside and become prime minister in 1955.

When Nasser nationalized the canal, Eden erupted with egotism, bluster, and outrage. “What’s all this nonsense about isolating Nasser,” Eden berated his foreign affairs minister. “I want him destroyed, can’t you understand? I want him murdered, and if you and the Foreign Office don’t agree, then you’d better come to the cabinet and explain why.” Convinced that Britain was still the globe’s great power, Eden rejected sound advice that he consult fully with Washington, the country’s closest ally. As his bold intervention plunged toward diplomatic disaster, the prime minister became focused on manipulating the British media, in the process confusing favorable domestic coverage with international support.

When Washington demanded a ceasefire as the price of a billion-dollar bailout for a British economy unable to sustain such a costly war, Eden’s bluster quickly crumbled and he denied his troops a certain victory, arousing a storm of protest in Parliament. Humiliated by the forced withdrawal, Eden compensated psychologically by ordering MI-6, Britain’s equivalent of the CIA, to launch its second ill-fated assassination attempt on Nasser. Since its chief local agent was actually a double-agent loyal to Nasser, Egyptian security had, however, already rounded up the British operatives and the weapons delivered for the contract killers proved duds.

Confronted with a barrage of angry questions in Parliament about his collusion with the Israelis, Eden lied repeatedly, swearing that there was no “foreknowledge that Israel would attack Egypt.” Protesters denounced him as “too stupid to be a prime minister,” opposition members of parliament laughed openly when he appeared before Parliament, and his own foreign affairs minister damned him as “an enraged elephant charging senselessly at… imaginary enemies.”

Just weeks after the last British soldier left Egypt, Eden, discredited and disgraced, was forced to resign after only 21 months in office. Led into this unimaginably misbegotten operation by his delusions of omnipotence, he left the once-mighty British lion a toothless circus animal that would henceforth roll over whenever Washington cracked the whip.

Trump’s Demolition Job

Despite the obvious differences in their economic circumstances, there remain some telling resonances between Britain’s postwar politics and America’s troubles today. Both of these fading global hegemons suffered a slow erosion of economic power in a fast-changing world, producing severe social tensions and stunted political leaders. Britain’s Conservative Party leadership had declined from the skilled diplomacy of Disraeli, Salisbury, and Churchill to Eden’s bluster and blunder. Similarly, the Republican Party has descended from the likes of Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and George H.W. Bush to a field of 17 primary candidates in 2016 who promised to resolve an infinitely complex crisis in the Middle East through a set of incendiary policies that included making desert sands glow from carpet-bombing and forcing terrorists to capitulate through torture. Confronted with daunting international challenges, the voters of both countries supported appealing but unstable leaders whose delusions of omnipotence inclined them to military misadventures.

Like British citizens of the 1950s, most Americans today do not fully grasp the fragility of their status as “the leader of the free world.” Indeed, Washington has been standing astride the globe as a superpower for so long that most of its leaders have almost no understanding of the delicate design of their country’s global power built so carefully by two post-World War II presidents.

Under Democratic President Harry Truman, Congress created the key instruments for Washington’s emerging national security state and its future global dominion by passing the National Security Act of 1947 that established the Air Force, the CIA, and two new executive agencies, the Defense Department and the National Security Council. To rebuild a devastated, war-torn Europe, Washington launched the Marshall Plan and then turned such thinking into a worldwide aid program through the U.S. Agency for International Development meant to embed American power globally and support pro-American elites across the planet. Under Truman as well, U.S. diplomats forged the NATO alliance (which Washington would dominate until the Trump moment), advanced European unity, and signed a parallel string of mutual-defense treaties with key Asian allies along the Pacific littoral, making Washington the first power in two millennia to control both “axial ends” of the strategic Eurasian continent.

During the 1950s, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower deployed this national security apparatus to secure Washington’s global dominion with a nuclear triad (bombers, ballistic missiles, and submarines), a chain of military bases that ringed Eurasia, and a staggering number of highly militarized covert operations to assure the ascent of loyal allies worldwide. Above all, he oversaw the integration of the latest in scientific and technological research into the Pentagon’s weapons procurement system through the forging of the famed “military-industrial complex” (against which he would end up warning Americans as he left office in 1961). All this, in turn, fostered an aura of American power so formidable that Washington could re-order significant parts of the world almost at will, enforcing peace, setting the international agenda, and toppling governments on four continents.

While it’s reasonable to argue that Washington had by then become history’s greatest global power, its hegemony, like that of all the world empires that preceded it, remained surprisingly fragile. Skilled leadership was required to maintain the system’s balance of diplomacy, military power, economic strength, and technological innovation.

By the time President Trump took his oath of office, negative, long-term trends had already started to limit the influence of any American leader on the world stage. These included a declining share of the global economy, an erosion of U.S. technological primacy, an inability to apply its overwhelming military power in a way that achieved expected policy goals on an ever more recalcitrant planet, and a generation of increasingly independent national leaders, whether in Europe, Asia, or Latin America.

Apart from such adverse trends, Washington’s global power rested on such strategic fundamentals that its leaders might still have managed carefully enough to maintain a reasonable semblance of American hegemony: notably, the NATO alliance and Asian mutual-security treaties at the strategic antipodes of Eurasia, trade treaties that reinforced such alliances, scientific research to sustain its military’s technological edge, and leadership on international issues like climate change.

In just five short months, however, the Trump White House has done a remarkable job of demolishing these very pillars of U.S. global power. During his first overseas trip in May 2017, President Trump chastised stone-faced NATO leaders for failure to pay their “fair share” into the military part of the alliance and refused to affirm its core principle of collective defense. Ignoring the pleas of these close allies, he then forfeited America’s historic diplomatic leadership by announcing Washington’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord with all the drama of a reality television show. After watching his striking repudiation of Washington’s role as world leader, German Chancellor Angela Merkel told voters in her country that “we must fight for our future on our own, for our destiny as Europeans.”

Along the strategic Pacific littoral, Trump cancelled the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact on taking office and gratuitously alienated allies by cutting short a courtesy phone call to Australia’s prime minister and insulting South Korea to the point where its new president won office, in part, on a platform of “say no” to America. When President Moon Jae-in visited Washington in June, determined to heal the breach between the two countries, he was, as the New York Times reported, blindsided by “the harshness of Mr. Trump’s critique of South Korea on trade.”

Just days after Trump dismissed Moon’s suggestion that the two countries engage in actual diplomatic negotiations with Pyongyang, North Korea successfully test-fired a ballistic missile potentially capable of reaching Alaska or possibly Hawaii with a nuclear warhead (though experts believe Pyongyang may still be years away from effectively fitting such a warhead to the missile). It was an act that made those same negotiations Washington’s only viable option — apart from a second Korean War, which would potentially devastate both the region and the U.S. position as the preeminent international leader.

In other words, after 70 years of global dominion, America’s geopolitical command of the axial ends of Eurasia — the central pillars of its world power seems to be crumbling in a matter of months.

Instead of the diplomacy of presidents past, Trump and his advisers, especially his military men, have reacted to his first modest foreign crises as well as the everyday power questions of empire with outbursts akin to Anthony Eden’s. Since January, the White House has erupted in sudden displays of raw military power that included a drone blitz of unprecedented intensity in Yemen to destroy what the president called a “network of lawless savages,” the bombardment of a Syrian air base with 59 Tomahawk missiles, and the detonation of the world’s largest non-nuclear bomb on a terrorist refuge in eastern Afghanistan.

While reveling in the use of such weaponry, Trump, by slashing federal funding for critical scientific research, is already demolishing the foundations for the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower’s successors, Republican and Democratic alike, so sedulously maintained for the last half-century. While China is ramping up its scientific research across the board, Trump has proposed what the American Association for Advancement of Science called “deep cuts to numerous research agencies” that will mean the eventual loss of the country’s technological edge. In the emerging field of artificial intelligence that will soon drive space warfare and cyber-warfare, the White House wants to reduce the 2018 budget for this critical research at the National Science Foundation to a paltry $175 million, even as Beijing is launching “a new multi-billion-dollar initiative” linked to building “military robots.”

A Future Debacle in the Greater Middle East

With a president who shares Sir Anthony Eden’s penchant for bravura, self-delusion, and impulsiveness, the U.S. seems primed for a twenty-first-century Suez of its own, a debacle in the Greater Middle East (or possibly elsewhere). From the disastrous expedition that ancient Athens sent to Sicily in 413 BCE to Britain’s invasion of Suez in 1956, embattled empires throughout the ages have often suffered an arrogance that drives them to plunge ever deeper into military misadventures until defeat becomes debacle, a misuse of armed force known technically among historians as micro-militarism. With the hubris that has marked empires over the millennia, the Trump administration is, for instance, now committed to extending indefinitely Washington’s failing war of pacification in Afghanistan with a new mini-surge of U.S. troops (and air power) in that classic “graveyard of empires.

So irrational, so unpredictable is such micro-militarism that even the most fanciful of scenarios can be outpaced by actual events, as was true at Suez. With the U.S. military stretched thin from North Africa to South Korea, with no lasting successes in its post-9/11 wars, and with tensions rising from the Persian Gulf and Syria to the South China Sea and the Koreas, the possibilities for a disastrous military crisis abroad seem almost unending. So let me pick just one possible scenario for a future Trumpian military misadventure in the Greater Middle East. (I’m sure you’ll think of other candidates immediately.)

It’s the late spring of 2020, the start of the traditional Afghan fighting season, and a U.S. garrison in the city of Kandahar in southern Afghanistan is unexpectedly overrun by an ad hoc alliance of Taliban and Islamic State guerrillas. While U.S. aircraft are grounded in a blinding sand storm, the militants summarily execute their American captives, filming the gruesome event for immediate upload on the Internet. Speaking to an international television audience, President Trump thunders against “disgusting Muslim murderers” and swears he will “make the desert sands run red with their blood.” In fulfillment of that promise, an angry American theater commander sends B-1 bombers and F-35 fighters to demolish whole neighborhoods of Kandahar believed to be under Taliban control. In an aerial coup de grâce, AC-130-U “Spooky” gunships then rake the rubble with devastating cannon fire. The civilian casualties are beyond counting.

Soon, mullahs are preaching jihad from mosques across Afghanistan and far beyond. Afghan Army units, long trained by American forces to turn the tide of the war, begin to desert en masse. In isolated posts across the country, clusters of Afghan soldiers open fire on their American advisers in what are termed “insider” or “green-on-blue” attacks. Meanwhile, Taliban fighters launch a series of assaults on scattered U.S. garrisons elsewhere in the country, suddenly sending American casualties soaring. In scenes reminiscent of Saigon in 1975, U.S. helicopters rescue American soldiers and civilians from rooftops not just in Kandahar, but in several other provincial capitals and even Kabul.

Meanwhile, angry over the massive civilian casualties in Afghanistan, the anti-Muslim diatribes tweeted almost daily from the Oval Office, and years of depressed energy prices, OPEC’s leaders impose a harsh new oil embargo aimed at the United States and its allies. With refineries running dry in Europe and Asia, the world economy trembling at the brink of recession, and gas prices soaring, Washington flails about for a solution. The first call is to NATO, but the alliance is near collapse after four years of President Trump’s erratic behavior. Even the British, alienated by his inattention to their concerns, rebuff his appeals for support.

Facing an uncertain reelection in November 2020, the Trump White House makes its move, sending Marines and Special Operations forces to seize oil ports in the Persian Gulf. Flying from the Fifth Fleet’s base in Bahrain, Navy Seals and Army Rangers occupy the Ras Tanura refinery in Saudi Arabia, the ninth largest in the world; Kuwait’s main oil port at Shuaiba; and Iraq’s at Um Qasr.

Simultaneously, the light carrier USS Iwo Jima steams south at the head of a task force that launches helicopters carrying 6,000 Special Operations forces tasked with seizing the al-Ruwais refinery in Abu Dhabi, the world’s fourth largest, and the megaport at Jebel Ali in Dubai, a 20-square-mile complex so massive that the Americans can only occupy its oil facilities. When Teheran vehemently protests the U.S. escalation in the Persian Gulf and hints at retaliation, Defense Secretary James Mattis, reviving a plan from his days as CENTCOM commander, orders preemptive Tomahawk missile strikes on Iran’s flagship oil refinery at Abadan.

From its first hours, the operation goes badly wrong. The troops seem lost inside the unmapped mazes of pipes that honeycomb the oil ports. Meanwhile, refinery staff prove stubbornly uncooperative, sensing that the occupation will be short-lived and disastrous. On day three, Iranian Revolutionary Guard commandos, who have been training for this moment since the breakdown of the 2015 nuclear accord with the U.S., storm ashore at the Kuwaiti and Emirate refineries with remote-controlled charges. Unable to use their superior firepower in such a volatile environment, American troops are reduced to firing futile bursts at the departing speed boats as oil storage tanks and gas pipes explode spectacularly.

Three days later, as the USS Gerald Ford approaches an Iranian island, more than 100 speedboats suddenly appear, swarming the carrier in a practiced pattern of high-speed crisscrosses. Every time lethal bursts from the carrier’s MK-38 chain guns rip through the lead boats, others emerge from the flames coming closer and closer. Concealed by clouds of smoke, one finally reaches an undefended spot beneath the conning tower near enough for a Revolutionary guardsman to attach a magnetic charge to the hull with a fateful click. There is a deafening roar and a gaping hole erupts at the waterline of the first aircraft carrier to be crippled in battle since World War II. As things go from bad to worse, the Pentagon is finally forced to accept that a debacle is underway and withdraws its capital ships from the Persian Gulf.

As black clouds billow skyward from the Gulf’s oil ports and diplomats rise at the U.N. to bitterly denounce American actions, commentators worldwide reach back to the 1956 debacle that marked the end of imperial Britain to brand this “America’s Suez.” The empire has been trumped.

Alfred W. McCoy, a TomDispatch regular, is the Harrington professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is the author of the now-classic book The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, which probed the conjuncture of illicit narcotics and covert operations over 50 years, and the forthcoming In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of US Global Power, out in September from Dispatch Books.

(Republished from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 106 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Is wrecking the US Empire supposed to be a BAD thing? Trump is the proverbial bull in a china shop, which is one of the reasons I voted for him.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @LauraMR
    Delightful nonsense. Thank you.
    , @Roberto
    Neocon empire, is incompetent empire.


    https://theintercept.com/2017/07/29/dan-coats-north-korea-nukes-nuclear-libya-regime-change/
    , @JVassar
    Alfred McCoy apparently has no concept of what average Americans have been dealing with for the last 40 years. That is why Donald Trump was elected President of the United States by the outraged and beleagured Working and Middle Classes. Until the elites "get-a-clue" the political situation will continue to deteriorate and the elites will continue to blame the voters and the popultists they put in office .....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /article/the-demolition-of-u-s-global-power/#comment-1936545
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. This lunatic’s rant becomes literally impossible to read after less than 5 paragraphs.

    It is astounding that liberals are now pushing for corporate-state anti-worker trade agreements, this time in the name of American “leadership.”

    Leadership to what?

    This idiot claims that the world is “reeling” from some decision that Trump made.

    Really. Reeling.

    When I read that word, I only lasted 4 or so words more.

    Then I realized that the article was nothing more than a propagandist’s screed, a neo-liberal who cares nothing for the non-elite. A warmonger who dresses in liberal clothing.

    A waste of time.

    Read More
    • Agree: Ace
    • Replies: @pogohere
    I agree with most of your take.

    Still, McCoy's "The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade" is an excellent history of the genesis of the heroin trade in SE Asia and the CIA takeover of same. It also covers important aspects of the shift of heroin production to Afghanistan.

    Having read that book, the views he expressed in this article shocked me.
    , @Avery
    {This lunatic’s rant becomes literally impossible to read after less than 5 paragraphs. }

    Well said.
    , @neutral
    I don't even know why we still use the labels "neocon" and "neoliberal", they are essentially the same thing. If I am wrong, then please can somebody tell me what the difference between the two is, because I cannot see it.
    , @Joe Wong
    I can't agree with you more, the deep state has been wreaking the United States with fake news, unscrupulous conducts and irresponsible American exceptionalsim for decades, now they want to blame everything on Trump who is the office just few months and being surrounded by the deep state stinky mud to his neck.
    , @neutral
    The problem is that these lunatics influence a lot of people, people that one would consider decent, to believe this rubbish.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Sean says:

    In my opinion Trump signals a return to Eisenhower’s concern with the cost to US taxpayers of a global military that defends other countries, who consequently get a lunch someone else pays for. Those who voted for Trump want others to shoulder their own burden.

    [MORE]

    http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/guest-article-trump-not-trump/

    The consequences of a U.S. military withdrawal from Europe and Asia would be dramatic. The United States would lose most of its military bases, American firms would find it much harder to gain market access, the American defense industry would lose billions of dollars, and European allies would stop supporting the United States militarily in faraway conflicts. The United States would be reduced to a regional power with little say in the management of Asian and European affairs. This is why it will not happen. This outcome is not only at odds with America’s economic interests, it is also completely at odds with the widespread belief in American exceptionalism and greatness that Trump and his supporters also embrace.

    But if the costs of abandoning allies are prohibitive, why is Trump threatening to do so? Schelling’s classic work on game theory suggests an answer: it shows that you can obtain greater concessions in negotiations by appearing mad or unpredictable. In this perspective, Trump’s statements and seemingly erratic behavior make a lot of sense as a negotiation tactic aimed at pressuring U.S. allies to increase their defense spending. His perceived unpredictability is adding credibility to the threat that he might actually withdraw U.S. forces even if it is not in the United States best interest to do so. There is genuine concern among U.S. allies about what Trump might do if they do not take immediate steps to increase their defense spending. The South Korean government reacted to Trump’s election by vowing to increase defense spending significantly if he insists on it. Likewise, the Danish Prime Minister promised to increase defense spending after his first phone conversation with Trump. In Germany Trump’s election triggered a hitherto unthinkable public debate on whether Germany should develop nuclear weapons.

    President Trump’s unpredictability will also put America’s opponents on the defensive. President Obama’s reluctance to threaten and use force likely emboldened China and Russia to take greater military risks in Eastern Ukraine, Syria, and in the East and South China Seas. While Beijing and Moscow could be fairly confident that Obama would not take military counter-measures, they have no way of calculating what President Trump might do. It is easy to imagine him giving the order to down a Chinese or Russian plane to demonstrate that “America is great again.”

    Paradoxically, Trump’s tweets and theatrics are good news for world peace. They create unpredictability and anxiety that the United States can use to obtain greater concessions from friends and foes. The likely result is strengthened U.S. alliances and U.S. opponents that will favor negotiation over provocation in their efforts to settle differences with the United States and its allies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Really
    Please explain why American military presence is necessary for American firms to obtain/maintain market access. Isn't this neo-mercantilism nothing more than another brand of economic fascism?

    Is the bottom line of the American defense really a reason for the United States to aggressively intervene around the world? Isn't that something of the tail wagging the dog?

    What's wrong with the US as a regional power? Why do we need a say in Asian and European affairs?

    Why, other than our Founding principles is the United States exceptional? Does it make sense to abandon said principles in the defense of this exceptionalism?

    Do you really believe that Trump is acting independently and has not come under the sway of those who benefit from our reckless imperial behavior?

    Why does the US government need to extract concessions from other nations? Why is it not enough to simply defend our country from attack, provide for the rule of law and stand aside to allow our commerce and industry to flourish?
    , @unseated
    https://www.thecross-roads.org/race-culture-nation/113-the-samson-option-will-israel-nuke-germany-and-iran

    Martin van Creveld is the Israeli military historian who publicly articulated Israel's "Samson option":

    "We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets by our airforce. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother". I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the 30th strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capacity to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under."

    But no mention in the article quoted by Sean of the "ally" that is most concerned.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Really says:

    The author gives no consideration whatsoever to the option of withdrawing from “world leadership” before such fanciful catastrophic scenarios unfold. Nor does the author acknowledge that, should the OPEC nations impose an oil embargo, the US response could just as easily be to ramp up its own extraction and production of amply available, in-ground reserves.

    Might we not simply reduce our sprawling, global military footprint, using our Defense Department for, uh, defense instead of global imperial adventurism, expel illegal immigrants, bar the entry of so-called refugees, eliminate corporate tax to woo industry back to our shores, eliminate the Federal Reserve, and implement any number of reforms consistent with the Constitution, in order to abandon the Empire from a position of strength before we are seen as retreating with our tails between our legs?

    Since when is going out on top not seen as a wise course of action?

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    I can't agree with eliminating corporate tax while everyday working Americans are expected to pay it. How about a modest import tariff to favour domestic industries? It is tax evasion by the very largest corporations, the very ones most able to pay it, that there is so little in the kitty to pay for things that Americans justly need and deserve, that and the parasitic MIC.
    , @animalogic
    Yes, there are many things this author doesn't consider.
    Fundamentally, the US could retrieve much of its lost moral authority if it decided to be a "leader among equals" rather than a dictatorial hegemon, as it has done since the collapse of the USSR.
    As for blaming Trump for virtually everything -- yes, he's made mistakes; but he's also done some very important things; such as killing off the TPP. A trade deal in NO ONES' interests except multinationals.
    The truth is, most of the problems alluded to were inherited by Trump. Most blame must go to Obama, Bush & Clinton: the Emperors of Hubris. Nor is Congress guiltless: the current round of sanctions against Russia etc (& by extension, US allies in Europe) are the height of stupidity: it's as if they actually believe their own domestic political bullshit.
    It's hard to know what Trump could do were he not dogged by this vile, ridiculous "Russiagate" nonsense.
    God knows -- maybe he'd have the political capital to start negotiating with countries like Nth Korea. A country that essentially, wants to be left alone & to cop a few free hand-outs: which shouldn't be too difficult (given the alternatives) for countries as wealthy as the US & Sth Korea.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Really says:
    @Sean
    In my opinion Trump signals a return to Eisenhower's concern with the cost to US taxpayers of a global military that defends other countries, who consequently get a lunch someone else pays for. Those who voted for Trump want others to shoulder their own burden.

    http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/guest-article-trump-not-trump/

    The consequences of a U.S. military withdrawal from Europe and Asia would be dramatic. The United States would lose most of its military bases, American firms would find it much harder to gain market access, the American defense industry would lose billions of dollars, and European allies would stop supporting the United States militarily in faraway conflicts. The United States would be reduced to a regional power with little say in the management of Asian and European affairs. This is why it will not happen. This outcome is not only at odds with America’s economic interests, it is also completely at odds with the widespread belief in American exceptionalism and greatness that Trump and his supporters also embrace.

    But if the costs of abandoning allies are prohibitive, why is Trump threatening to do so? Schelling’s classic work on game theory suggests an answer: it shows that you can obtain greater concessions in negotiations by appearing mad or unpredictable. In this perspective, Trump’s statements and seemingly erratic behavior make a lot of sense as a negotiation tactic aimed at pressuring U.S. allies to increase their defense spending. His perceived unpredictability is adding credibility to the threat that he might actually withdraw U.S. forces even if it is not in the United States best interest to do so. There is genuine concern among U.S. allies about what Trump might do if they do not take immediate steps to increase their defense spending. The South Korean government reacted to Trump’s election by vowing to increase defense spending significantly if he insists on it. Likewise, the Danish Prime Minister promised to increase defense spending after his first phone conversation with Trump. In Germany Trump’s election triggered a hitherto unthinkable public debate on whether Germany should develop nuclear weapons.

    President Trump’s unpredictability will also put America’s opponents on the defensive. President Obama’s reluctance to threaten and use force likely emboldened China and Russia to take greater military risks in Eastern Ukraine, Syria, and in the East and South China Seas. While Beijing and Moscow could be fairly confident that Obama would not take military counter-measures, they have no way of calculating what President Trump might do. It is easy to imagine him giving the order to down a Chinese or Russian plane to demonstrate that “America is great again.”

    Paradoxically, Trump’s tweets and theatrics are good news for world peace. They create unpredictability and anxiety that the United States can use to obtain greater concessions from friends and foes. The likely result is strengthened U.S. alliances and U.S. opponents that will favor negotiation over provocation in their efforts to settle differences with the United States and its allies.
     

    Please explain why American military presence is necessary for American firms to obtain/maintain market access. Isn’t this neo-mercantilism nothing more than another brand of economic fascism?

    Is the bottom line of the American defense really a reason for the United States to aggressively intervene around the world? Isn’t that something of the tail wagging the dog?

    What’s wrong with the US as a regional power? Why do we need a say in Asian and European affairs?

    Why, other than our Founding principles is the United States exceptional? Does it make sense to abandon said principles in the defense of this exceptionalism?

    Do you really believe that Trump is acting independently and has not come under the sway of those who benefit from our reckless imperial behavior?

    Why does the US government need to extract concessions from other nations? Why is it not enough to simply defend our country from attack, provide for the rule of law and stand aside to allow our commerce and industry to flourish?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    The USA consumes some 40% of the resources of this world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. pogohere says: • Website
    @restless94110
    This lunatic's rant becomes literally impossible to read after less than 5 paragraphs.

    It is astounding that liberals are now pushing for corporate-state anti-worker trade agreements, this time in the name of American "leadership."

    Leadership to what?

    This idiot claims that the world is "reeling" from some decision that Trump made.

    Really. Reeling.

    When I read that word, I only lasted 4 or so words more.

    Then I realized that the article was nothing more than a propagandist's screed, a neo-liberal who cares nothing for the non-elite. A warmonger who dresses in liberal clothing.

    A waste of time.

    I agree with most of your take.

    Still, McCoy’s “The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade” is an excellent history of the genesis of the heroin trade in SE Asia and the CIA takeover of same. It also covers important aspects of the shift of heroin production to Afghanistan.

    Having read that book, the views he expressed in this article shocked me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @restless94110
    Well, as I said, I could not read past the 5th paragraph.

    So, I just tried to scan the article again, without getting infected by it's poison, and I didn't see anything that would relate to what you are saying.

    I don't need to read McCoy's book: it's been amply documented that the CIA has complicity in it and in it in Afghanistan.

    So, I don't know what views he expressed that shocked you in light of your reading about CIA complicity in the heroin trade.

    By the way, this is a prime reason--another one--for legalizing all drugs immediately in the United States. Heroin was legal until 1914 I believe, but tacitly legal for at least 10 years more after that, maybe longer.

    The way to mitigate damage and take away illegally gotten gains by the CIA and other criminals is to legalize it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. @pogohere
    I agree with most of your take.

    Still, McCoy's "The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade" is an excellent history of the genesis of the heroin trade in SE Asia and the CIA takeover of same. It also covers important aspects of the shift of heroin production to Afghanistan.

    Having read that book, the views he expressed in this article shocked me.

    Well, as I said, I could not read past the 5th paragraph.

    So, I just tried to scan the article again, without getting infected by it’s poison, and I didn’t see anything that would relate to what you are saying.

    I don’t need to read McCoy’s book: it’s been amply documented that the CIA has complicity in it and in it in Afghanistan.

    So, I don’t know what views he expressed that shocked you in light of your reading about CIA complicity in the heroin trade.

    By the way, this is a prime reason–another one–for legalizing all drugs immediately in the United States. Heroin was legal until 1914 I believe, but tacitly legal for at least 10 years more after that, maybe longer.

    The way to mitigate damage and take away illegally gotten gains by the CIA and other criminals is to legalize it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Robert Magill
    . Heroin was legal until 1914 I believe, but tacitly legal for at least 10 years more after that, maybe longer.

    Bayer (aspirin) sold it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Avery says:
    @restless94110
    This lunatic's rant becomes literally impossible to read after less than 5 paragraphs.

    It is astounding that liberals are now pushing for corporate-state anti-worker trade agreements, this time in the name of American "leadership."

    Leadership to what?

    This idiot claims that the world is "reeling" from some decision that Trump made.

    Really. Reeling.

    When I read that word, I only lasted 4 or so words more.

    Then I realized that the article was nothing more than a propagandist's screed, a neo-liberal who cares nothing for the non-elite. A warmonger who dresses in liberal clothing.

    A waste of time.

    {This lunatic’s rant becomes literally impossible to read after less than 5 paragraphs. }

    Well said.

    Read More
    • Agree: LauraMR
    • Replies: @Ram
    Sadly, there are far more of them in the US. They come in every political colour, hue and tint.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Mimo says:

    Trump degrades NATO by asking members to pay their agreed share of costs? How does that work?
    Of the 28 countries that make up the organization only a few, including the US and UK and Romania, meet their commitments. So who are the degraders?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. This is a rambling article, but addresses key points.

    1. The Suez Crisis was the last gasp of the British Empire, and the USA is gasping too, so expect a Suez moment soon, where the US military suffers a defeat. For example, if the USA bombs Iran, there may be a rebellion in Iraq where the Shias round up several thousand American soldiers/contractors to kill and or hold prisoner. There is also a chance that Iran may sink an American warship or two in the Persian Gulf. We might also see a NATO rebellion with nations like Turkey and even Germany ordering US troops out of their nation. South Korea would be wise to expel the warmongering Americans too.

    2. The world is tired of the dominate US dollar racket screwing over everyone. This QE2 game where the Fed buys trillions of dollars in Treasury debt is not sound policy. If China/Russia/Iran and others choose to trade outside the dollar, others will follow, and American import costs will quickly double in price.

    3. Trump may delay our “Suez Crisis” or accelerate it. His positions shift daily, but he is not solely to blame. The new mindless sanctions against Russia and Iran were passed with some 98% of Congress in support, so the rot is widespread. This is the result of a massive propaganda effort that result in Congressmen and most Americans living is a fantasy land. Read this brilliant, recent overview about fake news from PBS:

    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/27/pbs-anti-russia-propaganda-series/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. @Really
    The author gives no consideration whatsoever to the option of withdrawing from "world leadership" before such fanciful catastrophic scenarios unfold. Nor does the author acknowledge that, should the OPEC nations impose an oil embargo, the US response could just as easily be to ramp up its own extraction and production of amply available, in-ground reserves.

    Might we not simply reduce our sprawling, global military footprint, using our Defense Department for, uh, defense instead of global imperial adventurism, expel illegal immigrants, bar the entry of so-called refugees, eliminate corporate tax to woo industry back to our shores, eliminate the Federal Reserve, and implement any number of reforms consistent with the Constitution, in order to abandon the Empire from a position of strength before we are seen as retreating with our tails between our legs?

    Since when is going out on top not seen as a wise course of action?

    I can’t agree with eliminating corporate tax while everyday working Americans are expected to pay it. How about a modest import tariff to favour domestic industries? It is tax evasion by the very largest corporations, the very ones most able to pay it, that there is so little in the kitty to pay for things that Americans justly need and deserve, that and the parasitic MIC.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astuteobservor II
    apple pays 0.5% tax while I have to pay 30% :() that is my personal tragedy :()

    we will all pay 50% death tax, the walmart waltons paid zero on their billions. that is a real travesty.

    if you have a way to avoid tax, do it. you don't owe this country anything.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Winston says:

    The boomers and Saudis (lurching petrodollar linchpin) are going to deck the “empire”. Boomers will undermine and from local all way to federal level. See what starts happening by 2025, when maj of poor kids in pub schools also start joining work force. US will need to rely on debt more than ever, but the incompetent Saudis are en-route to crater under weight of own incompetence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. Alden says:

    He quotes the NY and LA Times editorials disparaging Trump. Since every word in those and other papers are lies, Trump must be a good guy.

    That’s how I judge things. If the lying press approves I know it must be bad. If the lying press disapproves it must be good.
    I usually look at the LA Times reccomendations before elections. Then I vote against candidates and measures the Times recommends voting for.

    The hop skip and jump through recent British history was just ridiculous. The best thing Trump has done is to get rid of TTP. Liberal billionaires loved it. The rest of us didn’t.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. @Really
    The author gives no consideration whatsoever to the option of withdrawing from "world leadership" before such fanciful catastrophic scenarios unfold. Nor does the author acknowledge that, should the OPEC nations impose an oil embargo, the US response could just as easily be to ramp up its own extraction and production of amply available, in-ground reserves.

    Might we not simply reduce our sprawling, global military footprint, using our Defense Department for, uh, defense instead of global imperial adventurism, expel illegal immigrants, bar the entry of so-called refugees, eliminate corporate tax to woo industry back to our shores, eliminate the Federal Reserve, and implement any number of reforms consistent with the Constitution, in order to abandon the Empire from a position of strength before we are seen as retreating with our tails between our legs?

    Since when is going out on top not seen as a wise course of action?

    Yes, there are many things this author doesn’t consider.
    Fundamentally, the US could retrieve much of its lost moral authority if it decided to be a “leader among equals” rather than a dictatorial hegemon, as it has done since the collapse of the USSR.
    As for blaming Trump for virtually everything — yes, he’s made mistakes; but he’s also done some very important things; such as killing off the TPP. A trade deal in NO ONES’ interests except multinationals.
    The truth is, most of the problems alluded to were inherited by Trump. Most blame must go to Obama, Bush & Clinton: the Emperors of Hubris. Nor is Congress guiltless: the current round of sanctions against Russia etc (& by extension, US allies in Europe) are the height of stupidity: it’s as if they actually believe their own domestic political bullshit.
    It’s hard to know what Trump could do were he not dogged by this vile, ridiculous “Russiagate” nonsense.
    God knows — maybe he’d have the political capital to start negotiating with countries like Nth Korea. A country that essentially, wants to be left alone & to cop a few free hand-outs: which shouldn’t be too difficult (given the alternatives) for countries as wealthy as the US & Sth Korea.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Already before WWI GB could no longer afford the two fleet standard, the British fleet should be so strong as able to fight the two mightiests fleets in the world.
    So GB lost WWI, but did not realise this, through USA military intervention.

    The thirties was the period where GB desperately tried to hold together the empire, when war came Lend Lease had to save England, but at the price of abandoning the empire.

    Obama lowered the two war USA standard to one and half war.
    How one fights half a war is beyond my comprehension.

    If my ideas are right then Trump and hisrich friends understand that continuing to try to control the world will bankrupt the USA, and them personally.

    Alas, as in GB in the thirties, old dreams of empire still exist, and are powerful.
    I hope Trump succeeds in preventing that this dream becomes a nightmare, as in England after WWII: ‘we won the war, bur lost the peace’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    You have not heard the blinding bellicosity and hubris from the Indian yet, Indian claimed they can fight two and half wars recently, that is fighting two nuclear powers Pakistan and China at the same time meanwhile fighting internal insurgencies for independence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @Really
    Please explain why American military presence is necessary for American firms to obtain/maintain market access. Isn't this neo-mercantilism nothing more than another brand of economic fascism?

    Is the bottom line of the American defense really a reason for the United States to aggressively intervene around the world? Isn't that something of the tail wagging the dog?

    What's wrong with the US as a regional power? Why do we need a say in Asian and European affairs?

    Why, other than our Founding principles is the United States exceptional? Does it make sense to abandon said principles in the defense of this exceptionalism?

    Do you really believe that Trump is acting independently and has not come under the sway of those who benefit from our reckless imperial behavior?

    Why does the US government need to extract concessions from other nations? Why is it not enough to simply defend our country from attack, provide for the rule of law and stand aside to allow our commerce and industry to flourish?

    The USA consumes some 40% of the resources of this world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Crawfurdmuir

    The USA consumes some 40% of the resources of this world.
     
    And what percentage of the world's resources does it produce?

    America's wealth came into being because of American productivity. Whether America is still as productive as it once was, I do not know - I often get the feeling that nowadays we are eating next year's seed corn - but in general, productive nations are rich, and unproductive ones are poor.

    We produce in order to consume, and, over the long term, we must produce in order to consume.
    , @Wally
    Source?

    And so what if true?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. El Dato says:

    Far away from phantasizing about Kandahar (who gives a fkuc), a far more insightful article also recalling several recent key developments of the ME that I just can’t keep aligned in my head:

    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/28/how-the-center-is-spinning-apart/

    Where will this take us? Possibly, the psychological turmoil of the reverses in U.S. foreign policy will continue to roil throughout the summer; but come autumn, there may be less U.S. appetite (or attention available) for foreign policy initiatives as the economic “winter” approaches. Or, at worst, the sheer overwhelming conflict on the domestic front could invite the notion that a foreign initiative would prove a welcome distraction from economic woes.

    Iran and North Korea are the current U.S. rhetorical punch bags, but neither should ever be contemplated as candidates for some “distraction.” Rather they represent potential nemeses.

    As for the economic woes – not so much QE 4 – but direct, deficit funding helicopter money beckons, perhaps. Which is to say that freshly minted new, “empty” money would be used to directly fund Federal expenditure. (Trump in business, has never shied away from debt).

    Often it is said that there is no precedent to our present extraordinary monetary circumstances, but the history of the Assignat in France of the early 1790s, offers some hints. Despite massive money creation, Andrew White, in his book Fiat Money Inflation in France (published in 1896) notes that “[t]hough paper money had increased in amount, prosperity had steadily diminished. In spite of all the paper issues, commercial activity grew more and more spasmodic. Enterprise was chilled and business became more and more stagnant”.

    Finally, just to be clear, Donald Trump undoubtedly is facilitating the dissolution of the Establishment’s “center” – but that, after all, was his declared aim. But he is not responsible for it. This potential was already latent: he simply saw it – and adroitly, climbed aboard.

    Read More
    • Replies: @pogohere
    Re: "the history of the Assignat in France of the early 1790s"

    See:

    "The Money And The Finances Of The French Revolution Of 1789: Assignats And Mandats, A True History," Stephen D. Dillaye, pp. 29-33, Appendix

    excerpts:

    "Seventeen Manufacturing Establishments -were in full operation in London, with a force of four hundred men devoted to the production of false and forged Assignats.1 The success and the extent of the labor may be judged by-the quantity and value they represented. In the month of May, 1795, it was found that there were in circulation from 12,000,000,000, to 15,000,000,000 francs of forged Assignats, which were so exact in form, appearance, texture, and design, as to defy detection, except by the most minute examination and exact knowledge of the secret signs by which the initiated were taught to distinguish them.

    The Assignats in circulation at this time, May, 1795, issued by the Revolutionary government, were 7,860,000,000 francs, and not, as Mr. White has stated, 45,000,000,000.2The value of the lands dedicated by the Revolutionary authorities as the basis for their redemption, as established by the assessment tables of 1790, was 15,000,000,000, or nearly two dollars for one of the issue, though the issue at one time had reached the sum of 11,855,831,625 francs. It is therefore incontestable that the security was ample in value, if the title to the lands had been unquestioned, to have covered the entire issue, provided the Revolutionary authorities had continued in power.

    With these facts, showing how the Assignats came to be issued, the circumstances under which they were put in circulation, and the security on which they were based—withthe character and kind of title the Revolutionary government had to the lands devoted to their redemption, together with a review of the political condition of France at the period of the overthrow of Eobespierre and the rise of the party known as Thermidorians—I come now to the culmination of the causes which united and set themselves in motion to depreciate and utterly annihilate the Assignat, as a medium of exchange or as a representative of value.
     
    and

    To show that there could have been no such issue as Mr. White states, we have but to look at the facts. First. That May 15th, 1795, the entire outstanding issue of Assignats was but 8,140,000,000 francs. Second. The expenses and expenditures of the government per month and year, and Third. The fact that the Assignat was so totally discredited in January, 1796, that the government stopped their issue, and issued Mandats in their place, and in February, 1796 destroyed all the plates from which they were printed.
     
    http://books.google.com/books?id=tr4wAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA33&lpg=PA20&ots=gh5WWpghiO&dq=stephen+dillaye+%2B+assignats+and+mandates&output=text
    , @pogohere
    And by the way: Unless you are Alastair Crooke, you cribbed your assignat verbiage from him (https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/28/how-the-center-is-spinning-apart/#comment-277692) without attribution.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. From Donald Trump’s first days in office, news of the damage to America’s international stature has come hard and fast. As if guided by some malign design, the new president seemed to identify the key pillars that have supported U.S. global power for the past 70 years and set out to topple each of them in turn.

    Hip Hip Hooray!

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. Stogumber says:

    Well, I thought that TomDispatch was against American Imperialism and against the military-industrial complex. Boy, was I wrong!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. Ram says:
    @Avery
    {This lunatic’s rant becomes literally impossible to read after less than 5 paragraphs. }

    Well said.

    Sadly, there are far more of them in the US. They come in every political colour, hue and tint.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. neutral says:

    Trump is ensuring the accelerated collapse of American global hegemony.

    That is a good thing. Why should the average US citizen want this, almost everyone else in the world does not want this either.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. neutral says:
    @restless94110
    This lunatic's rant becomes literally impossible to read after less than 5 paragraphs.

    It is astounding that liberals are now pushing for corporate-state anti-worker trade agreements, this time in the name of American "leadership."

    Leadership to what?

    This idiot claims that the world is "reeling" from some decision that Trump made.

    Really. Reeling.

    When I read that word, I only lasted 4 or so words more.

    Then I realized that the article was nothing more than a propagandist's screed, a neo-liberal who cares nothing for the non-elite. A warmonger who dresses in liberal clothing.

    A waste of time.

    I don’t even know why we still use the labels “neocon” and “neoliberal”, they are essentially the same thing. If I am wrong, then please can somebody tell me what the difference between the two is, because I cannot see it.

    Read More
    • Agree: Z-man
    • Replies: @restless94110
    My understanding of the two terms means that they are definitely different, and you could be a neo-con but not a neo-liberal, and vice versa.

    From my readings, here would be a rough definition for both:

    Neo-liberal -- this refers to an economic theory that originated from a university in Chicago (I'm sure someone knows the name of the university, but it escapes me at this point). Neo-liberal economics is the theory that the "free market" self-regulates and needs no or very very little government oversight. It futher posits that government is not the most efficient way of running anything, therefore everything would be better if it were sold off to private interests (i.e., privatized).

    This theory has been proven wrong over and over again, yet it is like a Frankenstein monster and it continues to be revived (like it has just happened in Brazil and Argentina) and promoted everywhere. Privatization of the train system in the United Kingdom was been a catastrophe with ticket prices skyrocketing and no infrastructure repair and improvements being done. Privatizing prisons in the US has only lead to worsening of conditions in the prisons themselves (leading to strikes and riots) and a corporate push to make more laws to ensnare more Americans in the criminal justice system.

    There is a competing economic theory, Monetary Management Theory (MMT) which is offerring real alternatives to neo-liberal economic theory, but the Chicago School has been extremely successful in removing the teaching of all (repeat all--old and new) economic theories other than neo-liberal theory.

    Meanwhile, the failed neo-liberal economics continues to ruin Europe, South America, India, and North America (including especially Mexico).

    Neo-conservative -- this is a theory on foreign policy. It is the rabid belief that America should be, deserves to be the world hegemon and that that hegemony should be enforced by military action, covert and overt (I'm including the CIA in "military action").

    Some analyists have pointed out that the progenitors of neo-conservativism are directly related to Trotskyites, the brand of Communism that believed in world-wide spread of ideology by violent means. Stalin snuffed out Trotsky and his ideology, but those that believe in this method just moved on to the US and believe in the Trotsky ideal: we are right, we are the exceptional people, our way is the way for the world, regime change is what is needed in order to acheive out right, exceptional goals.

    Neo-cons have been in and out of government since the days of Reagan (who apparently threw them out after the Iran-Contra fiasco), but they have successfully infested the Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama Administrations, and may have (too early to tell, but it doesn't look good) infested the Trump Administration.

    But it's Congress, too. McCain and Graham are neo-cons.

    It has also been pointed out that many neo-cons are Jews and that a big component of neo-con ideology is supportive of everything repressive that Isreal is doing, and perfectly matches Israeli goals (as opposed to what's good for the American people).

    So you see, there is a difference.
    , @Z-man
    You are right. They are both globalist, internationalist, Godless elitists. In other words Jews! (Laugh)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Brabantian says: • Website

    Winding down USA ‘global power’ in preparation for the end of the US dollar as ‘reserve currency’, is one of the smartest things Trump can do

    Arguably, the Trump White House is giving priority to the Fake News & media-manipulation issues, as the beasts that must be slain before any other USA reforms can get done … We’ve seen other things too, such as Trump cancelling Obama’s war-crime-murderous ‘moderate jihadi’ programme in Syria

    On the media front, some impressive Trump admin news from Steve Bannon, is that he is moving to destroy the monopolistic power of Google search & Facebook, and put them on a leash as public utilities under direct government regulation, exactly as they should be

    Combined with the € 2.7 billion fine against Google & threat of further action against them by the European Commission, this is one of the most important things that needs to be done in the world … bring to heel the propaganda overseers of Google, & their Facebook cousins as well

    Tho one could argue Team Trump is merely trying to shift the power of Google away from the old guard criminals and into their own favour … the fact is that it is much better to have these internet monopolies as explicit public utilities, which everyone can fuss about in public discourse, rather than as alleged ‘private companies’ with shadowy links to the Deep State and Bush-Clinton type mafias

    Tho am usually quick to denounce ‘fake populist heroes’ offered to us … am a bit in awe of what Trump & Bannon have accomplished with the ‘Fake News’ meme, clearly creating a revolutionary mind-set amongst US citizens … that is an achievement that is Trump’s forever, regardless of what betrayals are in store, or if Trump is killed or removed from office tomorrow … God-speed to Bannon on coralling & de-fanging those controlling, manipulative gangsters of Google

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. Beckow says:

    The article is incoherent, written in a linear fashion with no thought to the context or any alternatives. What is happening today are simply consequences. That’s all. If Clinton was in, or Pence gets in, the overall situation would be about the same. Some details might be different and media would cover it differently, but we would still be living with the consequences of Clinton-Bush-Obama era. And Blaming it on Trump is infantile, the article makes no sense.

    It is not about a few throw-away lines, or ‘tweets’, or colourful personalities. Those are the usual clownish distractions, they change nothing about the underlying realities. This is about the catastrophic mis-judgments from the recent past. If Clinton or Pence would double down and do TPP, more land invasions, keep on hollowing out the economy and sacrificing the vast lower and middle class, we would be roughly where we are today. You don’t change world realities with talk or ‘new’ personalities. You change it by understanding how it happened, holding the authors accountable, and then moving on.

    What are the mistakes? You can’t bring in 2.6 million HiB workers in 10 years, almost all from India, (the official DHS number), plus their families and expect to maintain professional jobs, incomes and opportunities. It simply mathematically cannot be done. You can’t fight wars half-way across the world with minuscule forces unable to take casualties, employing a weird collection of opportunistic and crazy ‘allies’, hoping that somehow the victory will come via dominating the media, or with ‘soft power’. Soft power in practise translates into giving money, positions and visas to allies in all those endless conflicts. Well, they will take the money and use the visas to escape the hell-holes, and then what? More ‘soft power’ with more allies like that? Or more high-tech remote bombing? That can be used to destroy things, but it doesn’t work on the ground.

    Trump inherited this and probably never had a chance to change much of it. What we have left is a slow collapse as a consequence of bad policies. No elite has ever voluntarily given up the riches and perks of power. It happens when the system more or less stops functioning. And we are not there yet.

    Read More
    • Agree: Randal
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    ...living with the consequences of Clinton-Bush-Obama era.
     
    I believe it all started with Clinton.

    "We" missed the opportunity created by the collapse of Communism.

    Instead of creating a better world, "we" seized the opportunity to go Empire with no brakes.

    "We" failed at moral and intellectual level.

    Or, simply put, greed and lust for power won over "us".

    As always.
    , @Ace
    Excellent comment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. TheJester says:

    I was going to start reading Alfred McCoy’s books based on a recommendation of a commenter in the Unz Review. Given the nonsense in this article, I’ll pass.

    A global empire costs money … lots of it. Since WWII, the United States has established and maintained its worldwide hegemony with bribes and military force. The two foundations of that power are a worldwide network of military bases with a military budget that exceeds the combined military budgets of China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, United Kingdom, India, France, and Japan … and uneven trade agreements that systematically transfer wealth from the United States to our trading partners. This is not sustainable. We pay to play and that cost has hollowed out our economy. Following in the footsteps of imperial Rome and Britain, we are bankrupt!

    Trump represents the American electorate finally pushing back on the cost of empire before it is too late. The only way to cut our losses is to give up the empire. Trump is doing that by cancelling or renegotiating the ridiculously uneven trade agreements and seeking détente with our geopolitical adversaries. For example, if China wants to view the South China Sea as essential to its security (much like we see the Gulf of Mexico as essential to ours) let it. If Russia and the EU seek an economic and political re-approachment, let them.

    But Trump faces a practical problem. The embedded political and economic interests in the imperial capital, Washington DC, are fighting to sustain their global empire. They have grown rich and powerful as imperial courtesans and want nothing to change. As Trump says, he has to “drain the swamp” in Washington DC to effect real change.

    Put another way, Trump does not have to fix Washington DC to seize our country and our liberties back from the imperial courtesans. He only has to break it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Durruti
    Decent comment:

    The Coup D'etat happened on November 22, 1963

    You idealize Casino Trump - a bit much. He is a mid level Mafioso - at the service of the similar Zionists, with some tactical differences (perhaps) with the dominant Rothschilds.

    I am not sure. There is some smoke here. And where there is smoke... There are people like you - thinking... observing... hoping...

    Never before; not even with Nixon, was a President, not even the post JFK - Unconstitutional crowd, so handicapped, so denigrated, so maligned, as is Casino Trump. The Mainstream Media gives him zero respect, only Hatred, and Death Wishes. Even the so-called Republican Media is cold-as-ice. VP Pence was chosen for Trump.

    Before Nixon was replaced, Nixon was ordered to dump Agnew (for 'corruption' -what? a politician corrupt? say what? that was Agnew's crime?). With Warren Commission member, and CIA officer, Gerald Ford, securely in place as unelected VP, Nixon could be safely replaced and the Coup D'etat continued, with another of the treasonous murderers of JFK sitting in the Oval Office.

    The MOSSAD Zionist Foreign take over of our once proud nation has continued into 2017. The rot will deepen, and the sad show of an incompetent (I do not say stupid), Casino Owner supposed President of the United States, being besieged in the very White House Oval Office, in the ruins of a Once Proud Sovereign Nation, and, he, reduced to communicating over the Internet, to get his point of views across.

    What pathos.

    Even Shakespeare, could not have imagined this state of events. Not only does Casino Trump not have a Horse, he barely exists.

    Durruti: for the Anarchist Collective

    Restore the Republic
    , @pogohere
    Re: "I was going to start reading Alfred McCoy’s books based on a recommendation of a commenter in the Unz Review. Given the nonsense in this article, I’ll pass."

    You might reconsider that decision. McCoy’s “The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade” is an excellent history of the genesis of the heroin trade in SE Asia and the CIA takeover of same. It also covers important aspects of the shift of heroin production to Afghanistan.

    Having read “The Politics of Heroin," the views he expressed in this article shocked me because McCoy seems to have ignored what he delineated in great detail in that book which exposed the deep state pounding Trump.
    , @Stephen R. Diamond

    For example, if China wants to view the South China Sea as essential to its security (much like we see the Gulf of Mexico as essential to ours) let it.
     
    You're claiming Trump believes this?

    No, you don't campaign for a huge military buildup to stop the country from being imperialist. You don't cram your government with generals to demilitarize.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Trump has nothing to do with USA losing her standing in the world. It is all of USA elites own making.
    The core of it was in false belief of winning Cold War against USSR. That led to arrogance and disastrous policies towards Russia which included NATO expansion towards Russian borders, denial to Russia any national interests along her own borders, attack on Serbia, abandonment of ABS treaty and basically being untrustworthy and unreliable party which acted toward Russia with obvious aggressive and ulterior motives. Than came alienation of China. Complete disregard of international laws and national interests of other countries even allies, aggression against sovereign states.
    USA never was as powerful as her elites fancied her to be. By that I also mean military and since 2000′s her economy as well.
    US leadership could have been sustained for far longer with wise all inclusive and respectful towards major powers interests policies and respect towards laws and system that sustained US leadership. Instead USA has behaved like a mad man and obviously the world has had enough of this lunatic of state. Everyone who is watching USA now can only see lunatics from the top to bottom controlling supposed super duper power. Trump has nothing to do with it, but his presidency is accelerating demise because USA elites went complete nuts and everybody sees now what USA is all about. In short words, USA in current form is cancerous tumor on the world neck which consumes far more that it should and interferes where it has no business at all in the most damaging manner.
    Hence it is quite obvious that other independent major powers are dead set upon cutting USA to her size which means USA national interest being limited to US surroundings. Here comes US$ position which alone sustains current USA ability to create chaos and hubris everywhere. This is being taken care of gradually. Basically the whole financial system of the world is built to benefit USA and considering US behavior aka sanctions, wars and irresponsible financial behavior it won’t last.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    Basically the whole financial system of the world is built to benefit USA ...
     
    No. Actually it was built to benefit those who control the NWO, and no one else. The NY/London financial racket that dominates the West is slowly killing the rest of us.
    , @Ace
    ** USA elites went complete nuts and everybody sees now what USA is all about **

    Exactly so. The Trump phenomenon has been fascinating because of what it has revealed about the real political interests and alliances in America. The Never Trumpers have taken political treachery to new heights and Bill Kristol has revealed himself to be unhinged. Whatever Paul Ryan is he's no Republican and he'd rather die than support Trump. Or stop immigration.

    Trump is derided 10 different ways each day and no one needs a summary of the "Russian collusion" lies. He's treated as the Antichrist but it never phased these lying hysterics that Obama began his political career in the living room of two communist terrorists, had a forged birth certificate, had a communist mentor, wasn't constitutionally eligible to be president, had a dead man's Social Security number, attended a church where the pastor said, "God damn America! God damn America!", and whose closest political adviser in the WH was a woman with a communist father, grandfather, and father-in-law. That guy was just fine with the hysterics, as was the guy who did a lot more than talk about grabbing women's private parts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Joe Wong says:
    @restless94110
    This lunatic's rant becomes literally impossible to read after less than 5 paragraphs.

    It is astounding that liberals are now pushing for corporate-state anti-worker trade agreements, this time in the name of American "leadership."

    Leadership to what?

    This idiot claims that the world is "reeling" from some decision that Trump made.

    Really. Reeling.

    When I read that word, I only lasted 4 or so words more.

    Then I realized that the article was nothing more than a propagandist's screed, a neo-liberal who cares nothing for the non-elite. A warmonger who dresses in liberal clothing.

    A waste of time.

    I can’t agree with you more, the deep state has been wreaking the United States with fake news, unscrupulous conducts and irresponsible American exceptionalsim for decades, now they want to blame everything on Trump who is the office just few months and being surrounded by the deep state stinky mud to his neck.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. …the Trump White House is already in the process of demolishing the delicately balanced architecture that has sustained Washington’s world leadership…

    Delicately balanced? Balanced like a bully with a club.

    Washington’s world leadership? You have to be kidding. The denizens of DC are nothing more than lackeys and myrmidons of the banksters that own and run the world.

    Furthermore, the banksters are slave masters not leaders.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond

    Furthermore, the banksters are slave masters not leaders.
     
    As is Trump. Do you think a president who ran on a militarist program is going to execute a world military withdrawal? The president who fulminates against North Korea as he takes aim against China?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @restless94110
    Well, as I said, I could not read past the 5th paragraph.

    So, I just tried to scan the article again, without getting infected by it's poison, and I didn't see anything that would relate to what you are saying.

    I don't need to read McCoy's book: it's been amply documented that the CIA has complicity in it and in it in Afghanistan.

    So, I don't know what views he expressed that shocked you in light of your reading about CIA complicity in the heroin trade.

    By the way, this is a prime reason--another one--for legalizing all drugs immediately in the United States. Heroin was legal until 1914 I believe, but tacitly legal for at least 10 years more after that, maybe longer.

    The way to mitigate damage and take away illegally gotten gains by the CIA and other criminals is to legalize it.

    . Heroin was legal until 1914 I believe, but tacitly legal for at least 10 years more after that, maybe longer.

    Bayer (aspirin) sold it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @restless94110
    Yes, you can read much more detail about that in the excellent Chasing the Scream by Johann Hari that came out in 2015.

    Hari shows footnoted evidence that there were a lot of doctors prescribing heroin and that it was used for medicinal and other purposes in the Chinese community in Los Angeles, among other people using it. These groups had ignored the 1914 federal law, scoflaws you would say, because they found it stupid and counter to good health outcomes.

    The crackdown came from Harry Anslinger, that idiot who pushed all drug prohibitions after alcohol Prohibition had failed completely.

    And yes, Bayer was known for two things in those days, not one. They sold heroin and aspirin. But then Coca Cola has plenty of cocaine in it, too.

    Think about it: that was just 100 years ago. What kind of country was the USA then? Now we have SWAT teams breaking down your house door and flash grenading your baby in her crib. And why?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. All that come out of this nonsense is the fact that this Dummkopf would prefer BO’s or HC’s “Leadership”: which would then bring the world to the brink of inihilation over the fact that VP does not cater to the rainbow/gay crowd.

    I know this sounds far-fetched, but it is the basic underlying aspect of leftist striving world-wide.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro Jazz musician.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. National Review and The Weekly Standard are that way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. LauraMR says:
    @Fidelios Automata
    Is wrecking the US Empire supposed to be a BAD thing? Trump is the proverbial bull in a china shop, which is one of the reasons I voted for him.

    Delightful nonsense. Thank you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. As if guided by some malign design, the new president seemed to identify the key pillars that have supported U.S. global power for the past 70 years and set out to topple each of them in turn. By degrading NATO, alienating Asian allies, cancelling trade treaties, and slashing critical scientific research, the Trump White House is already in the process of demolishing the delicately balanced architecture that has sustained Washington’s world leadership since the end of World War II. However unwittingly, Trump is ensuring the accelerated collapse of American global hegemony.

    And to all of that, I say … good!

    Apart from that, this article is chock-a-block with all the usual neocon/neolib nonsense; but I trust all of you here will be clever enough to spot the fallacies on your own. Still, the author gets one important thing right: the Washington Reich is now well past its sell-by date, and Trump — praised be his name! — is only hastening its demise.

    Read More
    • LOL: chris
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. bob sykes says:

    Neocons have brought us to the brink of nuclear war with both Russia and China. Trump must remove all neocons from public life and put them into concentration camps. If the camps get too full, there are other, final solutions.

    Read More
    • LOL: Seamus Padraig
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    The days of the US being the world hegemonic power is being ended, slowly but surely. We now have three powers none of which can conquer the other. This is not something that can be changed and is not the result of any US blunder but is simply the natural progression of the development of other countries. Things couldn’t stay the way they were forever. The US must realize this and withdraw itself from it’s overextension and do it in a rational way to have a soft landing; otherwise the contraction will be catastrophic as the breakup of the USSR was for them. The Suez crisis may have accelerated the decline of Britain as a world power but that was happening anyway, with or without it.
    Quoting a foghorn such as the writer Friedman is ridiculous. Withdrawal from the Paris Accord does nothing much. If presidential candidates are deficient then there’s something wrong with our system rather than with any one individual. Why blame Trump for the natural progression of history? He expressed a desire for better relations with the Russians yet our congress seems bent on overriding him and setting up a situation of conflict with them. Is this his fault?
    Other parts of the world are modernizing and can’t be easily boxed in as in the old days when Britain could dominate them due to other’s backwardness. The US has squandered it’s moral leadership with it’s bloody policies in places such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. The rest of the world now regards the US as the greatest threat to world peace. This is not Trump’s doing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. chris says:

    By degrading NATO, alienating Asian allies, cancelling trade treaties, and slashing critical scientific research, the Trump White House is already in the process of demolishing the delicately balanced architecture that has sustained Washington’s world leadership since the end of World War II.”

    To paraphrase Ron Unz, I didn’t realize Blanche DuBois is now writing at Unz.com!

    As noted by many commenters, this is a demonstratively false statement, but glaringly so over the last 17-24 years when the Iraq, and greater ME mayhem was started under “Washington’s world leadership.” Anyone looking over these rivers of blood and massive displacement and suffering of peoples, who can only see the “delicately balanced architecture” is severely delusional or an incompetent liar.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. @Robert Magill
    . Heroin was legal until 1914 I believe, but tacitly legal for at least 10 years more after that, maybe longer.

    Bayer (aspirin) sold it.

    Yes, you can read much more detail about that in the excellent Chasing the Scream by Johann Hari that came out in 2015.

    Hari shows footnoted evidence that there were a lot of doctors prescribing heroin and that it was used for medicinal and other purposes in the Chinese community in Los Angeles, among other people using it. These groups had ignored the 1914 federal law, scoflaws you would say, because they found it stupid and counter to good health outcomes.

    The crackdown came from Harry Anslinger, that idiot who pushed all drug prohibitions after alcohol Prohibition had failed completely.

    And yes, Bayer was known for two things in those days, not one. They sold heroin and aspirin. But then Coca Cola has plenty of cocaine in it, too.

    Think about it: that was just 100 years ago. What kind of country was the USA then? Now we have SWAT teams breaking down your house door and flash grenading your baby in her crib. And why?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Miro23 says:

    While it’s reasonable to argue that Washington had by then become history’s greatest global power, its hegemony, like that of all the world empires that preceded it, remained surprisingly fragile. Skilled leadership was required to maintain the system’s balance of diplomacy, military power, economic strength, and technological innovation.

    What’s missing from this list is the vital ingredient – what The Empire offers the natives.

    Every Empire has to make a deal with the people it dominates, and the quality of this deal surely determines how long the Empire lasts.

    For example, the Ancient Romans knew this, and their exceptionally long lasting Empire offered local leaders the possibility of genuine Roman citizenship along with an efficient administration that benefited themselves and Rome. It used written and spoken Latin plus an excellent road network that opened new possibilities for trade, a reliable legal framework and above all the Pax Romana (Roman Peace) giving long periods of freedom from wars and conflict. In return, the Provinces paid Roman land and poll taxes but it was probably worth it.

    The British ran their Empire something along the same lines providing famously uncorrupt administrations in places like Africa and India, building infrastructure, providing a reliable legal framework, the Pax Britannica and English as a lingua franca. They even (surprisingly) managed to get Muslims and Hindus working harmoniously together in British military units.

    In contrast, the Mongol overlords of China and Russia (classic “stationary bandits” in Olson’s terminology”) offered little other than a Pax Mongolica in return for paying annual tribute and they lasted little more than 100 years.

    And the new Stationary Bandits, Israel’s Judaic Empire (Israel + USA + much of Western Europe) doesn’t even offer the natives a Pax Judaica. It’s purely racial exploitative based on threats and bribes and actually degrades national legal systems, national administrations, financial stability and bleeds the Empire white to pay for Israel and its wars – which the natives also have to fight.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    What’s missing from this list is the vital ingredient – what The Empire offers the natives.
     
    What's missing from your chronology of empires is mention of the Persian empire. It mattered. It set a standard for "what The Empire offered the natives" that the Roman empire mirrored.

    A highly significant aspect of the Persian empire in its purest form was its acceptance of all religious creeds -- mythologies/icons, a proposition based on the Zoroastrian foundation of classic Persian empire, and in sharp contrast to the Abrahamic mythos at the heart of British, American, and Anglo-zionist attempts at empire. The core principles of Abrahamism are, Who Is In Charge? (it ain't you); What may I think, say, Do ?: (What we tell you).

    Zoroastrian principles, on the other hand, hold to the rubric, "Good thoughts, Good Words, Good deeds" as each individual's touchstone for ethical behavior; Zoroastrian principles are probably closest to Ron Paul libertarianism: each individual is responsible for his own "salvation" and is his own moral agent, within a legitimately functioning community.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTZ0FGcKPuE

    That is one more reason why Iran Must Be Destroyed -- and also why Germany and its Aryan aspirations had to be destroyed: both were/are threats to the supremacy of the chosen people's monopoly on god, and to the super secessionist theology of some -- most -- versions of Christianity.

    , @Seamus Padraig

    For example, the Ancient Romans knew this, and their exceptionally long lasting Empire offered local leaders the possibility of genuine Roman citizenship along with an efficient administration that benefited themselves and Rome.
     
    Right you are on that point. However, most traditional empires -- like that of the Romans -- were run by a professional warrior/administrator caste, who specialized in actually running countries, not just destroying them or sucking money out of them, as our banksters do. That's why Rome lasted so many centuries, whereas the Washington Reich will soon collapse.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @neutral
    I don't even know why we still use the labels "neocon" and "neoliberal", they are essentially the same thing. If I am wrong, then please can somebody tell me what the difference between the two is, because I cannot see it.

    My understanding of the two terms means that they are definitely different, and you could be a neo-con but not a neo-liberal, and vice versa.

    From my readings, here would be a rough definition for both:

    Neo-liberal — this refers to an economic theory that originated from a university in Chicago (I’m sure someone knows the name of the university, but it escapes me at this point). Neo-liberal economics is the theory that the “free market” self-regulates and needs no or very very little government oversight. It futher posits that government is not the most efficient way of running anything, therefore everything would be better if it were sold off to private interests (i.e., privatized).

    This theory has been proven wrong over and over again, yet it is like a Frankenstein monster and it continues to be revived (like it has just happened in Brazil and Argentina) and promoted everywhere. Privatization of the train system in the United Kingdom was been a catastrophe with ticket prices skyrocketing and no infrastructure repair and improvements being done. Privatizing prisons in the US has only lead to worsening of conditions in the prisons themselves (leading to strikes and riots) and a corporate push to make more laws to ensnare more Americans in the criminal justice system.

    There is a competing economic theory, Monetary Management Theory (MMT) which is offerring real alternatives to neo-liberal economic theory, but the Chicago School has been extremely successful in removing the teaching of all (repeat all–old and new) economic theories other than neo-liberal theory.

    Meanwhile, the failed neo-liberal economics continues to ruin Europe, South America, India, and North America (including especially Mexico).

    Neo-conservative — this is a theory on foreign policy. It is the rabid belief that America should be, deserves to be the world hegemon and that that hegemony should be enforced by military action, covert and overt (I’m including the CIA in “military action”).

    Some analyists have pointed out that the progenitors of neo-conservativism are directly related to Trotskyites, the brand of Communism that believed in world-wide spread of ideology by violent means. Stalin snuffed out Trotsky and his ideology, but those that believe in this method just moved on to the US and believe in the Trotsky ideal: we are right, we are the exceptional people, our way is the way for the world, regime change is what is needed in order to acheive out right, exceptional goals.

    Neo-cons have been in and out of government since the days of Reagan (who apparently threw them out after the Iran-Contra fiasco), but they have successfully infested the Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama Administrations, and may have (too early to tell, but it doesn’t look good) infested the Trump Administration.

    But it’s Congress, too. McCain and Graham are neo-cons.

    It has also been pointed out that many neo-cons are Jews and that a big component of neo-con ideology is supportive of everything repressive that Isreal is doing, and perfectly matches Israeli goals (as opposed to what’s good for the American people).

    So you see, there is a difference.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KA
    but those that believe in this method just moved on to the US and believe in the Trotsky ideal:

    Interesting information.

    I wonder where did Dexter White ( Roosevelt 's Treasury Secretary ) get the passion for IMF from ? Was it rooted in his belief in Soviet/Communism ( I am assuming he was just not a spy for money's sake but was a genuine believer ) ? .
    The globalism has the perfect tripod to stand on. Military power, political propaganda and economic dispensation - all are centrally controlled with no feedback from the ground affected by any of these or by all of these .

    The arguments that Soviet system could not survive because of internal inconsistency or because of central regulation . It is true but the much wider reality was this - their was a better external reality of European or American model and the stakeholders of Soviet system were not losing billions by giving up the system ,neither they were losing power .

    American hegemony does not face ideological challenge but it faces challenges of efficiency and contradictions .

    , @Ace
    No advocate of free enterprise believes the market will self regulate. The invisible hand and competition work wonders but there are people who game the system. Thus courts will award damages for breach of contract, fraud, fraudulent conveyance, false advertising, trade libel, unfair competition, conversion, interference with contract, and appropriation of intellectual property. Securities fraud and combinations in restraint of trade are prohibited though the latter seem not to bother government much. The Uniform Commercial Code is a complex body of law governing the sale of goods and other topics. Real estate law is complex and ignored at one's peril.

    So there is no wild west that neo-liberals pine after where everything's done on a handshake. Neo-liberals and free marketeers do not campaign to get rid of any of the things I listed but to remove barriers to entry, Public Service Commissions, rent controls, labor union corruption, punitive zoning and environmental regulations, and provisions for six-week vacations, paid pregnancy leave, restrictions on firing, and minimum wage laws. They don't care for people who play God with what enterprising people build.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. However unwittingly, Trump is ensuring the accelerated collapse of American global hegemony.

    Hurray!

    Viva!

    VIVA THE DONALD!!!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. Joe Hide says:

    After reading the first 2 sentences I had to figure the guy has an axe to grind involving 4,500 words, so I immediately went th the comment section to post this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alfa158
    Too bad you missed the last part of the article, where the writer's head finally explodes and he finishes with a ludicrous piece of Tom Clancy style war porn in which the bad guys get their comeuppance.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Industrialization has passed away to financialization and the people are being used as a commodity not unlike cattle. Consumerism as an end goal for all the worlds people is likely to find them bereft of purpose and wanting of something more. Where we find ourselves now is that a culmination of financial power coupled with technology, and the strategically developed ignorance of the masses the powerful have the ability to deliver a Jetsons’esque lifestyle to the masses, should they be foolish enough to choose this life. Many of the freedoms the people had are being taken away, one by one, under the auspices of “saving lives”. Self driving cars will go far to do this, as once adopted no doubt their will be debates in the halls of congress over how many lives will be saved by taking away the people’s right to drive. I mean the statistics will clearly show phasing out human driven automobiles will save many lives. The parallels between many aspects of soviet communism and where our well meaning liberals hope to bring us are astounding. Even if it could be proven that technology, finance, and a huge overarching government could save lives, what about if the masses ever get wind that they are the cattle in the enterprise and its too late to try and get freedom and self determination back?

    Interestingly, on the other hand, many instinctively (while not overtly) sense these undercurrents as they attempt to piece back together the local community and local human based production in a free market manner. GDP as it is currently calculated and as stands as our collective chosen secular God, ain’t the most important figure anymore. Individual human liberty, the willingness to work hard, and a shared commitment to success (skin in the game) is becoming arguably more important to those seeking to preserve American ideals than is GDP. You need only look at the price of housing in metropolitan areas to see that whatever excess is being produced by the unwashed masses is going to be eaten by their desire to own a home.

    The jig is up, the old economic model is leading to our relegation as slaves to an economic machine most will one day find no way out of.

    The cementing of a tri-polar reserve currency regime, likely consisting of American, European & Asian units of account is a possible New world order. The basis of those units of account will not be subject solely to the whim of global finance. These three theaters will likely choose different manners of deploying their elastic currencies to suit their people’s needs. Clearly in my mind the American model would seek full employment but return to free market principles of commerce anywhere above that. Our industrial complex mentality of having the Feds goose favored industries through subsidies and picking of winners must stop, it is killing us.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    Privately owned automobiles have always been a huge issue with leftists ( of course not for themselves, as after privately-owned cars are banned there will always be a motor-park filled with "staff" and "duty" vehicles reserved for the honchos) and they simply hate the idea of a mobile, fluid citizenry, which is not being controlled in their movements and connections.

    The old Soviet Union had all of the resources for a complete auto industry, and they purposely declined to go in that direction in tune with their paranoia regarding mobile, active citizens, and pitchforks and torches.

    I love privately owned automobiles and the fact one day in the future they will no longer exist simply breaks my old heart.

    Yeah and all of the hype regarding phoney climate stats, electric and self-driving cars is simply propaganda employed to push the hapless public concensus in the direction of thinking that privately owned cars are egotistical and evil.

    Authenticjazzman " Mensa" society Member since 1973, airborne qualified US army Vet, and pro jazz artist.

    PS : At one phase of my history I owned eleven Alfa Romeos ( in succession).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Durruti says:
    @TheJester
    I was going to start reading Alfred McCoy's books based on a recommendation of a commenter in the Unz Review. Given the nonsense in this article, I'll pass.

    A global empire costs money ... lots of it. Since WWII, the United States has established and maintained its worldwide hegemony with bribes and military force. The two foundations of that power are a worldwide network of military bases with a military budget that exceeds the combined military budgets of China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, United Kingdom, India, France, and Japan ... and uneven trade agreements that systematically transfer wealth from the United States to our trading partners. This is not sustainable. We pay to play and that cost has hollowed out our economy. Following in the footsteps of imperial Rome and Britain, we are bankrupt!

    Trump represents the American electorate finally pushing back on the cost of empire before it is too late. The only way to cut our losses is to give up the empire. Trump is doing that by cancelling or renegotiating the ridiculously uneven trade agreements and seeking détente with our geopolitical adversaries. For example, if China wants to view the South China Sea as essential to its security (much like we see the Gulf of Mexico as essential to ours) let it. If Russia and the EU seek an economic and political re-approachment, let them.

    But Trump faces a practical problem. The embedded political and economic interests in the imperial capital, Washington DC, are fighting to sustain their global empire. They have grown rich and powerful as imperial courtesans and want nothing to change. As Trump says, he has to "drain the swamp" in Washington DC to effect real change.

    Put another way, Trump does not have to fix Washington DC to seize our country and our liberties back from the imperial courtesans. He only has to break it.

    Decent comment:

    The Coup D’etat happened on November 22, 1963

    You idealize Casino Trump – a bit much. He is a mid level Mafioso – at the service of the similar Zionists, with some tactical differences (perhaps) with the dominant Rothschilds.

    I am not sure. There is some smoke here. And where there is smoke… There are people like you – thinking… observing… hoping…

    Never before; not even with Nixon, was a President, not even the post JFK – Unconstitutional crowd, so handicapped, so denigrated, so maligned, as is Casino Trump. The Mainstream Media gives him zero respect, only Hatred, and Death Wishes. Even the so-called Republican Media is cold-as-ice. VP Pence was chosen for Trump.

    Before Nixon was replaced, Nixon was ordered to dump Agnew (for ‘corruption’ -what? a politician corrupt? say what? that was Agnew’s crime?). With Warren Commission member, and CIA officer, Gerald Ford, securely in place as unelected VP, Nixon could be safely replaced and the Coup D’etat continued, with another of the treasonous murderers of JFK sitting in the Oval Office.

    The MOSSAD Zionist Foreign take over of our once proud nation has continued into 2017. The rot will deepen, and the sad show of an incompetent (I do not say stupid), Casino Owner supposed President of the United States, being besieged in the very White House Oval Office, in the ruins of a Once Proud Sovereign Nation, and, he, reduced to communicating over the Internet, to get his point of views across.

    What pathos.

    Even Shakespeare, could not have imagined this state of events. Not only does Casino Trump not have a Horse, he barely exists.

    Durruti: for the Anarchist Collective

    Restore the Republic

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I don't really get the Kennedolatry. Why was he so great?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Virgile says:

    The USA a World Leader? That is history. Since WW2 the USA has become the World Destroyer. Its criminal wars killed millions of people and it is still going on.
    Thank God , Trump is not a warlord and he may bring back to the USA to what it was when it was defending values of freedom and respect and not of oppression and arrogance.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. neutral says:
    @restless94110
    This lunatic's rant becomes literally impossible to read after less than 5 paragraphs.

    It is astounding that liberals are now pushing for corporate-state anti-worker trade agreements, this time in the name of American "leadership."

    Leadership to what?

    This idiot claims that the world is "reeling" from some decision that Trump made.

    Really. Reeling.

    When I read that word, I only lasted 4 or so words more.

    Then I realized that the article was nothing more than a propagandist's screed, a neo-liberal who cares nothing for the non-elite. A warmonger who dresses in liberal clothing.

    A waste of time.

    The problem is that these lunatics influence a lot of people, people that one would consider decent, to believe this rubbish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @restless94110
    These lunatics influence--on the neo-liberal side: All the governments of Europe, several in South America, India, Mexico, Canada, the US, South Africa, and I am sure, others that I don't know about or forgot to mention. They also influence all but one Economics department in America and England. Their philosophy has been deseminated to the populace by blending it with Ayn Rand's flawed theories and some from Libertarian concepts.

    No matter how little success in the long run this theory has, Maggie Thatcher's refrain "There Is No Alternative" (TINA) seems to be the controlling factor. It is literally insane. The only thing about it is that it takes so long to fully decimate everything. It's like the frog in the pan where the water slowly comes to a boil. The frog doesn't notice.

    Human beings just can't comprehend outcomes that last longer than a generation or so. That's why Toynbee said that the next great war will start as soon as the last survivor of the previous great war passes on. That would be just about now. The oldest who went throuth WWII are now in their 80s and 90s.

    These lunatics influence--on the neo-con side: there are a ton of "think" tanks, talking heads, "experts," policy wonks in DC who are straight up neo-con. They literally infest the place and it is difficult to not appoint some of them to office. Every day you see neo-con Bolton on Fox yammering on like some expert about foreign affairs. It's sickening really. But neo-cons can always hide behind patriotism and national security. This is of course, to say nothing of the neo-cons in the MSM, pumping out op-ed after op-ed with the neo-con bent.

    All of this Russia shit is just neo-con shit. Neo-con Victoria Nuland was key in overthrowing the democratically elected Ukraine governement and replacing it with neo-Nazi Western Ukraine Russia haters. When the citizens of Crimea voted, in a freely held plebescite, to go with Russia, and did so by 90 percent(!), the neo-cons then claimed that Russia was an agressor. And they claim that to this day. And it has affected US foreign policy, warping it extremely.

    I could go on, but all you have to do is look at history, especially the last 16 years, and you can see example after example.

    It's all there out in the open. But you have to look for it, and few have the time or the inclination.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. pogohere says: • Website
    @El Dato
    Far away from phantasizing about Kandahar (who gives a fkuc), a far more insightful article also recalling several recent key developments of the ME that I just can't keep aligned in my head:

    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/28/how-the-center-is-spinning-apart/


    Where will this take us? Possibly, the psychological turmoil of the reverses in U.S. foreign policy will continue to roil throughout the summer; but come autumn, there may be less U.S. appetite (or attention available) for foreign policy initiatives as the economic “winter” approaches. Or, at worst, the sheer overwhelming conflict on the domestic front could invite the notion that a foreign initiative would prove a welcome distraction from economic woes.

    Iran and North Korea are the current U.S. rhetorical punch bags, but neither should ever be contemplated as candidates for some “distraction.” Rather they represent potential nemeses.

    As for the economic woes – not so much QE 4 – but direct, deficit funding helicopter money beckons, perhaps. Which is to say that freshly minted new, “empty” money would be used to directly fund Federal expenditure. (Trump in business, has never shied away from debt).

    Often it is said that there is no precedent to our present extraordinary monetary circumstances, but the history of the Assignat in France of the early 1790s, offers some hints. Despite massive money creation, Andrew White, in his book Fiat Money Inflation in France (published in 1896) notes that “[t]hough paper money had increased in amount, prosperity had steadily diminished. In spite of all the paper issues, commercial activity grew more and more spasmodic. Enterprise was chilled and business became more and more stagnant”.

    Finally, just to be clear, Donald Trump undoubtedly is facilitating the dissolution of the Establishment’s “center” – but that, after all, was his declared aim. But he is not responsible for it. This potential was already latent: he simply saw it – and adroitly, climbed aboard.

    Re: “the history of the Assignat in France of the early 1790s”

    See:

    “The Money And The Finances Of The French Revolution Of 1789: Assignats And Mandats, A True History,” Stephen D. Dillaye, pp. 29-33, Appendix

    excerpts:

    “Seventeen Manufacturing Establishments -were in full operation in London, with a force of four hundred men devoted to the production of false and forged Assignats.1 The success and the extent of the labor may be judged by-the quantity and value they represented. In the month of May, 1795, it was found that there were in circulation from 12,000,000,000, to 15,000,000,000 francs of forged Assignats, which were so exact in form, appearance, texture, and design, as to defy detection, except by the most minute examination and exact knowledge of the secret signs by which the initiated were taught to distinguish them.

    The Assignats in circulation at this time, May, 1795, issued by the Revolutionary government, were 7,860,000,000 francs, and not, as Mr. White has stated, 45,000,000,000.2The value of the lands dedicated by the Revolutionary authorities as the basis for their redemption, as established by the assessment tables of 1790, was 15,000,000,000, or nearly two dollars for one of the issue, though the issue at one time had reached the sum of 11,855,831,625 francs. It is therefore incontestable that the security was ample in value, if the title to the lands had been unquestioned, to have covered the entire issue, provided the Revolutionary authorities had continued in power.

    With these facts, showing how the Assignats came to be issued, the circumstances under which they were put in circulation, and the security on which they were based—withthe character and kind of title the Revolutionary government had to the lands devoted to their redemption, together with a review of the political condition of France at the period of the overthrow of Eobespierre and the rise of the party known as Thermidorians—I come now to the culmination of the causes which united and set themselves in motion to depreciate and utterly annihilate the Assignat, as a medium of exchange or as a representative of value.

    and

    To show that there could have been no such issue as Mr. White states, we have but to look at the facts. First. That May 15th, 1795, the entire outstanding issue of Assignats was but 8,140,000,000 francs. Second. The expenses and expenditures of the government per month and year, and Third. The fact that the Assignat was so totally discredited in January, 1796, that the government stopped their issue, and issued Mandats in their place, and in February, 1796 destroyed all the plates from which they were printed.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=tr4wAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA33&lpg=PA20&ots=gh5WWpghiO&dq=stephen+dillaye+%2B+assignats+and+mandates&output=text

    Read More
    • Replies: @KA
    Power of corrupting the legal tender is akin to controlling it. Was it an original British idea ?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. pogohere says: • Website
    @TheJester
    I was going to start reading Alfred McCoy's books based on a recommendation of a commenter in the Unz Review. Given the nonsense in this article, I'll pass.

    A global empire costs money ... lots of it. Since WWII, the United States has established and maintained its worldwide hegemony with bribes and military force. The two foundations of that power are a worldwide network of military bases with a military budget that exceeds the combined military budgets of China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, United Kingdom, India, France, and Japan ... and uneven trade agreements that systematically transfer wealth from the United States to our trading partners. This is not sustainable. We pay to play and that cost has hollowed out our economy. Following in the footsteps of imperial Rome and Britain, we are bankrupt!

    Trump represents the American electorate finally pushing back on the cost of empire before it is too late. The only way to cut our losses is to give up the empire. Trump is doing that by cancelling or renegotiating the ridiculously uneven trade agreements and seeking détente with our geopolitical adversaries. For example, if China wants to view the South China Sea as essential to its security (much like we see the Gulf of Mexico as essential to ours) let it. If Russia and the EU seek an economic and political re-approachment, let them.

    But Trump faces a practical problem. The embedded political and economic interests in the imperial capital, Washington DC, are fighting to sustain their global empire. They have grown rich and powerful as imperial courtesans and want nothing to change. As Trump says, he has to "drain the swamp" in Washington DC to effect real change.

    Put another way, Trump does not have to fix Washington DC to seize our country and our liberties back from the imperial courtesans. He only has to break it.

    Re: “I was going to start reading Alfred McCoy’s books based on a recommendation of a commenter in the Unz Review. Given the nonsense in this article, I’ll pass.”

    You might reconsider that decision. McCoy’s “The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade” is an excellent history of the genesis of the heroin trade in SE Asia and the CIA takeover of same. It also covers important aspects of the shift of heroin production to Afghanistan.

    Having read “The Politics of Heroin,” the views he expressed in this article shocked me because McCoy seems to have ignored what he delineated in great detail in that book which exposed the deep state pounding Trump.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @Miro23

    While it’s reasonable to argue that Washington had by then become history’s greatest global power, its hegemony, like that of all the world empires that preceded it, remained surprisingly fragile. Skilled leadership was required to maintain the system’s balance of diplomacy, military power, economic strength, and technological innovation.
     
    What's missing from this list is the vital ingredient - what The Empire offers the natives.

    Every Empire has to make a deal with the people it dominates, and the quality of this deal surely determines how long the Empire lasts.

    For example, the Ancient Romans knew this, and their exceptionally long lasting Empire offered local leaders the possibility of genuine Roman citizenship along with an efficient administration that benefited themselves and Rome. It used written and spoken Latin plus an excellent road network that opened new possibilities for trade, a reliable legal framework and above all the Pax Romana (Roman Peace) giving long periods of freedom from wars and conflict. In return, the Provinces paid Roman land and poll taxes but it was probably worth it.

    The British ran their Empire something along the same lines providing famously uncorrupt administrations in places like Africa and India, building infrastructure, providing a reliable legal framework, the Pax Britannica and English as a lingua franca. They even (surprisingly) managed to get Muslims and Hindus working harmoniously together in British military units.

    In contrast, the Mongol overlords of China and Russia (classic "stationary bandits" in Olson's terminology") offered little other than a Pax Mongolica in return for paying annual tribute and they lasted little more than 100 years.

    And the new Stationary Bandits, Israel's Judaic Empire (Israel + USA + much of Western Europe) doesn't even offer the natives a Pax Judaica. It's purely racial exploitative based on threats and bribes and actually degrades national legal systems, national administrations, financial stability and bleeds the Empire white to pay for Israel and its wars - which the natives also have to fight.

    What’s missing from this list is the vital ingredient – what The Empire offers the natives.

    What’s missing from your chronology of empires is mention of the Persian empire. It mattered. It set a standard for “what The Empire offered the natives” that the Roman empire mirrored.

    A highly significant aspect of the Persian empire in its purest form was its acceptance of all religious creeds — mythologies/icons, a proposition based on the Zoroastrian foundation of classic Persian empire, and in sharp contrast to the Abrahamic mythos at the heart of British, American, and Anglo-zionist attempts at empire. The core principles of Abrahamism are, Who Is In Charge? (it ain’t you); What may I think, say, Do ?: (What we tell you).

    Zoroastrian principles, on the other hand, hold to the rubric, “Good thoughts, Good Words, Good deeds” as each individual’s touchstone for ethical behavior; Zoroastrian principles are probably closest to Ron Paul libertarianism: each individual is responsible for his own “salvation” and is his own moral agent, within a legitimately functioning community.

    That is one more reason why Iran Must Be Destroyed — and also why Germany and its Aryan aspirations had to be destroyed: both were/are threats to the supremacy of the chosen people’s monopoly on god, and to the super secessionist theology of some — most — versions of Christianity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art

    Zoroastrian principles, on the other hand, hold to the rubric, “Good thoughts, Good Words, Good deeds” as each individual’s touchstone for ethical behavior; Zoroastrian principles are probably closest to Ron Paul libertarianism: each individual is responsible for his own “salvation” and is his own moral agent, within a legitimately functioning community.
     
    S2C,

    Thank you for this - The YouTube on Zoroastrian principles is worth the time.

    Peace --- Art
    , @Beckow
    Interesting, but Iran today is hardly Zoroastrian. So one has to look at it as it is, not the way it used to be. There is also the question why Zoroastrian thinking largely collapsed and ended up marginalized. The military defeat was definitely a part of it, but was there more to it?

    I read in a German history of Zoroastrianism that it reached a point in 4.-6. century where its internal incoherence and contradictions became impossible to manage, and that it collapsed into an ideological chaos. I don't know if that is true, I don't actually know much more about it, but it did seem to had happened. Why?

    And why would Abrahamic religions try to fight Zoroastrianism if it is today powerless? I see the irrational hatred against Iran, it is definitely there, but I don't think it has much to do with Zoroaster.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. http://mondoweiss.net/2017/07/transferring-palestinians-palestinian/

    This is actually a good idea but doesn’t go far enough.

    Send all Palestinians in Israel to West Bank, and send all Jews in WB to Israel.

    Peace!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Nope. Palestinians have a right to return to their homeland, Palestine.
    They will never surrender that right.

    Israel, "that shitty little country", is ultimately doomed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. However unwittingly, Trump is ensuring the accelerated collapse of American global hegemony.

    Given that the US has been the main war-monger, financial parasite, spreader of homomania and Afromania, and crusader of PC, Trump will indeed be a great man if he destroyes US hegemony.

    US doesn’t have allies. It has whores, dogs, and vassals.

    It has to end.

    A Los Angeles Times editorial typically called him “so unpredictable, so reckless, so petulant, so full of blind self-regard, so untethered to reality” that he threatened to “weaken this country’s moral standing in the world”

    What moral standing after Clinton, Bush, and Obama? Anyone remember Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Syria?

    And Trump carries with same policies in Israel.

    The international press has been no less harsh. Reeling from Trump’s denunciation of South Korea’s free-trade agreement as “horrible” and his bizarre claim that the country had once been “a part of China,” Seoul’s leading newspaper, Chosun Ilbo, expressed the “shock, betrayal, and anger many South Koreans have felt.”

    Betrayal for what? Having played whore-dog to the US forever?
    Korea may not have been part of China but it is now just part of America like Puerto Rico.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. Art says:

    There is NO reason for Europeans to be at a permanent standoff with each other. Only the worldwide Jew Matrix wants that confrontation.

    Washington DC is an outpost of the Jew Matrix – end of story.

    Without NATO in the way — the Europeans can make their own peace by trading with Russia — this would be a major good for the world.

    If America had a foreign policy with American values and NOT Jew Matrix goals – it would look something like what Trump is doing.

    Peace — Art

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. Joe Wong says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Already before WWI GB could no longer afford the two fleet standard, the British fleet should be so strong as able to fight the two mightiests fleets in the world.
    So GB lost WWI, but did not realise this, through USA military intervention.

    The thirties was the period where GB desperately tried to hold together the empire, when war came Lend Lease had to save England, but at the price of abandoning the empire.

    Obama lowered the two war USA standard to one and half war.
    How one fights half a war is beyond my comprehension.

    If my ideas are right then Trump and hisrich friends understand that continuing to try to control the world will bankrupt the USA, and them personally.

    Alas, as in GB in the thirties, old dreams of empire still exist, and are powerful.
    I hope Trump succeeds in preventing that this dream becomes a nightmare, as in England after WWII: 'we won the war, bur lost the peace'.

    You have not heard the blinding bellicosity and hubris from the Indian yet, Indian claimed they can fight two and half wars recently, that is fighting two nuclear powers Pakistan and China at the same time meanwhile fighting internal insurgencies for independence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Alfa158 says:
    @Joe Hide
    After reading the first 2 sentences I had to figure the guy has an axe to grind involving 4,500 words, so I immediately went th the comment section to post this.

    Too bad you missed the last part of the article, where the writer’s head finally explodes and he finishes with a ludicrous piece of Tom Clancy style war porn in which the bad guys get their comeuppance.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Sergey Krieger
    Trump has nothing to do with USA losing her standing in the world. It is all of USA elites own making.
    The core of it was in false belief of winning Cold War against USSR. That led to arrogance and disastrous policies towards Russia which included NATO expansion towards Russian borders, denial to Russia any national interests along her own borders, attack on Serbia, abandonment of ABS treaty and basically being untrustworthy and unreliable party which acted toward Russia with obvious aggressive and ulterior motives. Than came alienation of China. Complete disregard of international laws and national interests of other countries even allies, aggression against sovereign states.
    USA never was as powerful as her elites fancied her to be. By that I also mean military and since 2000's her economy as well.
    US leadership could have been sustained for far longer with wise all inclusive and respectful towards major powers interests policies and respect towards laws and system that sustained US leadership. Instead USA has behaved like a mad man and obviously the world has had enough of this lunatic of state. Everyone who is watching USA now can only see lunatics from the top to bottom controlling supposed super duper power. Trump has nothing to do with it, but his presidency is accelerating demise because USA elites went complete nuts and everybody sees now what USA is all about. In short words, USA in current form is cancerous tumor on the world neck which consumes far more that it should and interferes where it has no business at all in the most damaging manner.
    Hence it is quite obvious that other independent major powers are dead set upon cutting USA to her size which means USA national interest being limited to US surroundings. Here comes US$ position which alone sustains current USA ability to create chaos and hubris everywhere. This is being taken care of gradually. Basically the whole financial system of the world is built to benefit USA and considering US behavior aka sanctions, wars and irresponsible financial behavior it won't last.

    Basically the whole financial system of the world is built to benefit USA …

    No. Actually it was built to benefit those who control the NWO, and no one else. The NY/London financial racket that dominates the West is slowly killing the rest of us.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sergey Krieger
    I agree. But remember about crumbs from the lord table.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Linda Green
    Industrialization has passed away to financialization and the people are being used as a commodity not unlike cattle. Consumerism as an end goal for all the worlds people is likely to find them bereft of purpose and wanting of something more. Where we find ourselves now is that a culmination of financial power coupled with technology, and the strategically developed ignorance of the masses the powerful have the ability to deliver a Jetsons'esque lifestyle to the masses, should they be foolish enough to choose this life. Many of the freedoms the people had are being taken away, one by one, under the auspices of "saving lives". Self driving cars will go far to do this, as once adopted no doubt their will be debates in the halls of congress over how many lives will be saved by taking away the people's right to drive. I mean the statistics will clearly show phasing out human driven automobiles will save many lives. The parallels between many aspects of soviet communism and where our well meaning liberals hope to bring us are astounding. Even if it could be proven that technology, finance, and a huge overarching government could save lives, what about if the masses ever get wind that they are the cattle in the enterprise and its too late to try and get freedom and self determination back?

    Interestingly, on the other hand, many instinctively (while not overtly) sense these undercurrents as they attempt to piece back together the local community and local human based production in a free market manner. GDP as it is currently calculated and as stands as our collective chosen secular God, ain't the most important figure anymore. Individual human liberty, the willingness to work hard, and a shared commitment to success (skin in the game) is becoming arguably more important to those seeking to preserve American ideals than is GDP. You need only look at the price of housing in metropolitan areas to see that whatever excess is being produced by the unwashed masses is going to be eaten by their desire to own a home.

    The jig is up, the old economic model is leading to our relegation as slaves to an economic machine most will one day find no way out of.

    The cementing of a tri-polar reserve currency regime, likely consisting of American, European & Asian units of account is a possible New world order. The basis of those units of account will not be subject solely to the whim of global finance. These three theaters will likely choose different manners of deploying their elastic currencies to suit their people's needs. Clearly in my mind the American model would seek full employment but return to free market principles of commerce anywhere above that. Our industrial complex mentality of having the Feds goose favored industries through subsidies and picking of winners must stop, it is killing us.

    Privately owned automobiles have always been a huge issue with leftists ( of course not for themselves, as after privately-owned cars are banned there will always be a motor-park filled with “staff” and “duty” vehicles reserved for the honchos) and they simply hate the idea of a mobile, fluid citizenry, which is not being controlled in their movements and connections.

    The old Soviet Union had all of the resources for a complete auto industry, and they purposely declined to go in that direction in tune with their paranoia regarding mobile, active citizens, and pitchforks and torches.

    I love privately owned automobiles and the fact one day in the future they will no longer exist simply breaks my old heart.

    Yeah and all of the hype regarding phoney climate stats, electric and self-driving cars is simply propaganda employed to push the hapless public concensus in the direction of thinking that privately owned cars are egotistical and evil.

    Authenticjazzman ” Mensa” society Member since 1973, airborne qualified US army Vet, and pro jazz artist.

    PS : At one phase of my history I owned eleven Alfa Romeos ( in succession).

    Read More
    • Agree: chris
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. yeah says:

    Mr. Alfred McCoy, the author of this piece, has managed the seemingly impossible, namely, to distill a brew of 100% nonsense. Most folk who rant and rave and talk other nonsense get it to a purity of 90% max, this guy gets it to 1o0% – wow, truly spectacular!

    The whole article is “Trump this, Trump that”. The poor fool doesn’t even notice that right now Trump is not in control the driving seat. The American state car is crammed full of folk punching and kicking at the driver, and they wouldn’t mind a car wreck if only they could toss the Donald out of the driving seat.

    As for laments about loss of American global leadership: A professor of history should at least know that no power or empire or competitive advantage lasts for ever. Trump had the wits to see that the US needs to cut back, cut back, then cut back some more, to readjust, to realign, and to reshape itself in a changing world. A practical man’s way of seeing the world, in short.

    The point is not that Trump is good, noble, wise, etc., and that we all should simply support him. No, the simple point is to look at the world and its problems, its challenges and its opportunities with slightly clear and lucid minds, with more respect for facts and logic than ideology and pet beliefs, and then to support or criticize policies, actions, and politicians. And it is here that the whole spectrum of political discourse in the US has decayed and is ready for collapse.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  57. KA says:
    @restless94110
    My understanding of the two terms means that they are definitely different, and you could be a neo-con but not a neo-liberal, and vice versa.

    From my readings, here would be a rough definition for both:

    Neo-liberal -- this refers to an economic theory that originated from a university in Chicago (I'm sure someone knows the name of the university, but it escapes me at this point). Neo-liberal economics is the theory that the "free market" self-regulates and needs no or very very little government oversight. It futher posits that government is not the most efficient way of running anything, therefore everything would be better if it were sold off to private interests (i.e., privatized).

    This theory has been proven wrong over and over again, yet it is like a Frankenstein monster and it continues to be revived (like it has just happened in Brazil and Argentina) and promoted everywhere. Privatization of the train system in the United Kingdom was been a catastrophe with ticket prices skyrocketing and no infrastructure repair and improvements being done. Privatizing prisons in the US has only lead to worsening of conditions in the prisons themselves (leading to strikes and riots) and a corporate push to make more laws to ensnare more Americans in the criminal justice system.

    There is a competing economic theory, Monetary Management Theory (MMT) which is offerring real alternatives to neo-liberal economic theory, but the Chicago School has been extremely successful in removing the teaching of all (repeat all--old and new) economic theories other than neo-liberal theory.

    Meanwhile, the failed neo-liberal economics continues to ruin Europe, South America, India, and North America (including especially Mexico).

    Neo-conservative -- this is a theory on foreign policy. It is the rabid belief that America should be, deserves to be the world hegemon and that that hegemony should be enforced by military action, covert and overt (I'm including the CIA in "military action").

    Some analyists have pointed out that the progenitors of neo-conservativism are directly related to Trotskyites, the brand of Communism that believed in world-wide spread of ideology by violent means. Stalin snuffed out Trotsky and his ideology, but those that believe in this method just moved on to the US and believe in the Trotsky ideal: we are right, we are the exceptional people, our way is the way for the world, regime change is what is needed in order to acheive out right, exceptional goals.

    Neo-cons have been in and out of government since the days of Reagan (who apparently threw them out after the Iran-Contra fiasco), but they have successfully infested the Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama Administrations, and may have (too early to tell, but it doesn't look good) infested the Trump Administration.

    But it's Congress, too. McCain and Graham are neo-cons.

    It has also been pointed out that many neo-cons are Jews and that a big component of neo-con ideology is supportive of everything repressive that Isreal is doing, and perfectly matches Israeli goals (as opposed to what's good for the American people).

    So you see, there is a difference.

    but those that believe in this method just moved on to the US and believe in the Trotsky ideal:

    Interesting information.

    I wonder where did Dexter White ( Roosevelt ‘s Treasury Secretary ) get the passion for IMF from ? Was it rooted in his belief in Soviet/Communism ( I am assuming he was just not a spy for money’s sake but was a genuine believer ) ? .
    The globalism has the perfect tripod to stand on. Military power, political propaganda and economic dispensation – all are centrally controlled with no feedback from the ground affected by any of these or by all of these .

    The arguments that Soviet system could not survive because of internal inconsistency or because of central regulation . It is true but the much wider reality was this – their was a better external reality of European or American model and the stakeholders of Soviet system were not losing billions by giving up the system ,neither they were losing power .

    American hegemony does not face ideological challenge but it faces challenges of efficiency and contradictions .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @Miro23

    While it’s reasonable to argue that Washington had by then become history’s greatest global power, its hegemony, like that of all the world empires that preceded it, remained surprisingly fragile. Skilled leadership was required to maintain the system’s balance of diplomacy, military power, economic strength, and technological innovation.
     
    What's missing from this list is the vital ingredient - what The Empire offers the natives.

    Every Empire has to make a deal with the people it dominates, and the quality of this deal surely determines how long the Empire lasts.

    For example, the Ancient Romans knew this, and their exceptionally long lasting Empire offered local leaders the possibility of genuine Roman citizenship along with an efficient administration that benefited themselves and Rome. It used written and spoken Latin plus an excellent road network that opened new possibilities for trade, a reliable legal framework and above all the Pax Romana (Roman Peace) giving long periods of freedom from wars and conflict. In return, the Provinces paid Roman land and poll taxes but it was probably worth it.

    The British ran their Empire something along the same lines providing famously uncorrupt administrations in places like Africa and India, building infrastructure, providing a reliable legal framework, the Pax Britannica and English as a lingua franca. They even (surprisingly) managed to get Muslims and Hindus working harmoniously together in British military units.

    In contrast, the Mongol overlords of China and Russia (classic "stationary bandits" in Olson's terminology") offered little other than a Pax Mongolica in return for paying annual tribute and they lasted little more than 100 years.

    And the new Stationary Bandits, Israel's Judaic Empire (Israel + USA + much of Western Europe) doesn't even offer the natives a Pax Judaica. It's purely racial exploitative based on threats and bribes and actually degrades national legal systems, national administrations, financial stability and bleeds the Empire white to pay for Israel and its wars - which the natives also have to fight.

    For example, the Ancient Romans knew this, and their exceptionally long lasting Empire offered local leaders the possibility of genuine Roman citizenship along with an efficient administration that benefited themselves and Rome.

    Right you are on that point. However, most traditional empires — like that of the Romans — were run by a professional warrior/administrator caste, who specialized in actually running countries, not just destroying them or sucking money out of them, as our banksters do. That’s why Rome lasted so many centuries, whereas the Washington Reich will soon collapse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @pogohere
    You might find the chapter Part 3, On The Decline and Fall of Empires, in Johnan Galtung's The Fall of the US Empire--And Then What? of interest. His thesis regarding Rome is that it was unable to keep the plunder going on in the periphery sufficient to support the center to which the plunder was dedicated.
    , @Ace
    Nor was Rome obsessed with conforming their entire foreign policy to satisfy the needs of the Welsh nation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. unseated says:
    @Sean
    In my opinion Trump signals a return to Eisenhower's concern with the cost to US taxpayers of a global military that defends other countries, who consequently get a lunch someone else pays for. Those who voted for Trump want others to shoulder their own burden.

    http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/guest-article-trump-not-trump/

    The consequences of a U.S. military withdrawal from Europe and Asia would be dramatic. The United States would lose most of its military bases, American firms would find it much harder to gain market access, the American defense industry would lose billions of dollars, and European allies would stop supporting the United States militarily in faraway conflicts. The United States would be reduced to a regional power with little say in the management of Asian and European affairs. This is why it will not happen. This outcome is not only at odds with America’s economic interests, it is also completely at odds with the widespread belief in American exceptionalism and greatness that Trump and his supporters also embrace.

    But if the costs of abandoning allies are prohibitive, why is Trump threatening to do so? Schelling’s classic work on game theory suggests an answer: it shows that you can obtain greater concessions in negotiations by appearing mad or unpredictable. In this perspective, Trump’s statements and seemingly erratic behavior make a lot of sense as a negotiation tactic aimed at pressuring U.S. allies to increase their defense spending. His perceived unpredictability is adding credibility to the threat that he might actually withdraw U.S. forces even if it is not in the United States best interest to do so. There is genuine concern among U.S. allies about what Trump might do if they do not take immediate steps to increase their defense spending. The South Korean government reacted to Trump’s election by vowing to increase defense spending significantly if he insists on it. Likewise, the Danish Prime Minister promised to increase defense spending after his first phone conversation with Trump. In Germany Trump’s election triggered a hitherto unthinkable public debate on whether Germany should develop nuclear weapons.

    President Trump’s unpredictability will also put America’s opponents on the defensive. President Obama’s reluctance to threaten and use force likely emboldened China and Russia to take greater military risks in Eastern Ukraine, Syria, and in the East and South China Seas. While Beijing and Moscow could be fairly confident that Obama would not take military counter-measures, they have no way of calculating what President Trump might do. It is easy to imagine him giving the order to down a Chinese or Russian plane to demonstrate that “America is great again.”

    Paradoxically, Trump’s tweets and theatrics are good news for world peace. They create unpredictability and anxiety that the United States can use to obtain greater concessions from friends and foes. The likely result is strengthened U.S. alliances and U.S. opponents that will favor negotiation over provocation in their efforts to settle differences with the United States and its allies.
     

    https://www.thecross-roads.org/race-culture-nation/113-the-samson-option-will-israel-nuke-germany-and-iran

    Martin van Creveld is the Israeli military historian who publicly articulated Israel’s “Samson option”:

    “We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets by our airforce. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother”. I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the 30th strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capacity to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.”

    But no mention in the article quoted by Sean of the “ally” that is most concerned.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Art says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    What’s missing from this list is the vital ingredient – what The Empire offers the natives.
     
    What's missing from your chronology of empires is mention of the Persian empire. It mattered. It set a standard for "what The Empire offered the natives" that the Roman empire mirrored.

    A highly significant aspect of the Persian empire in its purest form was its acceptance of all religious creeds -- mythologies/icons, a proposition based on the Zoroastrian foundation of classic Persian empire, and in sharp contrast to the Abrahamic mythos at the heart of British, American, and Anglo-zionist attempts at empire. The core principles of Abrahamism are, Who Is In Charge? (it ain't you); What may I think, say, Do ?: (What we tell you).

    Zoroastrian principles, on the other hand, hold to the rubric, "Good thoughts, Good Words, Good deeds" as each individual's touchstone for ethical behavior; Zoroastrian principles are probably closest to Ron Paul libertarianism: each individual is responsible for his own "salvation" and is his own moral agent, within a legitimately functioning community.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTZ0FGcKPuE

    That is one more reason why Iran Must Be Destroyed -- and also why Germany and its Aryan aspirations had to be destroyed: both were/are threats to the supremacy of the chosen people's monopoly on god, and to the super secessionist theology of some -- most -- versions of Christianity.

    Zoroastrian principles, on the other hand, hold to the rubric, “Good thoughts, Good Words, Good deeds” as each individual’s touchstone for ethical behavior; Zoroastrian principles are probably closest to Ron Paul libertarianism: each individual is responsible for his own “salvation” and is his own moral agent, within a legitimately functioning community.

    S2C,

    Thank you for this – The YouTube on Zoroastrian principles is worth the time.

    Peace — Art

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Sean says:

    In other words, after 70 years of global dominion, America’s geopolitical command of the axial ends of Eurasia — the central pillars of its world power – seems to be crumbling in a matter of months.

    America’s world power rests on its continental economy. Germany, Japan (and Korea) got to concentrate on trade because US taxpayers funded their defence, and lost their manufacturing jobs as a result. As Eammon Fingleton pointed out, China gets massive trade concessions time after time by promising to help over North Korea (which explains Trump getting rolled by China in the recent trade talks although his recent statements show that truth begining to dawn on him). Being gulled into allowing mercantilist South Korea, Japan and Germany to deindustrialise America while the US taxpayer picked up the tab had tolerably unpleasant consequences, but China is too big. It is fundamentally misconceived to let short term military-strategic concerns over North Korea let China give worthless assurances of vague help and get a deal whereby the US opens up to economic rape by a country with unparalleled economies of scale.

    http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/guest-article-trump-not-trump/

    Trump’s aggressive statements and erratic behavior will most likely strengthen America’s web of alliances. Trump’s aggressive communications strategy and his “America First” approach to international negotiations have already frightened allies into doing something his predecessors could not: increase defense spending. The question in allied capitals is no longer whether defense spending should increase, but how much. In Europe allies are now scrambling to produce concrete plans for how they will increase defense spending in time for President Trump’s first visit to NATO in late May 2017.

    Free ride is over.

    His perceived unpredictability is also making military provocations and risk-taking by America’s adversaries less likely. [...] But if the costs of abandoning allies are prohibitive, why is Trump threatening to do so? Schelling’s classic work on game theory suggests an answer: it shows that you can obtain greater concessions in negotiations by appearing mad or unpredictable. In this perspective, Trump’s statements and seemingly erratic behavior make a lot of sense as a negotiation tactic aimed at pressuring U.S. allies to increase their defense spending. His perceived unpredictability is adding credibility to the threat that he might actually withdraw U.S. forces even if it is not in the United States best interest to do so. There is genuine concern among U.S. allies about what Trump might do if they do not take immediate steps to increase their defense spending. The South Korean government reacted to Trump’s election by vowing to increase defense spending significantly if he insists on it. Likewise, the Danish Prime Minister promised to increase defense spending after his first phone conversation with Trump. In Germany Trump’s election triggered a hitherto unthinkable public debate on whether Germany should develop nuclear weapons.

    President Trump’s unpredictability will also put America’s opponents on the defensive. President Obama’s reluctance to threaten and use force likely emboldened China and Russia to take greater military risks in Eastern Ukraine, Syria, and in the East and South China Seas. While Beijing and Moscow could be fairly confident that Obama would not take military counter-measures, they have no way of calculating what President Trump might do. It is easy to imagine him giving the order to down a Chinese or Russian plane to demonstrate that “America is great again.”

    Paradoxically, Trump’s tweets and theatrics are good news for world peace. They create unpredictability and anxiety that the United States can use to obtain greater concessions from friends and foes. The likely result is strengthened U.S. alliances and U.S. opponents that will favor negotiation over provocation in their efforts to settle differences with the United States and its allies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KA
    Has Russia negotiated ? Has Iran? Has Syria? Has NK ? Trump has been around 6 mo . Only negotiation one sees is in some kind of promises in defense spending and Poland has pulled back from the plans of controlling the judiciary . Saudi and Qatar are at loggerheads Qatar has gravitated to Turkey ,Iran and Russia . Philippine shows no sign of sidling up to US against China. Venezuela doesn't neither Cuba to new Trumping America .


    One has to wonder why Martion Vreveld is praising Trump's inconsistency ? Chaos is a preferred environment for Israel- this alone might explain his applause .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Two kinds of people hate the threat to imperialism the most.

    1. Imperialists addicted to supremacism of power.

    2. Toadies and puppets grown dependent on favors and ‘protection’ of the imperial overlord.

    No wonder South Korea is ‘reeling’. It has grown so accustomed to relying on the US as its pimp and sugar daddy that it is afraid to be free and independent.

    It’s like a dog that wants to remain with its master than be free like a wolf.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  63. @neutral
    The problem is that these lunatics influence a lot of people, people that one would consider decent, to believe this rubbish.

    These lunatics influence–on the neo-liberal side: All the governments of Europe, several in South America, India, Mexico, Canada, the US, South Africa, and I am sure, others that I don’t know about or forgot to mention. They also influence all but one Economics department in America and England. Their philosophy has been deseminated to the populace by blending it with Ayn Rand’s flawed theories and some from Libertarian concepts.

    No matter how little success in the long run this theory has, Maggie Thatcher’s refrain “There Is No Alternative” (TINA) seems to be the controlling factor. It is literally insane. The only thing about it is that it takes so long to fully decimate everything. It’s like the frog in the pan where the water slowly comes to a boil. The frog doesn’t notice.

    Human beings just can’t comprehend outcomes that last longer than a generation or so. That’s why Toynbee said that the next great war will start as soon as the last survivor of the previous great war passes on. That would be just about now. The oldest who went throuth WWII are now in their 80s and 90s.

    These lunatics influence–on the neo-con side: there are a ton of “think” tanks, talking heads, “experts,” policy wonks in DC who are straight up neo-con. They literally infest the place and it is difficult to not appoint some of them to office. Every day you see neo-con Bolton on Fox yammering on like some expert about foreign affairs. It’s sickening really. But neo-cons can always hide behind patriotism and national security. This is of course, to say nothing of the neo-cons in the MSM, pumping out op-ed after op-ed with the neo-con bent.

    All of this Russia shit is just neo-con shit. Neo-con Victoria Nuland was key in overthrowing the democratically elected Ukraine governement and replacing it with neo-Nazi Western Ukraine Russia haters. When the citizens of Crimea voted, in a freely held plebescite, to go with Russia, and did so by 90 percent(!), the neo-cons then claimed that Russia was an agressor. And they claim that to this day. And it has affected US foreign policy, warping it extremely.

    I could go on, but all you have to do is look at history, especially the last 16 years, and you can see example after example.

    It’s all there out in the open. But you have to look for it, and few have the time or the inclination.

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @Ace
    I just read some WaPo articles on Syria. A rare event and I was reminded why. The anti-Russia, Trump-the-tool-of-Putin, moderate-rebels stuff was cartoonish. Jornolist lives on and they lay it on with a trowel. It's ALL about Israel and Iran, which is to say, Israel.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. KA says:
    @Sean

    In other words, after 70 years of global dominion, America’s geopolitical command of the axial ends of Eurasia — the central pillars of its world power – seems to be crumbling in a matter of months.
     
    America's world power rests on its continental economy. Germany, Japan (and Korea) got to concentrate on trade because US taxpayers funded their defence, and lost their manufacturing jobs as a result. As Eammon Fingleton pointed out, China gets massive trade concessions time after time by promising to help over North Korea (which explains Trump getting rolled by China in the recent trade talks although his recent statements show that truth begining to dawn on him). Being gulled into allowing mercantilist South Korea, Japan and Germany to deindustrialise America while the US taxpayer picked up the tab had tolerably unpleasant consequences, but China is too big. It is fundamentally misconceived to let short term military-strategic concerns over North Korea let China give worthless assurances of vague help and get a deal whereby the US opens up to economic rape by a country with unparalleled economies of scale.

    http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/guest-article-trump-not-trump/

    Trump’s aggressive statements and erratic behavior will most likely strengthen America’s web of alliances. Trump’s aggressive communications strategy and his “America First” approach to international negotiations have already frightened allies into doing something his predecessors could not: increase defense spending. The question in allied capitals is no longer whether defense spending should increase, but how much. In Europe allies are now scrambling to produce concrete plans for how they will increase defense spending in time for President Trump’s first visit to NATO in late May 2017.
     
    Free ride is over.

    His perceived unpredictability is also making military provocations and risk-taking by America’s adversaries less likely. [...] But if the costs of abandoning allies are prohibitive, why is Trump threatening to do so? Schelling’s classic work on game theory suggests an answer: it shows that you can obtain greater concessions in negotiations by appearing mad or unpredictable. In this perspective, Trump’s statements and seemingly erratic behavior make a lot of sense as a negotiation tactic aimed at pressuring U.S. allies to increase their defense spending. His perceived unpredictability is adding credibility to the threat that he might actually withdraw U.S. forces even if it is not in the United States best interest to do so. There is genuine concern among U.S. allies about what Trump might do if they do not take immediate steps to increase their defense spending. The South Korean government reacted to Trump’s election by vowing to increase defense spending significantly if he insists on it. Likewise, the Danish Prime Minister promised to increase defense spending after his first phone conversation with Trump. In Germany Trump’s election triggered a hitherto unthinkable public debate on whether Germany should develop nuclear weapons.

    President Trump’s unpredictability will also put America’s opponents on the defensive. President Obama’s reluctance to threaten and use force likely emboldened China and Russia to take greater military risks in Eastern Ukraine, Syria, and in the East and South China Seas. While Beijing and Moscow could be fairly confident that Obama would not take military counter-measures, they have no way of calculating what President Trump might do. It is easy to imagine him giving the order to down a Chinese or Russian plane to demonstrate that “America is great again.”

    Paradoxically, Trump’s tweets and theatrics are good news for world peace. They create unpredictability and anxiety that the United States can use to obtain greater concessions from friends and foes. The likely result is strengthened U.S. alliances and U.S. opponents that will favor negotiation over provocation in their efforts to settle differences with the United States and its allies.
     

    Has Russia negotiated ? Has Iran? Has Syria? Has NK ? Trump has been around 6 mo . Only negotiation one sees is in some kind of promises in defense spending and Poland has pulled back from the plans of controlling the judiciary . Saudi and Qatar are at loggerheads Qatar has gravitated to Turkey ,Iran and Russia . Philippine shows no sign of sidling up to US against China. Venezuela doesn’t neither Cuba to new Trumping America .

    One has to wonder why Martion Vreveld is praising Trump’s inconsistency ? Chaos is a preferred environment for Israel- this alone might explain his applause .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    External threats to Israel are a broken spectre creation of the Lobby. The real threat to Israel's existence as a Jewish state is 100% the Arabs in the occupied territories, which Creveld has advocated withdrawing from.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Durruti says:

    “For example, the Ancient Romans knew this, and their exceptionally long lasting Empire offered local leaders the possibility of genuine Roman citizenship along with an efficient administration that benefited themselves and Rome.”

    Is incorrect.

    Roman Historian, Tacitas wrote: “They make a wasteland, and call it peace.”

    The Roman Empire was chaotic, replete with numerous Civil Wars, Civil Brutality, Blood Sports, and founded upon the overthrow of their Republic in Dallas, when the MOSSAD marched their Legions across the Rubicon, and installed LBCaesar as their Frontman, and then proceeded with their efforts at stabilizing their Zionist New World Order.

    The concepts, Roman Empire, and Efficient, did not mix. The Jewish Oligarchs were, with little trouble, able to pressure a Roman Governor to murder Jesus. The Roman Empire rotted from within. It destroyed its farming and pre-industrial foundations, and its productive people who produced its wealth and culture. The nations it conquered were similarly flattened as the Zionist puppet United States has destroyed much of the infrastructure and population of [Iraq, Syria, Libya, Palestine, and Afghanistan]. Vietnam is still picking up the pieces of 2 million dead – from the bombing (Napalm & high percussion). In the Western European Roman Empire, The ‘Barbarians’ picked over a rotten corpse long before 476AD.

    In modern times - Casino Trump Bombs and Expels, and with the Israeli Congress, puts Trade Sanctions, and curses Russians, and Chinese, and Cubans, and Arabs, and Martians, on demand.

    Surely, if I explain it in these terms, you are capable of understanding.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  66. peterAUS says:
    @Beckow
    The article is incoherent, written in a linear fashion with no thought to the context or any alternatives. What is happening today are simply consequences. That's all. If Clinton was in, or Pence gets in, the overall situation would be about the same. Some details might be different and media would cover it differently, but we would still be living with the consequences of Clinton-Bush-Obama era. And Blaming it on Trump is infantile, the article makes no sense.

    It is not about a few throw-away lines, or 'tweets', or colourful personalities. Those are the usual clownish distractions, they change nothing about the underlying realities. This is about the catastrophic mis-judgments from the recent past. If Clinton or Pence would double down and do TPP, more land invasions, keep on hollowing out the economy and sacrificing the vast lower and middle class, we would be roughly where we are today. You don't change world realities with talk or 'new' personalities. You change it by understanding how it happened, holding the authors accountable, and then moving on.

    What are the mistakes? You can't bring in 2.6 million HiB workers in 10 years, almost all from India, (the official DHS number), plus their families and expect to maintain professional jobs, incomes and opportunities. It simply mathematically cannot be done. You can't fight wars half-way across the world with minuscule forces unable to take casualties, employing a weird collection of opportunistic and crazy 'allies', hoping that somehow the victory will come via dominating the media, or with 'soft power'. Soft power in practise translates into giving money, positions and visas to allies in all those endless conflicts. Well, they will take the money and use the visas to escape the hell-holes, and then what? More 'soft power' with more allies like that? Or more high-tech remote bombing? That can be used to destroy things, but it doesn't work on the ground.

    Trump inherited this and probably never had a chance to change much of it. What we have left is a slow collapse as a consequence of bad policies. No elite has ever voluntarily given up the riches and perks of power. It happens when the system more or less stops functioning. And we are not there yet.

    …living with the consequences of Clinton-Bush-Obama era.

    I believe it all started with Clinton.

    “We” missed the opportunity created by the collapse of Communism.

    Instead of creating a better world, “we” seized the opportunity to go Empire with no brakes.

    “We” failed at moral and intellectual level.

    Or, simply put, greed and lust for power won over “us”.

    As always.

    Read More
    • Agree: Ace
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. KA says:
    @pogohere
    Re: "the history of the Assignat in France of the early 1790s"

    See:

    "The Money And The Finances Of The French Revolution Of 1789: Assignats And Mandats, A True History," Stephen D. Dillaye, pp. 29-33, Appendix

    excerpts:

    "Seventeen Manufacturing Establishments -were in full operation in London, with a force of four hundred men devoted to the production of false and forged Assignats.1 The success and the extent of the labor may be judged by-the quantity and value they represented. In the month of May, 1795, it was found that there were in circulation from 12,000,000,000, to 15,000,000,000 francs of forged Assignats, which were so exact in form, appearance, texture, and design, as to defy detection, except by the most minute examination and exact knowledge of the secret signs by which the initiated were taught to distinguish them.

    The Assignats in circulation at this time, May, 1795, issued by the Revolutionary government, were 7,860,000,000 francs, and not, as Mr. White has stated, 45,000,000,000.2The value of the lands dedicated by the Revolutionary authorities as the basis for their redemption, as established by the assessment tables of 1790, was 15,000,000,000, or nearly two dollars for one of the issue, though the issue at one time had reached the sum of 11,855,831,625 francs. It is therefore incontestable that the security was ample in value, if the title to the lands had been unquestioned, to have covered the entire issue, provided the Revolutionary authorities had continued in power.

    With these facts, showing how the Assignats came to be issued, the circumstances under which they were put in circulation, and the security on which they were based—withthe character and kind of title the Revolutionary government had to the lands devoted to their redemption, together with a review of the political condition of France at the period of the overthrow of Eobespierre and the rise of the party known as Thermidorians—I come now to the culmination of the causes which united and set themselves in motion to depreciate and utterly annihilate the Assignat, as a medium of exchange or as a representative of value.
     
    and

    To show that there could have been no such issue as Mr. White states, we have but to look at the facts. First. That May 15th, 1795, the entire outstanding issue of Assignats was but 8,140,000,000 francs. Second. The expenses and expenditures of the government per month and year, and Third. The fact that the Assignat was so totally discredited in January, 1796, that the government stopped their issue, and issued Mandats in their place, and in February, 1796 destroyed all the plates from which they were printed.
     
    http://books.google.com/books?id=tr4wAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA33&lpg=PA20&ots=gh5WWpghiO&dq=stephen+dillaye+%2B+assignats+and+mandates&output=text

    Power of corrupting the legal tender is akin to controlling it. Was it an original British idea ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @pogohere
    Re: "Was it an original British idea ?"

    Most likely not. See Michael Hudson's work on ancient monetary regimes and debt:

    http://michael-hudson.com/category/history-of-the-near-east/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. “… the Trump White House is already in the process of demolishing the delicately balanced architecture that has sustained Washington’s world leadership since the end of World War II.”

    An amusing sentiment, but the “delicate architecture” has been little more than a veneer over the superstructure of oppression through manipulation of money and commerce, or by brute force when those levers are not up to the task.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  69. Sean says:
    @KA
    Has Russia negotiated ? Has Iran? Has Syria? Has NK ? Trump has been around 6 mo . Only negotiation one sees is in some kind of promises in defense spending and Poland has pulled back from the plans of controlling the judiciary . Saudi and Qatar are at loggerheads Qatar has gravitated to Turkey ,Iran and Russia . Philippine shows no sign of sidling up to US against China. Venezuela doesn't neither Cuba to new Trumping America .


    One has to wonder why Martion Vreveld is praising Trump's inconsistency ? Chaos is a preferred environment for Israel- this alone might explain his applause .

    External threats to Israel are a broken spectre creation of the Lobby. The real threat to Israel’s existence as a Jewish state is 100% the Arabs in the occupied territories, which Creveld has advocated withdrawing from.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. “..demolishing the delicately balanced architecture that has sustained Washington’s world leadership since the end of World War II….”

    Is this a loss? To what good has the US put this vaunted position?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  71. Beckow says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    What’s missing from this list is the vital ingredient – what The Empire offers the natives.
     
    What's missing from your chronology of empires is mention of the Persian empire. It mattered. It set a standard for "what The Empire offered the natives" that the Roman empire mirrored.

    A highly significant aspect of the Persian empire in its purest form was its acceptance of all religious creeds -- mythologies/icons, a proposition based on the Zoroastrian foundation of classic Persian empire, and in sharp contrast to the Abrahamic mythos at the heart of British, American, and Anglo-zionist attempts at empire. The core principles of Abrahamism are, Who Is In Charge? (it ain't you); What may I think, say, Do ?: (What we tell you).

    Zoroastrian principles, on the other hand, hold to the rubric, "Good thoughts, Good Words, Good deeds" as each individual's touchstone for ethical behavior; Zoroastrian principles are probably closest to Ron Paul libertarianism: each individual is responsible for his own "salvation" and is his own moral agent, within a legitimately functioning community.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTZ0FGcKPuE

    That is one more reason why Iran Must Be Destroyed -- and also why Germany and its Aryan aspirations had to be destroyed: both were/are threats to the supremacy of the chosen people's monopoly on god, and to the super secessionist theology of some -- most -- versions of Christianity.

    Interesting, but Iran today is hardly Zoroastrian. So one has to look at it as it is, not the way it used to be. There is also the question why Zoroastrian thinking largely collapsed and ended up marginalized. The military defeat was definitely a part of it, but was there more to it?

    I read in a German history of Zoroastrianism that it reached a point in 4.-6. century where its internal incoherence and contradictions became impossible to manage, and that it collapsed into an ideological chaos. I don’t know if that is true, I don’t actually know much more about it, but it did seem to had happened. Why?

    And why would Abrahamic religions try to fight Zoroastrianism if it is today powerless? I see the irrational hatred against Iran, it is definitely there, but I don’t think it has much to do with Zoroaster.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    And why would Abrahamic religions try to fight Zoroastrianism if it is today powerless?
     
    Probably most of it is utterly irrational, but if you want reason, this may be a huge piece of the puzzle.

    To most Americans of the classes which consider themselves significant the war brought a sense of the sanctity of the State …

    -Randolph Bourne, The State From Untimely Papers (1919)
    http://fair-use.org/randolph-bourne/the-state/
     
    He also remarked that war is the health of the state, and he wasn't the only one who recognized the fraud.
    , @SolontoCroesus

    Iran today is hardly Zoroastrian. So one has to look at it as it is, not the way it used to be.
     
    I agree that the Muslim invasion attempted to eradicate Zoroaster, but also I maintain that Iran's core ethnic identity remains essentially linked to Zoroaster, in a way similar to Greek identity linkage to Homer and US core identity being linked to the US Declaration/Constitution/Founders.

    Iran's major monuments are linked to Zoroaster -- i.e. the tomb of Cyrus at Pasargadae; Iran's national epic, the Shahnameh, is said to have incorporated Zoroastrian themes. Reza Pahlavi went overboard in seeking to revitalize ancient Iranian culture -- the mullahs are pleased to retain just the rusting skeleton of the vast ceremonial spaces Pahlavi created to celebrate 2500 year commemoration of the Persian empire

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dshxf1mb2Qo

    why Zoroastrian thinking largely collapsed
     
    I suppose Constantine struck the first blow when the Mithrism that most Roman soldiers observed was replaced by the Christian cross -- "In hoc signum vincit." Mohammed completed the task; most Zoroastrians fled to India, where, according to Jorjani, the form of Zoroastrianism practiced by Parsee is distorted and debased.

    As well, Zoroastrianism seems to have several systemic problems: Gatha, the liturgical books/prayers of the Zoroastrians, are not widely distributed nor easily translated; It does not proselytize, does not have an established hierarchy. Zoroastrianism is more a way of life than a creed with dogmas and doctrines. Beyond that, I don't know enough about Zoroastrianism to opine. I raise the issue because I believe it is a tradition that deserves to be more widely understood.

    And why would Abrahamic religions try to fight Zoroastrianism if it is today powerless? I see the irrational hatred against Iran, it is definitely there, but I don’t think it has much to do with Zoroaster.
     
    The fundament flaw in the zionist heart/brain is deep-seated inferiority: more than anything else, zionist Jews/Israelis want the world to think of Jews as more important than any other belief system known to man. Jews argue that Cyrus owes his wisdom to the Jewish god.

    In a talk about his book, "Israel's Periphery Doctrine" at Brooking a few years ago, Yossi Alpher explained this deep-seated need:

    "There are still very senior Israelis -- and I have a long list of quotes from people like Ehud Barak, Uri Lubrani,. . . people are still around who were very active in the relationship before the Shah fell and who, indeed, believe to this day that the Islamic Republic is an aberration and a temporary one, and if you somehow push the right military or sanctions button or whatever, they will fall and the good guys will come back to power.

    Now, here I have to go back a little bit to explain how we related, particularly to Iran, Turkey, and Ethiopia, which were, indeed, the pillars of the periphery in the ‘50s and ‘60s and ‘70s. We Israelis, again, back to that isolation -- we Israelis, to this day, have a need to -- a deep need to be recognized and accepted by the region. You see, Bibi’s demand, which is supported by most Israelis, that the Palestinians recognize us as a Jewish state, or the state of the Jewish people -- the nation-state of the Jewish people -- this goes way back, this need to be recognized. . . . and so at the height of the periphery doctrine, when things are going well, there’s this sense that the ancient peoples of the Middle East have created an alliance, the people who precede the Arabs, okay. We go back with Iran, we just celebrated Purim, all right, we go back 2,600 years with Iran. The Egyptian, the Ethiopian national narrative is King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. So, this is almost a biblical -- a new biblical chapter.

    This is how some people in Israel felt. There were also some people who were just cynical,practitioners of realpolitik. Everybody in Tehran and in Addis and in Ankara were cynical practitioners of realpolitik. They did not reciprocate. They said, we kidded ourselves that they did. And we still do to this day, because if you believe that this is -- we are somehow Middle Eastern, ancient blood brothers, then who’s Khomeini? This wasn’t meant to be.
     
    https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/20150312_israel_periphery

    Christian zionists do not understand this, nor do most Christians who are also knee-jerk supporters of Israel, but the real problem Israel/zionists/Jews have with Iran has nothing to do with nuclear weapons, and is not primarily concerned with Iran as a "state sponsor of terrorism," (tho Hezbollah has been able to stockpile a significant cache of weapons that can reach deep into Israel).
    What most troubles Israel about Iran is a matter of Jewish identity: as Alpher confessed, the Eastern European Jews who planted themselves in Palestine think of themselves as co-equals to the great Persian empire, and they want the world to recognize them as such. (iow, they're pathetic.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. WJ says:

    Un-readable, irrational garbage. Unz is better than this trash.

    He would prefer HRC’s No Fly Zones over Syria and endless support for Al Quaeda there?

    The cruise missile attack was a token gesture that did little damage to Assad’s forces and was done for internal politics. That was four months ago and we have seen nothing else like. In fact, he suspended support to anti Assad forces last week.

    But, if you hate Trump for whatever reason, then you will find nothing right in any of his actions I suppose.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  73. pogohere says: • Website
    @KA
    Power of corrupting the legal tender is akin to controlling it. Was it an original British idea ?

    Re: “Was it an original British idea ?”

    Most likely not. See Michael Hudson’s work on ancient monetary regimes and debt:

    http://michael-hudson.com/category/history-of-the-near-east/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. pogohere says: • Website
    @Seamus Padraig

    For example, the Ancient Romans knew this, and their exceptionally long lasting Empire offered local leaders the possibility of genuine Roman citizenship along with an efficient administration that benefited themselves and Rome.
     
    Right you are on that point. However, most traditional empires -- like that of the Romans -- were run by a professional warrior/administrator caste, who specialized in actually running countries, not just destroying them or sucking money out of them, as our banksters do. That's why Rome lasted so many centuries, whereas the Washington Reich will soon collapse.

    You might find the chapter Part 3, On The Decline and Fall of Empires, in Johnan Galtung’s The Fall of the US Empire–And Then What? of interest. His thesis regarding Rome is that it was unable to keep the plunder going on in the periphery sufficient to support the center to which the plunder was dedicated.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Beckow
    Interesting, but Iran today is hardly Zoroastrian. So one has to look at it as it is, not the way it used to be. There is also the question why Zoroastrian thinking largely collapsed and ended up marginalized. The military defeat was definitely a part of it, but was there more to it?

    I read in a German history of Zoroastrianism that it reached a point in 4.-6. century where its internal incoherence and contradictions became impossible to manage, and that it collapsed into an ideological chaos. I don't know if that is true, I don't actually know much more about it, but it did seem to had happened. Why?

    And why would Abrahamic religions try to fight Zoroastrianism if it is today powerless? I see the irrational hatred against Iran, it is definitely there, but I don't think it has much to do with Zoroaster.

    And why would Abrahamic religions try to fight Zoroastrianism if it is today powerless?

    Probably most of it is utterly irrational, but if you want reason, this may be a huge piece of the puzzle.

    To most Americans of the classes which consider themselves significant the war brought a sense of the sanctity of the State …

    -Randolph Bourne, The State From Untimely Papers (1919)

    http://fair-use.org/randolph-bourne/the-state/

    He also remarked that war is the health of the state, and he wasn’t the only one who recognized the fraud.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Agreed, but the worship of the State is somewhat different from the worship of God.

    When I start to see terrorists Jewish, Christian, or Muslim taking potshots at Parsi billionaires, maybe I'll begin to believe in the "irrational hatred" the adherents of the Abrahamic religions are supposed to have for the followers of Zarathustra.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @NoseytheDuke
    I can't agree with eliminating corporate tax while everyday working Americans are expected to pay it. How about a modest import tariff to favour domestic industries? It is tax evasion by the very largest corporations, the very ones most able to pay it, that there is so little in the kitty to pay for things that Americans justly need and deserve, that and the parasitic MIC.

    apple pays 0.5% tax while I have to pay 30% :() that is my personal tragedy :()

    we will all pay 50% death tax, the walmart waltons paid zero on their billions. that is a real travesty.

    if you have a way to avoid tax, do it. you don’t owe this country anything.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Seamus Padraig

    Basically the whole financial system of the world is built to benefit USA ...
     
    No. Actually it was built to benefit those who control the NWO, and no one else. The NY/London financial racket that dominates the West is slowly killing the rest of us.

    I agree. But remember about crumbs from the lord table.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @jilles dykstra
    The USA consumes some 40% of the resources of this world.

    The USA consumes some 40% of the resources of this world.

    And what percentage of the world’s resources does it produce?

    America’s wealth came into being because of American productivity. Whether America is still as productive as it once was, I do not know – I often get the feeling that nowadays we are eating next year’s seed corn – but in general, productive nations are rich, and unproductive ones are poor.

    We produce in order to consume, and, over the long term, we must produce in order to consume.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. pogohere says: • Website
    @El Dato
    Far away from phantasizing about Kandahar (who gives a fkuc), a far more insightful article also recalling several recent key developments of the ME that I just can't keep aligned in my head:

    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/28/how-the-center-is-spinning-apart/


    Where will this take us? Possibly, the psychological turmoil of the reverses in U.S. foreign policy will continue to roil throughout the summer; but come autumn, there may be less U.S. appetite (or attention available) for foreign policy initiatives as the economic “winter” approaches. Or, at worst, the sheer overwhelming conflict on the domestic front could invite the notion that a foreign initiative would prove a welcome distraction from economic woes.

    Iran and North Korea are the current U.S. rhetorical punch bags, but neither should ever be contemplated as candidates for some “distraction.” Rather they represent potential nemeses.

    As for the economic woes – not so much QE 4 – but direct, deficit funding helicopter money beckons, perhaps. Which is to say that freshly minted new, “empty” money would be used to directly fund Federal expenditure. (Trump in business, has never shied away from debt).

    Often it is said that there is no precedent to our present extraordinary monetary circumstances, but the history of the Assignat in France of the early 1790s, offers some hints. Despite massive money creation, Andrew White, in his book Fiat Money Inflation in France (published in 1896) notes that “[t]hough paper money had increased in amount, prosperity had steadily diminished. In spite of all the paper issues, commercial activity grew more and more spasmodic. Enterprise was chilled and business became more and more stagnant”.

    Finally, just to be clear, Donald Trump undoubtedly is facilitating the dissolution of the Establishment’s “center” – but that, after all, was his declared aim. But he is not responsible for it. This potential was already latent: he simply saw it – and adroitly, climbed aboard.

    And by the way: Unless you are Alastair Crooke, you cribbed your assignat verbiage from him (https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/28/how-the-center-is-spinning-apart/#comment-277692) without attribution.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Wally says:
    @jilles dykstra
    The USA consumes some 40% of the resources of this world.

    Source?

    And so what if true?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Wally says:
    @Priss Factor
    http://mondoweiss.net/2017/07/transferring-palestinians-palestinian/

    This is actually a good idea but doesn't go far enough.

    Send all Palestinians in Israel to West Bank, and send all Jews in WB to Israel.

    Peace!

    Nope. Palestinians have a right to return to their homeland, Palestine.
    They will never surrender that right.

    Israel, “that shitty little country”, is ultimately doomed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Erebus says:

    McCoy would have done well to have read Ischenko’s Time Is Running Out For Pax Americana’s Apologists article from 2015. It would have given him some badly needed perspective. As it is, he’s simply another unintelligible ringing noise in the Imperial Echo-Chamber.

    The Empire is up against Global systemic limits. Trying to grow it, or even just extend its life will come at the cost of the American nation and people. The McCoys in the Echo-Chamber have, quite literally, lost sight of that. The American nation is in the greatest danger if the McCoys have their way.

    Perhaps, more dangerously (for the world) their mental inertia drives them to continue to think the USM can break through the limits to Empire. If the USM acts on that, America will get a lesson that it will not recover from for 2 or 3 generations.

    The miracle is that a large part of the American people sensed that and tossed Hillary aside. They’re much smarter than the Echo-Chamber.

    http://www.voltairenet.org/article189246.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  83. @Beckow
    Interesting, but Iran today is hardly Zoroastrian. So one has to look at it as it is, not the way it used to be. There is also the question why Zoroastrian thinking largely collapsed and ended up marginalized. The military defeat was definitely a part of it, but was there more to it?

    I read in a German history of Zoroastrianism that it reached a point in 4.-6. century where its internal incoherence and contradictions became impossible to manage, and that it collapsed into an ideological chaos. I don't know if that is true, I don't actually know much more about it, but it did seem to had happened. Why?

    And why would Abrahamic religions try to fight Zoroastrianism if it is today powerless? I see the irrational hatred against Iran, it is definitely there, but I don't think it has much to do with Zoroaster.

    Iran today is hardly Zoroastrian. So one has to look at it as it is, not the way it used to be.

    I agree that the Muslim invasion attempted to eradicate Zoroaster, but also I maintain that Iran’s core ethnic identity remains essentially linked to Zoroaster, in a way similar to Greek identity linkage to Homer and US core identity being linked to the US Declaration/Constitution/Founders.

    Iran’s major monuments are linked to Zoroaster — i.e. the tomb of Cyrus at Pasargadae; Iran’s national epic, the Shahnameh, is said to have incorporated Zoroastrian themes. Reza Pahlavi went overboard in seeking to revitalize ancient Iranian culture — the mullahs are pleased to retain just the rusting skeleton of the vast ceremonial spaces Pahlavi created to celebrate 2500 year commemoration of the Persian empire

    why Zoroastrian thinking largely collapsed

    I suppose Constantine struck the first blow when the Mithrism that most Roman soldiers observed was replaced by the Christian cross — “In hoc signum vincit.” Mohammed completed the task; most Zoroastrians fled to India, where, according to Jorjani, the form of Zoroastrianism practiced by Parsee is distorted and debased.

    As well, Zoroastrianism seems to have several systemic problems: Gatha, the liturgical books/prayers of the Zoroastrians, are not widely distributed nor easily translated; It does not proselytize, does not have an established hierarchy. Zoroastrianism is more a way of life than a creed with dogmas and doctrines. Beyond that, I don’t know enough about Zoroastrianism to opine. I raise the issue because I believe it is a tradition that deserves to be more widely understood.

    And why would Abrahamic religions try to fight Zoroastrianism if it is today powerless? I see the irrational hatred against Iran, it is definitely there, but I don’t think it has much to do with Zoroaster.

    The fundament flaw in the zionist heart/brain is deep-seated inferiority: more than anything else, zionist Jews/Israelis want the world to think of Jews as more important than any other belief system known to man. Jews argue that Cyrus owes his wisdom to the Jewish god.

    In a talk about his book, “Israel’s Periphery Doctrine” at Brooking a few years ago, Yossi Alpher explained this deep-seated need:

    “There are still very senior Israelis — and I have a long list of quotes from people like Ehud Barak, Uri Lubrani,. . . people are still around who were very active in the relationship before the Shah fell and who, indeed, believe to this day that the Islamic Republic is an aberration and a temporary one, and if you somehow push the right military or sanctions button or whatever, they will fall and the good guys will come back to power.

    Now, here I have to go back a little bit to explain how we related, particularly to Iran, Turkey, and Ethiopia, which were, indeed, the pillars of the periphery in the ‘50s and ‘60s and ‘70s. We Israelis, again, back to that isolation — we Israelis, to this day, have a need to — a deep need to be recognized and accepted by the region. You see, Bibi’s demand, which is supported by most Israelis, that the Palestinians recognize us as a Jewish state, or the state of the Jewish people — the nation-state of the Jewish people — this goes way back, this need to be recognized. . . . and so at the height of the periphery doctrine, when things are going well, there’s this sense that the ancient peoples of the Middle East have created an alliance, the people who precede the Arabs, okay. We go back with Iran, we just celebrated Purim, all right, we go back 2,600 years with Iran. The Egyptian, the Ethiopian national narrative is King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. So, this is almost a biblical — a new biblical chapter.

    This is how some people in Israel felt. There were also some people who were just cynical,practitioners of realpolitik. Everybody in Tehran and in Addis and in Ankara were cynical practitioners of realpolitik. They did not reciprocate. They said, we kidded ourselves that they did. And we still do to this day, because if you believe that this is — we are somehow Middle Eastern, ancient blood brothers, then who’s Khomeini? This wasn’t meant to be.

    https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/20150312_israel_periphery

    Christian zionists do not understand this, nor do most Christians who are also knee-jerk supporters of Israel, but the real problem Israel/zionists/Jews have with Iran has nothing to do with nuclear weapons, and is not primarily concerned with Iran as a “state sponsor of terrorism,” (tho Hezbollah has been able to stockpile a significant cache of weapons that can reach deep into Israel).
    What most troubles Israel about Iran is a matter of Jewish identity: as Alpher confessed, the Eastern European Jews who planted themselves in Palestine think of themselves as co-equals to the great Persian empire, and they want the world to recognize them as such. (iow, they’re pathetic.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Z-man says:
    @neutral
    I don't even know why we still use the labels "neocon" and "neoliberal", they are essentially the same thing. If I am wrong, then please can somebody tell me what the difference between the two is, because I cannot see it.

    You are right. They are both globalist, internationalist, Godless elitists. In other words Jews! (Laugh)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @jacques sheete

    And why would Abrahamic religions try to fight Zoroastrianism if it is today powerless?
     
    Probably most of it is utterly irrational, but if you want reason, this may be a huge piece of the puzzle.

    To most Americans of the classes which consider themselves significant the war brought a sense of the sanctity of the State …

    -Randolph Bourne, The State From Untimely Papers (1919)
    http://fair-use.org/randolph-bourne/the-state/
     
    He also remarked that war is the health of the state, and he wasn't the only one who recognized the fraud.

    Agreed, but the worship of the State is somewhat different from the worship of God.

    When I start to see terrorists Jewish, Christian, or Muslim taking potshots at Parsi billionaires, maybe I’ll begin to believe in the “irrational hatred” the adherents of the Abrahamic religions are supposed to have for the followers of Zarathustra.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Dave S says:

    I agree with the author on many points, declining US stewardship and diplomacy, but I think he’s wrong on Trump.
    The man seems to only want aggression when it’s politically convenient, I don’t think he’s a hawk. I’m no Trump fan, he does seem ignorant of foreign affairs but his America first idea, less war more America is why he was elected. Should America have chosen another war monger like Mrs. Clinton? I don’t think so, while he may put a rude touch on the world order, it’s time it changed anyway, who’s not tired of US wars?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  87. Review: All the Kremlin’s Men by Mikhail Zygar

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  88. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Durruti
    Decent comment:

    The Coup D'etat happened on November 22, 1963

    You idealize Casino Trump - a bit much. He is a mid level Mafioso - at the service of the similar Zionists, with some tactical differences (perhaps) with the dominant Rothschilds.

    I am not sure. There is some smoke here. And where there is smoke... There are people like you - thinking... observing... hoping...

    Never before; not even with Nixon, was a President, not even the post JFK - Unconstitutional crowd, so handicapped, so denigrated, so maligned, as is Casino Trump. The Mainstream Media gives him zero respect, only Hatred, and Death Wishes. Even the so-called Republican Media is cold-as-ice. VP Pence was chosen for Trump.

    Before Nixon was replaced, Nixon was ordered to dump Agnew (for 'corruption' -what? a politician corrupt? say what? that was Agnew's crime?). With Warren Commission member, and CIA officer, Gerald Ford, securely in place as unelected VP, Nixon could be safely replaced and the Coup D'etat continued, with another of the treasonous murderers of JFK sitting in the Oval Office.

    The MOSSAD Zionist Foreign take over of our once proud nation has continued into 2017. The rot will deepen, and the sad show of an incompetent (I do not say stupid), Casino Owner supposed President of the United States, being besieged in the very White House Oval Office, in the ruins of a Once Proud Sovereign Nation, and, he, reduced to communicating over the Internet, to get his point of views across.

    What pathos.

    Even Shakespeare, could not have imagined this state of events. Not only does Casino Trump not have a Horse, he barely exists.

    Durruti: for the Anarchist Collective

    Restore the Republic

    I don’t really get the Kennedolatry. Why was he so great?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Durruti
    It is not possible for you to extract "Kennedolatry" from my comments.

    Apparently I must remind you that JF Kennedy was shot out of office (assassinated), in 1963, and his brother, Robert Kennedy, was assassinated after winning the most important California Presidential Primary election 1968.

    The remnants of the American Republic were also destroyed on November 22, 1963. The Israeli Congress (Knesset) rules in DC, its Bankers in Wall Street, and its educators in Hollywood, and the rest of the American brain washing mis-education establishment, (but you are wearing blinders?).

    JF Kennedy, and his family, and their friends, stood in the way, (no-they were not all saints-like you), and they were crushed. The 'saints' kept silent, ignored the elephant in the room, sported cynicism to hide their cowardice, and took shots at those who gave their lives for Liberty.

    Some things underneath the Tree of History will never change.

    Restore the Republic

    Durruti for the Anarchist Collective

    * Below is one of a series of Fliers we circulate - as best we can, It has appeared on this website - thanks to the courageous Ron Unz.

    For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal… governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles…”

    The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson.

    We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.

    The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy destroyed the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963, when they assassinated the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and overthrew his government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.

    A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam, conducted by the murderers of Kennedy, left 2 million dead in a wake of napalm and burning villages.

    In 1965, the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.

    In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala.

    In the 1970s, the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America’s middle class, by encouraging the export of industry and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation’s Oligarchs cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.

    The impoverishment of America’s middle class has undermined the nation’s financial stability. Without a productive foundation, the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion. This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations. Concurrently, the top 1% of the nation’s population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings cannot stay even with the inflation rate.

    The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures, and is or has recently conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much on military weapons of terror as the rest of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget is spent on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.

    The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the Founders of the United States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely tortured. The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act, enacted by both Democratic and Republican factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.

    The nation’s media is controlled, and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population; the people are intimidated and treated with contempt.

    The United States is No longer Sovereign

    The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is bought, utterly owned and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts, to name only a few of the best known.

    The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government, with its controlling International Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations, including ours.

    For Love of Country

    The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with a clean slate.

    As American Founder, Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:

    “I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’:”

    “Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it’s course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation.”

    Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government which will ensure President Franklin Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms, freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom from want “which…means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants…” and freedom from fear “which…means a world-wide reduction of armaments…”

    Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people. We will establish a government, hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage of the previous totalitarian governments.

    For the Democratic Republic!
    Sons and Daughters of Liberty
    florent.defeu@yahoo.com
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @jacques sheete

    ...the Trump White House is already in the process of demolishing the delicately balanced architecture that has sustained Washington’s world leadership...
     
    Delicately balanced? Balanced like a bully with a club.

    Washington's world leadership? You have to be kidding. The denizens of DC are nothing more than lackeys and myrmidons of the banksters that own and run the world.

    Furthermore, the banksters are slave masters not leaders.

    Furthermore, the banksters are slave masters not leaders.

    As is Trump. Do you think a president who ran on a militarist program is going to execute a world military withdrawal? The president who fulminates against North Korea as he takes aim against China?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Ace says:
    @restless94110
    My understanding of the two terms means that they are definitely different, and you could be a neo-con but not a neo-liberal, and vice versa.

    From my readings, here would be a rough definition for both:

    Neo-liberal -- this refers to an economic theory that originated from a university in Chicago (I'm sure someone knows the name of the university, but it escapes me at this point). Neo-liberal economics is the theory that the "free market" self-regulates and needs no or very very little government oversight. It futher posits that government is not the most efficient way of running anything, therefore everything would be better if it were sold off to private interests (i.e., privatized).

    This theory has been proven wrong over and over again, yet it is like a Frankenstein monster and it continues to be revived (like it has just happened in Brazil and Argentina) and promoted everywhere. Privatization of the train system in the United Kingdom was been a catastrophe with ticket prices skyrocketing and no infrastructure repair and improvements being done. Privatizing prisons in the US has only lead to worsening of conditions in the prisons themselves (leading to strikes and riots) and a corporate push to make more laws to ensnare more Americans in the criminal justice system.

    There is a competing economic theory, Monetary Management Theory (MMT) which is offerring real alternatives to neo-liberal economic theory, but the Chicago School has been extremely successful in removing the teaching of all (repeat all--old and new) economic theories other than neo-liberal theory.

    Meanwhile, the failed neo-liberal economics continues to ruin Europe, South America, India, and North America (including especially Mexico).

    Neo-conservative -- this is a theory on foreign policy. It is the rabid belief that America should be, deserves to be the world hegemon and that that hegemony should be enforced by military action, covert and overt (I'm including the CIA in "military action").

    Some analyists have pointed out that the progenitors of neo-conservativism are directly related to Trotskyites, the brand of Communism that believed in world-wide spread of ideology by violent means. Stalin snuffed out Trotsky and his ideology, but those that believe in this method just moved on to the US and believe in the Trotsky ideal: we are right, we are the exceptional people, our way is the way for the world, regime change is what is needed in order to acheive out right, exceptional goals.

    Neo-cons have been in and out of government since the days of Reagan (who apparently threw them out after the Iran-Contra fiasco), but they have successfully infested the Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama Administrations, and may have (too early to tell, but it doesn't look good) infested the Trump Administration.

    But it's Congress, too. McCain and Graham are neo-cons.

    It has also been pointed out that many neo-cons are Jews and that a big component of neo-con ideology is supportive of everything repressive that Isreal is doing, and perfectly matches Israeli goals (as opposed to what's good for the American people).

    So you see, there is a difference.

    No advocate of free enterprise believes the market will self regulate. The invisible hand and competition work wonders but there are people who game the system. Thus courts will award damages for breach of contract, fraud, fraudulent conveyance, false advertising, trade libel, unfair competition, conversion, interference with contract, and appropriation of intellectual property. Securities fraud and combinations in restraint of trade are prohibited though the latter seem not to bother government much. The Uniform Commercial Code is a complex body of law governing the sale of goods and other topics. Real estate law is complex and ignored at one’s peril.

    So there is no wild west that neo-liberals pine after where everything’s done on a handshake. Neo-liberals and free marketeers do not campaign to get rid of any of the things I listed but to remove barriers to entry, Public Service Commissions, rent controls, labor union corruption, punitive zoning and environmental regulations, and provisions for six-week vacations, paid pregnancy leave, restrictions on firing, and minimum wage laws. They don’t care for people who play God with what enterprising people build.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Ace says:
    @Beckow
    The article is incoherent, written in a linear fashion with no thought to the context or any alternatives. What is happening today are simply consequences. That's all. If Clinton was in, or Pence gets in, the overall situation would be about the same. Some details might be different and media would cover it differently, but we would still be living with the consequences of Clinton-Bush-Obama era. And Blaming it on Trump is infantile, the article makes no sense.

    It is not about a few throw-away lines, or 'tweets', or colourful personalities. Those are the usual clownish distractions, they change nothing about the underlying realities. This is about the catastrophic mis-judgments from the recent past. If Clinton or Pence would double down and do TPP, more land invasions, keep on hollowing out the economy and sacrificing the vast lower and middle class, we would be roughly where we are today. You don't change world realities with talk or 'new' personalities. You change it by understanding how it happened, holding the authors accountable, and then moving on.

    What are the mistakes? You can't bring in 2.6 million HiB workers in 10 years, almost all from India, (the official DHS number), plus their families and expect to maintain professional jobs, incomes and opportunities. It simply mathematically cannot be done. You can't fight wars half-way across the world with minuscule forces unable to take casualties, employing a weird collection of opportunistic and crazy 'allies', hoping that somehow the victory will come via dominating the media, or with 'soft power'. Soft power in practise translates into giving money, positions and visas to allies in all those endless conflicts. Well, they will take the money and use the visas to escape the hell-holes, and then what? More 'soft power' with more allies like that? Or more high-tech remote bombing? That can be used to destroy things, but it doesn't work on the ground.

    Trump inherited this and probably never had a chance to change much of it. What we have left is a slow collapse as a consequence of bad policies. No elite has ever voluntarily given up the riches and perks of power. It happens when the system more or less stops functioning. And we are not there yet.

    Excellent comment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @TheJester
    I was going to start reading Alfred McCoy's books based on a recommendation of a commenter in the Unz Review. Given the nonsense in this article, I'll pass.

    A global empire costs money ... lots of it. Since WWII, the United States has established and maintained its worldwide hegemony with bribes and military force. The two foundations of that power are a worldwide network of military bases with a military budget that exceeds the combined military budgets of China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, United Kingdom, India, France, and Japan ... and uneven trade agreements that systematically transfer wealth from the United States to our trading partners. This is not sustainable. We pay to play and that cost has hollowed out our economy. Following in the footsteps of imperial Rome and Britain, we are bankrupt!

    Trump represents the American electorate finally pushing back on the cost of empire before it is too late. The only way to cut our losses is to give up the empire. Trump is doing that by cancelling or renegotiating the ridiculously uneven trade agreements and seeking détente with our geopolitical adversaries. For example, if China wants to view the South China Sea as essential to its security (much like we see the Gulf of Mexico as essential to ours) let it. If Russia and the EU seek an economic and political re-approachment, let them.

    But Trump faces a practical problem. The embedded political and economic interests in the imperial capital, Washington DC, are fighting to sustain their global empire. They have grown rich and powerful as imperial courtesans and want nothing to change. As Trump says, he has to "drain the swamp" in Washington DC to effect real change.

    Put another way, Trump does not have to fix Washington DC to seize our country and our liberties back from the imperial courtesans. He only has to break it.

    For example, if China wants to view the South China Sea as essential to its security (much like we see the Gulf of Mexico as essential to ours) let it.

    You’re claiming Trump believes this?

    No, you don’t campaign for a huge military buildup to stop the country from being imperialist. You don’t cram your government with generals to demilitarize.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Ace says:
    @Sergey Krieger
    Trump has nothing to do with USA losing her standing in the world. It is all of USA elites own making.
    The core of it was in false belief of winning Cold War against USSR. That led to arrogance and disastrous policies towards Russia which included NATO expansion towards Russian borders, denial to Russia any national interests along her own borders, attack on Serbia, abandonment of ABS treaty and basically being untrustworthy and unreliable party which acted toward Russia with obvious aggressive and ulterior motives. Than came alienation of China. Complete disregard of international laws and national interests of other countries even allies, aggression against sovereign states.
    USA never was as powerful as her elites fancied her to be. By that I also mean military and since 2000's her economy as well.
    US leadership could have been sustained for far longer with wise all inclusive and respectful towards major powers interests policies and respect towards laws and system that sustained US leadership. Instead USA has behaved like a mad man and obviously the world has had enough of this lunatic of state. Everyone who is watching USA now can only see lunatics from the top to bottom controlling supposed super duper power. Trump has nothing to do with it, but his presidency is accelerating demise because USA elites went complete nuts and everybody sees now what USA is all about. In short words, USA in current form is cancerous tumor on the world neck which consumes far more that it should and interferes where it has no business at all in the most damaging manner.
    Hence it is quite obvious that other independent major powers are dead set upon cutting USA to her size which means USA national interest being limited to US surroundings. Here comes US$ position which alone sustains current USA ability to create chaos and hubris everywhere. This is being taken care of gradually. Basically the whole financial system of the world is built to benefit USA and considering US behavior aka sanctions, wars and irresponsible financial behavior it won't last.

    ** USA elites went complete nuts and everybody sees now what USA is all about **

    Exactly so. The Trump phenomenon has been fascinating because of what it has revealed about the real political interests and alliances in America. The Never Trumpers have taken political treachery to new heights and Bill Kristol has revealed himself to be unhinged. Whatever Paul Ryan is he’s no Republican and he’d rather die than support Trump. Or stop immigration.

    Trump is derided 10 different ways each day and no one needs a summary of the “Russian collusion” lies. He’s treated as the Antichrist but it never phased these lying hysterics that Obama began his political career in the living room of two communist terrorists, had a forged birth certificate, had a communist mentor, wasn’t constitutionally eligible to be president, had a dead man’s Social Security number, attended a church where the pastor said, “God damn America! God damn America!”, and whose closest political adviser in the WH was a woman with a communist father, grandfather, and father-in-law. That guy was just fine with the hysterics, as was the guy who did a lot more than talk about grabbing women’s private parts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Roberto says:
    @Fidelios Automata
    Is wrecking the US Empire supposed to be a BAD thing? Trump is the proverbial bull in a china shop, which is one of the reasons I voted for him.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Durruti says:
    @Anon
    I don't really get the Kennedolatry. Why was he so great?

    It is not possible for you to extract “Kennedolatry” from my comments.

    Apparently I must remind you that JF Kennedy was shot out of office (assassinated), in 1963, and his brother, Robert Kennedy, was assassinated after winning the most important California Presidential Primary election 1968.

    The remnants of the American Republic were also destroyed on November 22, 1963. The Israeli Congress (Knesset) rules in DC, its Bankers in Wall Street, and its educators in Hollywood, and the rest of the American brain washing mis-education establishment, (but you are wearing blinders?).

    JF Kennedy, and his family, and their friends, stood in the way, (no-they were not all saints-like you), and they were crushed. The ‘saints’ kept silent, ignored the elephant in the room, sported cynicism to hide their cowardice, and took shots at those who gave their lives for Liberty.

    Some things underneath the Tree of History will never change.

    Restore the Republic

    Durruti for the Anarchist Collective

    * Below is one of a series of Fliers we circulate – as best we can, It has appeared on this website – thanks to the courageous Ron Unz.

    [MORE]

    For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal… governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles…”

    The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson.

    We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.

    The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy destroyed the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963, when they assassinated the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and overthrew his government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.

    A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam, conducted by the murderers of Kennedy, left 2 million dead in a wake of napalm and burning villages.

    In 1965, the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.

    In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala.

    In the 1970s, the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America’s middle class, by encouraging the export of industry and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation’s Oligarchs cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.

    The impoverishment of America’s middle class has undermined the nation’s financial stability. Without a productive foundation, the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion. This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations. Concurrently, the top 1% of the nation’s population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings cannot stay even with the inflation rate.

    The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures, and is or has recently conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much on military weapons of terror as the rest of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget is spent on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.

    The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the Founders of the United States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely tortured. The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act, enacted by both Democratic and Republican factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.

    The nation’s media is controlled, and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population; the people are intimidated and treated with contempt.

    The United States is No longer Sovereign

    The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is bought, utterly owned and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts, to name only a few of the best known.

    The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government, with its controlling International Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations, including ours.

    For Love of Country

    The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with a clean slate.

    As American Founder, Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:

    “I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’:”

    “Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it’s course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation.”

    Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government which will ensure President Franklin Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms, freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom from want “which…means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants…” and freedom from fear “which…means a world-wide reduction of armaments…”

    Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people. We will establish a government, hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage of the previous totalitarian governments.

    For the Democratic Republic!
    Sons and Daughters of Liberty
    florent.defeu@yahoo.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Again, I don't get it. How were either Joseph P. or John F. not elements of the Deep State you complain so much about? How do you see in the assassination anything other than a squabble among factions of elites? As a devotee of Durruti, why do you oppose presidential assassinations at all?

    By the way, when I referred to Kennedolatry, I wasn't referring to you specifically, as you were right in saying that it couldn't be extracted from your previous comment, but to the phenomenon in general, which I find bizarre.
    , @Ace
    ** in a wake of napalm and burning villages **

    It would be more accurate to say "in a wake of napalm and and other attacks on VC and NVA positions. No American I knew in Nam would attack a purely civilian target for no reason. We were interested in finding, fixing, and destroying the enemy and strikes were called in or attacks made on what were believed to be enemy positions.

    Period.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Durruti
    It is not possible for you to extract "Kennedolatry" from my comments.

    Apparently I must remind you that JF Kennedy was shot out of office (assassinated), in 1963, and his brother, Robert Kennedy, was assassinated after winning the most important California Presidential Primary election 1968.

    The remnants of the American Republic were also destroyed on November 22, 1963. The Israeli Congress (Knesset) rules in DC, its Bankers in Wall Street, and its educators in Hollywood, and the rest of the American brain washing mis-education establishment, (but you are wearing blinders?).

    JF Kennedy, and his family, and their friends, stood in the way, (no-they were not all saints-like you), and they were crushed. The 'saints' kept silent, ignored the elephant in the room, sported cynicism to hide their cowardice, and took shots at those who gave their lives for Liberty.

    Some things underneath the Tree of History will never change.

    Restore the Republic

    Durruti for the Anarchist Collective

    * Below is one of a series of Fliers we circulate - as best we can, It has appeared on this website - thanks to the courageous Ron Unz.

    For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal… governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles…”

    The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson.

    We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.

    The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy destroyed the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963, when they assassinated the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and overthrew his government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.

    A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam, conducted by the murderers of Kennedy, left 2 million dead in a wake of napalm and burning villages.

    In 1965, the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.

    In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala.

    In the 1970s, the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America’s middle class, by encouraging the export of industry and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation’s Oligarchs cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.

    The impoverishment of America’s middle class has undermined the nation’s financial stability. Without a productive foundation, the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion. This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations. Concurrently, the top 1% of the nation’s population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings cannot stay even with the inflation rate.

    The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures, and is or has recently conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much on military weapons of terror as the rest of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget is spent on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.

    The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the Founders of the United States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely tortured. The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act, enacted by both Democratic and Republican factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.

    The nation’s media is controlled, and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population; the people are intimidated and treated with contempt.

    The United States is No longer Sovereign

    The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is bought, utterly owned and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts, to name only a few of the best known.

    The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government, with its controlling International Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations, including ours.

    For Love of Country

    The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with a clean slate.

    As American Founder, Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:

    “I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’:”

    “Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it’s course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation.”

    Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government which will ensure President Franklin Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms, freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom from want “which…means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants…” and freedom from fear “which…means a world-wide reduction of armaments…”

    Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people. We will establish a government, hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage of the previous totalitarian governments.

    For the Democratic Republic!
    Sons and Daughters of Liberty
    florent.defeu@yahoo.com

    Again, I don’t get it. How were either Joseph P. or John F. not elements of the Deep State you complain so much about? How do you see in the assassination anything other than a squabble among factions of elites? As a devotee of Durruti, why do you oppose presidential assassinations at all?

    By the way, when I referred to Kennedolatry, I wasn’t referring to you specifically, as you were right in saying that it couldn’t be extracted from your previous comment, but to the phenomenon in general, which I find bizarre.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Kirt says:

    Dismantling American global hegemony is one of those things to which a saying of Chesterton might apply. “Anything worth doing at all is worth doing badly.” I’d like to see US hegemony dismantled in an intelligent fashion but if Trump gets it done at all, his presidency will not have been a total waste.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  98. Thirdeye says:

    The Suez Crisis was a demonstration, not a cause, of the British Empire’s decline. The Brits had done many such things over the previous centuries but the rules had changed for them in the postwar era with the US in the position of senior partner. The center of imperial financial power shifted from London to New York over the course of two world wars and that was driven home first by Roosevelt with the Atlantic Charter then by Eisenhower. To be honest I can understand why the Brits might feel blindsided by the US response after US acquiescence towards France’s postwar attempts at imperial resurgence in Indochina and Algeria.

    The imperial overreach that cracked the British Empire’s power occurred as a result of playing their Nineteenth Century “Great Game” in a Twentieth Century environment, when industrial power in continental Europe was rising and rail transport had developed to the point that land power could no longer be suppressed by naval power. The long-term objective of dominance over the Near East and the Caucasus region faced a new obstacle in industrialized Germany. Alliance with France and Russia and entanglement of the US, first financially then militarily, in their war against the new continental rivals, delivered their preliminary objectives: elimination of their most immediate rivals on the continent, client states in eastern Europe that could help take care of unfinished business with Russia, and dominance over the Near East. But the financial result undermined their long-term agency and their short-term efforts at dominating Russia through civil and proxy wars came to naught. Further projection of British and French power into eastern Europe became impossible when Germany again emerged as an independent power setting their own agenda. With the misfortune of having their French continental ally defeated before the Soviet Union could be defeated, the end of the Great Game and the shift in global imperial power to the United States were inevitable. But British Imperial ideology lived in denial; their insistence on an Italian – Balkan strategy in 1943, with the objective of projecting British power into eastern Europe, derailed the Anglo-American war effort for a year and British efforts to undermine the Tehran and Yalta agreements put the world on the path to the Cold War.

    American imperial overreach occurred in Vietnam, but the consequences were defused by skillful diplomacy on the part of the Nixon Administration. After a few years the Afghanistan project was launched, which is credited falsely with leading to the downfall of the Soviet Union, and with consequences that came home on 9/11. But the biggest overreaches occurred in the 1990-present endgame of Brzezinsky’s Grand Chessboard, when the imperial powers’ play to dominate the former Soviet Union created new, albeit temporarily weak, opposition, and the 2003 – 2015 drive to eliminate the remaining independent powers in MENA and the Ukraine solidified opposition and resulted in a costly stalemate. Trade-bribery deals like the TTIP and TPP can only buy loyalty while undermining long-term financial stability at home. Unlike the Brits, we have no financial sugar daddy across the ocean to prop us up in our overreach. In fact, the rising financial power center in China is bolstering the opposition with structures such as the Shanghai Co-operation Association, the Asian Infrastructure Development Bank, and the New Silk Road. Unlike 30 or even 20 years ago, weaponized financial systems are manifestly counterproductive. The American imperium is essentially finished. If the US acts in denial the result will be a demonstration, not a cause, of the decline.

    Read More
    • Agree: JL
    • Replies: @Erebus
    As good a 600 word overview of last 100 yrs of the chessboard as one could hope for. Thanks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Ace says:
    @Durruti
    It is not possible for you to extract "Kennedolatry" from my comments.

    Apparently I must remind you that JF Kennedy was shot out of office (assassinated), in 1963, and his brother, Robert Kennedy, was assassinated after winning the most important California Presidential Primary election 1968.

    The remnants of the American Republic were also destroyed on November 22, 1963. The Israeli Congress (Knesset) rules in DC, its Bankers in Wall Street, and its educators in Hollywood, and the rest of the American brain washing mis-education establishment, (but you are wearing blinders?).

    JF Kennedy, and his family, and their friends, stood in the way, (no-they were not all saints-like you), and they were crushed. The 'saints' kept silent, ignored the elephant in the room, sported cynicism to hide their cowardice, and took shots at those who gave their lives for Liberty.

    Some things underneath the Tree of History will never change.

    Restore the Republic

    Durruti for the Anarchist Collective

    * Below is one of a series of Fliers we circulate - as best we can, It has appeared on this website - thanks to the courageous Ron Unz.

    For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal… governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles…”

    The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson.

    We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.

    The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy destroyed the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963, when they assassinated the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and overthrew his government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.

    A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam, conducted by the murderers of Kennedy, left 2 million dead in a wake of napalm and burning villages.

    In 1965, the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.

    In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala.

    In the 1970s, the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America’s middle class, by encouraging the export of industry and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation’s Oligarchs cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.

    The impoverishment of America’s middle class has undermined the nation’s financial stability. Without a productive foundation, the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion. This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations. Concurrently, the top 1% of the nation’s population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings cannot stay even with the inflation rate.

    The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures, and is or has recently conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much on military weapons of terror as the rest of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget is spent on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.

    The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the Founders of the United States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely tortured. The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act, enacted by both Democratic and Republican factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.

    The nation’s media is controlled, and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population; the people are intimidated and treated with contempt.

    The United States is No longer Sovereign

    The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is bought, utterly owned and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts, to name only a few of the best known.

    The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government, with its controlling International Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations, including ours.

    For Love of Country

    The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with a clean slate.

    As American Founder, Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:

    “I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’:”

    “Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it’s course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation.”

    Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government which will ensure President Franklin Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms, freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom from want “which…means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants…” and freedom from fear “which…means a world-wide reduction of armaments…”

    Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people. We will establish a government, hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage of the previous totalitarian governments.

    For the Democratic Republic!
    Sons and Daughters of Liberty
    florent.defeu@yahoo.com

    ** in a wake of napalm and burning villages **

    It would be more accurate to say “in a wake of napalm and and other attacks on VC and NVA positions. No American I knew in Nam would attack a purely civilian target for no reason. We were interested in finding, fixing, and destroying the enemy and strikes were called in or attacks made on what were believed to be enemy positions.

    Period.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    No American I knew in Nam would attack a purely civilian target for no reason
     
    Sure....sure....

    Bridges (civilians traffic, vehicular and on foot....).
    Railway stations......(employees/passengers.....)
    Ports..........(employees/passengers/ship crews/fishermen....).
    Power plants (employees......or, people in downstream of broken dam...).
    Factories..............................workshops........TV/radio stations....
    Etc....etc...

    Fear not; enough of "lawyer semantics" and all that just becomes "legitimate military target"...

    It does pay when you are a member of Empire's military machine (or valued ally).
    What is a war crime for "bovi"....it's, at worst, "unfortunate collateral damage" for "Iovi".
    Feels good though.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. peterAUS says:
    @Ace
    ** in a wake of napalm and burning villages **

    It would be more accurate to say "in a wake of napalm and and other attacks on VC and NVA positions. No American I knew in Nam would attack a purely civilian target for no reason. We were interested in finding, fixing, and destroying the enemy and strikes were called in or attacks made on what were believed to be enemy positions.

    Period.

    No American I knew in Nam would attack a purely civilian target for no reason

    Sure….sure….

    Bridges (civilians traffic, vehicular and on foot….).
    Railway stations……(employees/passengers…..)
    Ports……….(employees/passengers/ship crews/fishermen….).
    Power plants (employees……or, people in downstream of broken dam…).
    Factories…………………………workshops……..TV/radio stations….
    Etc….etc…

    Fear not; enough of “lawyer semantics” and all that just becomes “legitimate military target”…

    It does pay when you are a member of Empire’s military machine (or valued ally).
    What is a war crime for “bovi”….it’s, at worst, “unfortunate collateral damage” for “Iovi”.
    Feels good though.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Erebus says:
    @Thirdeye
    The Suez Crisis was a demonstration, not a cause, of the British Empire's decline. The Brits had done many such things over the previous centuries but the rules had changed for them in the postwar era with the US in the position of senior partner. The center of imperial financial power shifted from London to New York over the course of two world wars and that was driven home first by Roosevelt with the Atlantic Charter then by Eisenhower. To be honest I can understand why the Brits might feel blindsided by the US response after US acquiescence towards France's postwar attempts at imperial resurgence in Indochina and Algeria.

    The imperial overreach that cracked the British Empire's power occurred as a result of playing their Nineteenth Century "Great Game" in a Twentieth Century environment, when industrial power in continental Europe was rising and rail transport had developed to the point that land power could no longer be suppressed by naval power. The long-term objective of dominance over the Near East and the Caucasus region faced a new obstacle in industrialized Germany. Alliance with France and Russia and entanglement of the US, first financially then militarily, in their war against the new continental rivals, delivered their preliminary objectives: elimination of their most immediate rivals on the continent, client states in eastern Europe that could help take care of unfinished business with Russia, and dominance over the Near East. But the financial result undermined their long-term agency and their short-term efforts at dominating Russia through civil and proxy wars came to naught. Further projection of British and French power into eastern Europe became impossible when Germany again emerged as an independent power setting their own agenda. With the misfortune of having their French continental ally defeated before the Soviet Union could be defeated, the end of the Great Game and the shift in global imperial power to the United States were inevitable. But British Imperial ideology lived in denial; their insistence on an Italian - Balkan strategy in 1943, with the objective of projecting British power into eastern Europe, derailed the Anglo-American war effort for a year and British efforts to undermine the Tehran and Yalta agreements put the world on the path to the Cold War.

    American imperial overreach occurred in Vietnam, but the consequences were defused by skillful diplomacy on the part of the Nixon Administration. After a few years the Afghanistan project was launched, which is credited falsely with leading to the downfall of the Soviet Union, and with consequences that came home on 9/11. But the biggest overreaches occurred in the 1990-present endgame of Brzezinsky's Grand Chessboard, when the imperial powers' play to dominate the former Soviet Union created new, albeit temporarily weak, opposition, and the 2003 - 2015 drive to eliminate the remaining independent powers in MENA and the Ukraine solidified opposition and resulted in a costly stalemate. Trade-bribery deals like the TTIP and TPP can only buy loyalty while undermining long-term financial stability at home. Unlike the Brits, we have no financial sugar daddy across the ocean to prop us up in our overreach. In fact, the rising financial power center in China is bolstering the opposition with structures such as the Shanghai Co-operation Association, the Asian Infrastructure Development Bank, and the New Silk Road. Unlike 30 or even 20 years ago, weaponized financial systems are manifestly counterproductive. The American imperium is essentially finished. If the US acts in denial the result will be a demonstration, not a cause, of the decline.

    As good a 600 word overview of last 100 yrs of the chessboard as one could hope for. Thanks.

    Read More
    • Agree: Stephen R. Diamond
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. fishfry says:

    Only one thing wrong with this scenario. The F-35 will never get off the ground.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  103. Ace says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    For example, the Ancient Romans knew this, and their exceptionally long lasting Empire offered local leaders the possibility of genuine Roman citizenship along with an efficient administration that benefited themselves and Rome.
     
    Right you are on that point. However, most traditional empires -- like that of the Romans -- were run by a professional warrior/administrator caste, who specialized in actually running countries, not just destroying them or sucking money out of them, as our banksters do. That's why Rome lasted so many centuries, whereas the Washington Reich will soon collapse.

    Nor was Rome obsessed with conforming their entire foreign policy to satisfy the needs of the Welsh nation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Ace says:
    @restless94110
    These lunatics influence--on the neo-liberal side: All the governments of Europe, several in South America, India, Mexico, Canada, the US, South Africa, and I am sure, others that I don't know about or forgot to mention. They also influence all but one Economics department in America and England. Their philosophy has been deseminated to the populace by blending it with Ayn Rand's flawed theories and some from Libertarian concepts.

    No matter how little success in the long run this theory has, Maggie Thatcher's refrain "There Is No Alternative" (TINA) seems to be the controlling factor. It is literally insane. The only thing about it is that it takes so long to fully decimate everything. It's like the frog in the pan where the water slowly comes to a boil. The frog doesn't notice.

    Human beings just can't comprehend outcomes that last longer than a generation or so. That's why Toynbee said that the next great war will start as soon as the last survivor of the previous great war passes on. That would be just about now. The oldest who went throuth WWII are now in their 80s and 90s.

    These lunatics influence--on the neo-con side: there are a ton of "think" tanks, talking heads, "experts," policy wonks in DC who are straight up neo-con. They literally infest the place and it is difficult to not appoint some of them to office. Every day you see neo-con Bolton on Fox yammering on like some expert about foreign affairs. It's sickening really. But neo-cons can always hide behind patriotism and national security. This is of course, to say nothing of the neo-cons in the MSM, pumping out op-ed after op-ed with the neo-con bent.

    All of this Russia shit is just neo-con shit. Neo-con Victoria Nuland was key in overthrowing the democratically elected Ukraine governement and replacing it with neo-Nazi Western Ukraine Russia haters. When the citizens of Crimea voted, in a freely held plebescite, to go with Russia, and did so by 90 percent(!), the neo-cons then claimed that Russia was an agressor. And they claim that to this day. And it has affected US foreign policy, warping it extremely.

    I could go on, but all you have to do is look at history, especially the last 16 years, and you can see example after example.

    It's all there out in the open. But you have to look for it, and few have the time or the inclination.

    I just read some WaPo articles on Syria. A rare event and I was reminded why. The anti-Russia, Trump-the-tool-of-Putin, moderate-rebels stuff was cartoonish. Jornolist lives on and they lay it on with a trowel. It’s ALL about Israel and Iran, which is to say, Israel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Paul C. says:

    There’s no way I would read this trash. The author is quoting MSM journalists. What a joke. He also believes in the US’ “Global Power”. He doesn’t realize the US is a pawn of Israel and the zionists who control it. He also doesn’t see that we’re operating illegally and are completely immoral. And yet he’s a professor?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  106. JVassar says:
    @Fidelios Automata
    Is wrecking the US Empire supposed to be a BAD thing? Trump is the proverbial bull in a china shop, which is one of the reasons I voted for him.

    Alfred McCoy apparently has no concept of what average Americans have been dealing with for the last 40 years. That is why Donald Trump was elected President of the United States by the outraged and beleagured Working and Middle Classes. Until the elites “get-a-clue” the political situation will continue to deteriorate and the elites will continue to blame the voters and the popultists they put in office …..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?