Imperial Decay (absolutely brilliant and well done video!)

saker, yes all empires die but they do last about 200 years which is no consolation to her victims.
empoires also become because of folly of her opponents and of other nations.
persian empire rose within a space of 30 years that is two generations. british empire rose from folly of napoleaon to rely on british spy to attack russia. otherwise england shoudl have been destryed by the grand army in 1805. british empire realy got going after napoleaonic war -the tact which english aprasite race has alwaqys emplyed-let two strong nations in europe fight so that like ahyna english aprasite will coem and have a feast. result was 200 years of massive destruction of humanity and of world by the british parasites. the english are still dreaming of ressurectiuon of their empire due to folllies of others nations like russia,china and thrid world not to get together and organise resistance to this theiving british.
american empire rose up within 30 years after propaganda of 80s when russia foolishly selfdestruced herself.
angloamerican empire is more like phonecian shopkeeprs empire than roman one,

Saker

Those three paragraphs you just wrote are without doubt not just the best out of all the good work you’ve done so far, but the best political writing I may ever have read. Mr. Nora called it a prayer, a beautiful, heartfelt prayer.

Thank you, from the bottom of our hearts. And YES! to all of it.

Oh, and I forget who made the observation that the trajectory of all recent Western Empires, including most prominently Spain and the UK (as opposed to the City of London), is that they became exceedingly reactionary in their decline and for some time thereafter. Have you any thoughts on what we the 99% might do, wherever we live, to ease that decline and at least limit the damage to others?

And thank you again. Somehow, you wrought something beautiful out of all these horrors.

Good video. I disagree with the written statement from Chris Hedges at the end of it though. The problem is not capitalism per se (imo), but Big Government and the Empire which forms it when in decline.

-yt

Greetings from Singapore:
Talking about empire:

When I went to study at a German university, in the 70’s, as a foreigner, I kept asking and discussing with Germans (of different generations) about Germany’s Nazi past. (My father was 3 years in Buchenwald and is an issue which concerns me personally.)
While most Germans accept an historical debt for what the Nazi regime did, all Germans I talked too, all Germans I read from publications/books etc, seem to have ‘unlinked’ themselves from any responsibility from this historical disaster. It is like Hitler was created by ‘spontaneous combustion’ or ‘immaculate conception’ and the average German is purely a victim of an historical accident.

The same goes for the United States of America. What Washington did and does places collective responsibilty on every American, irrespective if this country is a true democracy or not. The day I see massive and active dissent, I have to change my opinion.

Saker,

Well, I’m going to disagree with you again! ;~) But this time I’ll hug you first, and then try to say something intelligible with whatever is left of me, still reeling from Odessa and the rest of the daily horrors in Ukraine, after revisiting and receiving a fresh sucker-punch each from Korea, Viet Nam and the rest, then just hearing David Rovics’ first song, on Tunisia, and reading the Lebanon lyrics on that page. Whew. That man is POWERFUL. And right on. Thank you for introducing him. Wow.

But, sometimes poetry just says it, and sometimes music gets where words alone can’t — but simple prose with a deep, emotional intelligence allows its reader maybe more space to reflect rather than just be impacted upon? Not sure I expressed it right, but that’s what you did.

And now back to Empire, Saker — the problem is, we don’t know how not to be one, because there was never a time we weren’t: that is what we are. I’m not even talking oligarchs, though we’ve always had plenty and they’ve always run the show, I’m talking the consciousness of ordinary people. Don’t forget, we came here and invaded and conquered, that’s our identity, we haven’t any other as a country. City On A Hill, Manifest Destiny, Monroe Doctrine… And American kids went to school from the first time we had schools and heard everywhere else besides of the glory of what we did and accepted it as “just what you do” in being a country. Because otherwise our history is disjointed patchwork fragments of what was left behind elsewhere — we have no other organic, cultural, spiritual national identity other than the pretty myths of empire. Here, we conquer and call it being a country, and only in the past 15 years or so “graduated” into calling it an empire. Before that, we were just miraculously victorious saving Europe from Hitler or making the world safe for democracy, or, a decade or so before that, sending Teddy Roosevelt’s Great White Fleet to bring Christianity to the (supposedly heathen but already quite Catholic) Philippines. And I’ll tell you right now, most of this country are still unaware we haven’t “won” a war since (kinda) helping Stalin defeat Hitler. If you would try to tell them, they wouldn’t believe it in a million years and if you pressed the case, they might even resort to violence.

So what on earth can we do to ease this transition?

Oh, and T1,

It took me a bit longer but when the USSR just sort of folded like cardboard, I saw we had very much the same symptoms and wondered how long we’d take — knew at that point we were awful but never, ever dreamed we’d get even worse.

Excellent short! Thank you. Mass movements, yes, Millions of people marched against shock and awe under the slogan, ” Give inspections a chance” in 2003 and to no avail. Leadership is key and slogans that cut to the quick by expressing demands to be met. And the use of the technology to build community and inform. For example, Sunday I go online to participate in something called a “core community teleconference” in which questions will be taken potentially from hundreds of viewers. This blog, too is important and thank you

@-yt:The problem is not capitalism per se (imo), but Big Government and the Empire which forms it when in decline.

Here I respectfully but totally disagree. Capitalism is based on growth. There can be no capitalism without growth. Now what do you call infinite growth in a finite environment? I call that a cancer-like phenomenon. It will always end up killing the host. Furthermore, capitalism, as an ideology (which it also is) is based on the belief that the sum of our greeds maximizes the welfare of society. I think that this is both factually wrong and morally obscene. As a system of values Capitalism stands for nothing but the maximization of profit. That is just so disgusting! What about the monetization of everything? The inevitable surrender to corporate greed? And is social Darwinism not always the underlying justification for all the inequalities capitalism creates? Here is a good illustration of how Reaganomics wiped out the US middle class:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLrcTxj34M_VZoJoAh2O7iWvZSsTDNkL41&feature=player_detailpage&v=BvsdXXyn_YA#t=3002

And that is just an example of what Capitalism does everywhere. I personally see it as far more evil and destructive as any other 20th century ideology.

Besides, capitalism does not work anyway:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcC8sXdbWSw

My 2cts.

Cheers,

The Saker

mjm,

Very interesting observations. The anti-war protesters of the Viet Nam era may well have a sense of collective responsibility but judging from their almost complete disappearance into hedonism, narcissism, greed and the like, their dissent was probably also just a bit self-serving — it was also a war a lot of them personally didn’t want to fight.

But your account of, well, non-accountability makes me wonder whether this isn’t just a basic human statistic: how many people let themselves feel genuine remorse and honestly try to gain redemption or atonement for their sins? Not that many, really, I don’t think. Not really. Otoh, the fact that the Germans you spoke with could be horrified at what was done, even if they personally allowed themselves to feel no personal connection to it, at least is a brake, a way to stop and turn a corner. I’d settle for that here, frankly, though like you I’d like to see a whole lot more, because it IS our collective responsibility even if we keep our eyes cemented shut.

And then that makes me wonder about Vladimir Putin. He *was* a part of the Soviet Empire: is it overstating things to say that he may well have experienced remorse, either personally or as a part of the general malfeasance of that empire, and is working his way through with a greater determination to steer himself and his country on a higher course precisely because he did go through that process? I don’t know that he did, but was very struck by Sharon Tennison’s account of how ethical she and others knew him to be. He’s got other skills too, of course, but that’s one hell of a strength; at least it has been in the people I’ve known who’ve gone through something like that.

@Earl: thank you for your kind words of encouragement. I am myself an eternal student so we are both companions on the same journey. Let me be your fellow-traveler and let only your conscience be your guide.

Kind regards and many thanks,

The Saker

That’s a stupid video. ” Korean war, America failed to crush a tiny North Korea.” America had all of Korea rolled up, until China entered the war. The Korean war was victory for America, between China (unlimited manpower and fighting right on their border) and the USA, half the Korea became an US ally, whereas without US intervention all of it would have been Communists worshiping that family as gods on earth.

The whole anti-empire thing is wrong also. All successful nations will become empires, because all living grow and must continue to grow, until they can’t anymore, and then they begin to die. Russian empire = good. Orthodox empires = good. Any empire on different foundation = neutral to evil.

Importance of leadership and the importance of coherent program:

You don’t have to be a Leninist to understand why Occupy Wall St. so quickly disappeared. The Vietnam antiwar movement which one person in this blog so quickly and cynically dismissed was totally self interested. We did not want to go to Vietnam to kill people for no understandable reason. The slogan of the day was ” Bring the Troops Home, now”–a class demand as minorities and ( after student deferments were wrangled) working class youth were drafted. The movement began by staging series of “teach ins” throughout campuses in the United States. Key campuses were important–Berkeley Free Speech movement — and later in the early 70’s everyone remembers Kent State (but not so much the under reported 5 deaths at Jackson State, an Afro American college in Mississippi). The fury was palpable. Most every major University was on strike -shut down for at least a week. That is when the ruling class decided that should they continue the war they would lose the allegiance of a whole generation. . The escalation into Cambodia was abandoned shortly after that. The ruling class controls the textbooks so it writes history from its perspective but I was there and I was in the leadership of the movement. Did we sell out afterwards? Perhaps–most of us in the period of political quiescence that followed either became academics or turned to employment in helping professions. The left wing political group I was in became increasingly factionalized, self referential and irrelevant.

@The Saker, 15 May, 2014 00:17

I think we just define capitalism differently. IMO what we have today is a anomaly, only based on capitalism somewhat. We have some sort of financial imperialism (with big government in every capitalist country) with many Marxist traits mixed in (more so in the west than in Asia for example), in which the financial sector plays way too big a role. They like to call it capitalism, to steer the anger away from the real culprit. Small and medium businesses are real innovators, they are living in the capitalist system as well. More or less successful in today’s environment with allmighty big corporations and financial institutions which are in cahoots with big government.

When i say capitalim, i see it as the economical system (not ideology) that succeeded Feudalism (in some parts of the world). The difference being someone else other than a monarch may own the means of production and the existence of labor which is being paid for in the form of wages, as opposed to serfdom.

I’m totally open to any other idea, any better system than capitalism in theory and practice. Socialism, which the Soviet Union and the east-block states tried (and sold as the successor), did not work. Why did it not work in the end? My opinion: because it was just not competitive against the opposing system. Why was that: because it did not promote and support innovation and motivation to excel. Btw, here i know what i am talking about ;)

“Capitalism is based on growth. There can be no capitalism without growth. Now what do you call infinite growth in a finite environment?”

I’d say it’s very close to how nature functions. In a certain environment, the plants and animals which are able to cope with it the best will survive. The populations of these will grow, but only as much as the environment permits. In capitalism, this is functioning similar. You have growth markets where there is a void being filled up to a point of saturation. From then on, growth of one entity can only come at the expense of another entity shrinking.

I’m not a defender of capitalism as an ideology, well, i stay clear of all idologies if i can. So, i guess your points in that regard may be true, but better be discussed with someone else.

And as i said, i of course am open for a new economic (and social) system which we humans can adopt in the future. But if we like it or not, it has to be ‘better’ in many regards than the current one in order to defeat it.

Cheers,
-yt

James,

Creative destruction is a very real phenomenon. The Universe does it prrtty much continuously. The danger is in thinking one can initiate or control the process to their own advantage without harming others or their legitimate interests, be it individually or as a group. Whether this is done by redefining harm to their own advantage or redefining legitimate to their own advantage seems to be situational.

An image came to me from 1990s pop culture: they no doubt fancy themselves the Sorcerer’s Apprentice starring Mickey Mouse; from the perspective of non-elites, the same showy endeavors and outcomes more closely resemble those of the Sorcerer’s Apprentice starring South Park’s Mr. Hankey (see Season 1 Episode 9, NSFW).

Anonymous @0:15,

Ukraine is one of the top (#2?) manufacturers of ammonia fertilizer in the world, which typically uses natural gas as a feedstock. My guess is, not well.

Michael McDonnell,

Why do you think that nobility and statesmanship themselves are not contributors to the problem? It’s an essentially unaccountable class of people arrogating the right to know what’s best for others, *again*. Acephalic societies may not be good for planning large, complex projects, but maybe we don’t need to make so many such projects for ourselves just to excuse the use of our labor in feeding and sheltering people.

Also, it is utter Peter-Panist nonsense that working within a viable political party will get us anywhere If Only We Believe™. If it were, it would have happened by now. The system, and especially the Democratic Party, actively defends itself against non-market, non-authoritarian approaches to anything by having a critical mass of people in places who truly believe in market authoritarianism and can’t all be fired at once. They want you pushing on the inside because it maximizes the energy and goodwill expenditure toward *their* ends, not yours. “Insiders don’t criticize other insiders”, as Larry Summers said to Liz Warren, and those five words happen to explain and predict with high accuracy who gets promoted and who gets “affair”ed.

And how do you propose we get control over a party, even with a majority? The parties are funded by big donors. Parties are authoritarian sales organizations in practice. They exist to sell the system to you and vice versa. If you adulterate their product, they will dump it (and you) and start over. There are many, many veto points and feedback loops, and the richies that fund the party don’t have to do anything they don’t want to.

Withdrawing cooperation by not ratifying the system and sabotaging it in every legal way, on the other hand, has a very real chance of making the system itself change. That’s another reason insiders want you pushing on the inside: because it doesn’t change power relationships. But some people like licking boots; I just wish they’d keep it in their own bedrooms rather than evangelizing it as some sort of good thing.

Complaining about “empire” won’t rid us of capitalism, which is the root cause of almost everything that’s rotten in this world. Patching up specific policies to better deal with economic crisis and crisis of government won’t do at all in the long run. But sadly, the notion that the whole system is on its last leg and unfixable hasn’t been widely accepted yet, which is why we still see even good people wasting their and our time trying to repair the wreck. The vast majority of earth’s human population and all of its nature pay a high price for such unnecessary delays. Ultimately, either capitalism goes or life on earth goes and, as Frank Zappa once put it, the planet will be safe once again for cockroaches and moss …

I am afraid that the analysis presented in that video may be too optimistic. Empires do not simply rise and fall. They can fall, re-invent themselves and rise again. For example, the British Empire took a severe blow when it lost the American colonies but was given a second chance with the Napoleonic Wars and attendant devastation of its continental rivals.

The examples cited in the analysis as signs of the limits of US power need to be taken cautiously. The Korean War was a stalemate because the US was not willing to deploy the massive conventional forces needed to defeat the Chinese army in Korea since to do so would have left their position in Europe much weaker vis-a-vis the Soviet Union. Yes they bombed North Korea heavily but bombing does not win a war when the opposition is determined to fight on. Similar reasons prevented the US from invading North Vietnam. Furthermore, the continuation rather than outright victory in Vietnam suited the US military-industrial complex just fine and that war actually created a whole new segment of the US plutocracy.

As for the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, they have not been victories but have not been complete defeats for the US either. The US had been favourable to the rise of the Afghan Taliban in the 1990s and if, like some of their other religious brethren, the Taliban change their strategic orientation, the US could easily live with them again. In Iraq, even though the US has lost control of the post-Saddam Iraqi government, it has succeeded in destroying Iraq as the potentially most powerful Arab state for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, these wars have all helped drive up the price of energy. While that has suited some of America’s rivals such as Russia, Iran and Venezuela, it also helped the American oil companies who needed the higher prices to make more costly exploration projects viable.

(continued)

To yt,

I think that capitalism may be best described as the rule of capital. It is not identical with a market economy though some degree of market economy creates the conditions for the rise of capitalism. There have been market economies for as long as there have been towns for people to gather and create markets. However, for most of human history, the power of capital was subordinate to some other power. For much of early history it was to priestly power and then for the last 2000 years or so until about the 1600s AD it was subordinate to the power of a warrior or bureaucratic elite. The pre-capitalist power structures were obviously not paradise, but they did accept limits to human acquisition and their worldview was generally based on some notion of equilibrium rather than of endless growth.

If you want the benefits of a market economy without many of the drawbacks, you cannot have the rule of capital. There has to be some power superior to that of capital.

Of course, we can’t just go back to how it was. History is dynamic and every system, no matter how appealing, contains elements that will lead to it to be transformed. In the course of human history, the power of capital slowly grew even while subordinate to the other powers because the other powers still needed money to function. Eventually, certain circumstances arose, first in Western Europe, where the big capitalists gained the upper hand over their nominally aristocratic superiors.

Greetings from Singapore:

Nora said..

And then that makes me wonder about Vladimir Putin…

Forget the ethical perspective here.
There was a kind of silent agreement between the West and Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union: We will respect Russia as a super-power, as long as it does not act as such. This worked well under Yeltsin. Putin was chosen thinking he would not rock the boat.
Since Georgia, thereafter with Syria and now with Crimea, Russia is telling the world that it is a super-power, with historic rights and with the means to enforce same. China is doing exactly the same, but the Asian way.
Both have no intention to ‘construct’ empire, but a multi-polar world, which is inclusive (and not exclusive) and sustainable. A kind of ‘ethical’ world…

Hi Saker & Nora,

You mentioned a friend of mine above, David Rovics.

Let me introduce you to a complementary performer, Roy Zimmerman.

The Edward Snowden/Glenn Greenwald/NSA story was news today. Here’s Roy’s take on the agency, titles “Hello, NSA”, an homage to the late, great Elvis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMJ2VDTQWSI

Saker, just above you described the problems with capitalism, to which I agree. Here Roy Zimmerman lets folks know they already enjoy the alternative, “Socialist” vision of heaven on Earth:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMLgEnDGkG4

According to Martin Armstrong (huge cycle’s genius) all Empires die after 224 years. He takes it from the year of 1789 when the Constitution was ratified. 2013-1789=224yrs. He shows in the chart that time began on April 22, 2013 for the US. My understanding is he charted all empires going back to 6000BC. This may be of interest: http://armstrongeconomics.com/2013/11/26/2013-the-year-of-political-change/

Why hope and not interact?
Hope is minimising the possibility and range of activity – handing the strategic advantage to your opponent.
To paraphrase a dead wine loving dancer – Philosophers here to fore have merely described the world, the problem however is to change it – he was young at the time so he temporarily forgot to emphasise lateral thought.
In any dynamic interactive lateral system change is the constant, velocity of change the primary variable catalysed through perceptive interaction.
Like Donetsk giving the “Ukrainian army” 24 hours to leave.

Saker,

The next empire, if there is one, will be controlled by the 147 transnational corporations and their owners that control more than 50% of the global GDP.

For an interesting take on the future, I thoroughly recommend John Greer, google “Archdruid report” to find his blog.

eagle eye

When I first found this blog, I was impressed by (more or less) neutral analysis and objectivity.
Regretably, this has changed in last 2 weeks.

And re: topic.
As someone who is living in country on borders of Russia, my observations have lead me to following, and you could review all statements with this thought:

Russia wants to be an empire, has always tried to become one, and today we see just another attempt.

This probably is just a human thing in large countries, which should be countered by some construct in societal structure of world.

A little off topic, but maybe not so much…..

=================================

1811

Napoleon is the master of Europe. He controls pretty much all of continental Europe and commands skillfully the most powerful military machine ever seen. Only England still stand against him, in state of war. England is exhausted, more or less blocked, and only fifty miles of seawater separate her from the fatal enemy.

So Napoleon …….. invades Russia (who is formally an ally)!

1941

Hitler is the master of Europe. He controls pretty much all of continental Europe and commands skillfully the most powerful military machine ever seen. Only England still stand against him, in state of war. England is exhausted, more or less blocked, and only fifty miles of seawater separate her from the fatal enemy.

So Hitler …….. invades (Soviet) Russia (who is formally an ally)!

Historians keep on telling that it’s all for that fifty miles of seawater. I beg pardon, but even assuming (not conceding) that as the reason why those most powerful armies refrained from completing the job, how fifty miles of seawater are supposed to be the cause of invading Russia?

A spell is an explanation as much satisfying as that.

===============================

Does anybody have a better explanation?

The Roman state,–monarchy, Senate, empire–lasted 2,200 years until it was finally conquered by the Ottomans. So, unfortunately, the US empire may last quite a while.

Dearest AGS,

Thus, our minds are corrupted by competition, competition and then competition. Our Lord is constantly competing with the Evil Lucifer. Our minds are wrapped into this competitiveness.

Rather than God is in perfect harmony. He has no equal, neither He needs competition.

Capitalism is based on competition and waste. According to Lord Adam Smith the more we compete the better for the society as it will bring us to equilibrium. Mr. Nash proved him wrong in a bar, while all his friends were about to compete for a blonde girl.

Best regards,

Mohamed.

Mohamed,

You know, when I studied Adam Smith in high school, I’m pretty sure he stressed that that unregulated competition always leads to monopoly. I think what is now being said in his name is merely misinterpretation a la Ayn Rand. No?

But yes to everything you said.

@Song, 15 May, 2014 04:00

In my view, capital does not rule anything.

It’s always a human or groups of humans who rule about something (making rules (laws) and enforcing them). They project power over other humans with certain means.

Capital is a means not an end. Also, military power (for which one needs capital or property) is a means. We can widen it a bit and say ownership or property can be a result of successful projection of power (in addition to labor increasing the perceivend value of goods) and then property can be used to increase the power even further.

The small kid plays with ‘his’ wooden stick, then the bigger kid strolls along, takes it and declares ‘my stick’! The small kid can cry all it wants. For all intents and purposes, the bigger kid now ‘owns’ the stick it decides to deny the smaller kid the privilege to use it. Also, by wielding the stick, the bigger kid just increased his potential of projecting power, even being able to take on slightly bigger kids than him. This may change when one of those evil but mighty and huge humans (parents of the small kid) comes along and changes ownership of the stick again, probably keeping the stick.

Property is here defined as something someone has the power to decide what to do with (deying others to decide how to use it is usually being part of that). Property can only be defended as such when one has the power to defend it. This concept works from very small and simple things like someone ‘owning’ a hat up to groups of people owning an enterprise. Now, the government steps in. It limits, more or less, how people (for instance the ‘owner’ of real estate or a owner of a enterprise) act with their property, what they are ‘allowed’ to do with it. If there are rules on how one is able to use property, the ownership part of that is changed and partly in the hands of government. For instance you don’t really own a piece of land if you are not allowed to do anything you want with it. You have been granted the privilege to use it for certain things. The ultimate ‘owner’ is the government, because it is able to project its power to you and over the real estate.

Be it in nature or with humankind (being part of nature), there is nothing one has an inherent ‘right’ to. Everything (also capital) is ‘owned’ by someone who has the power and is able to defend this status.

So no, capital does not rule, some humans do.

As for capitalism and what system would be desirable from your/my point of view, our wishes are moot if we’re not able to enforce them. The only change to anything happens ‘only’ because someone grows stronger and is able to force a change of the status. So the new system must defeat the old one (too simple but heh) because either the old one changed internally into something not sustainable and grows weak and crumbles (something else develops from within (Roman Empire)) or because something else outside developed faster and grows stronger in comparison and is able to push away or destroy the old (Europeans conquering North- and South America).

-yt

“Besides, Chinese culture and traditions are totally different from the West. We are not aggressive people like the Westerners. 2000 years ago, we built the Great Wall to prevent invasion from barbarians instead of going to their territory to slaughter them. “

I agree that the Chinese are not as aggressive as the N-Europeans, but the bad side of this is that few Chinese stand up to power.

As for the Great Wall of China, you don’t build a wall to keep people out, you build it to keep people trapped inside. For a modern example, you have the armed and often walled communist borders in Europe, that would be punched through with ease by an army, but worked in keeping the population from escaping to the west.

It is the same with the castles on mountain tops, that is not there to protect the local population, but to subjugate them, by protecting the castle owners from revenge from the serfs. So by looking at how your rulers live, and have historically lived, you can estimate if they rule by the consent of the people of not, and the forbidden city in Beijing is the home of a despot.

Dear Nora,

When I say that both Obama and Putin are in cahoots, I don’t mean they are not patriots.

Since we have brought Adam Smith into discussion, we need to think of everything as commodities subject to the laws of Supply and Demand.

Thus, USD (US Dollars) is a commodity, so is T-Bills as Mindfriedo mentioned earlier that T-Bills is subject to Supply and Demand, so is USD.

When we import so much of Chinese Goods in USA, we pay the Chinese in USD. Now, we have too much USD in Supply, which will reduce the price of USD and make the imports more expansive for the average consumers. So, we encourage the Chinese to trade these extra USD for T-Bills. Also, it is good for China as it keeps the imports competitive rather than expansive.

We allowed the same to Japan, and then they got carried away, so we devalued the USD five times against the Japanese Yen, thus making Japanese products too expensive to purchase.

Thus, T-Bills are used for Budget Deficit and to soak up extra USD. With a massive Budget Deficit of around 11 Trillion USD over the years and soaking up too many USD, we have now realized that for the Empire to survive USD cannot be the only currency for trading.

The world economy has become too massive. The T-Bills are becoming worthless.

So, in the past we used to overthrow the likes of Saddam Hussain, who even dreamed of replacing USD as the only trading currency. Today we are discreetly encouraging this for the survival of the Empire. This is Obama end game and for Putin to help him, Obama has to pay back something to Putin in return, like Syria and Ukraine.

Best regards,

Mohamed

Two excellent videos of everyday Americans standing up to bigotry.

ABC’s what would you do?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hHUQ0Lp6v4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbWmBUONtFY

mindfriedo

“mindfriedo on 15 May, 2014 16:02 said…
Two excellent videos of everyday Americans standing up to bigotry.

Salam Mindfriedo,

The reason America is such a great country, because its’ people are great. :)

99.9% people are great everywhere. It is one rotten apple, which spoils the whole barrel.

Best regards,

Mohamed.

http://www.rexresearch.com/glubb/glubb-empire.pdf

This pamphlet explores in great detail why and how empires rise and fall.

I do however disagree that empires are always bad, though many have been horrific. Would you say that China under Mao was better off than American Taiwan, British Hong Kong, or Portuguese Macau?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9foi342LXQE

“Alright, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us???”

Hi Nora,

This is how the Oligarch loot the country.

In most countries, the utilities companies, such as electricity, water, telephone and so forth, which are monopolies are owned by the people of the country. As these are very capital extensive companies, the outlay is made by the government and the masses are provided these services at highly discounted prices.

Not to Adam Smith. No these monopolies should be privatized and then subject to regulation. Thus, USA being the Capitalist Country, these monopolies were privatized, but subject to State and Federal Regulations.

Starting 1980’s, Europe started giving these companies to Oligarch for almost for nothing. And, then the Oligarch charging the masses outrageous prices, thus creating austerities measures. Same happened to Russia, during Yeltsin years. They work country at a time, and now it is time for Ukraine.

Giving away the Wealth of the Country to Oligarch for nothing.

Best regards,

Mohamed.

Dear The Saker,

The film sums it up. Thanks for posting.

Rgds,

Veritas

There is so much superb stuff on this thread I’m going to need the rest of my life to digest and absorb it all. For real.

Meanwhile, can I throw out another question? Private property and growth seem to be the underlying constructs of capitalism; I’m sure there are others but please bear with me here. Native Americans, for example, didn’t *have* either concept and were able to maintain a decent standard of living for every tribal member, at least until the white man destroyed them and their world. Also, I’m remembering that Socialism, or at least Social Democracy, worked well in Scandinavia. So my question is, what really is wrong with that kind of approach, if in fact “growth” is not as strong but people are well cared for?

Song,

I just wish I had a mind like yours. I’m going to re-read your comments another five times or so, try to file and sort them and then maybe be able to articulate a question. Maybe.

Mohamed,

Mr. Nora says hi and will be quite interested in what you said here. It’s pretty much what he’s always believed in, though it’s been awfully lonely for a while now — to the point where he has to think twice before even bringing it up.

@Enrique, 15 May, 2014 22:59

You only quoted my first short comment. Please read my other two longer posts on that topic right here in the comments, so i do not have to repeat myself.

“Capitalism, especially in it’s present day form and Big Government, are essentially one and the same.”

Sorry but that is just wrong. My take on that is written in said posts.

Actually, while calling the sick system we live in now ‘capitalism’ you play into the hands of our oppressors. Why? Because labeling the status quo ‘capitalism’ wraps the situation we exist in into something inevitable and unchangeable. They can go: ‘*shrug*, what can we do, this is just capitalism ..’

Everything else you wrote is right as these are facts. Anyway, this is better called oligarchy-something or even fascism. Just don’t call this all broadly ‘capitalism’. The same applies when ofiicials/media/people call the US-style government system so many ‘western’ countries sport a ‘democracy’ when in fact it is a (hollowed out and abused) republic with not much of a democratic influence at all.

We do not exist in a (remotely pure) capitalist economy and we do not live in democracies. Only when we are able to clearly see what happens around us and are able to call it what it is, are we able to try to change things for the better.

Alas, i have no hope for the near future.

-yt.

P.S. I don’t know Blogger, but i am _sure_ there must be some way for you to influence the captchas. These black and white inverse things are not readable at all. There are so many different types of captchas out there, all of them easy to read, but your blog only shows these very annoying ones.

Anyway, this is better called oligarchy-something or even fascism.
========================

It would be a strange kind of fascism, indeed, since fascism was the merger of the State and Corporations’ powers, BUT under the control of the State, NOT of the Corporations.

In fact, in Italy Mussolini did nationalize the banks. In America (and elsewhere in the Demonocratic Empire), the banks have privatized the State.