In a book titled SELLING US OUT, J.R. Martin writes of Chinese companies “exploiting loopholes in the U.S.-China tax treaty signed by the Reagan administration in 1986.” He asks what the Founding Fathers would say about our current trade deficit, and our indebtedness to communist-ruled China. Martin asks, “What would Washington and Adams think about the corrupt and destructive power of the two major political parties in America? How would they judge today’s capitalism?” Continue reading
Fidel Castro once said, “I find capitalism repugnant. It is filthy, it is gross, it is alienating … because it causes war, hypocrisy and competition.” What is most curious in this quote is the apparent innocence with which a famous socialist dictator uses the term hypocrisy, as if the socialist alternative to capitalism were anything but hypocrisy. Socialist dictators often allege that economic freedom is slavery and then, through a socialist revolution, bring real slavery to an entire people. The socialist dictator says, “I am a liberator.” He blames the free market for poverty, and then he annihilates the free market in favor of near universal poverty. A politician like Castro, promising happiness and freedom, nonetheless delivers the exact opposite and has the nerve to say that capitalism is hypocritical.
Consider the old Soviet joke which asks, “Comrade, what is the definition of capitalism?” The answer comes back, “It is a system where man exploits man while socialism is the exact opposite.” The joke works nicely in all socialist countries. The socialist dictator blames the free market for the world’s problems. He assumes a dictatorship over the economy, over investment, over opportunity. It is a total dictatorship because the state takes total control. And what could be more “filthy” and “gross”? Continue reading
As mentioned many times here: As the list of America’s enemies continues to grow so do their threats and capacity to act upon them. The logical response would be to increase the would-be penalty for even coming close to showing intent in harming the United States. Yet, only what is counter-intuitive is the priority. Only in today’s times would people develop the illusion that total disarmament by the U.S. would be a demonstration of “moral strength.” Truth be told, there is nothing immoral about America preserving its military pre-eminence in the world.
In regards to a free world, when America (which is not untouchable) goes, so goes the rest of the free world. Any other Democratic countries are already too dependent on America for it’s security umbrella and will cave in to the demands of Russia and China (Shanghai Cooperation Organization — the new world war axis) after Washington gets hit with One Clenched Fist. It’s now 2013, a new year… and The United States is still consuming New Lies for Old.
Disarming while the world gears up a dangerous strategy
America is moving down a slippery slope, about to pass the point of no return. Our nuclear weapons capability is disintegrating. Here’s a quick assessment.
President Obama’s national goal — a world without nuclear weapons — is impossible and undesirable. Yet his administration is trying to lead the way into this fantasy land by making unilateral prohibitions, reductions, delays and cutbacks of all kinds. Today’s nuclear weapons policies — established by the Obama team in the Nuclear Posture Review — lead to nuclear weakness, rather than the nuclear strength that has kept us safe for over half a century. Continue reading
Big changes are already underway in the global energy sector. And some of these changes are contrary to previous expectations. What we now realize, once again, is that capitalism works. Capitalism has always solved our most basic problems. Even now it is solving our energy problem.
Four years ago Russia was the rising powerhouse of global energy production. Marshall I. Goldman’s 2008 book on Russia was titled Petrostate: Putin, Power and the New Russia. As Goldman explained, “Russia … finds itself in a newly assertive, even dominant, international position. Its emergence as a new super energy power overlaps with the weakening of the United States as we have squandered our … resources in Iraq.” But Russia’s energy sector has always been a state-manipulated behemoth with serious problems of its own. Continue reading
Matter of fact, we’re beginning to see this shape up in the United States now. Entirely new voting blocs are being created by a dwindling middle class turned impoverished. The need to get back into being part of middle class has voters easily duped into choosing who can “promise” the most. The United States is currently in a perpetual downward spiral of this with no end in sight. Henceforth, the parade is not over.
As readers of this column know, I’ve been fascinated lately with Gustave Le Bon’s book, The Psychology of Socialism. First published in 1898, Le Bon offered a few tentative predictions relating to our time. He said that the triumph of socialism was inevitable. But he also said that socialism wouldn’t last. The reason for socialism’s triumph can be found in the mass production of maladapted people, and in the coddling of degenerates. Subsequently, socialism’s failure would grow out of the empowerment of these same degenerates. Continue reading
From time to time, Global Geopolitics will post an article in its entirety. This serves to be a case in point. From geopolitical expert, JR Nyquist’s August/September, 2012 column on his website, validating China’s true intention is the topic at hand. It’s highly recommended that visitors also pursue his weekly columns for in-depth knowledge and additional insight on all things geopolitical.
The following commentary should be appended to a discussion of the alleged speech of General Chi Haotian about destroying and invading the United States: In this regard you suggest (1) that the speech is a hoax. This is entirely possible, although close analysis tends in another direction. Strategy is my subject and my life-longstudy. Believe it or not, it is possible in strategy to know certain things indirectly, by inference and analysis. After careful consideration, with regard to the speeches attributed to General Chi, I think it is unwise to say “we don’t know” and “it doesn’t matter.” In fact, it’s not impossible to analyze a documentto determine its authenticity. Here is a task entirely within the reach of a strategic analyst. Furthermore, if the document is authentic then it matters agreat deal; for the enemy’s intentions are laid bare, with countless implications (and potential war-winning insights). When we first encounter an unfamiliar text, we don’t know how to judge it. We are completely lost, and this is normal. Those who claim to understand something on first contact are deceiving themselves. Nothing worth knowing is understood immediately. When I first read the two speeches attributed to General Chi Haotian my reaction was to dismiss them as you did. When I read the first paragraph of the second speech, I rolled my eyes and laughed at what seemed to be an obvious fraud. At first reading they were not credible. (This is the same reaction I had to Golitsyn in 1984). Two years elapsed and, as chance would have it, I was doing some research on Mao Zedong’s strategic ideas. In the midst of this research I was stunned by Mao’s determination to build a fleet and invade North America. I was also struck by the brutality and cynicism of his statements. I went back and started re-reading SunTzu and the commentaries on Sun Tzu. My mind suddenly drifted back to the two speeches attributed to General Chi Haotian.
On my second reading I realized these speeches are only incredible from a Western point of view. From a Chinese strategist’s point of view, these speeches are consistent with 2,500 years of Chinese history and thought. There is nothing inauthentic in these two speeches. If they are a hoax, then a genius produced them. More than that, this aforesaid genius possesses authentic tidbits of military intelligence that are not known by the general public — but were revealed to me by a high-ranking Russian military defector with more than three years experience in China. Mao once said that the first Chin emperor was nothing compared with himself. The first Chin emperor only killed a thousand Confucian scholars. Mao had killed hundreds of thousands of Confucian scholars. This was Mao’s boast. Such boasting is unknown to Western history, except to figures who are dismissed as madmen. One is reminded of the Chinese warlord whose father was taken prisoner and held hostage by a rival. In this instance, the rival threatened to boil the old man alive. The war lord sent his reply: “Save me some of the soup.” One has to dig through the Dark Ages of Western history to find anything like it. Or else it is something from the history of Caligula or Nero or Eliagabulus, who were considered dreadful failures and misfits. In China such behavior on the part of leaders has long been normalized. The Western ethic, which followed from the hero-worship of the ancient Greeks and Romans, places nobility as the true standard of greatness.
Chinese civilization places a high premium on realistic thinking, brutality and success. This is greatness in the Chinese context. How does this point argue the authenticity of the alleged speeches of General Chi? A person who disagrees with the strategic culture of China, favoring freedom and humane government, doesn’t possess the mentality needed to reproduce such abrilliant piece of mimicry. One would have to be a student of Sun Tzu and the Chin emperor and Mao Zedong, not a student of Thomas Jefferson or Lincoln. Such astudent would not value freedom, having absorbed a philosophy entirely at odds with Western culture. More than that, it is a culture that believes in the West’s weakness and inevitable fall. If you were going to advance a fraudulent speech by a Chinese communist leader, would you dare put into his mouth the statement that Nazi Germany was “too soft”? Would you dare open your first paragraph with the assertion that you are pleased that 80 percent of Chinese polled would approve killing women and children in a war? Anyone with the sophistication to produce this document would have avoided going so far, fearing that the reader would laugh out loud at such an obvious propaganda fraud. Only a simple person would start Chi’s second speech with that kind of paragraph, and a simple person did not compose this speech!
To make a credible fraud, you have to downplay the wickedness of the Communists. You must be subtle in your presentation so that the fraud has a chance to sound credible. But the Chi speech is not subtle as a fraudulent presentation would have to be. Instead, it is deep and profound and brilliant in its totalitarian perspective. The compassion for the American victims comes late in the second speech, long after the skeptics would’ve stopped reading it. I do not know if the speech is genuine. But if I had to lay a bet, then I’d wager on its authenticity. That is to say, I suspect it is authentic. And the way to test its authenticity is to see if Chinese actions are consistent with its program. There is something more, as well. I know from my discussions with a Russian defector that Russia and China agreed to split North America between them as follows: Russia would get Alaska and parts of Canada, while China would get the lower 48 states (which contains the best land). The agreement on this was affirmed by the Russian General Staff in early 1992. This joint agreement on a future wa ragainst America is the basis for the Sino-Russian alliance. And if you read General Chi’s speech carefully, you will see that he brilliantly lays out the logic of the Chinese offensive and their means of advancing. He does not mention Russia’s role because Party cadres don’t need to know about Russia’s military contribution. They only need the most general strategic outline and why the war is necessary. You must read this speech several times in order to understand its profound science. If this speech is counterfeit, the counterfeiter spent many years devising it. In fact, a hoax of this type could only be produced, as I noted before, by a genuis. If General Chi was not the author, then the author should be a general — and ought to have General Chi’s job.
In point (2) you mention 9/11. Chi’s speech explains why a false flag terror attack is necessary in advance of a biological warfare offensive against the United States. As would be proper, General Chi gives nothing away. He merely implies that the Americans will not know who is really attacking them. This is intrinsic to his speech, even though he doesn’t spare words explaining why. In point (3) you ask if this is good propaganda material against communism. Since our goal is to understand the enemy, the propaganda value is of secondary importance. importance. If these speeches are authentic, our activism must counter the Chinese.
Full article: Authenticating China’s Strategy: Letter to a friend (JR Nyquist)
A map has been generated at FreeMarketAmerica.org which tracks jobs lost on account of the Sierra Club’s war on coal. The data for the map comes from the National Mining Association, which says that over 1.2 million jobs have been lost in the coal industry. If mining stocks haven’t been doing well – whether we are talking coal or even gold – consider the environmental hits taken by the mining industry. Like the timber industry in the Pacific Northwest, coal mining has been specially targeted for reduction.
It’s true, of course. Last June Bloomberg ran a piece, “Displaced coal miners face slim job prospects.” All around the country, coal jobs are being lost. Coal is one of America’s key energy resources. It is an energy resource we don’t have to import. But the Obama Administration appears determined to crush the coal industry in order to save the planet from global warming. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) believes global warming is caused by greenhouse gases produced by coal as well as oil. Therefore, a radical effort is underway to curtail the use of coal.
Only a few years ago more than half our electricity was generated from coal. In the first quarter of 2012 the generation of electricity from coal dropped 21 percent from 2011 levels. The immediate culprit is the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAP). You can read about it at the Web Site of the EPA where it states: “On July 6, 2011, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a rule that protects the health of millions of Americans by helping states reduce air pollution and attain clean air standards. This rule, known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, requires states to significantly improve air quality by reducing power plant emissions that contribute to ozone and/or fine particle pollution in other states.” (In other words, coal is out.)
In the middle of the worst economic times since the Great Depression, when as many as 86 million are unemployed, how can the federal government purposely push for over 1.2 million in additional job losses? And yes, the job situation may be worse than official figures suggest. Readers should review CNN Money’s May 4 piece titled “The 86 million invisible unemployed” which stated that our work force has the “lowest force participation rate since 1981.”
As CNN Money explained, “Only people looking for work are considered officially unemployed.” So the situation is worse than the government represents. Yet the government would add to the number of those out of work by strangling the coal industry. When the price of oil remains high and a war in the Middle East could drive oil prices higher, wouldn’t it be wise to leave the coal industry alone? But then, we have to save the planet from global warming – or do we?
Full article: Coal Industry Under Attack (JR Nyquist | Financial Sense Online)
This is precisely what Global Geopolitics has warned about in the Syria files for some time now. People unfamilliar with the situation might want to do some research on “American Hiroshima“. The threat is real as Iran is prepared — and has been waiting for a long time. America on the homeland is not prepared — and has been only been fixated on Kim Kardashian for a long time.
As everyone knows, the Iranians are refusing to give up their nuclear program. From all appearances, the six power talks, to be held in Moscow (June 18-19), will probably not achieve much. Iranian officials say their nuclear program is peaceful, and they insist that everyone accept and believe in this peacefulness. Those that know the regime best, like former Revolutionary Guardsman Reza Kahlili, say the regime in Tehran is the opposite of peaceful. According to Kahlili, Iran’s leaders want to ignite a nuclear war in order to facilitate an Islamic apocalypse. “The only true avenue to lasting peace in the Middle East,” says Kahlili, is to “help bring about a free and democratic Iran.” Of course, this is not going to happen. The West isn’t positioned for such a gamble. The Iranian government knows this, and that’s why they are becoming increasingly difficult to deal with. Last April the Iranian newspaper Kayhan, which is under the direct supervision of the Office of the Supreme Leader threatened: “If the U.S. strikes Iran with nuclear weapons, there are elements which will respond with nuclear blasts in the centers of America’s main cities.”
Tehran’s threat implies an Iranian nuclear capability. It also implies the possibility of nuclear terrorism, relying on Islamic terror networks. Of course, the statement is defensive in nature, and must be understood as such. Yet it acknowledges a nuclear capability. This is exactly the kind of capability the West would not like Iran to have. The Israeli’s, especially, are growing desperate about the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran. Many are frightened by the prospect.
In a recent interview, Israeli vice premier and former IDF chief of staff Moshe Ya’alon said during an interview with Haaretz, “Let me say one thing to you in English, because it is very important for English speakers to understand it: We are not bluffing. If the political-economic pressure is played out … and Iran continues to hurtle toward a bomb, decisions will have to be made.” Ya’alon is under no illusion about Iran’s readiness to retaliate, especially against Isreal: “If anyone, no matter who, decides to take military action against Iran’s nuclear project, there is a high probability that Iran will react against us, too, and will fire missiles at Israel.” And those missiles might be armed with chemical or biological warheads. If Israel and Iran begin exchanging missiles, nobody knows how it would end – but we can guess. According to Jane’s Information Group, Israel has between 100 and 300 nuclear warheads. Some of these can be mounted on cruise missiles carried by Dolphin-class submarines. Israel’s land-based delivery system, the Jericho 3 missile, has a range of nearly 8,000 kilometers. If Iran started a biological/chemical missile war with Israel, the retaliation would be withering. One may doubt, indeed, the clerics’ readiness for martyrdom. Yet there is a crisis more immediate, which may soon eclipse the Iran crisis.
According to a June 16 DEBKAfile report, U.S. military intervention in the Syrian Civil War may be inevitable. The Americans want President Bashar al-Assad to step down. That happens to be a big problem for President Vladimir Putin of Russia. Putin favors the Assad government, a longtime client of Moscow and ally of Iran. As the chief arms supplier to Syria, the Russians have recently sent attack helicopters to the Assad regime. The United States strongly objected with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issuing a statement. “We have confronted the Russians about stopping their arms shipments to Syria,” said Clinton, who thinks the conflict could escalate “dramatically.”
Perhaps the most alarming report comes from Aaron Klein, who reports that the Russians are warning the Assad regime that if “the coming counterinsurgency … is not successful in the next 4-6 weeks, Syria should be prepared for war.” Although Klein admits confusion regarding the meaning of Russia’s warning, the language is clear enough. The DEBKAfile report (above) provides the answer: “The intervention [by Americans] will happen. It is not a question of ‘if’ but ‘when.’” Market watchers should take note. Intervention in Syria may be coming, and it isn’t likely to be a picnic. It has long been suspected that Syria manufactures Sarin, Tabun, VX and mustard gas. According to businessinsider.com, Syria is “loaded up on all kinds of missiles, weapons of mass destruction, a solid air force, and enough Cold War relics to fill a dozen Air-and-Space museums.” Then there is the question of what kind of support the Iranians or Russians might provide Syria.
It is surprising to hear Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calling on Moscow to cut ties with Assad. Clinton probably does not sympathize with Russia’s loyalty to a longtime ally. After all, Obama ditched Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Why shouldn’t Putin ditch Assad? It should be obvious by now that the Kremlin does not pick allies on the basis of their human rights records. Russia plays a strategic game, and if it suits Russia to defend Assad then Assad will be defended. In all probability, however, Assad is not important enough for Russia to risk a war on unfavorable terms. Russia’s game is a long game, requiring patience. Let the Americans squander their political capital and military resources on an Arab Spring that may bring radical Islamic regimes to power across the Middle East. If the Russians simply wait, together with their Chinese and Iranian friends, the regimes that come to power in Syria, Egypt and Libya might be more anti-Western than the regimes they replaced.
Full article: New Middle East for Old (JR Nyquist)
Last November 17 commodity broker Ann Barnhardt announced that Barnhardt Capital Management would cease operations. “I could no longer tell my clients that their monies and positions were safe in the future and options markets – because they are not,” she explained. “The entire system has been utterly destroyed by the MF Global collapse.”
According to Barnhardt, times are changing. “Whenever a firm failure happened, the customer funds were intact and the exchanges would step in to backstop everything and keep customers 100 percent liquid….” But now the system has broken down. As Barnhardt noted, “A firm, led by a crony of the Obama regime, stole all of the non-margined cash held by customers of his firm.”
There is a fascinating interview that Jim Puplava did with Barnhardt last November where she offered a perspective on where our country is headed and why. What she says is shocking and will sound improbable to many. She says, “We are now living in a lawless, Marxist communist [country]. This is no longer a nation of laws. This is now transformed into a nation of men.”
Barnhardt is using precise language. She is not exaggerating, whatever we may think. An enormous amount of money was stolen in the MF Global collapse. A huge transfer of wealth took place. “There is no rule of law,” Barnhardt told Puplava. “The rule of law no longer exists. There is no longer justice in this country; and no nation, no culture, no society can survive if there isn’t a foundation of justice. That is why we are teetering on the precipice of collapse and I foresee civil war coming in the next several years.”
Barnhardt sees corruption at the top. She also sees a political forces at work – and a political ideology that is linked to the welfare state and the massive indebtedness we see around us today. According to Barnhardt, “Europe is done. Europe is mathematically impossible, it cannot be saved…. You want to make a start … at trying to bail out Europe? We are talking about $25 trillion just to start.”
The end is indeed near. The debt at home and abroad has piled too high for too long. As of this writing, sovereign debt is growing faster than the global economy. As Barnhardt explained, “These people have so leveraged themselves … giving their brain-dead citizenry free handouts and entitlements that it is now mathematically impossible to save the paradigm. It’s not a matter of ‘if’ the global financial system is going to collapse; oh, it’s going to collapse. It’s just a matter of when.”
Moral rot pervades modern society. “We now know that the government is absolutely stuffed to the gills almost exclusively with this same type of moral degenerate culture,” noted Barnhardt. “These people that are in the government – that are … not just in the Congress and the Executive Branch, but also in the bureaucracy – they are in it for themselves. They are in it for the money. “
The honest businessman finds himself at the mercy of dishonest officials who are working with dishonest businessmen. “Those of us who have been in the business have known intuitively … that there was front-running going on by politicians. A great example of this is someone like Harry Reid,” said Barnhardt. “Harry Reid, when he entered Congress, had a low six-figure net worth. He now has an eight figure net worth, and he has never done anything except be a United States Senator…. How does that happen? How does a man with a hundred and seventy thousand dollar a year salaried position go from having a six figure net worth to an eight figure net worth?”
A system based on trust cannot endure the collapse of honesty and integrity. Such a system is headed for ruin or worse. “It’s obvious what’s been going on,” Barnhardt continued. “You have to start acknowledging these people for what they are, and that is moral degenerates who are basically sociopaths and psychopaths…. The only thing they care about is themselves. They will do anything. They will steal, they will lie, they will cheat….”
Bad behavior is contagious. In fact, it has spread like a plague throughout the financial system. It seems that no law can stop it. No religion can reach it. According to Barnhardt: “You have to stop thinking that these people are just misguided, or that there is some sort of a difference of opinion on economic theory. These people are nefariously trying to destroy everything in this country. It’s called the Cloward-Piven strategy. Go in and destroy and collapse the entire economy … and then rebuild a new … Marxist-socialist-fascist state out of the burning rubble of this destruction. This is intentional, this is nefarious. This is not a function of incompetence.”
According to Wikepedia, “The Cloward-Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to … a national system of ‘guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty.’” Of course, the aforesaid system of guaranteed income is simply a euphemism for the dictatorship of the proletariat.
She is right, of course. But few are ready for the truth. Everyone sees a system that appears to be working. And most people, seeing only what they want to see, will ignore the danger. As Christopher Lasch wrote many years ago, “If the collapse of internal [moral] restraints were confined to the criminal classes, it might be possible, by means of a combination of incentives and stricter enforcement of the laws, to restore a sense of obligation. But the culture of shamelessness is not confined to the underclass.” [Revolt of the Elites, p. 214]
Full article: America’s Crony Capitalism (JR Nyquist)
If you want to understand the basis for freedom and the free market then you should listen to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s Oct. 5, 2011 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. According to Scalia, our freedom is secured by way of the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, he says, we aren’t adequately passing along the secret of the Constitution to the next generation. Scalia frequently meets with students from the best law schools and asks them, “How many of you have read the Federalist Papers?” Never more than about 5 percent raise their hands. About this, Scalia says, “That is very sad…. Here is a document that says what the Framers thought they were doing. It is such a profound exposition of political science … yet we have raised a generation of Americans who are not familiar with it.”
Scalia goes on to ask why America is a free country and what sets it apart. According to Scalia, most people will say that the Bill of Rights is the basis of our freedom. Scalia shook his head, “If you think that a Bill of Rights is what sets us apart you’re crazy. Every banana republic in the world has a Bill of Rights. Every president-for-life has a Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights … of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics was much better than ours.” Scalia reminded his listeners that a Bill of Rights is merely “words on paper, what our Framers would have called a ‘parchment guarantee.’ And the reason is that the real Constitution [is a structure] … and a sound constitution has a sound structure…. The constitution of the Soviet Union did not prevent the concentration of power in one person or in one party. And when that happens the game is over….”
“The real key,” said Scalia, “is separation of powers.” The system was built for gridlock, and that’s a good thing. According to Scalia, America is not about democracy. In fact, the Framers didn’t like democracy. Checks and balances was what really mattered to them. Unchecked power could not be permitted. Such power tends toward corruption. This ancient principle was best stated by Lord Acton in 1887, who famously wrote, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” He pointed to the murderous actions of English monarchs, and one might point to a larger history in which powerful men and women have killed and plundered without being held accountable.
Critics of the U.S. Constitution say it is an instrument of class oppression – made by the rich to the disadvantage of the poor. They deny the reality of separate powers under the Constitution. For them, the inequalities of the market economy must be corrected by government intervention. A century ago Le Bon wrote of the difficulties involved in “reconciling Democratic equalization with natural inequalities.” As Le Bon pointed out, “Nature does not know such a thing as equality. She distributes unevenly genius, beauty, health, vigor, intelligence, and all the qualities which confer on their possessors a superiority over their fellows.” When a politician pretends to oppose the inequalities of nature, he proves to be a special kind of usurper – personifying arrogance in search of boundless power.
Logically, the establishment of universal equality would first require the establishment of a universal tyranny (a.k.a., the dictatorship of the proletariat). A formula for doing all this was worked out in the nineteenth century, and was the program of Karl Marx. Le Bon warned that socialism might indeed “establish equality for a time by rigorously eliminating all superior individuals.” He also foresaw the decline of any nation that followed this path (i.e., see the Soviet Union). Such a society would aim at eliminating all risk, speculation and initiative. These stimulants of human activity being suppressed, no progress would be possible. According to Le Bon, “Men would merely have established that equality in poverty desired by the jealousy and envy of a host of mediocre minds.”
It is doubtful that many people today understand the basis for our economic freedom. Many students are not properly educated today, as Justice Scalia testified. Political forces are at work aiming at a fundamental re-interpretation of the Constitution, and these forces dominate education and the media. The time may not be far off when we entirely forget the secret of our prosperity along with the secret of liberty.
Full article: What Keeps the Free Market Free? (JR Nyquist)
Marielena Stuart is a candidate for the U.S. Senate in the state of Florida. She has an interesting message about the economy and what ails it. I had an opportunity to speak with Marielena at length about today’s economic crisis. “When [people] speak about the economy and jobs,” Stuart told me, “they don’t understand … that what is killing our economy is the fact our manufacturing base has been decimated by sustainable development rules and regulations imposed through agencies like the EPA. And yet these regulations and sustainable development have never been approved by the United States Congress. They have been imposed on Americans through Executive Orders.”
If you visit the White House website, you will find all Executive Orders of the current administration. Orders on regulatory matters usually refer to the environment as a key rationale for regulation. As many businessmen have discovered to their dismay, property rights are now trumped by environmental policy. According to Stuart, “The environmental movement has now become a monster.”
How did this happen? Stuart makes an interesting argument: “Essentially, when the Soviet Union fell communism did not disappear. It simply went underground, and it resurfaced as the environmental movement. It gained strength and filled its coffers.” According to Stuart, “The United Nations Agenda for the Twenty-First century presents human beings as enemies of the environment.” As such, Americans must be regulated in everything from procreation to eating habits. Stuart explained further, “If you think about it, however, it has nothing to do with the environment. It has to do with control … and everything to do with attacking property rights.”
Agenda 21 and the idea of sustainable development first appeared in the pages of a 1987 UN report written by Gro Harlem Brundtland, a first Vice-President of the World Socialist Party who attended the Congress of the Socialist International in New York (1996). Brundtland’s World Socialist Party advocates revolution in order to bring about a moneyless society based on common ownership of the means of production. Like other Marxists, Brundtland believes that the state is the “executive committee” of the capitalists. Therefore, the working class must wrestle the state away from the capitalists. In that event, the free market would come to an abrupt end. Agenda 21 was written by Brundtland to advance the revolution. This revolution is not merely economic, Stuart explains, “At the core of Agenda 21 is the Marxist idea that the traditional family must be destroyed, because … without the traditional family you cannot have a sound economy.”
And why would anyone want to undermine America’s economy? According to Stuart, “They are trying to create a world crisis so they can then step in with a one world government to solve the crisis. The Rio + 20 summit that just took place in Brazil is a huge message to the world … that sustainable development is going to … advance aggressively.” She further stated, “As they advance aggressively, they will continue to promote that we must not be good American citizens, but good global citizens … Look at the attacks on our fisheries, on our farm lands. This is all part of the Agenda for the Twenty-First Century. Control … of society at every level – cultural control, economic control, and constant conditioning….”
For someone who understands communism, who knows how to read subversive movements, the damage to America’s economy is already apparent. “For me, having survived communism, it is very clear,” said Stuart. “Communism is active in America today. What Americans need to realize is that socialism is simply phase one of communism; and this has been working through our system for a long time.”
Stuart further explained, “We have people in government who are betraying America…. This did not happen overnight,” she added. “The communists have gotten themselves entrenched and have been working with tremendous dedication for their Marxist ideology. What we are about to face is truly a socialist abyss. And once we continue to descend further into this abyss it will be very difficult to turn the nation around….”
I fear that Marielena Stuart is right.
Full article: What Ails the U.S. Economy? (JR Nyquist)
Here is a simple prediction: If President Obama wins re-election the market will respond negatively (for a brief moment, at least). If Romney wins the election, the market will show signs of optimism. This is based on the perception that Romney is good for the market, and Obama is bad for the market. How does this assertion measure up to actual polling data, and how might it shape the outcome of the election?
As for the actual outcome of the election, some observers might compare 2012 with the election of 1980. In both cases we have a Democrat with a bad economy running against a Republican promising deregulation and lower taxes. The Republican should win, right? The situation in 1980 is not a good comparison, because in 1980 President Jimmy Carter’s position was weakened by the Iran Hostage Crisis. Also, in 1980, a Gallup poll showed Reagan ahead at the end of the primaries with 58 percent of the vote. Recent polls do not show Romney with any lead whatsoever.
As for seasoned opinion, Rupert Murdoch is “doubtful” that Romney will beat Obama. According to an analysis of candidate fundraising by John Aloysius Farrell, Obama has more donors than Romney which translates into more campaign volunteers and more passion. “By the standards of the past, Obama is in the preferable position,” writes Farrell. Of course, the election is more than three months away. According to John Galt, writing for America’s Chronicle, “Today’s polls are bad long term predictors because they do not take into account events close to the election.”
Suppose we can predict a worsening economy by November, Obama’s numbers are bound to suffer; unless we adopt the cynicism of Oswald Spengler. “What is truth?” Spengler asked in his Decline of the West. “For the multitude, [the truth is] that which it continually reads and hears.” This is what Spengler calls “the public truth of the moment, which alone matters….” Spengler believed that democratic politics led to “an appalling caricature of freedom of thought” in which the “dictates of party leaders supports itself upon that of the Press. The competitors strive by means of money to detach … peoples … en masse from hostile allegiance and to bring them under their own mind-training.” According to Spengler, feudal obligations have been replaced by a regime that “shapes men’s souls with articles, telegrams and pictures….”
There is truth in Spengler’s words, which leave us wondering which party is more effectively shaping men’s souls. This answer should be obvious to the well-informed, though it will not be obvious to those who have been “shaped.”
Full article: Election 2012 and the Market (JR Nyquist | Financial Sense Online)