The economic crisis worsens. The news presents us with markers, signs and symptoms. The situation spirals gradually, downward, toward a point of no return. China’s war against the U.S. dollar continues pushing one nation after another to bypass trading in dollars. We see, as well, that China Moves to Further Marginalize the Dollar just as China Leads a Campaign to Replace the Dollar as [the World’s] Reserve Currency. It is no accident that China pursues a national strategy hostile to American financial interests. To supplant a great financial power one must take certain actions and follow a definite path. So what is the American side doing to protect its position? America is doing very little. America is, in fact, lost in a wilderness of self-inspired trivialities and entertainments. We no longer appear to know which end is up. Continue reading
The forces that threaten the free market are many. Who dares to stop them? The advocates of the free market appear to be outgunned, though their case can be eloquently made. Every reader would profit by watching the classic FreeMarketAmerica.com video “If I Wanted America to Fail,” which summarizes the inverted policies that hamper the successful operation of our market system. And as our country depends on freedom to prosper, the gradual limitation of economic freedom suggests an even worse danger; that is, the end of political freedom. “Your country is in peril,” said New Zealand author and researcher Trevor Loudon in a recent speech for America’s Survival. “Small groups of Marxists [now] run your country,” he explained. For the labor unions were taken over by hard-core Marxists in the 1990s, and this affected the trajectory of one of the two major parties which in turn moves the country ever closer to Marxism. Day by day, moment by moment, the checks and balances of the Founding Fathers are breaking down. A highly centralized socialist system is evolving out of the old free market system; and national bankruptcy appears to be an integral part of their plan. Continue reading
The Great British historian, Lord Macaulay, predicted the future unraveling of the United States economy in a letter written in May 1857. Macaulay’s prediction was based on his analysis of American institutions. Discussing the life of Thomas Jefferson with an American author, Macaulay wrote, “You are surprised to learn that I have not a high opinion of Mr. Jefferson, and I am surprised at your surprise. I am certain that I never wrote a line, and … uttered a word indicating an opinion that the supreme authority in a state ought to be entrusted to the majority of citizens [counted] by the head; in other words, to the poorest and most ignorant part of society.”
According to Macaulay the United States was becoming increasingly democratic throughout the nineteenth century. And this tendency, he argued, was dangerous to liberty and to the country’s economic well-being. As Macaulay explained, “I have long been convinced that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization, or both.” Continue reading
During the last six months many places around the world have experienced record low temperatures. Already grain crops have suffered. There is speculation by some scientists that we are entering a cooling period. Russian researchers at Pulkovo Observatory, St. Petersburg, are flatly saying that the Sun is putting out less heat. Approximately every 200 years the sun goes into a “solar hibernation.” This signifies a period of lower global temperatures which have historically reduced crop yields, resulting in higher food prices and famine. Continue reading
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)