The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewC.J. Hopkins Archive
The Ongoing Restructuring of the Greater Middle East
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

So, according to the corporate media, and to President Literally Hitler, himself, while America was sleeping last Friday morning, the U.S. Air Force was just minutes away from bombing the bejesus out of some desolate outposts somewhere in the Iranian desert and launching another catastrophic military blunder in the Middle East.

At approximately 0400 Zulu time, President Hitler and his top advisors (among them, John “the Walrus of Death” Bolton) were gathered in the Pentagon’s War Room, flight paths arcing across the big board. The hotline to Vladimir Putin’s office in St. Basil’s Cathedral in Moscow had been activated. The full force of the U.S. military was about to be brought to bear upon a package of top-level Iranian targets with no strategic value whatsoever. Apparently, “planes were in the air!” It was all so terribly, terribly exciting.

This awesome demonstration of American resolve was meant to be punishment for the vicious slaughter of an expensive U.S. military drone, which was peacefully invading Iranian airspace, and not at all attempting to provoke the Iranians into blowing it out of the sky with a missile so the U.S. military could “retaliate.” The military-industrial complex would never dream of doing anything like that, not even to further the destabilization and restructuring of the Greater Middle East that they’ve been systematically carrying out the since the collapse of the former Soviet Union, which … more on that in just a moment.

Nor did the incursion into Iranian airspace of this non-provocative military drone have anything whatsoever to do with the crippling economic sanctions the U.S.A. has imposed on Iran in order to completely destroy its economy and foment a coup against its leaders, who are allegedly conspiring with Hezbollah and al Qaeda to develop an arsenal of nuclear weapons to launch at Israel and Saudi Arabia, and other peaceful Middle Eastern democracies, and who were possibly responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and, who knows, maybe even the Holocaust!

Iran, remember, is a “terrorist nation,” which is not playing ball with the “international community,” which is why NATO has it completely surrounded and is flying hundred million dollar military drones up and down its coastline. Also, they don’t like homosexuals (i.e., the Iranians, not NATO, of course), and they burn big American flags on television, and are generally Hitlerian in every other way. On top of which, they’re allies of Russia, the fount of all democracy-hating, fascist evil in the world today.

Which, I don’t know, makes it kind of weird that President Hitler would want to attack them, and destroy their economy with those crippling sanctions. I mean, why would Putin allow him to do that? What was the point of brainwashing all those African Americans with those Facebook ads if his Manchurian President Hitler Puppet was just going to let The Walrus of Death and his deep state cronies bomb his allies? Honestly, the more I watch of this movie, the less the plot makes sense to me … but, hey, I’m just a political satirist, and not a professional Putin-Naziologist, or a geopolitical analyst, or whatever.

If I were (i.e., a geopolitical analyst), I guess I might want to take a step back and try to frame last week’s events within a broader historical context, rather than getting all worked up by the manufactured mass hysteria of the moment. If I did that, things might look a bit clearer, albeit somewhat less terribly exciting.

For example, that destabilization and restructuring of the Greater Middle East I just mentioned above, which has been in progress since the early 1990s, regardless of who was sleeping in the White House. The Gulf War, the Iraq War, the “Arab Spring,” Egypt, Libya, Syria, et cetera … if I were a geopolitical analyst, I might be able to discern a pattern there, and possibly even some sort of strategy.

If I were a particularly cynical analyst, it might look to me like global capitalism, starting right around 1990, freed by the collapse of the U.S.S.R. to do whatever the hell it wanted, more or less immediately started dismantling uncooperative power structures throughout the Greater Middle East. My cynical theory would kind of make sense of the “catastrophic policy blunders” that the United States has supposedly made in Iraq, Libya, and throughout the region, not to mention the whole “Global War on Terror,” and what it is currently doing to Syria, and Iran.

Take a good look at this Smithsonian map of where the U.S.A. is “combating terrorism.” Note how the U.S. military (i.e., global capitalism’s unofficial “enforcer”) has catastrophically blundered its way into more or less every nation depicted. Or ask our “allies” in Saudi Arabia, Israel, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and so on. OK, you might have to reach them in New York or London, or in the South of France this time of year, but, go ahead, ask them about the horrors they’ve been suffering on account of our “catastrophic blunders.”

See, according to this crackpot conspiracy theory that I would put forth if I were a geopolitical analyst instead of just a political satirist, there have been no “catastrophic policy blunders,” not for global capitalism. The Restructuring of the Greater Middle East is proceeding exactly according to plan. The regional ruling classes are playing ball, and those who wouldn’t have been regime-changed, or are being regime-changed, or are scheduled for regime change.

Sure, for the actual people of the region, and for regular Americans, the last thirty years of wars, “strategic” bombings, sanctions, fomented coups, and other such shenanigans have been a pointless waste of lives and money … but global capitalism doesn’t care about people or the “sovereign nations” they believe they live in, except to the extent they are useful. Global capitalism has no nations. All it has are market territories, which are either open for business or not.

Take a look at that map again. What you’re looking at is global capitalism cleaning up after winning the Cold War. And yes, I do mean global capitalism, not the United States of America (i.e., the “nation” most Americans think they live in, despite all evidence to the contrary). I know it hurts to accept the fact that “America” is nothing but a simulation projected onto an enormous marketplace … but seriously, do you honestly believe that the U.S. government and its military serve the interests of the American people? If so, go ahead, review the history of their activities since the Second World War, and explain to me how they have benefited Americans … not the corporatist ruling classes, regular working class Americans, many of whom can’t afford to see a doctor, or buy a house, or educate their kids, not without assuming a lifetime of debt to some global financial institution.

OK, so I digressed a little. The point is, “America” is not at war with Iran. Global capitalism is at war with Iran. The supranational corporatist empire. Yes, it wears an American face, and waves a big American flag, but it is no more “American” than the corporations it comprises, or the governments those corporations own, or the military forces those governments control, or the transnational banks that keep the whole show running.

This is what Iran and Syria are up against. This is what Russia is up against. Global capitalism doesn’t want to nuke them, or occupy them. It wants to privatize them, like it is privatizing the rest of the world, like it has already privatized America … according to my crackpot theory, of course.

But, again, I’m just a political satirist, not a geopolitical analyst. What the hell do I know about anything? Probably, if we just impeach Donald Trump, or The Walrus of Death, or elect Joe Biden, or Bernie Sanders, or some other individual, we can put an end to all these catastrophic blunders that America keeps making in the Middle East.

So forget about my crackpot conspiracy theories, and let’s get back to whatever terribly exciting crisis is unfolding today. Seriously, my brain kind of hurts. I can’t wait to switch on the Internet and find out who’s threatening America at the moment … Russians, Iranians, Venezuelans, anti-Semites, Mexican migrants, Nazis? The possibilities are endless.

Ready? OK, here we go.

C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23, is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant Paperbacks. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org.

 
Hide 64 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. John “the Walrus of Death” Bolton

    Hmmm … I thought The Walrus was Paul.

    • LOL: Escher
    • Replies: @Digital Samizdat
  2. The scalpel says: • Website

    Its a freight train to war. It moves slowly at first but its hell to try and stop.

  3. Biff says:

    . And yes, I do mean global capitalism, not the United States of America (i.e., the “nation” most Americans think they live in, despite all evidence to the contrary). I know it hurts to accept the fact that “America” is nothing but a simulation projected onto an enormous marketplace … but seriously, do you honestly believe that the U.S. government and its military serve the interests of the American people?

    It’s like the twilight zone when I watch them line up to vote.

  4. cj is right of course and his ideas are not new.

    just google general smedley butler anytime in the 1930’s and you will see this articulated beautifully… as he prosaically described his job in central america as being the muscleman for citibank (whatever they were called then) and chiquita banana

    neverthless for transnational banking to privatise nations so to speak it require an enforcer or muscleman. this role has always been the us military terrorizing the planet.

    this is no longer the case and without a credible thug to back up your financial demands bankers just can not make their desires quite as well.

    the us sec treasury in 2005-2007 tried several times on trips to privatise wall streets access into the chinese capital markets but was told to piss off leading into the western worlds financial COLLAPSE (from which by the way it has recovered).

    oddly enough the chinese fire wall against the wall street attempted raid in 2007 saved them from the worst of it.

    • Replies: @PetrOldSack
  5. global capitalism

    Are you channeling Actually Hitler and Stalin, who referred to “rootless cosmopolitans” as being at the root of the world’s problems?

  6. @paraglider

    the us sec treasury in 2005-2007 tried several times on trips to privatise wall streets access into the chinese capital markets but was told to piss off leading into the western worlds financial COLLAPSE (from which by the way it has recovered).

    oddly enough the chinese fire wall against the wall street attempted raid in 2007 saved them from the worst of it.

    It took a long time of drooling, for the Chinese elites, the most aligned player for “grabs of what is left” before wiping the Wall Street spit of their faces.

    Recovered? What does Global Finance do to add to the global assets and liabilities balance that can be called “recover”.

    As for the meatbags world, rectal extraction as usual of “alternative” media, and bottom consumerism is not where the toe hurts.

    The global elites include now Russian and Chinese elite interests, and anything in the public domain is not going to alter interaction. The “secretive” deal to materialize is probably a nuclear waste belt, across the globe, where robots can mine the riches, and humans cannot bother. We see no objections to that as far as a home free for establishment anywhere. Feel free to steal and “book” this idea, it is an interesting one, there are very few options for interesting scenarios for “public intellectuals”.

  7. peterAUS says:

    …if I were a geopolitical analyst, I might be able to discern a pattern there, and possibly even some sort of strategy.

    Sounds good.
    Some other people did it before, wrote it down etc. but it’s always good to see that stuff.

    it might look to me like global capitalism, starting right around 1990, freed by the collapse of the U.S.S.R. to do whatever the hell it wanted, more or less immediately started dismantling uncooperative power structures throughout the Greater Middle East.
    ….there have been no “catastrophic policy blunders,” not for global capitalism. The Restructuring of the Greater Middle East is proceeding exactly according to plan. The regional ruling classes are playing ball, and those who wouldn’t have been regime-changed, or are being regime-changed, or are scheduled for regime change.
    Sure, for the actual people of the region, and for regular Americans, the last thirty years of wars, “strategic” bombings, sanctions, fomented coups, and other such shenanigans have been a pointless waste of lives and money … but global capitalism doesn’t care about people or the “sovereign nations” they believe they live in, except to the extent they are useful. Global capitalism has no nations. All it has are market territories, which are either open for business or not.

    Spot on.

    Now….there IS a bit of oversight in the article re competing groups of people on top of that “Global capitalist” bunch.
    It’s a bit more complicated than “Global capitalism”.

    Jewish heavily influenced, perhaps even controlled, Anglo-Saxon “setup”….. or Russian “setup”…… or Chinese “setup”.
    Only one of them can be on the top, and they don’t like each other much.
    And they all have nuclear weapons.

    “Global capitalism” idea is optimistic. The global overwhelming force against little players. No chance of MAD there so not that bad.NOPE IMHO.
    There is a chance of MAD.

    That is the problem. Well, at least for some people.

  8. Globalists are not Capitalists. There is no competition. Just a hand full of monopolies. These stateless corporate monopolists are better understood as Feudalists. They would have everything. We would have nothing. That’s what privatization is. It’s the Lords ripping off the proles.

    I was a union man in my youth. We liked Capitalism. We just wanted our fair share of the loot. The working class today knows nothing about organizing. They don’t even know they are working class. They think they are black or white. Woke or Deplorable.

    ALL OF US non billionaires are coming up on serious hard times. Serious enough that we might have to put aside our differences. The government is corrupt. It will not save us. Instead it will continue to work to divide us.

    Reparations anyone?

  9. Escher says:

    The Restructuring of the Greater Middle East is proceeding exactly according to plan.

    Not for global capitalism, but to make the middle east safe for (a certain) “democracy” and the Modernizing Butcher of Saudi.

  10. Parbes says:

    Yet another bullseye piece… Keep them coming, Mr. Hopkins – destined to be remembered as one of the topmost political writers of our time!

  11. dimples says:

    “it might look to me like global capitalism, starting right around 1990, freed by the collapse of the U.S.S.R. to do whatever the hell it wanted, more or less immediately started dismantling uncooperative power structures throughout the Greater Middle East.”

    Puhleze, but sorry that’s all wrong. Its just the USMIC changing its target after the Cold War closed down. Its lucrative excuse to milk the ever willing herd of dairy cows/US people/saps of gigantic amounts of their high protein money needed some fresh updating. This took the form of new targets in the Middle East and the fake War on Terror. I conclude that C.J. Hopkins is a paid USMIC troll. He’s softened us up with plenty of quality Putin-Nazi satire, and now he’s delivering the real disinformation payload.

  12. Another great article by C J Hopkins.
    Hopkins (correctly) posits that behind US actions, wars etc lies the global capitalist class.
    “Global capitalism has no nations. All it has are market territories, which are either open for business or not”
    This is correct — but requires an important caveat.
    Intrinsic to capitalism is imperialism. They are the head & tail of the same coin.
    Global capitalists may unite in their rapacious attacks on average citizens the world over. However, they will disunite when it comes to beating a competitor to a market.
    The “West” has no (real) ideological differences with China, Russia & Iran. This is a fight between an existing hegemon & it’s allies & a rising hegemon (China) & it’s allies.
    In many ways it’s similar to the WW I situation: an established imperial country, the UK, & it’s allies against a country with imperial pretensions — Germany (& it’s allies)
    To put it in a nice little homily: the Capitalist wolves prefer to eat sheep (us) — but, will happily eat each other should they perceive a sufficient interest in doing so.

  13. @The Alarmist

    You’re out of your element, Donny! 😀 😀 😀

  14. @WorkingClass

    Globalists are not Capitalists. There is no competition. Just a hand full of monopolies.

    In most key sectors, competition ends up producing monopolies or their near-equivalent, oligopolies. The many are weeded out (or swallowed up) by the few. The situation is roughly the same with democracy, which historically has always resulted in oligarchy, as occurred in ancient Rome and Athens.

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
  15. if I were a geopolitical analyst, I might be able to discern a pattern there, and possibly even some sort of strategy

    Philip Zelikow, who advised George Bush I, discerned a pattern and spake thus in 2002: ‘Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990—it’s the threat against Israel.’

    In the same article, Middle East expert Nathan Brown adds that ‘the Israelis are probably more concerned about Iran than they were about Iraq in terms of the long-term strategic threat.’

    • Replies: @Johnny Rottenborough
  16. Stick says:

    Globalists Uber Alles. Revenge of the Nerds?

  17. @Johnny Rottenborough

    Mea culpa. Zelikow advised George Bush II.

    • Replies: @Moi
  18. Yes. There are ways to curb these tendencies. Anti trust legislation is one. What do you suggest in lieu of Capitalism and/or Democracy?

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
  19. @WorkingClass

    I’m sorry. I should have said that there are ways to curb these tendencies that require honest and intelligent governance. All you can do with a corrupt government is try to find workarounds.

  20. @Digital Samizdat

    18 and 19 were meant for you. I can’t seem to get my shit together.

  21. Sam J. says:

    “…freed by the collapse of the U.S.S.R. to do whatever the hell it wanted, more or less immediately started dismantling uncooperative power structures throughout the Greater Middle East….”

    No it’s the Jews.

    The Jews think that by killing off all the secular Muslim leaders that can then get all the different tribes to fight each other. So far this looks like a great theory but the Jews always lose in the end. They don’t think out far enough and the Jews have little to no impulse control. Their lust for power and control knows no limits and that’s where they get in trouble.

    Once these people are beaten down enough they will eventually find someone who has been through all the wars and the destruction who will unite them all. Then the Jews are fucked.

  22. “migrant Mexicans”. Global Capitalism loves those.

  23. “If I were a particularly cynical analyst, it might look to me like global capitalism, starting right around 1990, freed by the collapse of the U.S.S.R. to do whatever the hell it wanted, more or less immediately started dismantling uncooperative power structures throughout the Greater Middle East.”

    I don’t know, “Global Capitalism” seems to me awfully abstract to carry this heavy a pay load (fallacy of reification). How does an abstraction “dismantle an uncooperative power structure..” particularly over 30 or so years? Something is missing.

    • Replies: @Anonynous
  24. Parfois1 says:
    @WorkingClass

    Globalists are not Capitalists. There is no competition. Just a hand full of monopolies. These stateless corporate monopolists are better understood as Feudalists. They would have everything. We would have nothing. That’s what privatization is. It’s the Lords ripping off the proles.

    You are right in expecting that in Capitalism there would be competition – the traditional view that prices would remain low because of competition, the less competitive removed from the field, and so on. But that was primitive laisser-faire Capitalism on a fair playing field that hardly existed but in theory. Occasionally there were some “good” capitalists – say the mill-owner in a Lancashire town who gave employment to the locals, built houses, donated to charity and went to the Sunday church service with his workers. But even that “good” capitalist was in it for the profit, which comes from taking possession for himself of the value added by his workers to a commodity.

    But modern Capitalism does not function that way. There are no mill-owners, just absentee investor playing in, usually rigged, stock market casinos. Industrial capitalism has been changed into financial Capitalism without borders and loyalty to worker or country. In fact, it has gone global to play country against country for more profit.

    Anyway, the USA has evolved into a Fascist state (an advanced state of capitalism, a.k.a. corporatocracy) as Chomsky stated many years ago. Seen from abroad here’s a view from the horse’s mouth ( The Guardian is official organ of Globalist Fascism).

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment

  25. Sam J. says:

    Here’s a good link on exactly how the Jews get rich. This is what “Capitalism” is now. Very short and the best quick summation I’ve seen.

    http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-5-steps-to-world-domination.html

    • Replies: @Sam J.
  26. Sam J. says:
    @Sam J.

    They did the EXACT same thing in Germany leading to the collapse of the currency.

  27. The destruction of the middle east is an on going project of Israel and the zio/US and will only end when the world is engulfed in a nuclear war with Russia, which is the ultimate goal of the satanic zionists and their goal of a satanic zionist NWO.

  28. Nailed it on this one C.J.

    I’m sure the globalist cabal will afford you the same respect for your insights as MLB did ex-baseball great Bob Uecker. LOL

  29. Truth3 says:

    (((Global Capitalists)))

    (((Rootless Cosmopolitans)))

    (((Neo-Conservatives)))

    (((Progressives)))

    (((Cultural Marxists)))

    (((Masters of the Universe)))

    (((Anti-Fascists)))

    (((Marranos)))

    (((Donmeh)))

    (((Banksters)))

    (((Zionists)))

    … or, simply…

    Jews.

    • Agree: DESERT FOX
    • Replies: @Willem
  30. Grizaby says:
    @WorkingClass

    I’m a union plumber in nyc. I’m communist leaning. Everyone else is wannabe capitalist israel supporters or just apathetic oohrah team Americans. Working class conciousness? Ha. No.

    Unions are no longer revolutionary organizations. They are coasting by on the pay that previous men clawed and scratched and fought for. Leadership is wannabee capitalists. Workers are praying they get pensions.

    Non union is happy and winning with lower pay.

    Maybe liking capitalism is the problem. Maybe liking a game in which you cannot win, but with extreme organizing and force can extract some benefits and raises, is a losing proposition. The people you are asking for more from,will always go non union. Why pay you more?

    It’s all or nothing. Either nationalize or privatize. The in between looks like the last 50 years. Deindustrializtion. Anti union organizing. Losing market share. Global war. If the trade unions arent revolutionary and anti war,if they arent organizing the non union and the unskilled. If there is no IWW type group. Were doomed

    • Replies: @WorkingClass
  31. Jake says:

    Another CJ Hopkins article that should get him nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature and may well get him disappeared.

    Globalism is evil. Globalism is Mordor.

  32. Willem says:
    @Truth3

    I always thought: (((The Devil)))

    And that Unz Review cannot exist without Jewish Power similar as that the old testament cannot exist without hell and eternal damnation.

    These are bedtime stories, myths, that will help keep the population obedient while they are thinking about the things that are, by definition, completely ungraspable.

  33. Antiwar7 says:

    I agree with Mr. Hopkins: Nato is NOT anti-gay. When they’re blowing people up around the world, they absolutely do not discriminate against gays, women, the elderly, or children.

    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
  34. @Antiwar7

    NATO is a terrorist organization and is dominated by the zio/US which is also a terrorist deal and along with Israel and Britain created AL CIADA aka ISIS and all off shoots there of and NATO has its own terrorist group which operates under the name of Operation Gladio!

    The CIA and the Mossad and MI6 and NATO, terrorists one and all.

  35. Hitler was a great and good man. If he and the Nazis had won WW2, Europe would be in great shape today, and the white world in general would be in much better shape. To compare the blithering fool Trump to Hitler is very misleading; that your readers generally accept this comparison shows how foolish they generally are.

    • Replies: @Barbarossa
  36. onebornfree says: • Website

    CJ Hopkins says: “Probably, if we just impeach Donald Trump, or The Walrus of Death, or elect Joe Biden, or Bernie Sanders, or some other individual, we can put an end to all these catastrophic blunders that America keeps making in the Middle East.”

    Yeah, right, in your dreams!

    This just in: “War is the health of the [deep] state”. Literally.

    As it stands, it makes no difference who is elected president, or who gets impeached. “War is the health of the [deep] state”.

    In other words, war is merely a part of the price you and others like yourself must pay for having the government be as big as it is, and for it doing all of the “wonderful” “necessary” things that people like you [no doubt] think it should do [ eg, welfare, social security, banking, environmental “protection”, “healthcare” , “education” , infrastructure , price fixing etc. etc., on and on, ad infinitum]

    If you want the wars to cease, then you have to give up your addiction to all of the “wonderful” things that you currently no doubt believe that government “should” do, and return the federal government to its original, much, much smaller constitutional size and functions, because, as things stand, you cannot get the unconstitutional stuff people like you all want and insist on, without others getting the unconstitutional stuff they all want and insist on [ eg”eternal war for eternal peace”].

    CJ Hopkins says: ““ Global capitalism is at war with Iran. “

    No, its actually global socialism, masquerading/mis-labelled as “capitalism”; the illusion of it as being “capitalism” duly perpetuated and reinforced by ignoramuses who have zero comprehension of what capitalism actually is, and what it actually does.

    And, ironically, you, like most, are basically a capitalist in complete denial of that fact 🙂

    And so it goes….. 🙁

    No regards, onebornfree

    • Agree: DESERT FOX
  37. Sean says:

    “Global capitalism”, does that include China, or Russia. If not then it really isn’t very global, sh?

  38. Onebornfree

    Forget about your terminology which many could disagree and argue about how to label correctly this new global corporate big government system, but as a traditional right-winger (I suppose) what do you think an average ordinary person (say an American) is supposed to do to live a reasonable average productive life, raise a family, and provide for the education, health care, and security and well-being of his family? How is he supposed to create wealth from the bottom up? Where is he supposed to find opportunities for creating a sustainable business or a meaningful well-paying job in a community where he may wish to live? Not everyone can be a capitalist and in the present economic climate most who set off on the road to become capitalists will fail. Most likely any such will have to get a bank loan, and if (un)lucky to get one approved is immediately in the system of debt slavery basically working for the banks paying off the interest. Now a few may indeed succeed, expand and grow, but most will head to the bankruptcy courts and all that it will entail. For a small businessman to survive amongst big corporations taking over more and more of everything in the economic arena, with more and more products made in China and elsewhere at lower costs, with more and more immigrants coming in ready to work for lower wages, it seems to me the prospects for an average American to live a traditional capitalistic lifestyle, that I guess you would prefer, are becoming more difficult and may soon be even impossible. And perhaps this is the natural outgrowth of capitalism, you cannot expect it to stay at the same stage as it was 100 or 50 years ago. It will be harder for the common man.

    • Replies: @peterAUS
    , @Anounder
    , @Anon
  39. ChrisGJ says:

    There is no good reason to attack Iran. Hope the american patriots will protest aginst that during their 4th of july celebration of Independance. The independance of the public policies towards money for example

  40. @onebornfree

    Recommend The Report From Iron Mountain and the section in Orwells 1984 on war, the US is a predator nation that exists in a state of perpetual war as ordered by our zionist overlords.

    Recommend the book Blood In The Water by Joan Mellen about the joint Israeli and zio/US attack on the USS Liberty, this book just came out in December 2018 and lays out the collusion between the zio/US and the Israelis to sink the Liberty and blame Egypt and have the zio/US enter the 67 war against Egypt.

  41. Anon[421] • Disclaimer says:

    This piece is marvelous satire meaning it reveals the truth behind the prestidigitation of political maneuvering. However as the wisest of men wrote “The fault…. is not in our stars, But in ourselves.”
    Or as homicide detective Joe Kenda said “humans are the most dangerous animals on the planet.”
    And add to the mix F. Scott Fitzgerald famously stating; “show me a hero and I’ll write you a tragedy.”
    Let me venture my own little dictum: “show me a manifesto and I’ll show you bullshit.”
    Come 2020 we Americans get to vote for Trump or some Dem or write in or not participate; not the greatest choice yet there you have it.

    • Replies: @sally
  42. renfro says:

    Its not global capitalism Hopkins. It tires me to have to explain where our ME FUBAR came from.
    But once again…If you had read this in 1992 you would understand.

    Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 177:The “Green Peril”: Creating the Islamic Fundamentalist Threat
    August 27, 1992
    Leon T. Hadar

    Now that the Cold War is becoming a memory, America’s foreign policy establishment has begun searching for new enemies. Possible new villains include “instability” in Europe–ranging from German resurgence to new Russiani mperialism–the “vanishing” ozone layer, nuclear proliferation, and narco terrorism. Topping the list of potential new global bogeymen, however, are the Yellow Peril, the alleged threat to American economic security emanating fromEast Asia, and the so-called Green Peril (green is the color of Islam). That peril is symbolized by the Middle Eastern Moslem fundamentalist–the “Fundie,” to use a term coined by The Economist[1]–a Khomeini-like creature, armed with a radical ideology, equipped with nuclear weapons, and intent on launching a violent jihad against Western civilization.

    Indeed, “a new specter is haunting America, one that some Americans consider more sinister than Marxism-Leninism,”according to Douglas E. Streusand, (CSSI) “That specter is Islam.”[3] Islamic governments in Iran and Sudan are all producing, as Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland put it, an”urge to identify Islam as an inherently anti-democratic force that is America’s new global enemy now that the Cold War is over.”[
    Islamic fundamentalism is an aggressive revolutionary movement as militant and violent as the Bolshevik, Fascist,and Nazi movements of the past,” according to Amos Perlmutter(Israeli,Washington Institute for Near East Policy) suggesting that the United States should make sure the movement is”stifled at birth.”[5]

    The Making of a “Peril”
    The Islamic threat argument is becoming increasingly popular with some segments of the American foreign policy establishment. They are encouraged by foreign governments who, for reasons of self-interest, want to see Washington embroiled in the West vs. Islam confrontation. The result is the construction of the new peril, a process that does not reflect any grand conspiracy but that nevertheless has its own logic, rules and timetables.

    The creation of a peril usually starts with mysterious “sources” and unnamed officials who leak information, float trial balloons, and warn about the coming threat. Those sources reflect debates and discussions taking place within government. Their information is then augmented by colorful intelligence reports that finger exotic and conspiratorial terrorists and military advisers. Journalists then search for the named and other villains. The media end up finding corroboration from foreign sources who form an informal coalition with the sources in the U.S. government and help the press uncover further information substantiating the threat coming from the new bad guys.
    In addition, think tanks studies and op-ed pieces add momentum to the official spin. Their publication is followed by congressional hearings, policy conferences, and public press briefings. A governmental policy debate ensues, producing studies working papers, and eventually doctrines and policies that become part of the media’s spin. The new villain is now ready to be integrated into the popular culture to help to mobilize public support for a new crusade. In the case of the Green Peril, that process has been under way for several months.[13]
    A series of leaks, signals, and trial balloons is already beginning to shape U.S. agenda and policy. Congress is about to conduct several hearings on the global threat of Islamic fundamentalism.[14] The Bush administration has been tryingto devise policies and establish new alliances to counter Iranian influence: building up Islamic but secular and pro-Western Turkey as a countervailing force in Central Asia, expanding U.S. commitments to Saudi Arabia, warning Sudan that it faces grave consequences as a result of its policies, and even shoring up a socialist military dictatorship in Algeria. ”

    • Replies: @renfro
  43. @onebornfree

    Another wayward moron who forgets military spending which means Massive Government spending and vast profits for the rich. Unfortunately, “conservatism” in America has morphed into Patriotism, the realm of the stupid who love Big Government and call it “Freedom.” Patriots want Big Government run as a Police State to replace their inadequate Daddies.

    • Agree: Biff
  44. renfro says:
    @renfro

    If case you read this and still don’t get it…..as most people don’t get that 9 of 10 so called ”threats” are GINNED UP by think tanks, press, political and government ideologues and foreign sources eager to benefit from whatever chaos the US can create.

    It easy to assume there’s some huge objective to US and others moves like “global capitalism’ instead of what most are—-the US stepping in one shit pile after another on ‘ginned up’ crap .

    If you read this ….https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/green-peril-creating-islamic-fundamentalist-threat ……..you will see that it all came to be for the most part just the way the ‘peril makers” cabal wanted it.

    Your “capitalist” just pile on afterward.

    • Agree: DESERT FOX
  45. peterAUS says:
    @Commentator Mike

    …this is the natural outgrowth of capitalism, you cannot expect it to stay at the same stage as it was 100 or 50 years ago. It will be harder for the common man.

    Yep.

  46. Agent76 says:

    May 4, 2019 America’s Blueprint for Global Domination: From “Containment” to “Pre-emptive War”. The 1948 Truman Doctrine

    We bring to the attention of our readers the writings as well as an analysis of George F. Kennan (1948) which constitute the foreign policy cornerstone of the “‘Truman doctrine.” These documents have a direct bearing on US foreign policy and military doctrine under the Bush, Obama and Trump administrations.

    https://madhousenews.com/2019/05/americas-blueprint-for-global-domination-from-containment-to-pre-emptive-war-the-1948-truman-doctrine/

    Bankers Hate Peace: All Wars Are Bankers’ Wars

    In the beginning of World War I, Woodrow Wilson had adopted initially a policy of neutrality. But the Morgan Bank, which was the most powerful bank at the time, and which wound up funding over 75 percent of the financing for the allied forces during World War I … pushed Wilson out of neutrality sooner than he might have done, because of their desire to be involved on one side of the war.

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/bankers-hate-peace-all-wars-are-bankers-wars/5438849

  47. @Parfois1

    What’s in a name? I maintain that an old man is not a fetus. A pickle is not a cucumber. And what you call “modern” Capitalism is not in fact Capitalism.

    But you and I seem to see the same thing even if we don’t give it the same name. What if anything are we gonna do about it is the important question.

  48. @Grizaby

    If the trade unions arent revolutionary and anti war,if they arent organizing the non union and the unskilled. If there is no IWW type group. Were doomed

    Agreed. And I acknowledge the sorry state of organized labor in the United States.

    But I don’t agree that it’s all or nothing. Real economies are mixed economies with public financing of public needs and private financing of private needs. How you do the mixing will lean Socialist or Capitalist. Today’s Globalists would privatize everything. Communists would Nationalize everything. Neither extreme is good for the Working Class.

    But if Communism is what you want go for it. If I were to set out to reform organized labor and/or create a Labor Party and you were to set out to nationalize the means of production under the banner of Communism we would start in the same way. Consciousness raising.

    Go in peace Brother Grizaby

    • Replies: @Parfois1
  49. And lets suppose The Palestinians accept surrender (I hope never), and vanished will that mean PEACE in the Middle East?? I would argue the opposite..the Palestinian struggle is only the prelude to a perpetual wars to come between Israel vrs the rest of the Arab Countries(muslims, Christian, suni etc.).. IF Israel wins and manages to exterminate the Palestinians then with that solidify strength and the (nuclear) support of the Western powers (UK,USA,France,Germany+Russia,China) the entire nations of the Middle East will face their utter destruction for a “greater Israel” as the center of WORLDS powers. After the Golan, comes the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon,…The NEW israeli juggernaut will be UNstoppable.After the end of Palestine the abyss…etc.

  50. Anonynous says:
    @Stephen Paul Foster

    Would you be fine with it if Hopkins said “global capitalists”?

    • Replies: @Stephen Paul Foster
  51. C.J., for all of his still-clinging-on-leftism, is a smart guy. I love his dissection of Middle-East “blunders”: they ARE the plan and only dummies don’t see it. Neocons, the MIC, Washington Consensus, even American Realpolitik: it’s all about global domination and theirs are not blunders – it’s us morons who think Iraq was a “mistake”.

  52. Anounder says:
    @Commentator Mike

    You’re talking to an anarchnig/lolbertarian.

    • Replies: @Commentator Mike
  53. Anon[163] • Disclaimer says:
    @Commentator Mike

    How do lolbertarians/anarkids reconcile their ideology with how:

    A. Singapore with its massive surveillance of the public and restrcting gum, homosexuality, is a way better land to live in than lands with far weaker states? Same goes for Europe (which is better to live in than Murica).

    B. The Redskins and Gauls and other stateless to primitive state ethnics were exterminated or enslaved.

    C. The Vietnamese needing the help of other countries to survive in war against Murica (which wasn’t trying to genocide or enslave them).

    D. There was no great libertarian country that repeatedly won wars against greater states and contributed to civilization (no Murica doesn’t count considering Shay’s Rebellion and its treatment or Injuns). Today primitives in weak/non-stated live in none of the good land, having been displaced by states/farmers.

    E. Only Whites accept lolbertarian babble in significnat numbers (see most non-Whites supporting gun control and voting Democrat).

    F. Revolutions like the French’s or Murica’s depending on aid from defectors within the state.

    G. The gun-totting Honky Murifats have failed to stop the US State from taking their taxes, havimg immigrants (who reject libertarianism and hate them) replace them, and otherwise failimg to stop the state from doing as it will.

    H. That White Americans by large supported segregation and didn’t want Blacks as fellow customers or neighbors (racial/ethnic power outweighs muh freedum or muh free markets)

    I. The rising global ideology are Christianity and Islam (which both advocate rulership, Jesus even told slaves to obey masters)

  54. @George F. Held

    Hmmm. It seems that the satirical aspects may have been lost on you. CJ Hopkins may not quite be saying what you think he’s saying…

  55. @Anounder

    Oh OK. But this definition of “libertarian” has confounded me. Libertarian in the early 20th Century meant an anarchist or anarcho-communist revolutionary. Yet lately I have come across many right wingers, alt-righters, and self-declared conservatives claiming that they are “libertarian”.

  56. sally says:
    @Anon

    Anon (421) maybe u do have a choice.. it centers in ratification.. clearly stated in Article VII of the constitution ..

    A problem with capitalism is that it produces so much wealth it is dangerous to those who are not beneficiaries of that wealth. The wealthy always want to and believe they should be in charge.. so they take over the authority of the nations they live and work in; they discount and eliminate the status and power of the people at the bottom. In fact, wealth attempts to control everyone and everything.

    A possible solution “write a better constitution and get your constitution ratified”.

    Read Article VII.. the lawyers of 1788 used it toss out the America confederate democracy that defeated the British in 1778, these 1776 also confederates wrote the Declaration of Independence.

    No one in USA (527 persons) governed America can speak for the 350,000,000 governed Americans because the governed are not sufficiently represented in the power structure or the activities conducted by the USA. Three votes cast for party screened and selected candidates to fill a congressional seat for a few years in a government which operates behind closed doors is not sufficient power to do anything.

    One must look to the creation of the constitution to understand.. No part of the USA was involved in defeating the British 1776 to 1778.. Why, because the constitution did not then exist. The American colonials wrote the declaration of independence (1776) ; declaring not only the rights of mankind as an obligation of government, but also denying the British their rule over America; The Declaration was signed by only two persons who also signed the Constitution of the United States (1788)..<=that should tell you something.. ?

    [MORE]

    We Americans have had only eleven presidents since the British were challenged.
    the men who led our nation from British bondage.. were
    Samuel Huntington *Connecticut March 2, 1781 – July 10, 1781 4 months, 8 d. resigned 1st
    Thomas McKean * Delaware July 10, 1781 – November 4, 1781 3 months, 24 d.
    then after the formal signing of the AOC, the leaders that made America (not the USA) great were..
    John Hanson (Nov 5 1781 – Nov 3 1782) Elias Boudinot (Nov 4 1782 – Nov 2 1783)
    Thomas Mifflin (Nov 3 1783 – Nov 29 1784) Richard Henry Lee (Nov 30 1784 – Nov 22 1785)
    John Hancock (Nov 23 1785 – Jun 5 1786) Nathaniel Gorham (Jun 6 1786 – Feb 1 1787)
    Arthur St. Clair (Feb 2 1787 – Jan 21 1788) Cyrus Griffin (Jan 22 1788 – Apr 30 1789)

    Brainwashed, victims of propaganda? <=13 yrs between the declaration of independence and the establishment [by a very small group] of a corporate Republic (the USA), ratification was t he weapon, that overthrew the Articles of Confederation and propaganda the means by which the names and successes of the great men that expelled the British were hidden from view.

    The USA Constitution was written in 1788 and ratified into existence in 1789, but the Articles of Confederation was written in 1776. Democracy was replaced by a Republic in service to Aristocrats, traders, corporate chiefs, and the like. Before the constitution, Americans ruled themselves until 1789, and BTW the Articles of Confederation accomplished much.

    Land grants played a big part.. Americans wanted to divide the vast America among themselves but the Aristocrats wealth depended on the large tracts of land granted to them by foreign kings or royalty; Aristocrats did not want to give that power and wealth up..and they would have had to had the Articles government refused to recognize the titles to their vast land holdings No wonder the constitution terminated democracy!

    Challenged land grant holders resolved to reimpose some form of corporate rule, something that could re-institute security Aristocrats deserved <=it took 13 years but in 1789, freedom was terminated, democracy eradicated, the constitution ratified; Democratic America downgraded by ratification to a Gentlemen's Republic. An American form of British Aristocracy was reestablished.. Banking had regained oversight control over Independent America and once again the City of London could profit from the efforts of Americans. .

  57. Parfois1 says:
    @WorkingClass

    Communists would Nationalize everything.

    Not necessarily – look at China now. While the government is guided ideologically by Communism, it allows a large degree of private enterprise and so do other socialist countries according to their special needs. Communism is not a set of practices from a rulebook, it is a more like a vague ideal based on fairness for all. How it is applied in practice varies according to local conditions, level of social and economic development and how people choose through elections and feedback. In the Soviet Union there was a period when they went “backwards” (the New Economic Policy 1921-29) by privatising large segments of the economy but it was abandoned when it became clear that the pace of industrialization was too slow for the national needs, namely defence. Many people ran small family-size business and all workers in farming co-operatives had their own house and plot of land. People in the liberal professions and service sector, say artists, writers, lawyers, artisans, etc. were self-employed. Communist Yugoslavia followed a different model, mostly through co-operatives, not government-run enterprises.

    While Communism aims ultimately for public ownership of the economy, during the early formative years of socialism it is flexible enough to adapt to local social conditions.

  58. ikki says:

    Global capitalism gives not a hoot about iran or even north korea. And certainly does notcare if the dollar is replaced- The american empire as controlled by the jewish mafia that owns and controls the federal reserve does however.
    In fact global capitalism would love eternal peace on the planet and industrialization of the entire planet. Nuclear plants for everyone! Fantastic!

  59. @Anonynous

    I guess I’d like to know if its the “global” that makes a capitalist bad or if its the “capitalist” piece of it that’s the problem. Is capitalism ok if its not global?

  60. @Parfois1

    But even that “good” capitalist was in it for the profit, which comes from taking possession for himself of the value added by his workers to a commodity.

    Nope.

    Profit comes from providing output to people whose subjective value of the output is higher than the producer’s ( the only subjective component of the producer’s valuation of his output, is the required return on his capital).

    In a voluntary transaction, the buyer values the thing slightly higher than the seller – after taking into account all constraints, all substitutes and complements, and everything else in both sides’ information sets.

    If transactions aren’t voluntary, then it’s not a market – which is why Austrian School people insist on a precise definition when anybody starts to bleat at them about ‘capitalism’ as if the word means the same thing as ‘free markets’ (because it doesn’t mean anything remotely similar).

    The problem is not ‘capitalism’, if capitalism means the deployment of economic means through a system of voluntary transactions that seek to maximise individual’ satisfaction.

    By stark contrast, the current system has vast swathes characterised by artificial monopoly (almost all monopoly is artificial) and cronyism; if that’s what is meant by the word, it has fuck-all to do with trade and exchange… it is part of the political means.

    Roderick Long coined the term “zaxlebax” to try to capture the incoherence underlying the leftie-whiner’s idea that ‘capitalist’ competition was ruinous, and ergo free market competition was ruinous likewise. A zaxlebax is defined as “a metallic sphere, just like the Washington Monument”: you will immediately recognise that the definition is incoherent, because you know what a metal sphere is, and that the Washington Monument isn’t one of those.

    However the median schlub does not know why the economic system takes half his output to fund other people’s infatuation and vanity-projects, and then along comes a portemanteau term with the same incoherence – “capitalism” – and it becomes a bête noire.

    Long:

    some linguistic subgroup might start using the term “zaxlebax” as though it just meant “metallic sphere,” or as though it just meant “something of the same kind as the Washington Monument.” And that’s fine. But my definition incorporates both, and thus conceals the false assumption that the Washington Monument is a metallic sphere; any attempt to use the term “zaxlebax,” meaning what I mean by it, involves the user in this false assumption.

    Long sees capitalism in its common usage as similar.

    By “capitalism” most people mean neither the free market simpliciter nor the prevailing neomercantilist system simpliciter. Rather, what most people mean by “capitalism” is this free-market system that currently prevails in the western world. In short, the term “capitalism” as generally used conceals an assumption that the prevailing system is a free market. And since the prevailing system is in fact one of government favoritism toward business, the ordinary use of the term carries with it the assumption that the free market is government favoritism toward business.

    Pretend-philanthropy of the type you describe is a violation of the fiduciary obligation to shareholders, unless it is simply a way to maintain a localised geographical monopsony (for labour and intermediate inputs) and to attempt to acquire a price premium relative to substitutes from producers outside the region.

    Trade is the single most powerful driver of human prosperity ever devised: government produces more market failure than it remedies. Both of those things are mathematical certainties and anyone who asserts otherwise is a charlatan.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  61. The problem is not ‘capitalism’, if capitalism means the deployment of economic means through a system of voluntary transactions that seek to maximise individual’ satisfaction.

    By stark contrast, the current system has vast swathes characterised by artificial monopoly (almost all monopoly is artificial) and cronyism; if that’s what is meant by the word, it has fuck-all to do with trade and exchange… it is part of the political means.

    Roderick Long coined the term “zaxlebax” to try to capture the incoherence underlying the leftie-whiner’s idea that ‘capitalist’ competition was ruinous, and ergo free market competition was ruinous likewise. A zaxlebax is defined as “a metallic sphere, just like the Washington Monument”

  62. Anonymous[160] • Disclaimer says:
    @Kratoklastes

    Profit comes from providing output to people whose subjective value of the output is higher than the producer’s ( the only subjective component of the producer’s valuation of his output, is the required return on his capital).

    In a voluntary transaction, the buyer values the thing slightly higher than the seller – after taking into account all constraints, all substitutes and complements, and everything else in both sides’ information sets.

    Owing to all of which, once one has known enough women and lost his self-deception ability, it becomes impossible to have romance with them.

  63. Anonymous[160] • Disclaimer says:
    @onebornfree

    He was totally ironical in the first passage you quoted and replied to.

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 Subscribe to All C.J. Hopkins Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?