With the recent ominous inversion of the 2-10 year yield curve and its near infallible predictive recessionary power, the consequences for the economy are plain to see, however, what has not been spoken of by pundits will be the effect of a recession on US foreign policy. If a recession comes about prior to November 2020, or if economic indicators such as GDP plummet even further, the chances of a Trump re-election is extremely problematic even if the Democrats nominate a socialist nut case such as Bernie Sanders or Pocahontas.
Elizabeth Warren has been the most vocal about coming economic troubles:
Warning lights are flashing. Whether it is
this year or next year, odds of another
economic downturn are high – and growing. . . .
When I look at the economy today, I see
a lot to worry about again. I see a
manufacturing sector in recession. I see
a precarious economy built on debt – both
household debt and corporate debt and that
is vulnerable to shocks. And I see a number
of serious shocks on the horizon that could
cause our economy’s shaky foundation to crumble.*
A “doom and gloomer” Demo?
If the economy cannot be reversed, despite the likelihood of rate cuts in September and a possible resumption of “QE” by the end of the year, President Trump will probably look for some “victory” or success to divert public attention away from deteriorating economic conditions. The most likely targets will be renewal of hostilities toward Iran and/or an escalation of pressure on Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro to resign.
Of course, the US has been conducting economic warfare on Iran ever since Trump stupidly pulled out of the nuclear agreement and began applying even more crippling sanctions on Iran. In June, armed hostilities were about to take place over the Iranians downing of a US drone over its air space. Reportedly, at the last minute, Trump called off retaliation, enraging, no doubt, the bloodthirsty neocons itching for an excuse to unleash more death and destruction.
Another factor, which has been little spoken of, but may contribute to foreign intervention is that Trump has alienated a number of his political base especially the spokesmen among the Alt Right. While he still commands high poll numbers among Republicans and still attracts impressive rallies of “deplorables,” a number of his prominent backers, who were so crucial for his success in 2016, are, to say the least, disappointed over his inability to stem the tide of illegal immigration. Moreover, these voices feel rightly betrayed since he has done nothing to halt the Internet tech giants from de-platforming many of their social media activity.
Another group which may be quickly added to disillusioned Trump supporters are gun owners and free-speech advocates if the President goes along with the proposed draconian “red flag” legislation. If these totalitarian measures are enacted, 2nd Amendment defenders will probably not vote for Trump’s opponent in 2020, but instead, may stay home in protest.
In electoral politics, voter enthusiasm can sometimes offset money and media control which was certainly the case for Trump both in the Republican primaries and the general election. To win again, he will need to mobilize similar sentiment.
The politically savvy neocons, which the President has insanely surrounded himself with, are certainly aware of this dynamic which will give them considerable leverage to push forward their agenda. A desperate Trump will surely be more malleable if a second term is in jeopardy. Just look at the recent capitulation when there is, as of yet, no recession, yet, he called off the additional Chinese tariffs after the Dow plunged 800 points.
Even if a recession does not rear its ugly head, an armed conflict with Iran is a distinct possibility. The more hard line neocons understand that they would be out of power under a Democratic president who may revert to compromise and negotiations to re-engineer a nuclear deal with Iran. The push for war will intensify if Trump’s poll numbers drop as the election gets nearer due to a moribund economy.
Of course, the US is infamous for provocations and with the huge military build up in the Persian Gulf, any of the many trip wires may spring, leading to a local war which might turn into a general conflagration.
While it is not a certainty that a recession will lead to regime change in Washington, Trump has mistakenly tied his political fortunes to the well being of the economy especially the stock market. He had the chance and the public support at the beginning of his term to level with the country and explain the monumental financial and economic problems which exist and that he had pointed out during the campaign. Unfortunately, for both his and the nation’s future, he chose business as usual putting his own political goals (re-election) over the good of the country.
The cost of that choice is now coming to bear which may end in another war that will certainly seal the President’s fate and likely that of America.
*Sanjana Karanth, “Elizabeth Warren Predicts Another Economic Downturn.” Politics. 22 July 2019.
Review: Christophe Buffin de Chosal, The End of Democracy, Translated by Ryan P. Plummer. Printed in the U.S.A.: Tumblar House, 2017.
One cannot speak too highly of Christophe Buffin de Chosal’s The End of Democracy. In a fast paced, readable, yet scholarly fashion, Professor Buffin de Chosal* demolishes the ideological justification in which modern democracy rests while he describes the disastrous effects that democratic rule has had on Western societies. He explodes the myth of Democracy as a protector of individual liberty, a prerequisite for economic progress, and a promoter of the higher arts. Once Democracy is seen in this light, a far more accurate interpretation of modern history can be undertaken. The book is a very suitable companion to Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s iconoclastic take down of democracy in Democracy: The God That Failed, released at the beginning of this century. Buffin de Chosal has spoken of a follow up which will be eagerly awaited for.
The idea of rule by the people is a scam, one perpetuated by those who, in actuality, are in control of the government. Through the “democratic process” of voting and elections, a small, determined minority can impose its will despite majority opposition:
We often hear it said that ‘in a democracy,
it is the people who rule. . . .’ Rule by the
people is a myth which loses all substance
once confronted with the real practice in
Quoting from a Russian philosopher, Buffin de Chosal continues his criticism:
The best definition [of democracy] was
given by the Russian philosopher Vasily Rozanov.
‘Democracy is the system by which an
organized minority governs an unorganized
majority.’ This ‘unorganized majority’ is the
people, aggregated and individualistic,
incapable of reaction because disjointed. 
He expands upon Rozanov’s theme:
. . . [C]ontrary to what [democracy’s] principles
proclaim: one can say that the majority
almost never wins. Democracy is not the
system of the majority, but that of the most
powerful minority, and it has this power
not simply due to its numbers, but also and
above all due to its organization. 
Power does not reside in “the people” and certainly not in the individual. In democracy, the only way to express one’s preference or protect one’s rights is through the ballot box every so often. “Each voter,” writes Buffin de Chosal, “in a democracy, is the depositary of a tiny particle of sovereignty, in itself unusable. His sole power consists in dropping a ballot into a box, whereby he is immediately dispossessed of his particle of sovereignty at the profit of those who are going to represent him.” [Ibid.]
Popular democracy has always been condemned and feared by most thinkers since the beginning of human societies. It was not until intellectuals saw democracy as a way they could attain power that they began to advocate it as a system of social order. Prior to the democratic age, most of the learned understood that democracy would result in mob rule and the displacement of natural authority with demagogues. In short, the worst would rise to the top as the author describes the characteristics of a contemporary politician:
The ideal politician, on the other hand, is
pliable, convincing, and a liar by instinct. He is
not attached to any platform and has no
ideological objective. The single thing to which
he is truly committed is power. He wants its
prestige and advantages, and seeks above all
to be personally enriched by it. Any politician
who presents this aspect is recognized as fit for
power in a democracy. . . . It is therefore not
surprising that democratically elected assemblies
are almost exclusively comprised of
these kinds of men and women. Elected
heads of state almost always fit this profile,
and international institutions, such as the
European Union, consider it the only
acceptable profile. . . . 
Democracy and the State
Since the advent of modern democracy, the principle benefactor of its rule has been the State and the politically-connected financial elites who are in actuality the true rulers of societies. Instead of putting an end to the supposedly despotic rule of the Ancien Régime, which Democracy’s proponents claim to have existed throughout the monarchial and aristocratic age, governance by the people, has instead witnessed an increase in state power and control of individual lives to an unprecedented level in human history. Few, if any, pope, emperor, king, prince, or duke have ever possessed such suzerainty.
In contrast to what has been taught in classrooms, on university campuses, and espoused throughout the media, individual rights and freedoms were far better guarded in the age prior to Democracy’s ascendancy. Pre-revolutionary Europe had social structures which insulated individuals from State power far more effectively than under modern democracy:
The concept of an organic society was abolished at
the time of the French Revolution. The corps and
orders were suppressed, the privileges were abolished,
and everything which allowed the people to protect
themselves from the power of the state was banished
in the name of liberty. 
And in return for giving up the order that protected them from state depredations, the people received “sovereignty:”
They were given the false promise that they
would no longer need to defend themselves
from the state since they themselves were the
state. But if a people organized into corps and
orders are incapable of exercising sovereignty,
how much more so a people comprising a formless
mass of individuals! [Ibid.]
Historically, all of the democratic movements which supposedly stemmed from the people were, in fact, a falsehood, perpetuated largely by revolutionaries who sought to replace the established order with themselves. While legislatures, congresses, and democratic bodies of all sorts have been interpreted as the fruition of the masses’ desire for representation, the reality was quite different:
Democracy is not, in its origin, a system of
the people. In England with the advent of the
parliamentary system just as in France during the
Revolution, it was not the people who were seen
at work. Even the Russian Revolution was not a
phenomenon of the people. To regard the people
or what the communist elegantly call the ‘masses’
as the agent of change or political upheaval is purely
a theoretical view, a historical myth, of which
one sees no trace in reality. The ‘people’ were
the pretext, the dupes, and almost always the
victims of the revolutions, not the engines. 
Not only was propagation of the myth of popular support for democratic ideals propounded for the survival of the new social order, but putting these tenets into practice was accomplished, in large part, by the role of the “intellectual” an often neglected feature of standard historical analysis and the reason behind much social transformation:
The ‘nation’ met the desires of the philosophers
who wanted to transfer power from the monarch
to an enlightened, philosophical, and philanthropic
class who, moreover, ought to be financially
comfortable. The educated bourgeoisie of the
time were the protagonists of this idea, and a
portion of the nobility formed their audience. [13-14]
The intellectuals promoted Democracy because it would open up for them considerable opportunities for position and income in the nation state. It must be remembered that it was the intellectuals who justified the idea of Absolutism. Later, the intellectuals turned on the monarchies and sided with the emerging republican classes rightly believing that democratic governance would give them greater opportunities for power in the emerging nation states.
Democracy and Modern History
While most historians see the advancement of democracy and the development of legislative bodies over the course of the last centuries as an advancement in the human condition and one that has emanated from the people’s desire for greater political representation, Buffin de Chosal presents a far different and more accurate interpretation. “Democracy,” he asserts, “is not, in its origin a system of the people.”  All of the social movements which eventually led to the destruction of Christendom did not come from the people seeking a greater “voice” in their governance.
“The ‘people,’” he argues, “were the pretext, the dupes, and almost always the victims of the revolutions, not the engines.” [Ibid.] Liberty, Equality and Fraternity was not a popular cry, but one coined and used by the “enlightened” classes to mobilize and justify their overthrow of the French monarchy and with it the destruction of the Church.
The French Revolution was built on the
idea of the ‘nation,’ which claimed to bring
together the intellectual, social, and financial
elite of the country. It was on this foundation
that democracy was established and that it
functioned during almost all of the nineteenth
A similar historical narrative can be seen in England.
The rise and eventual triumph of representative democracy in England was not one that percolated from the masses itching for more freedom. “The appearance of the parliamentary system in England,” Buffin de Chosal contends, “was tied to the great movement of Church property confiscation begun under Henry VIII and continuing until the coming of the Stuarts.” 
After Henry gorged himself on the Church’s wealth, he sought to bribe as much of the nobility as possible with his ill-gotten gains to insure his power. An envious Parliament, however, wanted its cut of the loot which led to the great internecine struggle between Crown and Parliament which eventually ended in the suzerainty of the latter with the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The real power from then on rested with an oligarchical legislative branch:
The families who had thus helped themselves
to the Church’s goods, morally justified by
Protestant ethics, formed the gentry, the class
of landowners who sat in Parliament. Parliament
was not then, as one might believe today, an organ
of poplar representation. It was an instrument
in the hands of the gentry to defend its own class
That Parliament and the monarchy would become the two dominant ruling structures was the result of the breakdown of the feudal structure which was taking place not only in England, but across Europe. European monarchs continued to gain more and more power at the expense of the feudal landed elite. The gentry’s power and wealth was also on the wane with the rise of commercial centers which most of the time aligned themselves first with the kings and then later with Parliament. The eventual triumph of Parliament, however, did not mean greater democracy for the people:
The financial incentives for England’s adoption
of the Protestant Reformation are therefore
intimately connected with the bolstering of
Parliamentary power. The Parliament in England
was used to put the monarchy in check and to
replace it with an oligarchic class of wealthy
Protestants to whom the kings were required to
submit. This is why the overthrow of James II
in 1688 was a true revolution. It was not a
popular revolution or the overthrowing of a
tyranny, but it was the rebellion of a class
implementing the transfer of sovereign power
for its own profit. 
The Market Economy
The author takes a refreshing look at the market economy that sets straight the inaccurate and often times hostile analysis of it that frequently comes from conservative circles. He distinguishes and rightly points out that “pure capitalism” or the “unhampered market” is an “excellent thing” . The free market is intimately tied with private property which is a prerequisite for a just society:
[Capitalism] proceeds from respect for private property.
As capitalism is the reinvestment or saved money for the
purpose of making new profits, it presupposes respect for
property rights and free enterprise. It has existed in Europe
since the Middle Ages and has contributed significantly to
the development of Western society. [Ibid.]
He insightfully notes that “bad capitalism” often gets lumped in with its “good form” while the latter gets the blame for the baneful excesses of the former. “Monopoly capitalism,” “corporatism,” “the mixed economy,” and “crony capitalism” are not the result of the market process, but stem from “intervention” brought about by the State in favor of its business favorites through participatory democracy. In a truly free market, entrenched wealth is rarely maintained but is constantly subjected to challenges by competitors:
But what one ought to designate as bad
capitalism is the concentration of wealth and
power this wealth procures. This danger does
not stem from capitalism itself but rather from
parliamentary democracy, for it is democracy
that enables money powers to dominate the
political realm. [Ibid.]
The “monied interest” did not exist under “traditional monarchy,” but was a product of Democracy and the protection and extension of the “bad capitalistic” paradigm that came into being and was expanded by the rise of popular representative bodies. Assemblies, legislatures, and congresses, which emerged, became aligned with the banking and financial interests to bring about the downfall of the monarchies.
The concentration of political power could only be attained after the control of money and credit were centralized in the form of central banking and the gold standard was eliminated. Central banks have been an instrumental part of the democratic age, funding the nation state’s initiatives and enriching the politically- tied financial elites at the expense of everyone else.
Wealth concentration is not a by-product of the free market. Rarely are firms able to maintain their dominance for long periods of time. Many turn to the State to get protection and monopoly grants to ensure their position in the economy:
. . . capitalism only becomes harmful when
it grants political power to the money powers.
This was only made possible thanks to the advent
of parliamentary democracy, which was an
invention of liberalism. It is therefore the
foundational principles of political liberalism
(equality before the law, suppression of privileges,
centralization of political power, censitary suffrage,
and the accountability of ministers to the legislative
houses) which have enabled the rise of a wealthy class
and its power over society. 
Such sound economic analysis abounds throughout his tome.
The author rightly sees that because of its nature and the type of personalities that it attracts, modern democracy cannot reform itself, but will eventually collapse from financial stress, war, and/or civil strife:
Parliamentary democracy rarely produces true
statesmen, as its party system more often
promotes ambitious and self-interested persons,
demagogues, and even communication experts.
These are generally superficial and egocentric
individuals with a very limited understanding
of society and man. These politicians do not
have the makings of statesmen. They are
adventurers who use the state to satiate their
hunger for power and money or to benefit
their party. 
Efforts to reform it, however, should not be totally dismissed since they could lead to more fundamental change and ultimately the creation of a new political paradigm for Western governance. Populism and the various movements around the globe which fall into that category should be encouraged. Populism, because of is lack of definite ideological underpinnings, has meant different things at different times to different people. Most populists, however, do not want to get rid of democratic forms of government, but want the system to be more “responsive” of its constituents instead of favoring entrenched political elites. Populism is a symptom of the growing failure of modern democracy’s inability to “deliver the goods” that it promises to a now growing dependency class.
As a means of getting rid of totalitarian democracy, populist movements and themes should always be encouraged:
In Europe, the only political forces today
which could, in the more extreme of circumstances
assume this rescue role are found on the side of
populism. Conservative in its values, sometimes
classically liberal when it is a matter of opposing
the stifling interventionism of the state, and yet ready
to defend social gains . . . populism is the only
political current which comes to the defense of
those interests of the population denied or ignored
by the parties in power. 
Populist parties, from the simple fact that they
can bring together voters from both the left
and the right, have a chance of coming to power
in the near enough future. The deterioration of
security conditions in Europe due to mass
immigration plays in their favor. [148-49]
While he does not explicitly discuss it, a more concrete and ideological coherent idea and one of historical precedent, is that of secession. For all those who oppose the democratic order, secession is the most justifiable, logical, and practical strategy for the dissolution of the nation state. Secession movements, therefore, whether they do not outwardly condemn parliamentary democracy and only seek to establish a “better run” system, should always be supported.
The most likely scenario if there is to be a change in Western democratic life will be from a world-wide economic crisis and collapse of the financial system which will render the nation states unable to meet their financial obligations to their citizens. All economies are hopelessly indebted from their welfare state excesses and can never hope to meet their promises which now runs in the trillions. What will emerge in the aftermath of a collapse is hard to predict, but some form of authoritarianism is likely which will be centered on a one-world state with a single, irredeemable currency.
While the financial demise of Western-styled democracy will be evident for all to see, its ideological underpinnings which have justified its existence needs to be extirpated. Any hope of it being reconstituted to better serve “the people” needs to be shot down. There is no better place to start the de-mystification of Democracy than with Christophe Buffin de Chosal’s magnificent, The End of Democracy.
*Professor Christophe Buffin de Chosal teaches economic history at the United Business Institutes.
With the welcome departure of war mongering UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, the Trump Administration’s neocon tag team of death and destruction – Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor (NSA), John Bolton – have enthusiastically taken up where the repellent Haley has left off. It is highly doubtful that the former Ambassador will meekly return from under the rock in which she crawled, but will reappear possibly as a primary challenger to her former boss in 2020, and, most certainly, as a Presidential contender in 2024.
Last week, Messrs Pompeo and Bolton were dutifully carrying forth Haley’s promises of mayhem to anyone opposed to US hegemony even if those “enemies” have never taken hostile action against the US mainland. Of course, threats and attacks against nations which have done nothing to America have never much mattered to the foreign policy establishment!
In one of the most provocative comments ever made by a US diplomat, maniacal Mike threatened Iran with mass starvation of its population (via US sanctions) if it does not submit to Uncle Sam’s outrageous and humiliating demands. In a BBC interview, the Secretary of State warned that:
[Iran’s] leadership has to make a decision that they want their people to eat.*
Following up on his genocidal warning, the Secretary of State (with a supposedly straight face) said that Iran was a “destabilizing influence” in the Mideast and was a state sponsor of terrorism.
Incredibly, the sociopathic Pompeo actually believes that Iran has been the greatest disrupter of peace in the Middle East when, in fact, it has been the nation in which he represents (along with Israel) that has been the real culprit of state sponsored terrorism with its destruction of Iraq, the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, and the attempted regime change in Syria to name just a few of America’s nefarious activities in the region.
A Brown University study shows the absurdity of Pompeo’s claims. The study estimates that between 480,000 to 507,000 people were killed in America’s post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. For the US, some 60,000 troops have lost their lives or been wounded.***
US Destruction of Iraq
After threatening genocide of the Iranian people, Pompeo told an outright lie as he accused Iran for the catastrophe that is taking place in Yemen:
[The] Iranians are responsible for the starvation of Yemen civilians.****
No one outside of the Western controlled press or among the clueless American populace believes such a claim and knows that the starvation which is taking place in Yemen has been caused by the US’s ally, Saudi Arabia, which America has armed for decades. It is not the Iranians, but the US which is guilty as an accomplice for the genocide taking place in that misbegotten land.
Yemen Drone Strike
Not to be outdone by his fellow merchant of death, John Bolton focused his most recent bellicose talk on Latin American regimes that have not fallen in line with the US Empire’s wishes. He labeled three countries as “the troika of tyranny in this hemisphere – Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua.”** Big Bad John boasted that the three had “finally met [their] match” in the Trump Administration.
Wow, John, you are so tough, but saying that these three hellholes are a “match” for the US is a bit much when it is unlikely that the three combined could even defeat Rhode Island’s National Guard in a pitched battle!
While Bolton ruled out (for now) military intervention, he did say that sanctions would soon be placed on the “troika of tyranny.” Bolton proclaimed that “Under this administration, we will no longer appease dictators and despots near our shores.”
Yes, by all means, a possible invasion by a Cuban/Venezuelan/Nicaraguan juggernaut rolling up to the shores of south Florida should be a concern for all Americans. No telling how much damage inflicted and territory conquered the “Latin American Axis” could accomplish! It is good that perceptive and ever vigilant foreign policy experts like John Bolton keep a watchful eye out for such threats!
These are dangerous and evil men who think nothing of inflicting pain and suffering upon innocent people who have little control over what their nation’s leadership does, just as Americans have little say in the policies and actions of their government.
A global empire attracts personality types like Haley, Pompeo and Bolton. It needs such sociopaths to provoke others and stir up troubles where there is none to justify its existence. A more peaceful world will only come about with the demise of the American Empire, not changing the personalities who guide it.
Sadly, for Americans who have to fund it and the peoples of the world who are in its path, until there is an economic collapse and/or a dollar crisis, the American Empire will continue to threaten and, in some instances, carry out those threats led by the likes of Michael Pompeo and John Bolton.
*Tyler Durden, “Iran’s Leadership Must Decide ‘If They Want Their People to Eat’ – Pompeo.” Zero Hedge. 9 November 2018.
**Alex Gorka, “US Declares War on ‘Troika of Tyranny’ Pushing Them Closer to Russia.” Strategic Culture Foundation. 7 November 2018.
*** Jason Ditz, “US Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan Killed 500,000 People.” Antiwar.com 8 November 2018.
Two recent articles* have again demonstrated that the greatest “terrorist” entity on earth is not the bogymen – Russia, China, Iran, North Korea – so often portrayed by Western presstitudes and the American government, but the United States itself! Ever since World War II, the US has been the most militaristic, far surpassing all of the Communist and dictatorial regimes combined.
Some startling and rarely reported facts:
Currently, the US drops on someone or something a deadly explosive once every12 minutes
W. Bush’s military dropped 70,000 bombs on five different nations during his murderous regime
Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Barrack Obomber, launched 100,000 bombs on seven countries
Funding this mass murder is a reportedly $21 trillion (!) that is unaccounted for in the Pentagon’s coffers
Despite all of the “America First” bluster at the start of the Trump Administration, little has changed but, in fact, things have escalated. While G.W. Bush in his wicked eight years dropped over 24 bombs per day and his successor upped that total to 34 bombs per day, the current Bomber-in-Chief has, in his first year in office, averaged 121 bombs per day! For the initial year of his Presidency, 44,000 bombs were dropped on people and lands despite the fact that the US is not officially at war with a single country!
Despite these grisly statistics, which are hardly ever reported by the mainstream press, the military industrial complex and the controlled Western media outlets have propagated the lie of “precision bombing.” Precision bombing has been trumpeted to minimize the effect of US aggression to the public that only true belligerents are targeted and not innocents.
When US bombing is reported by the press, the actual casualties and property damage are never accurately given. The most notorious example of this mendacity was the coverage of Bush II’s Iraq war. “The US and its allies ruthlessly carpet-bombed Iraq,” a UN report acknowledged, “reducing it from ‘a rather highly urbanized and mechanized society’ to a ‘pre-industrial age nation.’”
Later accounts of what actually happened showed that “only seven percent of the 88,500 tons of bombs and missiles devastating Iraq were ‘precision weapons.’”
Yet, it is hypocritical US policy makers that call certain regimes “rogue” and/or “terrorist” while their own defense budget is set at $700 billion to increase next year by $16 billion. Yes, more taxes extorted from the public for the pulverization of peoples and their homes across the globe!
Even if these statistics were of common knowledge, do not look for things to change. The majority of the American public loves its military and government and has been conditioned to overlook and accept nearly all of its military engagements and the propaganda that attempts to justify them.
What must change is ideology which, at one time, was strongly anti-interventionist, but gradually became pro-war. Through education, the press, books, and the electronic media, the intelligentsia was able to manipulate public opinion. Americans began to glorify war under the guise of spreading democracy and “freedom” to everyone, whether they wanted it or not.
Under current ideological conditions, a reversal of thinking to a non-interventionist foreign policy is not likely. The only way that the nation’s rampaging foreign policy will be checked is through an economic collapse or a severe dollar crisis, the latter of which would end the greenback’s status as the world’s reserve currency.
If America no longer has the means to fund its military around the world, its imperialism will quickly come to an end. It is extremely burdensome on a domestic economy to maintain a global empire and one that is actively engaged in costly military operations. If the nation’s economy severely contracts or the dollar can no longer be printed with impunity, the bombing of other peoples and political involvement in overseas affairs would have to cease, or be drastically curtailed. A historical example of this is Great Britain after WWII.
As it stands now, only financial calamity will bring down the world’s foremost terrorist state. If such a scenario comes about, the US may become the recipient of the destruction, loss of life, and mayhem it has unleashed upon the world.
A couple of recent articles have once more made the case, at least implicitly, for political decentralization as the only viable path which will begin to solve the seemingly insurmountable political, economic, and social crises which the Western world now faces.
In the last few months, over 3,000 millionaires have fled the hopelessly corrupt and bankrupt state of Illinois. When asked, 47% of Illinoisans would like to leave the state which, over the last decade, has seen over a half million of its residents flee. Naturally, this exodus has exacerbated the Land of Lincoln’s financial straits to catastrophic levels.*
A report published by the American Legislative Exchange Council predicted that the tax flight which is occurring in Illinois will similarly take place in the coming years in high-tax blue states such as California and New York. The 2017 Trump tax reform will accelerate this process since under the new legislation the amount of state income tax that can be deducted on federal tax returns has been capped at $10,000 per family. The authors of the report wrote: “. . . high [income] earners in places with hefty income taxes – not just California and New York, but also Minnesota and New Jersey – will bear more of the true cost of their state government.”**
The not too subtle consequences of the new tax code will mean an even greater exodus of taxpayers out of blue states which will shrink state revenues even further and create job losses across the board.
While those who want to escape the crushing burden of individual state taxation and regulation, if they have the means and desire to do so, can move to more favorable climes, no such option exists (except the drastic step of expatriation) to escape federal tyranny. Yet, the same benefits which occur from a multiple of individual states and jurisdictions would be present if the various nation states which dominate the globe were broken up into smaller political units.
While the authors of the cited articles see the advantage that multiple states have where one can “vote with his feet,” the same logic can be applied to central governments across the planet who are, on the whole, more tyrannical than local jurisdictions. More political bodies would not only provide sanctuary for the oppressed, but it would tend to keep a check on tyranny among existing states.
Political decentralization is a far greater deterrent to government largesse than constitutions, elections, or finding the “right person” to “fix things.” The events of the last few weeks in the realm of US foreign policy once again demonstrate that trusting candidates to fulfill campaign promises is naive, to say the least.
To get to this goal, all and every secession movement, even of a Leftist bent, should be supported, whether they are nations that want to “exit” from larger political units, such as Great Britain from the EU, or within nation states themselves such as California in the US. All should be encouraged.
Of course, the case for decentralization has to be made on ideological grounds. The Left, most likely, will not be a natural ally for secession, nor are conservatives, most of whom are under the spell of “nationalism” and “restoring the Republic.” Yet, the Right offers the best opportunity to build a secession movement and needs to be convinced that the preservation of the nation state will only lead to the complete triumph of liberalism.
Secession would also necessitate the breakup of the nation-state’s monopoly of money and banking. Numerous political divisions would be more likely to adopt a single monetary unit – gold – which would guarantee financial stability rather than the debt ridden paper-money system now in place.
Next to the outbreak of World War III, immigration is the greatest threat to what remains of Western Civilization. Smaller political units would be far better to control their borders than reliance on a central authority which can be easily manipulated from outside agents.
The solution to the myriad of social and economic problems that confront Western societies will not come about from a “reform” of the nation state, but through its dissolution. Only through a world made up of hundreds, if not thousands, of Lichtensteins, Hong Kongs, Monacos, confederacies, free cities, etc., will these crises be hoped to be resolved.
**Robert Frank. “800,000 People Are About to Flee New York and California Because of Taxes, Say Economists.” CNBC.com. 26 April 2018. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/26/800000-people-are-about-to-flee-new-york-california-because-of-taxes.html?__source=sharebar|twitter&par=sharebar
The Bomber-in-Chief announces air attacks on Syria
Despite the vehement pleas and letter-writing campaigns by a significant portion of his political base including notable media personalities such as Tucker Carlson against military action in Syria, President Trump committed what looks like political suicide by ordering air strikes on Friday evening. The bombing, thankfully, appeared to have been thwarted by Syrian air defenses, nor, as of this date, has the insane American, British and French action led to a wider conflagration.
As of yet, no doubt due to Divine Intervention, WWIII has not erupted and although the ramifications of the attack will reverberate for weeks to come, what is clear is that President Trump is now firmly in the clutches of the neocons, Israel, and the American Deep State, all of who are the direct beneficiaries of the wanton attack on the Assad regime.
A good portion of Trump’s base is rightfully enraged by the action, which will dash any hope of it coming to his aid if future impeachment proceedings are commenced over the Mueller investigation. Many of Trump’s supporters have been seething ever since he signed off on the $1.3 trillion omnibus spending package in March and his continued failure to start construction on a border wall.
Talk about shooting one’s self in the foot!
Whether President Trump survives until 2020 or is replaced in the interim by neocon Mike Pence, American foreign policy will, in all likelihood, continue its bellicose ways. Ever since WWI, which the current Bomber-in-Chief mentioned in his address announcing the air strikes, America has been an interventionist, destructive, and murderous empire.
The reason for this is that the nation’s ideology had changed where it had once trumpeted the ideas of non-intervention and peace (except, of course, for the people of the South during their heroic attempt at independence) to those that glorified empire and war, largely based on the British model which, ironically, was the system that America seceded from in 1776. By the time of WWI (actually the disgraceful Spanish-American War), the ideals of non-intervention, peace, free trade, and hard money had been gradually replaced by those of empire, central banking, war, and debt.
Until there is a change in ideology, it is unlikely that the US will refrain from its interventionist foreign policy. And, typically, social change comes after men’s minds have been convinced of a different paradigm which, of course, does not happen overnight.
Like the British Empire before it, the only way the US will stop its murderous ways will be from economic collapse or a severe financial panic which threatens or ends the US dollar’s status as the world reserve currency.
Candidate Trump may have been the last hope of an American Firster who had the wherewithal to attain the Presidency. Although not an ideologue, Trump spoke of getting along with Russia, disengaging from the Middle East, and backing out of, or making NATO members pay for their own “defense.” These qualities faded once elected and the ominous talk about scuttling the Iranian arms deal and spending more on the military were pushed ahead.
After WWII, Britain had simply exhausted itself with its insane participation in the world wars and could no longer maintain its empire. Britain’s ideology did not change, but reality stepped in: it simply did not have the capacity (wealth) to fund a world-wide empire. It had squandered its resources and men on the battlefields of Europe.
Winston Churchill destroyer of the British Empire
The US is headed in the same direction, which is what both Russia and China are counting on. Its crushing debt burden, costly wars, and out-of-control spending are sapping its productive capacity, which the military industrial complex taps to sustain itself.
The US’ enemies have based their strategies on this. In reference to the US’ involvement in the Afghanistan quagmire, Osama bin Laden reportedly said:
We, alongside the mujahideen, bled Russia for 10
years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to
withdraw in defeat . . . So we are continuing this
policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy.*
Osama Bin Laden
The question that remains is when will a collapse occur or at least another crisis like in 2008 take place? The warning signs abound. The most pressing is the exploding US deficit which has soared in March to $209 billion. In 2007, the entire deficit for the year was less than $200 billion!
The collapse of the US economy is unavoidable, however, it is not “if” but “when.” For world peace, it had better be sooner than later.
As long as the US Empire can be funded and maintained on the backs of its taxpaying public, the chance of de-escalation of tensions not only on the Korean peninsula, but throughout the world are practically nil. And, as long as the nation’s current interventionist ideology holds sway, it will only be through a financial meltdown that the US’s role as global policeman will come to a much-needed end.
The most recent example of the world’s biggest bully escalating matters is its on-again, off-again badgering of North Korea. In contrast to Western/CIA media reports, the November 28 launch of what appears to be an intercontinental ballistic missile, the Hwasong-15, was not unprovoked. Instead, the North Korean test firing was in response to the unexpected announcement of further US/South Korean military drills to take place starting on December 4. The exercises are, in part, to show off the latest mass murdering “product” of America’s military industrial complex, the USF-22 Raptor stealth fighter jet.
Before the latest launch, the Kim Jong Un regime had not fired a missile for two months and was in discussions with other intermediaries about how tensions could be lessened on the Korean peninsula. For the bellicose US, however, not even an uneasy “truce” can be tolerated. The next American scheduled drill was not to take place until the spring of 2018, yet, while negotiations were taking place, the US abruptly, and to the outrage of everyone involved, renewed exercises. Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, explains:
We have been working with Pyongyang. Then,
all of a sudden two weeks after the United States
had sent us the signal [about readiness to dialogue],
they announced unscheduled drills in December.
there is an impression that they were deliberately
provoking [North Korean leader] Kim Jong Un to
make him break the pause and gave in to their
This, of course, is not the first time that the US has acted with duplicity in foreign matters. Its barbaric dealing with two Middle Eastern strongmen (Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi) are grisly examples of what happens to those who run afoul of the US Empire, especially those who do not possesses a nuclear deterrent.
North Korea, too, has witnessed the wanton destructive capabilities of the American military during the so called “police action” of the early 1950s:
The US Air Force estimated that North Korea’s
destruction was proportionally greater than that
of Japan’s in the Second World War. . . . American
planes dropped 635,000 tons of bombs on Korea . . .
including 32,557 tons of napalm, compared to
503,000 tons of bombs dropped in the entire Pacific
theatre of WWII.**
The loss of life was, to say the least, catastrophic as 10% of the population, some 3 million people, perished due mostly to American bombing while the destruction of property was equally brutal. “By the end of the war,” North Korean sources assert, “only two modern buildings remained standing in Pyongyang.”***
Is it any wonder that the North Korean leadership gets a little antsy when the US scramble its jets. It does not want a repetition of the holocaust inflicted on it by the merciless American Air Force.
Of course, these inconvenient facts are rarely if ever spoken about in the Western media, academia, and certainly not by war-mongering politicos like U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley. They are simply ignorant of history or pretend not to know.
The US Empire only accepts peace if it favors its interests. For the Korean Peninsula that means that Kim Jong Un must disband his nuclear program. Such a move, however, would mean a premature death to Un and the eventual carpet bombing of his country. The North Korean strongman will do no such thing.
The Trump Administration may huff and puff all it wants and enact greater sanctions on the North, but unless it wants to risk a nuclear confrontation that may spread into a general world war, it has little options.
Instead of another round of destabilizing military maneuvers, maybe President Trump and his foreign policy team should try to engage in genuine negotiations to bring about an equitable solution to the matter.