Speculation on how the collapse of the US will go down

@Aristophanes: That's an oversimplified view. For all the pomp and arrogance of the rank-and-file member of the CFR, they themselves are dupes and patsies whenever their superiors want them to be. In fact, I would argue they are much more so precisely because they are plugged into the pyramid of boot-licking and groveling to every word spoken by your superiors.

As an example, the Alex Jones version of the New World Order is, I believe, a deception of those at the CFR-level, as explained here. Jones is presenting something that really is like what CFR members are being told behind closed doors that the NWO is about. They're given "the inside scoop", which really is an inside scoop vis-a-vis the man on the street but still isn't the "master plan". In part, that's because there is no master plan. There's just a struggle between the private interests of those families at the pinnacles of world power. Most of the time, their aims are well enough aligned that they appear monolithic to the man on the street and the CFR rank-and-file alike. It's when they start stabbing each other in the back that things get interesting. But, in part, it's also just SOP compartmentalization. Those on top never reveal their whole plan, in whatever state it happens to be at the moment, to anyone outside the circle of trust, that is, family (and then, only to the extent that that even matters).

Anyways, I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Clayton -

Those on top never reveal their whole plan, in whatever state it happens to be at the moment, to anyone outside the circle of trust, that is, family (and then, only to the extent that that even matters).

So to start here, you first have a very long "analysis" of what is going on.  A few people call you out for it being full over "oversimplifications" and "obfuscated factoids", then you ask "well, do you know what is going on behind closed doors?"  Implying that anyone who challenges your perspective must know something from "behind the doors" that you are looking at, then you say what is quoted above (particularly the bolded)...which explicates that no one can possibly know.  Except you, right?  The one that doesn't bother reading books on the subjects, because they are all the same propaganda.  But, how could you possibly know that if you have never read them?  You just seem to know intuitively, huh?

So, you are admitting here that you pulled it all out of your ass, but are attempting to drag Luminar and myself down with you (and you never even responded to Aristippus).  And what is worse, is that you do so based on the fact that you are defending your state of "offical" ignorance.  "I don't need to read anything, you are wrong!"  hahahaha

You and David Icke have about the same level of clarity.  A whole lot of bullshit masqued with the notion that there are 13 families that drink blood at the top, but "they never tell anyone that and you'll never find proof of it...only I have put it all together!! mwahahah"

Do you see what I am saying, Protagoras?

Jones is presenting something that really is like what CFR members are being told behind closed doors that the NWO is about.

This is pretty good too.  "Top down Commie-fascist world banking government a la Huxley and Kissinger at the expense of the Xmasians and run by machine-man hybrid scientists."  Sign me up!  Wait, will the machine men still drink blood?  Will they still perform the sex-magik to draw the energy of the ancient spirit dieties?

Anyways, I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Correct.  You have made the case for that well in this thread.  A.K.A. - You analyze the power structure of the West, not geopolitics.

 

I have seen that ESF video.  Don't think that I am some ignorant...I have a few books on the ESF and U.S. exchange rate policy.  Only Rothbard was ignorant of the ESF (unfortunately)

Clayton, on Germany in the World Wars I just don't see the comparison at all.  At the beginning of WWI, Germany did not have anything like the position that the USA has in the world today.  It did not have the 'reserve currency', it did not have the largest military, it did not have the largest colonial empire, it was not considered the wealthiest country in the world, it did not have control of an entire continent, and it did not have problematic debt providing a need for a distraction.  Instead, it had Russia mobilising its forces on the eastern border.  It had Britain pushing its allies France and Russia against the Triple Alliance.  On its southern border it had its ally Austria-Hungary prepared to go to war at least ostensibly due to the duplicity of Serbia and the very real threats of Russia.  It must be remembered that the military power of the Triple Entente was greater than that of the Triple Alliance, especially when one includes their allied late-comers Italy and the USA.  Neither the international and military position of Germany nor the specific events as they happened are comparable to the situation of the USA today.

Do I really need to go into WWII? Most of what I said above applies to that situation too.  The international and military position of Germany.  Britain, Poland willing to go to war against Germany.

Edit:  You have also said "Europe was the premier consumer of US production before WWI and WWII (who else was there??)"  Who else was there? Those residing in North America.  They were the premier consumers of US production.

Another one: "A century ago, Europe, not America, was the industrial powerhouse and global center of science and academic learning."  A hundred years ago America had a larger and more productive economy than any one nation of Europe, so it was still the industrial powerhouse.  Its capacity was at least on par with that of the UK, or similar to that of continental Europe.

I'll just say this for now:

What mean "we", paleface?

Coming from a person who believes every American citizen bears responsibility for American wars.

The Chinese are actually starting to worry me less than they used to. Every day I'm reading addtional articles about just how much of an illusion their economy really is (such as massive steel holdings vaporizing and getting rehypothecated over and over for collateral). ...

But if their economy were better you would be worried?

In the context of war, yes, I would be more worried if the Chinese had a better economy.

Just remember one thing: central control of an economy will ultimately fail, and the larger the society the more quickly it may fail.

The Chinese (and east Indians) may thereby abandon statism much faster than the West generally, there's much more rope in an economy so large to hang yourself by, so to speak, through gov intervention. Though one could easily make the opposite case that a large economy can absorb more intervention.

But, Rothbard makes my point as well, that, long term, libertarians should be optimistic, because the larger an economy becomes the bigger waves any one intervention makes. Look at the '08 housing crash, that gov housing intervention is still rippling around the globe and might even cause the Euro to crash, hah.

But, to really bury the hatchet, in the statist's back, we'll need a libertarian society to show the world what an alternative economy looks like, one without massive state intervention. We need to show it not only possible but thriving, to show it weathering storms far better than so-called curated-economies with ridiculous central banks.

You only realize the emperor has no clothes if you first know what someone with clothes looks like! The entire world is composed of states with no clothes! No one realizes it because they have no true alternative to compare it to.

The minute we get a libertarian society going all that changes and suddenly the world has an alternative. Let us then be judged.

Am I the only one who thinks nothing is going to happen? I do not literally mean nothing, but nothing giant. We'll stay in this depression for a time then jump back up then go into another depression. I do not consider survivalism a possbility. Really the people who talk about it are rather off-putting. So really, I do not think anything is going to happen. 

Andrew Cain:

Am I the only one who thinks nothing is going to happen? I do not literally mean nothing, but nothing giant. We'll stay in this depression for a time then jump back up then go into another depression. I do not consider survivalism a possbility. Really the people who talk about it are rather off-putting. So really, I do not think anything is going to happen.

I forget who said it, but they said that there's a cycle of interventionism and policy-insanity. As interventions cause market distortions and thereby negative consequences, and these consequences justify further interventions, you get a positive feedback loop, which means that the distortions, interventions, and market consequences will tend to get more frequent and more disastrous as time goes on, until something really major happens--an outright crash.

That already happened in '08.

The result is that trillion dollar deficits are the 'new normal' and Bernanke is engaging in unlimited pumping(!).

However, even when a country can't pay its debts, as we've seen, this does not result in repudiation of legitimacy. Why? Because the people do not even have an alternate system in their consciousness. They don't see a free society as progress because they believe they already live in one.

They've been told how great it is to be Americans, and they believe this--and there's some truth to it. They see how awful it is in many other places in the world and think the US is far better and it must be government that made that happen.

We are all idiots in the street, dude.

thats an example of your first problem: internalizing the point-of-view of the elites.

The categories that I set up were (the planners) and (idiots in the street).  Everyone is one or the other...

funny that you would accuse others of oversimplification.

I'm sorry, but he's been ripped apart in this thread.  And shown to have a very shallow understanding of the things involved...

and you wonder why I havent contributed, what with everyone repeating inane "truths" like the us could easily cut off trade to china, etc. Sometimes its not worth the effort, particularly when people like yourself are so convinced of their rightness that they just repeatthemselves without end, regardless of the subject.

Do you know what "Six of one, half-dozen of the other..." means, Malachi?

do you have any understanding of the limits of figurative language? Both publications are designed to persuade and inform the audience towards the viewpoint of the elites, as you have ably demonstrated. They are targeted at different audiences.

Which is wrong...

you say its not a "newsletter" because its an academic pub. Well, six of one, half dozen of the other.

Says someone who has contributed nothing to this conversation...have you read and absorbed the three opinions that have been given in this thread?

yes I have. Its like a never-ending facepalm. And if it seemed like people were interested in having their worldview amplified, I would contribute. But that doesnt seem to be the case for most people in this thread.

EDITED TO ADD: ok I contributed. So lets see who (besides me) has read anything on china that was written for the consumption of those people who arent planners and arent idiots on the street. Like maybe the people who make decisions at the operational and tactical levels.

I know it is not quite a fair comparison, but how many Somailians did the U.S. marines manage to fend off?

its hard for me to see why you think Blackhawk Down reflects favorably on us military might in this context. You dont win wars by killing over a thousand somalis while failing to accomplish your mission.

Those motorbikes can't do anything about the air superiority we have either...

Ironic that you mention american air superiority in the same breath as the somali incident. Anyway, he addressed this objection already, please read something besides the nyt and fa.

One of the several hundred U.S. bases in the region (Saudia Arabia, Israel, Jordan, Yemen, Qatar, Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey...)

assuming they are still operational. Interesting how your arguments rest on certain unspoken assumptions, like air bases are simply given, despite world affairs. How many suicide attacks on camp bastion would it take to close camp bastion? How long would you continue to lose over $200 million in hardware? See above, war is fundamentally an economic proposition.

Why? Why? Why?  There's no reasoning at all here.

world opinion is turning against the united states. You tell me how to maintain the supply lines for the logistical burden of an air campaign in the face of assymmetric warfare. Please.

Egypt and Libya were a big deal because they are eliminated as support regions and more likely now classified as hostile regions.  I think the U.S. claimed to support their revolutions because they thought that if the people participating in the revolution knew that the U.S. supported their revlutionary actions, that they would see that as a sign to end their participation in the revolution.  It's the  "Don't do what they want us to" type of reasoning.

theres plenty of evidence that the insurgency in libya was created and fomented by the western powers. Your use of the phrase "claimed to support" is highly disingenuous given the actual material support, intelligence support, and fire support that western powers provided in libya. If it were not for western support, gaddafi would be alive today, and more than likely still the chief of state in libya.

This would be the case if China's success in the world wasn't codependent with the U.S.'s success in the world.

So, barring any substantial arguments that establish this assertion, Clayton is right. Thanks.

And the Chinese economy does rely on the U.S. to consume their product.  If the U.S. cannot consume, the Chinese will have to find another export market to make the money to get more energy resources from Russia, particularly.

I refer you to Say's law and the decline of the petrodollar.

When Saudi Arabia goes down (the House of Saud is reliant on income from U.S. treasuries) every avaricious sect of power in the Middle ease will activate.

so much for those airbases.

It won't just be Iran and the U.S./Israel, it will be Shia/Sunni as well.  And this will stretch from Afghanistan to Egypt.  Oil will be gone for EU and China.

actually china's government considers access to energy to be a national security matter. So they have been preparing for this by establishing relationships with oil-producing regions across the globe.

If they start attaining money then they can actually develop a military that could compete with ours.

ummmm, they already have such a military. Assuming that your continued use of the first-person plural pronouns is taken to refer to the united states.

You fret about ballistic missle programs from China, but forget to mention the worldwide systems of the U.S.  We don't need to send our carriers within 2000km (15oo miles?).  We have missles that can span the entirety of the globe if we needed them to.

and what good does this do for the united states? You think the american's problems can be solved by the application of even more violence?

You also take the rhetoric of a government "research paper" that is essentially the military saying that, "our most powerful war asset is useless because of some Chinese STS missiles...............give us more money....?"

is this supposed to be a counter-argument? What reason do you have to believe that a battery of df-21d's does not make carriers obsolete?

The thing about the Russian and Chinese energy agreement...is that Russia is going to "sell" them energy.  And the Chinese economy does rely on the U.S. to consume their product.

because why? Say's law, again. Products are exchanged for products, why couldnt china sell cheap products to, oh Idk, anyone else, including russia? Russia somehow doesnt want cheap consumer goods? And the chinese capital goods are too specialized to regear for babushka dolls?

Don't think that we won't be able to participate due ot lack of capital or energy.

so mexico will sell oil to the us for cheap, even if the global price skyrockets due to geopolitical considerations? Or usa will just invade mexico like last time, and reappropriate their resources? Good luck with that, at least jihadis have work hard to get here. The cartels are already here so much for homeland security.

You also have to consider the amount of time and resources that US/NATO has spent creating leave behinds and sleeper cells.  The Al Qaeda groups are partially malleble by the U.S.  In Syria and in Libya they did what we wanted, in Egypt they did not.  Sure, they won't let the US stomp all over them, but if we have simliar interests Al Qaeda will work with the US.  I'm sure that Georgia will be an intersting experiment in U.S. countermeasures to Russian alliances in the region.  We are good at exploiting civil wars, after all...

you have to consider the instability of such resources, particularly when one's influence over them is minor. They "did what we wanted" (whoever "we" is), but now libya is hostile territory. Hmmmmmmmm, maybe the us got used like a cheap date?

if we have simliar interests Al Qaeda will work with the US.

So please explain to me how continuing american hegemony is similar to al-qaeda's long term interests.

@Luminar

You sort of implied (in my perception) that Asia is more capable of trade and capital accumulation than the United States. North America is inherently advantaged because of its position. I would sooner see Mexico become the world power than China.

well I guess youre already wrong, because china is and mexico isnt.

China's entire economy, however, is structured around exports, and requires an insane amount of raw material imports (oil, coal) to make it work. The government has power because of the continued economic growth; China is an inherently unstable region and while there isn't a threat currently, if exports and raw materials were blocked, incomes in the coast would quickly fall to explosive levels. China has fundamental, debilitating strategic weaknesses. It relies on the East and South China seas for trade. There are numerous islands that surround the area, not to mention the support the US has from Australia and Japan. We would only have to maneuver outside the sphere to cut off trade.

please please please explain how increasing the size of the area to be blockaded makes it more likely to succeed? Also please explain why china couldnt export to some market besides the us.

Try seeing things from their viewpoint. It would create the ultimate strategic nightmare for China, which has an insufficient navy compared to the US; China is still building its first aircraft carrier right now while the US has had a developed navy since 1922. They would have to rely on ground based missiles to fight.

the chinese are building an aircraft carrier because they can afford to buy a status symbol. Large aircraft carriers are obsolete. The united states navy is expensive to operate and maintain and vulnerable to modern weapons, and has been so for decades.

China understands how vulnerable it is. They plan to build ports in Burma [http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/may2012/burm-m23.shtml] to escape encirclement. However, the area lies close to Australia's sphere of influence, and it could never completely replace the mainland ports.

The link you posted is a tiny sample of chinese efforts to bolster their strategic economic position. They are building ports, refineries, and pipelines all over asia, africa, and the pacific. They understand their economic/military position perhaps better than anyone else.

Furthermore, the Chinese army is designed as a domestic security force

they are not. The chinese army is designed to achieve policy goals of the chinese government, and this includes strategic deception. To that end, they dont advertise their other capabilities except when it suits their purpose. The chinese army is capable of mobile, positional, and guerilla forms of warfare. The basic strategy is to distract your enemy with conventional forces while unconventional forces achieve "death by a thousand cuts."

That's not the image they want you to see, but it's the reality.

This is basically the complete opposite of truth.

They pose absolutely no threat to the Untied States or any of its allies.

its like you guys are pretending that the df-21d doesnt exist, or something equally delusional.

If any war happened the Chinese army wouldn't be able to keep its interior stable, much less "attack" the US. We would barely even have to fight; simply cutting off China would win the war.

no one can fight without log support. You make it seem like it would be easy to deny the chinese log support. I dont think you have any idea what that would entail.

Your entire post seems like some sort of xenophobic rant. Russia is still trying to regain its feet. They rely entirely on ports which could potentially be cut off by other countries. Maybe in 20-30 years, once it has regained some of its former power, there could be a real threat of invasion, but not now, and certainly not against all of Europe.

who is talking about invasion? He suggested that the assets of the us would be sold. cf "louisiana purchase" and "napoleon's war debt".

Your objections are juvenille with no actual input of your own on any of the relevant subjects.  They are mostly rhetorical questions with built in assertions and no supporting evidence provided...

funny that you would accuse others of oversimplification.

Everyone has accused everyone else of it.  The word has lost its meaning in this thread.

do you have any understanding of the limits of figurative language?

When you say "the limits of figurative language" you're saying that you "didn't get it at first?"  haha.  I suppose I do see those limits, figuratively, of course!

Both publications are designed to persuade and inform the audience towards the viewpoint of the elites, as you have ably demonstrated.

But, the point that you ignored, is that the FA journal does include Peter Schiff and other views similar to his (anti-establishment stuff).  FA is more open minded than you.

you say its not a "newsletter" because its an academic pub. Well, six of one, half dozen of the other.

You are desperate to make Clayton and yourself look right on this issue.  But, you don't even give a real response.  FA has its own newsletter, for instance?  But, the publication itself is a hodgepodge of various perspectives on international issues.

And if it seemed like people were interested in having their worldview amplified, I would contribute.

hahaah your arrogance is almost stunning and plainly amusing.

Like maybe the people who make decisions at the operational and tactical levels.

Ahaha, like you?  Soldier of Fortune reading bureaucrats?

You see when you say things like this: "ummmm, they already have such a military" about China (implying that they are comparable to the U.S.) you reveal that you really don't know anything about the "logistics" of the Chinese military. 

You fret about ballistic missle programs from China, but forget to mention the worldwide systems of the U.S.  We don't need to send our carriers within 2000km (15oo miles?).  We have missles that can span the entirety of the globe if we needed them to.

and what good does this do for the united states? You think the american's problems can be solved by the application of even more violence?

We are talking about war.  It doesn't matter if "I think more violence will help."  Your objection to my point is immaterial.  You seek to refute the importance of a global missile system (as well as regional defense systems) in the context of war by asking rhetorical moral questions?  Is this an appeal to emotion mixing with a red herring?

is this supposed to be a counter-argument? What reason do you have to believe that a battery of df-21d's does not make carriers obsolete?

The part where it says those carriers must be with 1500 or so miles from the missile sites...

so mexico will sell oil to the us for cheap, even if the global price skyrockets due to geopolitical considerations? Or usa will just invade mexico like last time, and reappropriate their resources? Good luck with that, at least jihadis have work hard to get here. The cartels are already here so much for homeland security.

Two things, one, yes, Mexico will sell us oil even if the dollars crashes (I think this is how the NAU will be first introduced as a solution).  and Two, those cartels aren't getting away with what they are doing without the help of international intelligence (as you probably know).  So, whatever they are doing in the U.S., the FBI et al at least know about.  What they plan to do is beyond me.

You also have to consider the amount of time and resources that US/NATO has spent creating leave behinds and sleeper cells.  The Al Qaeda groups are partially malleable by the U.S.  In Syria and in Libya they did what we wanted, in Egypt they did not.  Sure, they won't let the US stomp all over them, but if we have similar interests Al Qaeda will work with the US.  I'm sure that Georgia will be an interesting experiment in U.S. countermeasures to Russian alliances in the region.  We are good at exploiting civil wars, after all...

you have to consider the instability of such resources, particularly when one's influence over them is minor. They "did what we wanted" (whoever "we" is), but now libya is hostile territory. Hmmmmmmmm, maybe the us got used like a cheap date?

hahaah, It is not that simple.  Did you ever see Hillary's reaction to Quaddafi's murder?  He was compromised (that is why we backed him) and when wikileaks destroyed his reputation further (bombings don't matter to them, but busty white nurses do), Sarkozy and Berlusconi denied their support for him (and I bet he told them that he had dirt on them that would take them from power) and we told the people there to rebel then helped them rebel.  It costs the U.S. too much money for us to thnik that we can simply buy another 30 year despot; we don't like getting rid of the ones we have.  I have referred to the Arab Spring as the West "rolling the die" (Regarding their no longer supporting the U.S.).  Either they will or won't, but it will be the same for all other nations striving for influence...

theres plenty of evidence that the insurgency in libya was created and fomented by the western powers. Your use of the phrase "claimed to support" is highly disingenuous given the actual material support, intelligence support, and fire support that western powers provided in libya. If it were not for western support, gaddafi would be alive today, and more than likely still the chief of state in libya.

This isn't quite contradicting what I said.  We had overlapping goals with the rebels (it is SOP to manipulate those movements).  Libya isn't Egypt.  And I even explicate that they won't follow us into liberal democracy after we help them with their own problems.  You mentioned asymmetrical warfare, how do you think it is fought?  War, today, in every aspect is asymmetrical.  You should read a little bit about neorealism and what it is in comparison to realism or neoconservatism.

if we have similar interests Al Qaeda will work with the US.

So please explain to me how continuing american hegemony is similar to al-qaeda's long term interests.

I explained before, when interests align (we want x government overthrown) and Al-Qadea does too, then they will work with us (A.K.A. - it doesn't need to be long-term overlap only short term).  We've some of their contact information still.  But, as we've seen in Libya, they won't necessarily assume the position afterwards.  We have captured, trained, and released several "terrorists" from Guantanamo into Yemen and Libya.  If they are successful or not depends on circumstances.

Yeah, I'm going to keep using "we" to describe American wars mainly because it is easier and quicker to type.  And I will do so under the assumption that all of the rebels here pay their taxes and hence really do contribute to the war.  I'll cite Thoreau as saying that you are pansies and hypocrites if you preach anti-war sentiment and pay taxes to the war makers.

They [China] understand their economic/military position perhaps better than anyone else.

That is why China has continually acted as if they have no idea what American power is going to do.  They aren't sure if we plan to "help them or hurt them?"  It is actually pretty similar to how we view them.

Furthermore, the Chinese army is designed as a domestic security force

they are not. The chinese army is designed to achieve policy goals of the chinese government, and this includes strategic deception. To that end, they dont advertise their other capabilities except when it suits their purpose. The chinese army is capable of mobile, positional, and guerilla forms of warfare. The basic strategy is to distract your enemy with conventional forces while unconventional forces achieve "death by a thousand cuts."

Now I know you are full of shit.  I can tell that you have never ever looked at the Chinese military. "The chinese army is designed to achieve policy goals of the chinese government, and this includes strategic deception."  Of course, because that is the textbook definition of the responsibility of an army at all...Tell me about that design, Wei.

Washington isn’t sitting idle. It is deploying more forces to Guam, reaching a better understanding with Japan about the use of force during crises, increasing surveillance and patrolling along China’s coast, selling more arms to Taiwan to deter Beijing from using coercive means, and engaging in classified efforts to counter China’s missile threat to US warships.

This is basically the complete opposite of truth.

Please, tell me about strategic deception some more, Sun.  Just as the sage, Clayton, you seem to think that you know what they are up to even though they are all ‘deceptive’ but people who read about them are fooled.  Because of the deception…If Clayton is Protagoras, then you must be Hippias…

its like you guys are pretending that the df-21d doesnt exist, or something equally delusional.

No, it is not that it doesn't exist.  It is that it is an unimpressive claim that medium scale missiles render the U.S. Navy useless.  It would take nearly the entire Chinese stock of them (in 2008) to sink just one carrier.  And I doubt they will be launching nuclear warheads at our carriers.

It is almost like when people use buzzwords like "delusional" that they need people to see the word "delusional" so that other people will take their side.  It is a sign that the argument being made is flailing.

no one can fight without log support. You make it seem like it would be easy to deny the chinese log support. I dont think you have any idea what that would entail.

I don't think you do either and I think that is why you don’t go into any detail.  You make a broad claim, with no supporting evidence (something your whole trilogy of posts lacked) and expect others to tolerate your invective while accepting your claims.

You are a sophist…

I also don't think you get the point that was being made there.   The Chinese quelling domestic riots isn't contingent on our ability to deny Chinese "log support." Their population size and geography is what will make it difficult.  The people outnumber the military almost 100 to 1 over there.

[part of my post didn't copy from word.  I'm not typing it again]

Your objections are juvenille with no actual input of your own on any of the relevant subjects.  They are mostly rhetorical questions with built in assertions and no supporting evidence provided...

i'm sorry you think its juvenile that when you try to sell me a bridge in brooklyn, I want to see the title. Your arguments are pretty weak, all I have to do is observe the weaknesses. I'll be charitable and assume that whenever your post seems particularly outlandish, it was a formatting mistake and not an attempt at sophistry.

But, the point that you ignored, is that the FA journal does include Peter Schiff and other views similar to his (anti-establishment stuff).

aka "news". For people who operate in the realm of manipulating public opinion, what people are saying is news. but not everyone. Hence a publication that showcases relevant views. Hmmmmmm

You are desperate to make Clayton and yourself look right on this issue.  But, you don't even give a real response.  FA has its own newsletter, for instance?  But, the publication itself is a hodgepodge of various perspectives on international issues.

so a newsletter for a conglomerate of internationalists has its own newsletter? Precious. Of what relevance is this nugget? If they had a blog and you referred me to that, would that make you look any more desperate?

You see when you say things like this: "ummmm, they already have such a military" about China (implying that they are comparable to the U.S.) you reveal that you really don't know anything about the "logistics" of the Chinese military.

I guess not,why dont you tell me how things have changed since korea where the chinese required 15% of the supplies that the americans required? (per division, adjusted for number of soldiers)

We are talking about war.  It doesn't matter if "I think more violence will help."  Your objection to my point is immaterial.  You seek to refute the importance of a global missile system (as well as regional defense systems) in the context of war by asking rhetorical moral questions?  Is this an appeal to emotion mixing with a red herring?

its not a rhetorical question. Do you actually believe that those missile systems you referred to will enforce american hegemony? War is fundamentally a social activity, you cannot simply win whatever war by having bigger guns. This country cant achieve a favorable result in countries where we have air support and troops on the ground despite pouring billions of dollars and man-hours into them, and you think we can fight the chinese with ballistic missiles? How, exactly? Whats the commander's intent?

The part where it says those carriers must be with 1500 or so miles from the missile sites...

Thats well outside the combat radius of a hornet or super hornet. So while you might know the data, you dont have a useful context to put it into. Those are fired from mobile launchers, btw. They are a strategic asset that is ignored at one's own risk.

http://blog.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/DF-21D_ranges.jpg

hahaah, It is not that simple.  Did you ever see Hillary's reaction to Quaddafi's murder?  He was compromised (that is why we backed him) and when wikileaks destroyed his reputation further (bombings don't matter to them, but busty white nurses do), Sarkozy and Berlusconi denied their support for him (and I bet he told them that he had dirt on them that would take them from power) and we told the people there to rebel then helped them rebel.

Gaddafi was unseated because of his plan to reject the petrodollar and replace it with the african dinar, a gold currency.

I explained before, when interests align (we want x government overthrown) and Al-Qadea does too, then they will work with us (A.K.A. - it doesn't need to be long-term overlap only short term).  We've some of their contact information still.  But, as we've seen in Libya, they won't necessarily assume the position afterwards.  We have captured, trained, and released several "terrorists" from Guantanamo into Yemen and Libya.  If they are successful or not depends on circumstances.

right, used like a cheap date. Please explain to me how this strategy is supposed to work to the long-term benefit of the united states government.

That is why China has continually acted as if they have no idea what American power is going to do.  They aren't sure if we plan to "help them or hurt them?"  It is actually pretty similar to how we view them.

Refer to chapter 5 of the 36 stratagems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-Six_Stratagems

Now I know you are full of shit.  I can tell that you have never ever looked at the Chinese military.

this is typical of your geopolitical analysis-presumptuous, factually incorrect, and offensive in tone and phrasing.

Please, tell me about strategic deception some more, Sun.  Just as the sage, Clayton, you seem to think that you know what they are up to even though they are all ‘deceptive’ but people who read about them are fooled.  Because of the deception…If Clayton is Protagoras, then you must be Hippias…

well what do you want to know? Have you even read Unrestricted Warfare? or just western establishment publications?

No, it is not that it doesn't exist.  It is that it is an unimpressive claim that medium scale missiles render the U.S. Navy useless.  It would take nearly the entire Chinese stock of them (in 2008) to sink just one carrier.  And I doubt they will be launching nuclear warheads at our carriers.

they will use ke warheads and one missile strike would destroy a carrier. You are out of your mind if you think that large surface combatants are still state-of-the-art. You may as well be charging across no-man's-land on the western front.

I don't think you do either and I think that is why you don’t go into any detail.  You make a broad claim, with no supporting evidence (something your whole trilogy of posts lacked) and expect others to tolerate your invective while accepting your claims.

it would require a 7500 nm blockade from kamchatka to sri lanka, extending outside palau and malaysia. Meaning, its expensive and not really practical. 

You are a sophist…

youre a closet nationalist.

I also don't think you get the point that was being made there.   The Chinese quelling domestic riots isn't contingent on our ability to deny Chinese "log support." Their population size and geography is what will make it difficult.  The people outnumber the military almost 100 to 1 over there.

the point was that cutting off china would cause them to lose because of internal conflict. Well you cant cut off china. 

 [part of my post didn't copy from word.  I'm not typing it again]

thank you for sparing me the facepalm(s).

I'm not even replying to this nonsense.  The U.S. has laser defense systems that I'd bet are as reliable as those missile batteries (carriers don't travel alone - and if they are useless, why the fuck would China be building them?).  I never said carriers were SOTA.  UW? - I'm pretty sure that our military has combed it over...

it would require a 7500 nm blockade from kamchatka to sri lanka, extending outside palau and malaysia. Meaning, its expensive and not really practical.

This is a straw man...

You are a sophist…

youre a closet nationalist.

Hahaha.  Good one.  Let me ask you this: If two states are going at it, and you have no choice but to live in one of them, do you root for the State in which you do not reside?

Thanks for the lessons, Hippias.

 

I'm not even replying to this nonsense.  The U.S. has laser defense systems that I'd bet are as reliable as those missile batteries

Well think about the economics of it. How many missiles does it take to equal the cost of a carrier?

(carriers don't travel alone - and if they are useless, why the fuck would China be building them?).

they are assembling it on the cheap from scavenged components as part status symbol and part strategic deception (to continue to act as though carriers are relevant). Which they are, they just are obsolete and vulnerable. You can still project power to third world nations, but superpowers like china wont have it. They can still be used in an amphibious assault support role against poor nations.

I never said carriers were SOTA.

you used it as a metric

UW? - I'm pretty sure that our military has combed it over...

indeed, however much of the knowledge was lost in multiple brain dumps.

This is a straw man...

ok mr naval strategy expert tell me how to restrict chinese trade. I also expect to be taught how many tons of fuel per day this mission will require.

Hahaha.  Good one.  Let me ask you this: If two states are going at it, and you have no choice but to live in one of them, do you root for the State in which you do not reside?

I am a rational nationalist where I try to maintain an accurate picture of the geopoliticomilitary situation. You appear to be wedded to some idealistic notion of american superiority where "we can do whatever we want" and no further justification is necessary. Thats not going to fly, especially not with the arrogance you have demonstrated thus far.

China will be the first to invent the flux capacitor.

THen they will win.

"Please, fill me in. If you have access to what goes on behind closed doors in the halls of power, I'm all ears. If by "understand geopolitics", you mean "read Foreign Affairs", you're right, I don't and I don't care to."

Lol... well, I wish I had access to "inside information," but have only what is available to this poor ignorant fifteen year-old. Understanding of world affairs comes from looking at politics, economics, geography, culture, etc and most importantly, (to quote Hegel), looking upon them rationally. Not simply taking important events and cramming them into a conspiracy so that everything makes sense; what conspiracy theorists seem to thrive on is selection bias. I don't think you're the type of person who gets their entire knowledge of the world from magazines or CNN; just try pretending for a week or so that there isn't any conspiracy- just try and make sense of why countries and people do what they do- and you might see that the world does, indeed, present a rational aspect.

Good God, you just proved Clayton's point. Rationally, people act together, in many cases, in groups even, to carry out their agendas to better their status and holdings. Whether that be monetarily or otherwise. Much of which would be illegal for the averge schmoe. You know, conspiracies? Wanna know how I know? Because Enron, Jekyll Island, oh and that other thing. Every government throughout history.

ok mr naval strategy expert tell me how to restrict chinese trade. I also expect to be taught how many tons of fuel per day this mission will require.

Is the U.S. the only country participating in this scenario?

Because Japan, Korea, the Phillipines, Indonesia, Australia, Thailand, Tawian, Vietnam, and um...India all have armies/navies (however small and large) and all have power to act as well.  You had the same defect of thinking as Clayton; you forget there are other countries.  He went on about how we would defeat Russia as if NATO didn't exist for the Eastern front.

You think that your knowledge is so specific and breadthful that the only thing that someone could possibly impart to you is "how many tons of fuel per day this mission will require."  =/  Who were you calling arrogant?  I'd also like to point out that you cited two different wikipedia pages and I cited a Pentagon white paper.  haha.  You read wikipedia and I read Foreign Affairs, but all I get is propaganda, right?  What is really true is that the U.S. government cannot detect "Chinese deception tactics," but you can. I mean it is laughable even thinking about it.

You appear to be wedded to some idealistic notion of american superiority where "we can do whatever we want"

You have imagined that in your zeal to discredit.

If you really think that, I'd ask you to go ahead and (re)read my earlier posts.  I don't think the U.S. will pull out on top (I said Germany and Russia have the mantle), but I don't think China is a threat.

and no further justification is necessary.

We are talking about possibilities and I sincerely doubt that there are any possible situations that arise where the U.S. government, Russia, China et al decide to cede their power to the markets, you know what I mean?  They bother with the justification; what they do is out of my hands.

Thats not going to fly, especially not with the arrogance you have demonstrated thus far.

My arrogance is not  from "idealized american superiority," it is from watching Clayton ramble about shit that he has no idea about.  I'll give him his due credit with the Western elite power structure, but that is not the same as geopolitics now is it?  Especially when you come into the conversation with this particular invective that "what Clayton said goes."  I know his posts are long and he uses fivedollar words, but that doesn't mean he isn't 75% bullshit (alex jones style).

There is a certain disdain for the american government among this group of people (of all governments), but it is aimed at the US government more so than others.  I think it is because in a Machiavellian sense the US has been so incredibly successful in imparting its favorable conditions upon the international world in the last 50 years.

"Good God, you just proved Clayton's point. Rationally, people act together, in many cases, in groups even, to carry out their agendas to better their status and holdings. Whether that be monetarily or otherwise. Much of which would be illegal for the averge schmoe. You know, conspiracies? Wanna know how I know? Because Enron, Jekyll Island, oh and that other thing.Every government throughout history."

............................................________ 
....................................,.-'"...................``~., 
.............................,.-"..................................."-., 
.........................,/...............................................":, 
.....................,?......................................................, 
.................../...........................................................,} 
................./......................................................,:`^`..} 
.............../...................................................,:"........./ 
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../ 
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../ 
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/ 
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....} 
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../ 
...,,,___.`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../ 
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-" 
............/.`~,......`-...................................../ 
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__ 
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-, 
.....`=~-,__......`,................................. 
...................`=~-,,.,............................... 
................................`:,,...........................`..............__ 
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==`` 
........................................_..........._,-%.......` 
..................................., 

Your actions are your thoughts.  Me:  I brushed my teeth, took a shower, went to work, had a date at the movies, went to a bar and got drunk, fell asleep - what did you do?  Speculation is usually sign of a masturbatory fantasy.  It's a type of intellectual fetish.

Is the U.S. the only country participating in this scenario?

Because Japan, Korea, the Phillipines, Indonesia, Australia, Thailand, Tawian, Vietnam, and um...India all have armies/navies (however small and large) and all have power to act as well.  You had the same defect of thinking as Clayton; you forget there are other countries.  He went on about how we would defeat Russia as if NATO didn't exist for the Eastern front.

so you dont have an answer?

You think that your knowledge is so specific and breadthful that the only thing that someone could possibly impart to you is "how many tons of fuel per day this mission will require."  =/  Who were you calling arrogant?

what? I just mentioned that as something I would like to know about your grand naval blockade to bring china to her knees. Where do you get these crazy implications? I'm sooo arrogant because when you tell me a 7500 nm blockade is a strawman I want to know the real argument and how much it costs? How many tons of fuel per day do you suggest the navies of the world waste on a foolish errand to restrict chinese trade in order to cause internal social disorder for reasons you havent yet mentioned? War is economic, so surely you see the relevance. I hope.

I'd also like to point out that you cited two different wikipedia pages and I cited a Pentagon white paper.  haha.  You read wikipedia and I read Foreign Affairs, but all I get is propaganda, right?  What is really true is that the U.S. government cannot detect "Chinese deception tactics," but you can. I mean it is laughable even thinking about it.

While you are laughing, think about how much experience you have working for the government. I dont know what exactly you want me to cite, the burden of proof is on you. What facts are in doubt?  Capabilities of the chinese army?

http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=3978

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/china/17068-pla-light-mechanized-infantry.html

I mean, I thought you did your own research? Are we havinf a citation war or are you asking me to prove that china is a world power when obama can ask them to form a g2 and they can reject his offer?

My arrogance is not  from "idealized american superiority," it is from watching Clayton ramble about shit that he has no idea about.  I'll give him his due credit with the Western elite power structure, but that is not the same as geopolitics now is it?  Especially when you come into the conversation with this particular invective that "what Clayton said goes."  I know his posts are long and he uses fivedollar words, but that doesn't mean he isn't 75% bullshit (alex jones style).

what a pointless ad hominem rant. I will leave it for the lurker to decide who makes a better case.

so you dont have an answer?

I'm pretty sure you ignored my answer. 

The (by your standard) required naval blockade (of which the burden of proof is on you, my case is the same as Luminars in that China will have to deal with more internal strife than you are giving them credit for) would be a whole bunch of countries that aren't going to want to side with China clamping down on war resources when/if the day comes. 

I'm sooo arrogant because when you tell me a 7500 nm blockade is a strawman I want to know the real argument and how much it costs?

How am I to know how much it is going to cost?  You and I both know that type of questioning is nonesense.  Krugman has already been out telling people that the war is productive, so my guess is that ...their same strategy, that they use constantly, will be employed and it will be so with very levels of success and failures.  I've heard people say if it comes down to it that the FED will seize the gold holdings of the Germans in event of financial catastrophe.  Would you put that past them?  I think we can all agree that something along those lines is certainly possible.

ok mr naval strategy expert tell me how to restrict chinese trade. I also expect to be taught how many tons of fuel per day this mission will require.

By the way, your tone in the above quote is at odds with the sentiment of the quote below.

what? I just mentioned that as something I would like to know about your grand naval blockade to bring china to her knees. Where do you get these crazy implications?

I should not have to point out that the implications are not "crazy."

what a pointless ad hominem rant.

'Twas not pointless.  It was a clarification for your attributing my arrogant tone to my nonexistant proclivity for an "idealized american exceptionalism."  Don't misattribute my sentiments and I won't have to clarify...

I will leave it for the lurker to decide who makes a better case.

Yes, plead with the crowd.

I'm pretty sure you ignored my answer. 

no, you never explained to me how to restrict chinese trade. You mentioned a bunch of other nations, which doesnt answer the question. How will the united states and her allies restrict chinese trade? With a 7500 nm blockade? Or some other way? And how much will it cost (specifically in tons of fuel per day)?

The (by your standard) required naval blockade

I am more than willing to listen while someone else explains to me how to restrict chinese trade without a blockade. You havent done so, neither has Luminar.

(of which the burden of proof is on you, my case is the same as Luminars in that China will have to deal with more internal strife than you are giving them credit for)

thats circular reasoning, as the only reason given for the internal strife in china was...the restrictions on trade. So you havent demonstrated either part of your case. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why they would experience internal strife as well.

would be a whole bunch of countries that aren't going to want to side with China clamping down on war resources when/if the day comes.

not sure what you mean by "clamping down" when we are talking about china buying petroleum and mineral products like they do every day, except potentially paying more for them. You havent explained how all these countries restrict chinese trade, nor have you estimated the cost. You dont seem to understand that war is costly. Who can afford to do this and for how long?

How am I to know how much it is going to cost?

I dont know, how are you? Youre the one who acts like its even possible. So I am willing to learn, teach me. How much does it cost?

You and I both know that type of questioning is nonesense.

I know that asserting that the logistical cost of an act of war is nonsense reveals that your geopolitical analysis is mostly nonsense. The fuel has to come from somewhere.

Krugman has already been out telling people that the war is productive, so my guess is that ...their same strategy, that they use constantly, will be employed and it will be so with very levels of success and failures.

so your argument is that the blockade might very well fail because of the enormous expense and very real technical difficulties?

I've heard people say if it comes down to it that the FED will seize the gold holdings of the Germans in event of financial catastrophe.  Would you put that past them?  I think we can all agree that something along those lines is certainly possible.

its certainly possible but it doesnt explain how to restrict trade to china.

By the way, your tone in the above quote is at odds with the sentiment of the quote below.

thanks for the observations relating to my tone, but you didnt answer my question either time I asked it so its still on you. I told you it would be difficult and impractical to restrict chinese trade. You said that was a strawman. I asked to see the real argument, you couldnt deliver so now its all about my tone. Precious. Are you done discussing geopolitics now or do we have to suffer through more of this balderdash?

I should not have to point out that the implications are not "crazy."

Yes, its crazy to imply that because I asked how much fuel is required for an op, I must think that my knowledge is "so specific and breadthful that the only thing a person could possibly impart to [me]" is how many tons of fuel per day the mission would require, especially when the sentence immediately preceding that one was an imperative inquiry regarding the general aspects of such a mission. You have crossed over into intellectual dishonesty with this one, Aristophanes. I'm disappointed as I think this is a first for our discussions.

'Twas not pointless.  It was a clarification for your attributing my arrogant tone to my nonexistant proclivity for an "idealized american exceptionalism."  Don't misattribute my sentiments and I won't have to clarify...

it was pointless for anyone who is trying to increase their understanding of the subject matter under discussion or the participants in the discussion. I fully recognize the obfuscatory effects you sought to gain through your rant, but I had been assuming good faith on your part.

Yes, plead with the crowd.

the futility of appealing to your reason has been abundantly demonstrated.

So, to return to topic.

Have debt problems ever resulted in government repudiation? Seems like no; not directly anyway. There's only two means to change according to Rothbard, conquest from outside and revolution from inside.

Seems like most libertarians focus on internal change via the political process, Ron Paul and the libertarian party, mass education on liberty, etc. Personally I've given up on that aspect.

Would revolution be legitimate? That's hard to say. If the government a criminal enterprise, and we think it is, it cannot be morally illegitimate to protect yourself against them. Yet society at large would view such a defense as illegitimate. Only mass movement against government power--an actual revolution--would contain possibility for change. Individual revolution just gets you jailed or killed :P

The only effectual "individual revolution" is foot-voting out of the society. Which is largely constrained by the fact that there's really nowhere to go. Thus, my efforts and energy are focused on creating a place for libertarians to go. That maximizes peace, minimizes strife, and sovles everyone's problem. It also would cause the crash of the US sooner, by being a brain and talent drain, as well as a wealth drain.

Given that we're keen on individualism, it seems fitting that a form of individual revolution be the primary means of change.

I tend to think that an ideological revolution is the way to go. The only thing that can defeat an idea is a superior idea, the same would apply to systems of ideas or ideologies. One's ideology is more important than one's capacity for violence, as the ideology has a determining effect on the propensity toward violence. An ideological revolution has the potential for profound change, whereas we already know the weaknesses inherent in a political revolution (people can choose to disobey laws, such a decision occurs in the realm of thought, and hence, ideas).

I apologize for the bold font. I can't seem to correct it. 

 

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why they would experience internal strife as well.

I'm sorry, but doesn't China have riots going on right now?  They still have trade...so that means it is not circular and the domwestic strike is not necessarily related to trade.  It could simply be the political management of their society.  The Xinjiang province is basically populated by Arabs.  If the U.S. networks can help radicalize them (as in Pakistan and Afghanistan in the 80's) they could be serious trouble for for the CPC.

You havent explained how all these countries restrict chinese trade, nor have you estimated the cost.

No one knows how much it will cost.  I've already explained that is a dumb fucking question to ask and you know it.  As for the required naval blockade.  I'm pretty sure that if the U.S. stopped buying things from them they would have trouble finding an export market (or several of them) that can make up the purchasing power of the U.S.

Stop pretending like you aren't poisoning the well by making assumptions like that and ignoring the implications from my mentioning the dozen or so allied nations that will help prevent China from "clamping down on resources."  They will "clamp down" in the event that they cannot find export markets and none of the countries I mentioned will roll over and accept Chinese domination of their energy resources.  The Indians alone could block the export path from the middle East to China...this is what half of China's oil imports?

From the article: But the difference is that China does not have an adequate foreign policy or the capabilities to accommodate the unavoidable economic realities. Moreover, some in China fear that increasing U.S. energy independence, particularly its enormous shale output, will make the Middle East is strategically dispensable for the U.S., providing Washington with more flexibility to "disrupt" the region in a way that would indirectly damage Chinese interests. In other words, if Middle Eastern oil no longer matters quite so much to the U.S., then it would have more freedom to do things that would risk disrupting Middle Eastern oil output, such as forcing "regime change" in unfriendly countries.

I've stated many times that Brzezinski has said as much; the point of blocking China's energy independence is to push their energy concern onto Russia.  They can actually use their army to invade Russia (if they need to) - although at that point I'd imagine that chemical and biological weapons will be on the table so this kind of thing is way down the line.

I know that asserting that the logistical cost of an act of war is nonsense reveals that your geopolitical analysis is mostly nonsense. The fuel has to come from somewhere.

But, you refuse to acknowledge my answer for it...

I told you it would be difficult and impractical to restrict chinese trade

You had one line with NO reasoning behind it...AND you keep refusing to recognize my responses.  I think I made you mad by shitting on your boyfriends particularly absurd notions of U.S. weaknesses.

its certainly possible but it doesnt explain how to restrict trade to china.

No, but it explains how the U.S. keps its war machine alive in the event that the petrodollar system collapses...Like I said before the Saudi Arabians and the Chinese are bound up with the U.S.

it was pointless for anyone who is trying to increase their understanding of the subject matter under discussion or the participants in the discussion. I fully recognize the obfuscatory effects you sought to gain through your rant, but I had been assuming good faith on your part.

Explain to me what you think obfuscatory means.  I 'ranted' as clarification for your misattribution of my own sentiment.  The two are not the same.  Admit that you were wrong in judging my sentiment and this point can be laid to rest.

Malachi:

There are major barriers to an ideological revolution--primarily the self-interest of opinion-crafters, the intellectuals, and their alliance with state power. I've only recently begun to realize their pernicious role in statism, having read Rothbard, and Sowell's recent book "Intellectuals and Society" which I've only dipped into.

They serve as the intellectual bulwark against any ideological revolution. And state power reinforces their influence through things like compulsory schooling and licensing / certification of schools to keep out influences they don't like.

This means anyone coming to a liberty philosophy will mainly do so through self-study. They can't stop that, but they've limited it to the hardest path. No one's learning a liberty philosophy in any institutional school in the country. There's hardly even a single college that even mentions Austrian economics for someone pursuing an econ degree, much less makes it the focus of study.

In short, an ideological revolution lacks leverage. At the current rate, it will either take hundreds of years to achieve mass ideological conversion, or it may never happen at all. They've arrayed millions of people and billions of dollars to propagandize against anything even close to a freedom philosophy, and embedded statist philosophies with the highest prestige in society through such mechanisms as the Ivy League system.

They intend to simply ignore us to death.

 

Maynard:

The US may be uniquely able to absorb fiscal strife due to its reserve currency status. The only thing that threatens that status right now is Bitcoin, and it's a remote threat at that. But it is a new system that has the potential to become the new default currency, even if none of us are sure how likely that may be at any point.

There's also repudiation and limited defaults, such as the EU is going through now. If you ask me, it seems like debt problems actually end up being used as crises to create political will. Politicians get giddy when something goes wrong, because then they can force their own agenda on any solutions.

Greece and others have given up some national sovereignty due to their debt issues and the EU fanatics are champing at the bit to take even more and become a true united europe with the federal level having the same power over EU states that the US fed does over our states.

You're right that debt problems could create enough turmoil to create some kind of change. But without a broad-based libertarian movement already pushing for change across the US, the change will likely be towards more statism. The intellectuals stand in the way of that ocurring. If the libertarians can take over the republican party, there's a small chance of that happening. I doubt we will be able to however.

Which isn't to say that I'm long term a pessimist. I think a free society is an inevitability, and all of history has been a march away from the various forms of communalism and towards individual freedom. Let's keep in mind that we alone advocate the sole moral way of ordering a society, one that would be more prosperous and fulfilling than what we have now, one that would be of ultimate fairness and rewarding of true talent, allowing true individual expression.

We cannot be contained forever.

The US may be uniquely able to absorb fiscal strife due to its reserve currency status. The only thing that threatens that status right now is Bitcoin, and it's a remote threat at that. But it is a new system that has the potential to become the new default currency, even if none of us are sure how likely that may be at any point.

Um, the Chinese, Russians, and Brazilians are all trying to put together petrocurrencies...

There's also repudiation and limited defaults, such as the EU is going through now. If you ask me, it seems like debt problems actually end up being used as crises to create political will. Politicians get giddy when something goes wrong, because then they can force their own agenda on any solutions.

Yeah.

They refuse to even consider the concept of unlimited credit expansion as being a problem when it comes to "too much debt."  Simply limit the fucking central banks and the state, banks, and regular people cannot go into such heavy amounts of debt.

But without a broad-based libertarian movement already pushing for change across the US, the change will likely be towards more statism.

Statism is the likely outcome.

I think a free society is an inevitability, and all of history has been a march away from the various forms of communalism and towards individual freedom.

History has also shown that States grow.  From the city states of Athens to Romanism to the USA, USSR, and the EU.  The logical long term outcome of this is a world government.  This mentaility that I see so many libertarians with, that, "freedom is an inevitablity" is literally akin to the Marxian view that "socialism is inevitable."  It is a delusion of ideology; be careful with your optimism.

Aristophanes:

I think a free society is an inevitability, and all of history has been a march away from the various forms of communalism and towards individual freedom.

History has also shown that States grow.  From the city states of Athens to Romanism to the USA, USSR, and the EU.  The logical long term outcome of this is a world government.  This mentaility that I see so many libertarians with, that, "freedom is an inevitablity" is literally akin to the Marxian view that "socialism is inevitable."  It is a delusion of ideology; be careful with your optimism.

Point taken. However I still think there's room for optimism. The larger the state becomes the more untenable it becomes. This exact thing happened to Greece, with something like 25% of all workers working for the government at taxpayer expense.

There's a tipping point. And Greece is just the tip of the spear. Greece was able to be bailed out, mostly, because a lot of other countries allied with them weren't quite as far down the garden path. What happens later on when they too don't have the fiscal breathing room to spare due to advancing state size and power?

Marx did not have good reason for his conclusion of inevitable socialism. We, I think, do. With advancing tech and wealth the power of any individual person advances rapidly, in direct contravention to communal or state power. The power of the community is increasingly being set against the power of an individual.

One glance at recent news shows as much--one guy makes a dumb film ridiculing Islam and the entire world is on edge. It used to take actions by entire nation-states to achieve similar levels of outrage and mass action.

What we need is the sort of equivalent action a libertarian could take. And my answer, at least, is to form a libertarian seastead.

I'm sorry, but doesn't China have riots going on right now?  They still have trade...so that means it is not circular and the domwestic strike is not necessarily related to trade.  It could simply be the political management of their society.  The Xinjiang province is basically populated by Arabs.  If the U.S. networks can help radicalize them (as in Pakistan and Afghanistan in the 80's) they could be serious trouble for for the CPC.

yes, they have chinese rioting because they want china to take a harder line on japan. So I still need for you to suggest how that wold weaken china in a conflict with the us, it sounds like nationalist sentiment that would help them. Your suggestion to sow unrest in xinjiang is actually a decent course of action, but I want to hear the context in which this helps the united states.

No one knows how much it will cost.  I've already explained that is a dumb fucking question to ask and you know it.

you didnt explain it, you asserted it. And I rejected that bare assertion because, hey guess what, its not stupid to evaluate the potential cost of an operation before you undertake it, its actually part of planning. And if you think a plan for a multi-national armada to restrict trade to china isnt going to have a log plan with estimates, well, youre wrong.

I'm pretty sure that if the U.S. stopped buying things from them they would have trouble finding an export market (or several of them) that can make up the purchasing power of the U.S.

I have already addressed that, fundamental economics says they wont.

Stop pretending like you aren't poisoning the well by making assumptions like that and ignoring the implications from my mentioning the dozen or so allied nations that will help prevent China from "clamping down on resources."

why will they? Whats the benefit to them bearing some of the cost of this war? Why why why? Theres no reasoning here, its just deus ex machina "the world rescues the united states from evil china, the predatory lender and maker of cheap consumer goods" Luminar wanted to talk about xenophobia...

They will "clamp down" in the event that they cannot find export markets and none of the countries I mentioned will roll over and accept Chinese domination of their energy resources.

They wont sell those resources at high prices? Why not? Why are they forgoing profits?

The Indians alone could block the export path from the middle East to China...this is what half of China's oil imports?

Supposing they could, why specifically do they do this, and how does it help the united states?

But, you refuse to acknowledge my answer for it...

you dont have answers so much as suggested courses of action that dont appear to answer the fundamental inquiry, and that employ unspoken assumptions. Usgov larcenously appropriates internationally owned gold and buys oil from mexico in order to fund an economic blockade of china....and then what? Just hangs a "mission accomplished" banner?

You had one line with NO reasoning behind it...AND you keep refusing to recognize my responses.  I think I made you mad by shitting on your

my reasoning behind is that people are going to trade unless you make it prohibitively expensive for them by physically obstructing their trade. I am willing to learn another way, the problem is that you want me to pretend there is some other way without having to plausibly suggest one. I'm not playing pretend.

boyfriends

turn 15 already

particularly absurd notions of U.S. weaknesses.

Yes I can honestly say I would rather see you read and respond critically rather than shit all over the forums.

No, but it explains how the U.S. keps its war machine alive in the event that the petrodollar system collapses...Like I said before the Saudi Arabians and the Chinese are bound up with the U.S.

keeps the war machine alive for how long? If the us violates international property holdings to that extent, why do you think that the coalition would still carry their water? Also, please stop conflating your bare assertions with explanations.

Explain to me what you think obfuscatory means.

contrived for the purpose of obfuscation.

I 'ranted' as clarification for your misattribution of my own sentiment.  The two are not the same.  Admit that you were wrong in judging my sentiment and this point can be laid to rest.

youre begging the question. I was correct and your rant was obfuscatory.

They intend to simply ignore us to death.

to their folly, for an idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any means.

hy will they? Whats the benefit to them bearing some of the cost of this war? Why why why?

Gaining at the expense of China is what they stand to benefit.  Most of those nations do not sell oil to China and any oil that China buys up at a higher price is oil that costs more for Japan to acquire.  So, keeping prices lower, securing acquisition markets, benefitting at the expense of China, and pressure from the U.S. would all have to do with it.

Luminar wanted to talk about xenophobia...

As if anything I am saying relates to being scared of or hating foreigners...you accuse me of ad hominem?

They wont sell those resources at high prices? Why not? Why are they forgoing profits?

Well, the idea being that China won't have the money to buy them because the US has fallen through as a consumer market and their oil supply is disrupted from the middle east.

Supposing they could, why specifically do they do this, and how does it help the united states?

Becuase they have always had antipathy to China and they are fearful of Chinese expansion into their resources markets....The same as every other country when we concern geopolitics.  Any enemy of our enemy is a friend of mine.  You are now questioning the worth of blocking oil export to China in the Indian Ocean's benefit to the U.S.?  You are talking in circles...first it is necessary and I need to go down to the funding detail and now its worth is questionable?

Yes I can honestly say I would rather see you read and respond critically rather than shit all over the forums.

Dude, why don't you go back and read my posts and their conclusions. I'm sick of your fucking bullshit implications about what I am thinking.  Clayton stepped way out there to say the the U.S. is a sitting duck and I am saying he is wrong.  I did provide reasoning for my statements.  You took my tone, which is in your head, as me "shitting on the forums."  You are talking in circles because you only have one point and that is "force him to admit my point (block china) then get him to explain its funding structure. otherwise I win."

Specualting on what imperial maneuvering the US will do is not the same subject as the ethics of property rights and how they are respected around the world.  Get real.  There isn't a place on the Earth that reason about these subjects like the authority grubbing anarchists here.  China, Russia, Germany, EU, the US, none of them are going to consider the obscurant arguments for nonaction concerning state power.  It is not worth it to add that into speculation.

Explain to me what you think obfuscatory means.

contrived for the purpose of obfuscation.

hahahaha

So, you don't actually know.  You cannot use the word you are trying to define in the definition of that word.  You could have just googled it.

youre begging the question. I was correct and your rant was obfuscatory.

No.  You are bitching about nothing.  I would also be curious as to what exactly I said that is begging the question.  Begging the question of what?  You said I had an "idealized american superiority" complex and I said that is not the case.  China simply isn't the threat Clayton painted it as.  Go read my posts again, and why don't you respond critically instead of shitting all over the other members.

 

I hope you'll excuse me if I dont see anything in there that contributes to the discussion at hand, and therefore decline to respond.

hahah, what a cop out.

My first and fourth are relevant to the thread as well as your inquiries.. 

And you must admit, they are all responses to things you said.  So, saying that they are off topic is absurd...they are your topics.

and therefore decline to respond.

Is it ironic that you had to have clicked a button called "reply" in order to say that you were declining to 'respond'?  Or did you reply, but with nothing relevant to the discussion at hand?

Hmmm.....

@Aristophanes: You need to take it down a notch.

My approach rejects standard Foreign Affairs style analysis where countries are automatically treated as telic beings, regardless of how utterly absurd it is to do so. Rothbard remarks on this in one of his many essays - France, still smarting from its lose of Alsace-Lorraine to Germany, demanded restoration of the disputed territory. Such language imbues atelic populations with telos.

Even more than this, I don't believe that there is any clear-cut correlation between territory and the battle-lines between the Power Elite themselves - even the national borders of very powerful nations. This goes back to my theory that the Power Elite see the social order as a collection of "Hilltops", ie. valuable entities that can be captured and occupied. Only some Hilltops are literal, geographic localities... ports, mountain ranges, oil fields, etc. Most of them are much more complex... ownership of certain corporations, bureaucratic control of certain organs within a national government (e.g. the CIA or the FBI), or control of the government itself (e.g. owning/controlling the President), influence within religious organizations (the Vatican, Anglicans, even some Protestant organizations), academic institutions, financial regulators, and so on. Then there is the submerged portion of the iceberg... control of the black markets... drugs, guns, human trafficking, and so on. People imagine that the drug cartels, for example, are "wild west" operations, answerable to nobody but themselves. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are each property of somebody or other in the Power Elite.

Hence, national boundaries, foreign policy and dimplomacy, etc. are just the curtain behind which stands the "Wizard", that is, the Power Elite. The CFR types are analyzing the superficial, visible mechanisms of power... the waving of the curtain back and forth as the Wizard jumps up and down. But what they are missing are causality and telos. But since the Wizard is behind a curtain (not just anybody can walk into a Bilderberg meeting, you know), we have no choice but to engage in speculation if we intend to analyze what is really going on in the halls of power. I'm far more interested in the aims and goals of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha than I am in the aims and goals of "China". At the end of the day, "China" (like "America" or "Russia") is a relatively arbitrary political grouping of a population for purposes that suit the regional Power Elite who are connected to the capital. I'm more interested in what is going on behind closed doors, under the surface and out of view of even the people at the pinnacle of visible power within the country.

Clayton -

'm far more interested in the aims and goals of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha

And there is only speculation as you can't possibly know what avenues of power it has.  My comparison to Icke still stands, my friend...

You see, Foreign Affairs will get research papers that are conducted at Carnegie Mellon and Univeristy of Maryland paid for by the Crown Institute and published through the Saban Center at Brookings Institute.  All you have to do is look for authors and you can find where the money for the policy comes from.  The speculation is then limited to the why because they publish the how.  In the case mentioned above the families that donate money to the Crown Institute are there.  You can take their names and find where they are in the caste of elites.

My approach rejects standard Foreign Affairs style analysis

You don't even know what it is...Your "approach" is to read infowars and global research and to think about things just like the rest of us.  It is your source material that I am contending here.  You refuse to start where it is obvious and instead chose to begin speculation at the get go.  

"What do you think they found on the moon that they aren't telling us."  Pfft, if we even went." har har haw. 

At the end of the day, "China" (like "America" or "Russia") is a relatively arbitrary political grouping of a population for purposes that suit the regional Power Elite who are connected to the capital. I'm more interested in what is going on behind closed doors, under the surface and out of view of even the people at the pinnacle of visible power within the country.

And things like this.  You are interested in day dreaming.  Put it this way, people are ambitious, and even if your boss and their boss and their boss has always been lying about their true goals while issuing orders down the chain, one of them is going to take power and make it obvious.  How will you know?  You have an unfalsifiable "approach" to "analysis."  It is more "fiction" than "analysis" because there are no truth values that can be presented anywhere.  You can't prove it, but no one can prove it wrong either...ancient aliens.

 

Also, off subject, you are aware of Aliester Crowley, no doubt, what do you make of him in his part of influencing Western culture?  It was he who was spiritual adviser to FDR's Treasury secretary (who designed the dollar), one of his mistresses was Barbara Bush's mom, he is on the cover of Sgt. Peppers, Goats Head Soup is a refernce to him, Zeppelin IV was recorded in one of his mansions...?  Could he be partially responsible for the consciouness of the West being so decadent?