You're now on the archive server. Commenting has been disabled.
Politics and Destruction
The history of mankind is dominated by politics. Since the early gathering communities until the present postmodern political environment. All great historical events can be traced back to a series of political decisions, which were either done by the ruling political option or its opposition. While the theoretical view on politics has changed for the past 5000 years, the object of political studies remains the same. The main purpose of this short article is to present the underlying realities of that what is considered political, and also to give a critique of the present state and define its anomalies and irregularities.
Since the beginning of the recent economic crisis many have offered their list of reasons which contributed to the present situation. While the number of those, who say the main culprit can be found in the sphere of financial misconduct and the lack of any risk management, is equal to the number of those who advocate that the main and underlying reason of the recent economic destruction is among those who rule us; we can not disregard the option which clearly states that a combined effort in breaking the regulatory financial framework was due to the efforts of both spheres.
While I do not take sides with the Randian advocates who preach the total separation of Politics and the Economy, i somewhat agree with them that a clear distinction, among what is the domain of Politics and what is the domain of the Economy, needs to be drawn. And I do not state so just to offer some relatively new approach to the whole matter, but as the most pragmatic and utilitarian mean to insure the future sustainability of, both, the Economy and Politics. Now the question arises about the current political-economic environment; has the Economy captured Politics, or has Politics captured the Economy. A good, and well balanced article on that matter was posted here on ZeroHedge, by non other, than our very own Marla Singer.
Allow me to draw a reference of the present political-economic environment with a basic mathematical notion. I do not like when social phenomena is look upon trough the eyes of mathematical laws, and mathematical structures, like many economic schools do, but i find this reference well suited for the point i am trying to make. Lets, for one moment, perform a little thought experiment and look at the Economy and Politics as two sets of values, programs, beliefs and paradigms. If we were to take the whole matter of our little experiment even further we could easily say that the relations between two sets is that they intersect but do not join. While some set elements can belong to both Politics and the Economy, not all set elements belong to both the Economy and Politics. When the two structures are observed that way it is easily seen that the natural state (if there exists one, and if its not only an abstraction) of the relations between Politics and the Economy is somewhat defined as the intersection of their values, programs, beliefs and paradigms. Also, the orthodox teachings of Ayn Rand concerning this subject will not, in any way, facilitate the long term sustainability of both structures.
The question of why is that so is not easy to answer without taking into regards some basic philosophic teachings on the natural condition of human kind. If the system is to be structured such that the Economy becomes independent of Politics, and Politics becomes independent the Economy we need to rest assured that the underlying nature of the human factor is rational. Modern Game Theory accepts that the underlying nature of the human factor is rational, and thus builds it program around that belief. But if we were to examine the path which those who advocate the usage of Game Theory took to come to such a conclusion, we would find some troublesome argumentation techniques. So for example, the main argumentation structure which defends the rational nature of the human factor is historical observation. Meaning, the arguments in favor of Game Theory are drawn in a Hegelian nature by observing historical phenomena and ascribing to them the rational conditions. But such an obvious fallacy can easily be refuted by offering a contra-argument in the form of point out all the monstrosities which were done throughout the history of mankind. While we did not take our argumentative grounds any further from historicism we have defeated the pro-rational argumentation using its own methods. Much was discussed on this topic throughout the 20th century by such established figures as Karl Popper and Jurgen Habermas. Therefore I will not spend much more time on this. If you want to read the material concerning the topic briefly discussed in this paragraph you can find the necessary literature on the web.
As you can see for yourself the word contained in the title of this article is Destruction. You have seen the social and the economic destruction in the past two years, and various other types of destruction which have followed the rise of the Man as the measure of all things. While the span of consequences brought on us by our political and economic leaders is global, it was not so in the past. One only needs to look back 200 years and observe the political-economic state in Europe,in the second part of 1700s. That era is marked by the large speculation in the companies which were called South Sea Company, Mississippi Company. The formation and subsequent speculation was done under the regulative of the royal cast which was then a predominant form of ruling cast. Subsequent crash and depletion of the royal treasuries of France, the UK and Netherlands was one one the main reasons of the subsequent late 18th century and early 19th century European Revolutions.
The following question is also important to be asked; from where or from whom is the power granted to those who rule. While there doesn't exist only one answer to those questions, some generalized categories can be formulated. From the beginnings of political structuring up until the French and the American revolution, a belief was strongly held that the "Power to Rule" is granted to the ruler by God. Such metaphysical explanation of the "Power to Rule" automatically gave to those who ruled the option to justify their deeds and policies upon the notion of Gods existence. As the living conditions of the general populace were becoming unbearable due to the autocratic form of governance; opposite political options emerged and captured the Zeitgeist of those who have suffered. The subsequent results of such emerging oppositions are secularization of The Church and The State, democratic process, social benefits etc.
As we are getting closer to the end of this article we find that it is important to analyze the current trends which we are witnessing. One of those trends is the process of globalization, which has its roots in two philosophical doctrines. The first philosophical doctrine which strongly influenced globalization is the political philosophy of a German philosopher by the name of Immanuel Kant. Immanuel Kant presented us with this political doctrine in his political essay which is titled "Perpetual Peace". I do not wish to go into dept in exposing this doctrine, but a belief in a global governance body, as well as in global institutions streams directly from the political teachings if Immanuel Kant. The second doctrine, with which you might be more familiar with, is relatively new. The doctrine of "Open Society" first exhibited in the political writings of the German philosopher Karl Popper. In his "Open Society" doctrine Popper proposes a geo-political system of national unification. You can witness such a system today by observing the main paradigmatic doctrines of the European Union. Of course the supra-national structure does not have to be confined just to the realm of the Political, but can, and is, spread among those who propose a global financial unification. Popper also proposes that all geographical borders need to disappear in order to facilitate the spatial population dynamics. While, by itself, that view is not orthodox in any way it necessitates that the sovereignty of nations needs to be sacrificed, all legal and economical systems, no matter how culturally and historically they may be different, be subdued to the idea of unity and general equality.
In conclusion, it is easily to predict the future trends in both the Sphere of the Political and the Sphere of the Economy. While the opposition to those kinds of movements grows more stronger each passing day, all sides of the political sphere stand united in supporting and working in favor of the program described in this article. The belief that sovereignty is the main culprit in the history of warfare and that cultural differences are not beneficial for Peace, both the Political and the Economic structures will work hard in unifying the Globe under one umbrella of Artificial Identity. While I personally do not believe that their motives are in any way pointed towards benefiting the general populace, but are pointed towards their own personal benefit and strengthening the power grip which they hold.
It will come as no surprise if we see a global currency in the next 5 years, or a formation of political and economic unions which will mirror the European Union. With strong social programs and centralized form of governing, dominated by global institutions with their programs the world will stand ideologically united. But as we know no human or any action can stop the flow of history, or change the underlying inner dynamics of that what we perceive as historical. It can only dress it in the the cloth of artificiality and sustain it as long as possible. But as we know; on a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone, and anything, drops to zero.
Thank you for reading.
»
Hey, did you know that the history of mankind is dominated by politics?
Awesome, dude.
*toke*
Regarding the role of the internet, it is a game changer.
In the near term, there are all sorts of risks for everyone, so a struggle over its form is inevitable. In a longer time line, the its final shape will reflect the values of the winner(s) of the struggles over its form.
Think big like this ...
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive//6.01/hillis.html?person=danny_hillis...
I always like to point out that technology is a tool; tools are neither good nor evil. Its how we apply the tools that have moral consequence. And global information networks have great potential in either direction.
Its going to be an interesting ride ...
CrazyCooter
We ain't seen nothing yet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDYCf4ONh5M
How resilient do you suppose "the one" internet will be after a solar storm CME such as in 1859, 1921 or 1989? What happens to information societies if their co-dependent partner, "the one" internet, fails for a day, a month a year?
<!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->
I am afraid you are correct. Politics lead to destruction because as in all human institutions it brings social asymmetry.
Social asymmetry is not simply theoretically chaotic. When we amass, or centralize, authority and/or resources (gravitational influence) we become more vulnerable to physical annihilation. Centralization breeds specialization of function, glorifying economies of scale and discounting risks of scale. It is myopic. It brings a gravy train of prosperity at the expense of dependency on an asymmetric system. It is asymmetric because it is one unit, one world, one system. If one part of the system fails we all are doomed. The more units and the broader based the skill set of those units, the more symmetrical a society. A symmetrical society is limited in scope but indestructible. If one third of the world is wiped out by catastrophe in an asymmetric society, the other two thirds would soon follow. If one third of the world is wiped out by catastrophe in a symmetric society, the other two thirds would be unaffected. We would do well to pursue symmetry.
But...we won't. We will pursue the trajectory you have described.
Cheeky,
From my reading of Ayn Rand, she proposed the separation of trade and state, just as there is a separation of church and state. I don't think that she implied that economics and politics were completely separate. We need the government to investigate and prosecute fraud. They also are supposed to protect civil rights/private property. Both of these issues have been ignored by politicians because of a misunderstanding of the proper use of public law.
It would have been really interesting if you would have explored or critiqued her theories on this in greater depth. I really have had my fill of Kant from my undergrad days.
5 years ago, I'd have laughed at an article like this. Today - not so much.
The premises at the root of this are all correct, and the tendencies of people to accept them as "true" are growing. but it's unfortunate this is happening. The concept of one market, one currency, one government has a Utopian quality to it, in each instance.
Utopias, in the past, have all failed miserably. What makes us think the success of a large Utopia is going to be more likely than the success of myriad smaller ones?
One thing I've learned over the years is to "celebrate" diversity. I'm not talking about diversity of skin color, creed or anything like that. Diversity of thought. There's no reason preventing sovereign nations from existing peacefully, prosperously, and in a relatively benign state.
But believing that means that the consolidated powers cannot increase their grip over society. And this is not a conspiriatorial thought. "Consolidated Powers" is a moving target. Today we can see men like George Soros working with governments across the world to "achieve globally beneficial goals". In many cases, this requires men like Soros to manipulate the political process. He has no qualms about doing that.
But manipulation of this process is designed to do one thing - consolidate power further. We read daily on Zerohedge that "too big to fail" is why the government is propping up businesses. But we've seen no solutions for fixing the problem of "too big to fail". That is, using anti-trust legislation to break them up. Instead, we see the government creating "so large they cannot fail so we'll prop them up even further".
Consolidation of power. It was a theme of Ayn Rand, and while her viewpoints have flaws, it's one theme which continues to resonate all these years. Consolidation of power is the goal of the system of government....and this consolidation has taken a fast track in the last few years, and an even faster one in the last few months.
Practice makes perfect Cheeky. Most everyone understands why Nature only allows human beings to live to be an average of 76 years olds.
good point...maybe corporations should have a similar lifespan?
Ayn Rand's root best is often taken out of context ..people purposefully not understanding the thinking of the era or the aspect of how modern fame led her to go off the rails defending protecting her system and ego.
To simplify is best ..politics derives its power from economics..never the other way around.. to allow politicians to control economics and pander to an ignorant populace therefore weakens the economic...
History is full of examples of the ingenuity, creativity and intelligence being the driving force of human advancement ...people working together using economic priciples ..never political principles...
if political principles designed ..say a BMW ..the ultimate driving machine ..would look and perform like a Russian Lada
Politics is at best over-rated and at worst obsolete..
Coke and HSBC and the bond market are already hard at work unifying the globe. The pols are clueless - along for the ride from their one-dimensional viewing platform.
Capitalism is economic neo-Darwinism. It's judgments are amoral. The moral (political) balance is corrupted (owned) by the self-appointed scale (share) master(s).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOA4ixV-3jU
What a great article, thank you. I am not sure which statement to pick to agree with or which one to disagree with..."While I personally do not believe that their motives are in any way pointed towards benefiting the general populace, but are pointed towards their own personal benefit and strengthening the power grip which they hold."...surely this is the way it is, and, in my view (who cares), a very true and painful reality. What is the most efficient way each one of us can do about it so that the new generations would spend more time to love and less time to hate, cheat and make profits? I do not know.
Interesting article CB. A couple points:
+ You are absolutely correct that the Randian concept of mutually-exclusive Politics and Economics is a falsehood; historically, the two never have been separated, and never will be. Some separation would ideally be nice from an effectiveness and anti-corruption standpoint, but the reality is that as long political or economic actors can gain a competitive advantage by harnessing the coercive powers of the state or the means of production, those connected individuals will do so. The mechanisms of power will be held by somebody, and those holding the power will collude to retain their positions.
+ Regarding your conclusions projecting a world currency, global governance institutions and ideological unity, I think some degree of this has already happened with dollar hegemony and neoliberal globalization.
However, you must also consider the relative decline in the power of the state compared to the last 200 years; many functions and powers that used to be the exclusive domain of the state are being hollowed out or co-opted by market and criminal actors. Perhaps a world political-economic architecture will be established, but how much will it effectively control?
I think rather than a totalitarian New World Order, it will look more like a Global Favela a la Brazil, Nigeria, Mexico and Russia i.e. a centralized top-strata of political-economic elites that control the legal institutions, an amorphous network of Mafias that control peripheral territories, and impoverishment and insecurity for the vast majority of the population. Institutions grow and merge globally, but command less and less on-the-ground, with the result being increasing fragmentation and chaos.
If you're interested in this alternative view check out John Robb's title="Global Guerrillas"> Global Guerrillas. He has an excellent track record of predicting socio-political trends, with an emphasis on conflict and network theory.
Unrelated:
Really enjoy your posts, but I agree with above commentor; you should proof-read better. Unnecessary grammatical errors undermine your credibility.
First off, to quibble with the motto of this site, it's not that the survival rate for everyone and everything drops to zeo, because that would include whatever rises to replace it. It's that the survival rate for anyone and anything drops to zero. Energy is neither gained or lost, it merely changes form. The question is predicting what form it will take.
A few issues with our basic philosophical underpinnings: The problem with the monotheistic paradigm is that the absolute, the universal state, is basis, not apex. So anything resembling a universal source would be the essence from which we rise, not an ideal from which we fell. Monotheism is an idealization of patriarchy and the reality of patriarchy is that each generation grows old, dies and is replaced by the next. The king is dead, Long live the king. Also keep in mind that it was the polytheists who developed democracy, because they did not subsume all their tribal deities into one, but developed a pantheon in which processes of compromise were necessary. In physical terms, order and structure degrade, while energy expands, either by adding to and growing existing order, or breaking down and radiating away from decaying order.
The primary medium of social and economic connection in a mass society is the currency. It is a medium of exchange and store of value. These work at cross purposes, because as medium, it is a utility and as store, it is property. In effect it belongs to whomever guarantees its value and is loaned to everyone else. Our current problem is that it is now publicly guaranteed, but privately managed. This is the basis of the socialization of risk and the privatization of reward. If we are going to have a publicly guaranteed currency, then we have to develop a public banking system. This should be formulated as a bottom up model for it to be stable. That means a system of broad local banking which seeds it profits back into the communities which create the wealth. These institutions then serve as shareholders in a regional banking system to support regional economies of scale. This level of institution would then be the board for a national bank that would be responsible for the currency.
If people understand currency is a form of public utility and therefore amounts to public wealth, they would be far more reluctant to drain value out of communal and environmental resources, thus slowing the rate of growth and making it more sustainable and stable, especially with a healthy local base.
True that. And your model of enlightened self interest sounds great but factionalism or nationalism always seems to get in the way.
True that, but if we understand our conflicts as one of subjective needs and not assign absolute values to them, we are far more likely to develop workable compromises, rather than destroy far more than necessary in a conflict over what are often hubristic assumptions of absolute values.
Growth is bottom up, while structure has to have some top down centralizing principle. The obvious examples are that North Korea is the most structured society and Somalia is the least structured society. There needs to be some balance, or we have no economy to speak of.
today the world's economy seems like a huge old oak that is quite fertile, but is rotten in the center. It is going to fall over, but the acorns are healthy.
If you knew anything at all about set theory, you would NEVER use game theory. See A. Garciadiego, BERTRAND RUSSELL AND THE ORIGINS OF THE SET-THEORETIC 'PARADOXES.'
Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps the reign of constructivism is over? Do you even know what constructivism is?
And you don't know anything about law either. You haven't read West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, so you don't even know what the political regime is of the world's largest economy.
You're a real great commentator. Another RIDICULOUS petit bourgeois ignorant police state clown.
The power to rule comes from weapons. Divine Mandate was another word for the ability to decide whether you live or die. This hasn't changed much. Now we just justify giving this power to certain people by pretending to agree on it.
Creepy Bastard,
Apparently, the “educational standards” for obnoxious Canadian pseudo-intellectuals are even lower.
This is but a partial list:
…“that what is considered political”
…“i somewhat agree…”
…“the most pragmatic and utilitarian mean”
…“has the Economy captured Politics, or has Politics captured the Economy.” (?)
…“by non other, than our very own Marla Singer.”
…“I do not like when social phenomena is look upon…”
…”trough the eyes of mathematical laws…”
…“but i find this reference well suited for the point i am trying to make.”
…“and if its not only an abstraction…”
…“and Politics becomes independent the Economy…”
…“and thus builds it program around that belief.”
…“in the form of point out…”
…”was done under the regulative of the royal cast…”
…”autocratic form of governance; opposite political options…”
…”I do not wish to go into dept…”
…”with which you might be more familiar with…”
…“is relatively new. The doctrine …”
…“In his "Open Society" doctrine Popper proposes…”
…”it is easily to predict the future trends…”
…“grows more stronger…”
…“The belief that sovereignty is the main culprit in the history of warfare and that cultural differences are not beneficial for Peace, both the Political and the Economic structures will work hard in unifying the Globe under one umbrella of Artificial Identity.”
…“But as we know no human…”
…“that what we perceive as historical…”
Get a proof-reader, kid; or better still, get an education. This superfluous, pedantic pablum belongs on a men’s room wall.
Dear Wolfy,
Does Loup Garou=French for "pedantic"?
Loosen your tighty whities a little Monsieur Bouillorre.
Cheeky - too many pretentious phrases heavily scented with PC flavor "Allow me...", "It will come as no surprise"... make this piece lose the dignity it otherwise deserves. Also, please do not misinterpret Kant and Popper - both were advocating CommonWealth and CommonSense, free of preachers and shamans, whether near-sighted and mumbling in apocryphs, or neatly bearded and unsure of their voice. Looking forward to your next piece..
Control freaks. They're EVERYWHERE!!
"While the theoretical view on politics has changed for the past 5000 years, the object of political studies remains the same."
funny...that's about as long as the mayan calendar.
bukowski quote from last week continues to resonate.
What if the participants in this forum simply decided that active participation includes a commitment to maintain an impartial and rigorus search for truth without antagonism or rancor?
Yea, fuck off asshole.
I agree.I am interested in getting to the truth.Arguing without caring about getting to the truth with an eye merely on "winning" is, in my experience, the sport of boors.
whut kinda fun is dat ?
Hmm.I suspect the truth of where we are going is simple.The current circus maximus deludes and debauches the participants while robbing them blind.It also runs ever higher numbers into abject poverty and famine worldwide.This is simply due to greed and power lust.In America, money=power and these two things combined have become our god.It is what we worship, aspire to and adore.If we have to reduce the rest of the planet to a ghetto, that is ok.And this in large measure explains our foreign policy.There is currently real pressure to create a world super state.It would make our depredations look pleasant by comparison for one reason....so much power will corrupt so much more.
It really is this simple:Greed and Power are dehumanizing....and if this path continues, it will end very badly.
I liked the article Cheeky.I approach the subject from a different paradigm, however.
I hope some communication into the paradigm you are in is possible, as much as Kuhn would say it isn't.
CB - I appreciate the effort you put into this even though I get to a similar conclusion about the current state of affairs through an entirely different construct. Kudos!
On a couple levels, I've never really been much of a fan of Deontological school of thought. First, I have a question for you: Do you think that people, such as Adam Weishaupt, were an influencing factor on Popper verses Kant in terms of suggesting "princes and nations shall vanish from the earth"?
Secondly, I like the whole analogy put forth in terms of Set Notation. I do a lot of work in OLAP structures, specifically with time sequencing. The interaction of those two subsets (Economy and Politics) to me is a f(t). I tend to think their interaction over time in the form of a helix, where different positions along the timeline are represented by something like the notation used in The Fate of Empires. In terms of a cycle, we as a country are on the end of the Age of Decadence. The move towards Globalism is purely an opportunistic play by the Weishaupt's of the world.
This essay evinces a sub-college level of understanding of political and economic theory.
Come back in a decade, junior.
Evince: To show or demonstrate clearly
If it truly evinces sophomoric levels, maybe you can do the honor of eviscerating it for the retards here...
The impressive detail and maturity of your reply proves your rank
examples please.
oh, wait, did you mean sub-college level of understanding by american educational standards. then ok .... thank you for the compliment ...
I think that Anon was Bernanke.......tone sounds familiar.......
Very excellent article Cheeky!
I agree that the internet does not allow for the physical movement of individuals or goods. But what it does allow is the movement and formation of ideas. Some of the ideas are good. Some are lousy. But the internet can (and will) be used by both sides to send messages (and plans) cryptically in a crisis situation.
It will come as no surprise if we see a global currency in the next 5 years, or a formation of political and economic unions which will mirror the European Union. With strong social programs and centralized form of governing, dominated by global institutions with their programs the world will stand ideologically united. But as we know no human or any action can stop the flow of history, or change the underlying inner dynamics of that what we perceive as historical. It can only dress it in the the cloth of artificiality and sustain it as long as possible. But as we know; on a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone, and anything, drops to zero.
I believe that this is where this whole thing is headed. The whole challenge for the powers that be is are they going to be able to lead us along peacefully, or will "we, the people" wake up at some point and go against them.
That's where places like the internet, and the free-flowing exchange of ideas come in useful.
Of course, you have to have a very powerful filter, to seperate the wheat from the chaff. There's a lot of crap to filter through on the internet. ;)
Anyway, thanks Cheeky, for an interesting article.
Shades of the Federation Captain---I always knew star trek was ahead of its time---nice piece CB.
Live long and prosper
The internet is the key to the future in terms of both the economy and politics.....
Here is why....
ie how old is Zero Hedge ?
And what is Zero Hedge ?
An open, cost free forum....not controlled
by the elite....
...................................
What is direct access exchange technology ?
Direct access technology is the equilibrator of
currencies that has yet to utilized in the manner that
is appropriate....as it is also going to be responsible for fairer distribution of wealth....
...................................
Politics has to conform to the fact that
no one in the future is going to cast a vote for someone that has no proven, viable record of success....not even for a local mayor.
How many politicians would be in office if every person
was aware of their actual records....?
.........................................
And actually if the internet was not here today....
What would people really know or be exposed to ?
It can even be surmised as knowing "too much" too quick ?
ie for the politicos or anyone who is currently in focus....
Let us not forget the growth of the Islamic population quietly overtaking the base population sustainability of so-called Free World countries. This factor by itself will radically change governance and soveriegnty models globally. It's just a matter of time.
Then the really, really thorny issue becomes global currency. I believe an expanded continental currency standard......a NOLLAR for North America, for example.......would sedgeway more easily into global currency options.
Anyway,CB, this was a thought provoking read. Thanks.
soon my friend will i do an article on that ... this i just one in the series of the articles which touch the topics which are not exclusively financially related ...
I'll look forward to it. And please try to touch on the Fabian Socialist crusade, which has not abated in 130 years. It's mandates are precisely linked to the British and USA initiatives we are witnessing today. A globalist and populist US administration is perfect soil for the cultivation of Fabius ideologies. No insurrection necessary or desireable. Just sneaking right on in under the fold of the tent.
Cheeky I have got to read this another five times before it sinks in and/or I can even begin to comprehend it at more than base levels.
To all the ZH crew and contributors: thank you.
Written by an Australian, quite a few years ago:
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/bb970219.htm
“The principal devices used to control the dialectic process in the past two decades have been (a) information, (b) debt and (c) technology.”
“The faster the cattle run, the faster the treadmill takes them to nowhere.”
Sorry Cheeky but what blather! Here is the political/economic reality in a nut shell: Whoever controls fractional reserve banking rules. Using leverage, bankers can enslave any king or conqueror. Democracy doesn’t have a chance. Using leverage, bankers can get any asset for free, buy any politician for free, drown any economy in debt. Bankers also understand that to maintain their power, they must control the public psychology. News papers, publishing, TV, Universities, even the internet must be controlled. They must distract the sheeple with manufactured enemies and fake controversy. They must setup adversarial political camps but control both sides from behind the scenes. Remember the banker's motto: We care not who makes your laws!
yes, except it is far more complicated and not conspiratorial like shit ... its called a historical process and Horkheimer and Adorno described it pretty well ... read it ...
Thanks CB for your contributions
off topic
a good idea to keep an eye on developments in Ukraine
http://www.recombinomics.com/News/11040902/Ukraine_Double.html
take our money, take our freedoms, we complain, we blog, we adjust our lifestyles. but take away our internet, and its time to get out the guns
+1
Cheeky,
I have a great respect for your intellect, the breadth of your knowledge and depth of your thinking. I also greatly appreciate your willingness to share all of the above with us.
So, with great timidity, I offer a thought.
Could the Chinese be near the endgame of a plan to displace the Rothschild related banks from world dominance?
Here's my reasoning:
The Chinese have managed to get the US and, to a lesser extent, Europe and Japan to finance their development into an industrial power using our technology.
They have then used that indsutrial strength to amass sufficient dollar denominated reserves to have strategic value. For example, dumping their UST holdings would likely result in the crippling of the US economy for a lower cost that our "liberation" of Iraq. I would be surprised that the European or Japanese economies would benefit from such a move.
They are consolidating their position as the leader of SEA. Even our (US) trusty Japanese allies are moving toward the Chinese (Yes, I realize the distrust and hatred. But this is just business.) The Australians went over 20 years ago. India seems to be acting more in concert with Chinese than US interests, for example, by purchasing a bunch of gold just when the price of gold seems to be getting out of control and somebody may need to squash a rally.
I will confess to being a simple country chemist trying to make a living down here in the big city, but have found nothing published to indicate the the Rothschild related bankers have any real control over the Chinese. Perhaps the Chinese are prepared to make sure it stays that way?
fotokemist
I've thought for a long time that China will go aggressive for the most basic of reasons: they need wives. I think the clock is ticking on that bomb. No jobs, no women, what's a country to do?