Martin Armstrong: Understanding The Extremes On Both Sides

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Martin Armstrong via Armstrong Economics,

To make this perfectly clear, extreme views on the left or the right end up meeting in the same back parking lot where they agree the people are the great unwashed and are too stupid to see they need to be manipulated and controlled. In Europe, so-called democratically elected representative lie their ass off to get elected and then do their best to deny the people the right to vote on the very issues if the EU Commission is wrong will tear the continent apart in war. This idea that a single government would prevent war is childish and stupid. If that were true, there would never be a revolution where provinces, states, territories, or possession seek independence. The very idea of new world order is without any foundation in history and it up their with global warming – one giant fraud.
The problem with socialism is the assumption that they know better and that the people do not deserve to retain their own earnings. The extreme right-wing nuts-jobs argue that the people need to surrender their right so those in power can protect freedom. This is a real paradox in logic.
Undoubtedly, the perception that there is a single cause and effect prevents any progress in our expectations of political reform We end up with this overall tendency to paint everything the tone of this black/white thinking. It seems that human nature, when left to its own devices, is incapable to dynamic thinking as a group. Of course both sides just lie and throw in social issues to cover-up their economic agenda. They are like the street magicians who keep moving the shells around in circles to ensure the player picks the wrong one every time. Complicating the issue begins with always blaming someone else – never those in government. This is why career politicians are so dangerous. They are incapable of ever self-examination. Hence, progressing and moving forward as a society is sheer impossible.
When the economy turns down, targeting the rich is the favorite past-time of the left while the right will move against foreigners regardless of the race, creed, or language.
Thrasymachus Quote
While it is nice to say we are all equal and religion or color mean nothing, when the economy turns down, career politicians need to blame someone. The Christians were the culprits for burning down Rome during the Great Fire of 64AD. The only fair criteria has been to attack the minority whoever they are at that moment in time. It is always the power of the strongest against the minority. Even Thrasymachus defined justice was only the will of the stronger and thus all governments are the same. The socialists use it to attack anyone with wealth against the 10 Commandments that forbid coveting their neighbor’s possessions. The extreme right justifies suppressing the rights of people to protect their freedom to maintain rights. The children starving in Africa is by the same hand of corruption regardless of the form claimed by government.
The primary issue is economics. Unfortunately, turn the economy down and what you get is finger-pointing and that always is directed at minorities or foreigners regardless of the culture. Evidence of that was the Boxer Rebellion in China  against foreigners no different from going after the Irish-Italian Catholics during the 1800s USA. We see the same against Turkish in Germany or any foreigners. I disagree with any religion being involved in a state law for the freedom of religion is the freedom not to have one as well.
Whatever you declare to be illegal only renders that target tax-free and a more viable business. Outlawing alcohol did not stop people from drinking but it funded the Mafia and point them on the map. Making prostitution illegal has led to kidnapping girls and forcing them into prostitution. You cannot eliminate human behavior by law no matter what. Illegal drugs have led to countless battles and the corruption of governments everywhere. There was no a single drug dealer in federal prison who was caught with a pile of cash whose cash was not  amazingly stated as half of what was confiscated. They are told to shut-up for more money means more time.
The point about taxes is rather simple. If government at the federal level stopped taxing people then the lobbying would stop. If we ended CAREER politicians and returned to citizen democracy rather than a republic, things would amazingly become fairer for everyone. It is the taxation that creates the corruption and therein we will see the rise of the strongest to influence power regardless of the system.
The socialist and the extreme-right-wing agree in Washington right now. This is what I say that if you appointed Boehner dictator for a month, he would not change the system. I have worked with politicians around the world. I had a mandate from Hong Kong to try to buy land from Australia to relocate. I met with the Treasurer at the time Mr. Keating who later became Prime Minister. He told me flat outright – NO. Why? “Because they were not Labour people!” What did that mean? They would change the demographics and vote conservative and his party feared losing power.It was not about Australia – it was about the Labour Party.
It is always about power regardless of the side of politics. Everything Obama criticized Bush for he has done in spades. Was it Obama? No! The people behind the curtain do not change with the change between left and right up in front of the curtain. They remain the same so the people have no real power and if you think the Republicans would not raise taxes when the crunch comes – you are dreaming. Already, you have had John McCain vote to tax the internet. They are all the same.
There are two sides to a coin, us v them. I do not care if you have right-wing or left-wing government. Both have endorsed the “socialism” of Marx that creates their power base to justify manipulating the great unwashed stupid masses. As such it is their social benefit not that of the people. About 70% of the total national debt is accumulated interest. That did not build roads, schools, or even pay for wages. That is the bottom line. We have to reduce the size of government for they are indeed the “public servant” that contributed nothing to the national wealth of a nation but consume the wealth created by those who work in the private sector. Adam Smith was correct – everyone pursues their own self-interest. That applies to both sides.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Escrava Isaura's picture

Whatttt! I didn’t know that there were extremists on the right.

I know about hypocrites on the left.

max2205's picture
6.8-magnitude earthquake recorded off the eastern coast of Japan - @USGS
Clint Liquor's picture

It is always about power regardless of the side of politics.

And what is the definition of 'power'?

The ability to make people do things they don't want to do.

Which is why the Founders limited it.

NotApplicable's picture

Other than the proposed solution of a citizen democracy, this is one of the best articles from Armstrong since they let him out of the hole.

Anusocracy's picture

The concept of government is absurd, it is a behavioral gift of your genetics. It has no place in a world of modern technology and positive sum economics because it is anti-civilization.

Death, destruction, theft, and enslavement, those are the gifts of government.

Give it back to the animal world.

Jumbotron's picture

"Which is why the Founders limited it."

Like limiting freedom for niggers, bitches and injuns.

The Founders were 1% ers.  Get over it.  It's always been Elites vs the people.  Same as it ever was.....same as it ever will be.  And no amount of safeguards or limits written down on paper will ever change that.

Escrava Isaura's picture

Jumbotron ......

I would have phrased slightly different….. but got your point about the founding fathers propaganda. Anyway, the link below will put this matter to rest:

Spitzer's picture

MA is a closet seppo dollar bull

i_call_you_my_base's picture

In the modern american political system the philosophy is about fundraising, they don't actually believe it, it's a means to election, which is where the money is made.

Escrava Isaura's picture

Armstrong? Yea yea yeara…

Below is what really matters

Salah's picture

Argentina (Vaca Muerta "dead cow"):  661 BILLION barrels of oil; 1700 TRILLION cu. ft. natgas

Escrava Isaura's picture

US Vaca Muerta

U.S. officials cut estimate of recoverable Monterey Shale oil by 96%

Just 600 million barrels of oil can be extracted with existing technology, far below the 13.7 billion barrels once thought recoverable

AGuy's picture

"Just 600 million barrels of oil can be extracted with existing technology, far below the 13.7 billion barrels once thought recoverable"

Sorry, but that not correct. I think you being a little decietful with your statement. Of course it all recoverable... At $1000 to 10K per bbl!



Escrava Isaura's picture


Actually, it did.... but not with Earth technology. And not as high as 10K.

But good catch

Banjo's picture

Armstrong? Yea yea yeara…

Below is what really matters


Yep pretty much nails it. Explains so much when the cheap energy and all it affords starts to decline and it is inflation adjusted over 10-15 years oil is up over 325% you start to see entropy get cracking. Hard to keep complex structures highly organised without large swathes of energy


Regards conflict right here now

  • Iraq
  • Lybia
  • Syria
  • Afghanistan
  • 9/11 --> Patriot act (amazing ready to roll straight after) --> NDAA (not ot mention many other exec orders)
  • Ukraine
  • Mali
  • Nigeria
  • Egypt 

Since 2008 you only have to check the amount of debt that has been produced by CB's to pretend that we are growing when in reality the dollar amount is going up the the real value of tangible items is decreasing. In the US you have



Escrava Isaura's picture

I call you..... "…they don't actually believe"


Why informed Americans keep calling “Socialist Left” and “Extremists Right” misses the point entirely.

They are both hypocrites… Not that we at Zero Hedge don’t know that.


Kobe Beef's picture

They are all Council on Foreign Relations. You can hold any ideals you like, but if you hold power in the USSA, you're CFR. 



Otto Zitte's picture

Both schools are predicated on the erroneous assumption that they will get away with it. For obvious reasons dead statists are not able to impose their idiotic beliefs on the living.

Thats how it is. 

oddjob's picture

I see 2 sides here.

A know-it-all acedemic clinging to the left/right paradigm vs. reality.



Gaius Frakkin' Baltar's picture

Sometimes I wish I was still 19 and believed everything was linear.

astoriajoe's picture

it makes righteous indignation so much easier.

NOTaREALmerican's picture

Golly, if ONLY there were no assholes and sociopaths not following "the rules" we could have PURE ___________ISM.  

NoDecaf's picture

"If we ended CAREER politicians and returned to citizen democracy rather than a republic, things would amazingly become fairer for everyone."


So replacing rule of law with tyranny of the majority is the answer? What's next, universal suffrage? Anyone with a heart beat and access to mass media can vote??


No thank you, I would prefer to live in a society that encourages informed participants. Voting should be a privilege, not a right.

Escrava Isaura's picture

NoDecaf...... "…live in a society that encourages informed participants. Voting should be a privilege…”

No Decaf, maybe you should consider rename yourself to “I Drank the Kool-Aid”

NoDecaf's picture

You make my point for me. I don't want to empower an electorate that thinks it can vote my rights away by simple majority because that is what is popular at the moment.


here special for you...


Do us all a favor please and read it.

Anusocracy's picture

I prefer panarchy - being free of someone else's government, or anarchy - being free of all governments.

NoDecaf's picture

I've listened to some AnCaps and like alot of what they had to say however, I'm not fully sold on the idea that it can actually work. So we have to go in some general direction and that would be to first reduce in size and scope and then incrementally remove those last remaining functions of govt.

Going cold turkey for the masses is simply not a good idea.

Anusocracy's picture

There is absolutely no reason for a forced government monopoly except that it would never be able to compete with freedom and free markets head to head.

The control freaks would do anything to prevent that.

Escrava Isaura's picture


Frédéric Bastiat? A classic French liberal? Quoted as a reader at Zero Hedge?

I see that there’s hope!

Great choice…. But can’t wait for the arrows down.

Armed Resistance's picture

Spot on NoDecaf.  I was going to weigh in almost verbatim.  I do also have two other points to make regarding the author's position.  One, I think his view of the left right paradigm is skewed. On the far right is not total governmental control but anarchy if I remember correctly.  I think the liberty-minded are simply pushing for extremely limited government as described by the founders, which is just a few clicks to the left of no government.  The second point of contention revolves around his interpretation that the tax system is what ails us.  While I agree, I believe that our debt-based fiscal model run by the Federal Reserve has done the most damage.  Don't get me wrong, I'd love to abolish the IRS altogether and institute a fair tax/flat tax/consumption tax paid at the register.  But it's the control and manipulation of all things financial that has put the world on the verge of collapse and has allowed fascism to take root by having big government and business collude to benefit their mutual interest of retaining power.


goldsansstandard's picture

The Republic was killed in 1913 or thereabouts with the establishment of the Fed, the income tax and the democratic election of the Senate.

Before the seventeenth ammendment the Senate was controlled by 48 deeply corrupt State legislators.

The beuty of the system was that the corruption was dispersed.

With power fighting power, it left a lot of room for the individuals to thrive.

The republic was genius.

DeToqueville in his book , Democracy in america tells the tale of how well it works when tried.

His book should have been named republicanism in America.

Not to be confused with the current basterdization of both terms.

trader1's picture

One of the most important comments on deceit, I think, was made by Adam Smith. He pointed out that a major goal of business is to deceive and oppress the public.


And one of the striking features of the modern period is the institutionalization of that process, so that we now have huge industries deceiving the public — and they're very conscious about it, the public relations industry. Interestingly, this developed in the freest countries—in Britain and the US—roughly around time of WWI, when it was recognized that enough freedom had been won that people could no longer be controlled by force. So modes of deception and manipulation had to be developed in order to keep them under control.


And by now these are huge industries. They not only dominate marketing of commodities, but they also control the political system. As anyone who watches a US election knows, it's marketing. It's the same techniques that are used to market toothpaste.


And, of course, there are power systems in place to facilitate this. Throughout history it's been mostly the property holders or the educated classes who've tended to support power systems. And that's a large part of what I think education is—it's a form of indoctrination. You have to reconstruct a picture of the world in order to be conducive to the interests and concerns of the educated classes, and this involves a lot of self-deceit.


Noam Chomsky, Professor, MIT

Spastica Rex's picture
The Century Of Self: Happiness Machines (Episode1)

"Controlling the dangerous crowd in an age of mass democracy"

Escrava Isaura's picture

Spastica Rex "Controlling the dangerous crowd in an age of mass democracy"

Sorry, love the 1st episode, but the quote is unsuitable for our ‘coming’ times.

"Controlling the desperate crowd as they find out that we built our way of life, energy, in a finite resource that’s dying”

By the way, great suggestion. Definitely worth watching.

Spastica Rex's picture

Sorry, love the 1st episode, but the quote is unsuitable for our ‘coming’ times.

Yeah, I think you're right.

This time is different, and little d "democracy" is done.

Of course the quote from the film really referenced the prior century. Mass media, mass advertising, and mass propaganda drove the machine very, very successfully - for 60 years or so. Too bad, because we seem to have "amused ourselves to death, " as Roger Waters puts it.

trader1's picture

Adam Curtis does great documentaries:


All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace 

All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace is a 2011 BBC documentary series by filmmaker Adam Curtis.[1] The series argues that computers have failed to liberate humanity and instead have "distorted and simplified our view of the world around us".[2] The title is taken from the 1967 poem of the same name by Richard Brautigan.[3] The first of three episodes aired on Monday 23 May 2011 at 9pm onBBC2.[2]

Spastica Rex's picture

Yes - very good.

We live in unique times.

Anusocracy's picture

"He pointed out that a major goal of business is to deceive and oppress the public."

As does everyone in government. The difference is that government gets to point guns at everyone else. The only ones free of that behavior are the asocial ones of the Autistic Spectrum.

Everyone else is wired to use other people as objects.

Spastica Rex's picture

Raytheon has a gun or two, and Academi points them all the time.

Doesn't seem to be a whole lot of difference between big gov and big biz, at this point.

Anusocracy's picture


Although big biz couldn't behave as it currently does without the existence of big gov.

Spastica Rex's picture

And vice versa.

One can't identify the parasite becasue there isn't one - perfect symbiotic relationship.

Kobe Beef's picture

John D. Rockefeller was not a capitalist. He was a monopolist. Can't monopolize the USA without controlling the Federal government. So he (and his partners) did. 

His grandsons (and their partners) realized you can't monopolize the world without World Government. And they're working on it. Just follow the Directors as they rotate from Federal to Foundations to Corporate Boards and back again: Elihu Root, John J. McCloy, The Dulles Brothers, and even Eisenhower are good places to acquire a historical perspective on the symbiote. Kissinger, Rubin, and Zbig can take you up to the present day. 

NOZZLE's picture

Thats complete bullcrap, I'm as right as there is and the last thing I want to do is control peopel

Escrava Isaura's picture


did you mean control peopel or sheopel?

orangegeek's picture

The problem with socialism is the assumption that they know better and that the people do not deserve to retain their own earnings. The extreme right-wing nuts-jobs argue that the people need to surrender their right so those in power can protect freedom.




 Oh right, like nazism and fascism are far right - nazi stands for national socialist I think.  Gee, what's the word socialist doing there if it's right?


Socialists have a track record of highjacking what's in - the liberal brand and then the progressive brand - the whole rotten lot is socialist - as in nazism, USSR, CSSR and communism is socialism's mirrored friend.


Political persuasions are intentionally unclear.  The real answer to this shit is not to give a shit.

Escrava Isaura's picture

Orange... "... nazi stands for national socialist I think"

I think that thinking before writing should help.

Grumbleduke's picture


National Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei, which translates to National Socialist German Workers Party, but you knew that, right?

malek's picture

And that they had the word Socialist in their party name proves what exactly?

jez's picture

The full name of the Nazi party (1920-45) was the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (that's the National Socialist German Workers' Party).


And Nazi is an abbreviation of Nationalsozialist.


So orangegeek is 100 per cent correct.

Escrava Isaura's picture

No orange is 100 per cent wrong... unless if you both still want to drink the Kool-Aid.

Nazis are Fascist!

Fascism: Heavily on patriotism and national identity. It exalts nation and race above the individual and stands for severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

Socialism: Workers through cooperatives own all industry. Main aim is to abolish the exploitation of man by man. Public services may be commonly or state owned, such as healthcare and education.