The Russian Insider comments[2] are interesting. Commenter Dennis Meredith made this point:
Since 2001, and probably before, everything on the US economics front has been designed and implemented to destroy the US economy. When I say everything I do mean everything and should you disagree please point out where I am wrong.Commenter Stenka Razinova replied:
You asked for it. So I will oblige.Commenter Arcanek replies with the clarification:* * * *
Nothing has been designed.
[The b]asic principle of [the] capitalistic system is the natural law that capital moves freely to the location that offers greatest profit. This is a good law and it did bring great progress to capitalistic countries. But for a nation this law is profitable only if the capital moves within a boundary of the nation.
With the progression of communications and particularly with establishment of the internet, the capital has internationalized, And Government of US did not put any restriction on internationalization of the capital. (Except maybe restrictions that were contrary to defense of US.)
(As for example Germany and some other countries did put some restrictions.)
Basically it comes to this: In US; capital rules over US government, and not opposite like it should be.
This single axiom did destroy the US economy, and that means destroyed the US. And the movement caused by internationalists caused irreparable harm to US that cannot be undone.
The system isn't capitalist by any stretch. Cronyism and banksterism is more appropriate.Leftists dislike this clarification intensely as it interferes with the line that "capitalism" is the cause of all Western ills after Christianity, patriarchy and structural (i.e., invisible) racism. What we have, of course, is what Arcanek says. As Garet Garrett would say a revolution "within the form" has transformed capitalism into the joke "free market" economy that we have today.[3]
Mr. Meredith makes the point that crony capitalism has done immense damage by itself. I don't believe the damage was intentional as he alleges although I've elsewhere been happy to point out that American courts sometime observe that people do intend the natural consequences of their acts. Globalism is the follow on transformation where American big business became at least indifferent to the fate of the home country. That indifference was as destructive as active malevolence.
One final point. China's actions seem aggressive and someone suggested elsewhere that the Chinese military may be calling the shots now more so than in the past. Hmmm. Either way, China seems more aggressive as I say, though exactly why our many military bases around the world can't be seen as "aggressive" to some isn't clear to me.
As far as Russia is concerned, I have no idea at all why we're trying to paint them as Public Enemy No. 1. Getting everyone to boycott their WWII victory celebrations took on the look of a major diplomatic initiative. But all it did was make us look petty.
Could we please get off this train before someone gets hurt?
Notes
[1] "Washington Blows Itself Up With Its Own Bomb." By F. William Engdahl. New Eastern Outlook, 5/24/15.
[2] "Washington Hoisted by Its Own Petard: The Real Reason Kerry Was in Sochi." By F. William Engdahl. Russia Insider, 6/2/15.
[3] Garrett didn't have crony capitalism in mind but observed that FDR had accomplished a red, white, and blue-colored revolution whereby a pillar of American freedom – a small, constrained federal government – was replaced with one that was unlimited, unstoppable, and just as destructive as if it had been imposed from the outside:
"The Revolution Was" first appeared in 1938, the burden of which was to show that the New Deal transformed American society to such an extent that it was foolhardy to listen to American politicians and their warnings of dangers from the outside. "There are those who still think they are holding the pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road," he wrote. "But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the Night of Depression, singing songs to freedom.""Who Is Garet Garrett?" By Jeffrey A. Tucker, Mises Daily, 10/25/07.
3 comments:
Do you suppose if the USA established bases where it mever had any, say in Estonia or North Vietnam might seem aggressive to certain nations? Love your logic.
So lets establish those bases shall we?
Garrett was right on the money. FDR started what Obama is attempting to finish. I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see Obama try to match FDR's time in office. He's done as much to subvert our Republic as FDR did. More, actually, when you consider he is planting the seeds of a race war.
@anon
I have no idea what you are saying.
@Reg T
I have no read much about those times but it seems from my limited reading that the Old Right fought the New Deal and well understood what was happening. It was in vain as the Depression and the allure of Social Security, plus FDR vote buying, were the quicksands that sucked the Old Republic down beneath the citizens' consciousness.
Race war and ethnic strife seem baked in the cake now thanks to Obama AND decades-long Dem policy. The 1965 immigration act and the betrayal on all border control promises since then have set the nation on a collision course with reality. All but the insane in centuries past knew that mixing race and culture was madness. As Fran writes today, the left distorts language shamelessly. Diversity means fewer white people, a thought I highlighted recently. Diversity is an article of faith of the left and, therefore, fewer white people is a leftist article of faith. That's beginning to register with whites though, as always, at a glacial place as with all issues affecting the survival of white civilization.
Post a Comment