@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).
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?
**
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?
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.
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.
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.
thats an example of your first problem: internalizing the point-of-view of the elites.
funny that you would accuse others of oversimplification.
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 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.
you say its not a “newsletter” because its an academic pub. Well, six of one, half dozen of the other.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So, barring any substantial arguments that establish this assertion, Clayton is right. Thanks.
I refer you to Say’s law and the decline of the petrodollar.
so much for those airbases.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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 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?
So please explain to me how continuing american hegemony is similar to al-qaeda’s long term interests.
well I guess youre already wrong, because china is and mexico isnt.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
This is basically the complete opposite of truth.
its like you guys are pretending that the df-21d doesnt exist, or something equally delusional.
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.
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…
Everyone has accused everyone else of it. The word has lost its meaning in this thread.
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!
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 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.
hahaah your arrogance is almost stunning and plainly amusing.
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.
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?
The part where it says those carriers must be with 1500 or so miles from the missile sites…
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
Please, tell me about strategic deception some more, Sun. Just as the sage, Clayton, you seem to think that youknow 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…
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.
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]
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.
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
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?
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)
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?
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.
Gaddafi was unseated because of his plan to reject the petrodollar and replace it with the african dinar, a gold currency.
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.
Refer to chapter 5 of the 36 stratagems
this is typical of your geopolitical analysis-presumptuous, factually incorrect, and offensive in tone and phrasing.
well what do you want to know? Have you even read Unrestricted Warfare? or just western establishment publications?
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.
it would require a 7500 nm blockade from kamchatka to sri lanka, extending outside palau and malaysia. Meaning, its expensive and not really practical.
youre a closet nationalist.
the point was that cutting off china would cause them to lose because of internal conflict. Well you cant cut off china.
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…
This is a straw man…
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?
Well think about the economics of it. How many missiles does it take to equal the cost of a carrier?
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.
you used it as a metric
indeed, however much of the knowledge was lost in multiple brain dumps.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.