Yesterday I began the first post on Rubio’s crazy Munich speech by quoting Glenn Diesen, who, in my view, presents a fair characterization of what Rubio was saying:
From the bio of the Atlantic Council "expert" arguing for a US war on Iran:
"Michael Rozenblat is ***a visiting research fellow...from the Israeli security establishment"***
Captures the dynamics in Washington pretty well
Atlantic Council @AtlanticCouncil
“The benefits of fundamentally changing—or even eliminating—the Islamic Republic could outweigh the risks if the alternative is an emboldened, undeterred Iran.”
Michael Rozenblat outlines six reasons why Trump should choose the military option in Iran:
China has been in an economic war with the U.S. and has played their cards smartly.
China is a country run by engineers, while the U.S. is run by private equity and lawyers, with a bit of tech brothers. The U.S. ruling class is focused on personal enrichment and power. It’s amazing how many millionaires there are in Congress when they have a $174,000 yearly salary.
Stuff:
- active Chinese industrial spying industrial / science program
- opium war 3.0
- U.S. influence buying - Feinstein was a poster child of this
- buying of key U.S. knowledge and companies
- destroying us competition by selling below market
Trump is doing a lot to rebuild the U.S. economy, but a lot of it’s via executive order. I feel it’s built on a foundation of sand, and can be reversed by the next Democratic President. Antitrust unfortunately is being deprioritized again.
What is a job? It’s something to a man what a child is to a woman, a purpose and direction etc - a big deal. With AI doing all the work and men idle, no good (or money to buy AI produce) will spontaneously erupt. But I must be missing something, or even a lot.
The one place I’m going to disagree with Sean foo on is the amount of debt that Trump is going to leave us with. In eight years Trump and Biden added $16 trillion to the debt.
At the rate we’re going now and if war breaks out with Iran, believe Trump could possibly add another tree and in his second term so in a 12 year span two presidents could have added as much as $$26 trillion to the national debt. Since 2001 we have already added approximately $36 trillion to the national debt.
The only thing left to happen is that the federal reserve will become just like the bank of Japan and will monetize our own debt which will further base our currency and actually calls more inflation. We won’t have any choice, but to raise interest rates again, but let’s face the reality, in four or five years, we could easily default on the debt.
Ron Unz's weekly essay included the entire Carlson-Cruz interview. I watched the whole thing, again.
Cruz's line of reasoning is "peace through strength;" 'If we don't like a state, we try to destabilize it, impoverish it; kill it leaders; kill its people; agitate its people to turn against their government." In Cruz-think, this is the essence of America First. His claims are devoid of facts and evidence, he has affirmed to himself the rightness of his narrative so totally that he seems incapable of recognizing how irrational it is. Tragically, he is able to persuade enough legislators to agree with him.
Was the US always like this and I just started to notice?
I don't think a 'return to Christianity' is the answer: America has had multiple versions -- I call them deformations -- of Christianity and in each version, Americans have followed Christian leaders to wage war on some other peoples who, in their estimation, needed 'saving,' like Iranians need to be liberated today.
Gratified to see Groman push back against a finger being wagged at Germany.
A return to honesty --The truth, the Whole truth, and Nothing but the truth might be a good first step; perhaps the existential first movement.
All the politicians who appeal to Christianity and to God for legitimacy and popularity miss the following quote from Christ:
"My kingdom is not of this world" - John 18:36.
And they also seem to miss the implications of what living according to God's will in the world means:
* God's law helps to control violent outbursts of sin and keeps order in the world (a curb).
* His law accuses us and shows us our sin (a mirror).
* His law teaches Christians what we should and should not do to live a God-pleasing life (a guide). The power to live according to the law comes from the Gospel.
Somehow all of this goes over the head of our leaders.
Catholic universities in the US were at the top of the list: As he was rounding up constituencies to support US entry into WWII, Catholics were a hold-out. FDR called in Edmund Walsh of Georgetown and bargained with him: in exchange for Walsh, and institutional Georgetown U.' endorsement, FDR would support establishment of a School of Foreign Affairs at the august, DC-based Jesuit university. (Irish and Italian immigrants or their children made up the majority of the US fighting force in those wars.)
The process of bargaining away a defining 'Catholic' stamp on US universities has expanded exponentially. https://tinyurl.com/2ya7kbwy
No doubt China is the Neo-con bogeyman. The Neo-cons understand that China is in a much better position economically than the U.S. or Europe; and that translates to greater global power and influence. Thus the fear and the panic and the lashing out.
But guess who had a very large part in causing that? U.S. government policy decisions (giving MFN status and WTO membership to China) influenced by corporate lobbyists and political corruption (see the Clintons) and concurrent and subsequent corporate decisions to outsource to China based on profits (cheaper labor, readily available raw materials, and circumventing unions and fair labor practices).
Yet now the U.S. government criticizes China and wants to penalize it. It says "Not fair! You are winning and WE are the ones who must win. You must play by our rules." What arrogance and utter disregard for their own responsibility for the current reality (and for "free trade"). The Chinese have played the best hand they could with the cards they have been dealt. And now the U.S. demands that they subjugate themselves once again because they played the game too well. Well... it's not looking so promising for the Neo-cons.
Just one other note: I think Sean Foo is largely correct in his macro analysis of economic trends. But I do believe he and many others are overestimating the negative effects of AI on the labor market. As has been noted here before, AI cannot replace human reasoning and requires human input and oversight and carries with it the limits of those. I expect this to remain the case for the foreseeable future (despite Wall Street panic based on overestimating AI's capabilities). If so, the Dollar degradation and inflation trends will likely "trump" the deflationary aspects of AI efficiency improvements and job losses for the next few years at least. Just sayin' as I am no expert.
Today on WABC radio in NYC KT McFarland (neocon globalist) said that Trump now controls world oil. She was a guest on the 5-6pm daily show Cats and Cosby. No one disagreed with her. "Cats" is WABC radio owner John Catsimatidis, Cosby is tool Rita Cosby. WABC radio has become 24-7 Trump cheering squad. Cats has referred to Trump as his "Commander in Chief." US political class should split off from US taxpayers and pursue their interests. They have no connection with the people. Rubio and Trump may speak for themselves but they don't speak for "the United States."
I too, voted for Trump-you remember that guy that promised peace and prosperity. Instead of that we get war and poverty, brought about by very unstable idiots.
I'm not going to do an itemized reply. However, most of these instances involve military campaigns against bordering regions which had a history of incursions into Chinese areas. Tibet, Mongolia, and other border regions were historically aggressive and warlike powers that regularly invaded China. In fact, the Mongols conquered China (and Tibet) and set up the Yuan dynasty. Muslims were also problematic on China's borders. As with all large but loosely organized countries, wars to establish secure borders against unruly and aggressive neighbors were a necessity for China. Those wars were far from the one-sided Chinese invasions/conquests that you portray.
The Mongol Yuan dynasty was followed by **the last Han Chinese dynasty,** the Ming. The Ming dynasty fell in 1645 to another foreign conquest, by the Manchus--the Qinq Dynasty that features largely in your list. China, when led by a Han dynasty, has never attempted to expand beyond the regions discussed above. The Chinese have shown little to no interest in expanding beyond that, in establishing colonies beyond their own shores, etc. The wars of Han dynasties were largely focused on consolidating the Han civilizational area and certain border areas.
I actually wrote a lengthy article about the Tibetan Empire and I can't recover it with the search function, which bums me out. If anyone can do that ...
You're kidding, right? You just wrote 1702 words in two comments and now you're not interested in a protracted exchange? It's obvious you have something going on about Tibet and China, but since you're "movin' on" I'll delete these two comments.
Ancient Rome Collapsed,Fighting Foreign Wars on Credit.
Max Blumenthal @MaxBlumenthal
9h
From the bio of the Atlantic Council "expert" arguing for a US war on Iran:
"Michael Rozenblat is ***a visiting research fellow...from the Israeli security establishment"***
Captures the dynamics in Washington pretty well
Atlantic Council @AtlanticCouncil
“The benefits of fundamentally changing—or even eliminating—the Islamic Republic could outweigh the risks if the alternative is an emboldened, undeterred Iran.”
Michael Rozenblat outlines six reasons why Trump should choose the military option in Iran:
China has been in an economic war with the U.S. and has played their cards smartly.
China is a country run by engineers, while the U.S. is run by private equity and lawyers, with a bit of tech brothers. The U.S. ruling class is focused on personal enrichment and power. It’s amazing how many millionaires there are in Congress when they have a $174,000 yearly salary.
Stuff:
- active Chinese industrial spying industrial / science program
- opium war 3.0
- U.S. influence buying - Feinstein was a poster child of this
- buying of key U.S. knowledge and companies
- destroying us competition by selling below market
Trump is doing a lot to rebuild the U.S. economy, but a lot of it’s via executive order. I feel it’s built on a foundation of sand, and can be reversed by the next Democratic President. Antitrust unfortunately is being deprioritized again.
File under, Yeah, we knew that:
Megatron @Megatron_ron
JUST IN: Senator Graham from Israel:
“The wars of the future are being planned here in Israel.
Lately, I've been listening to these gentlemen's perspective and it sounds plausible to me. https://www.patreon.com/posts/media-alex-and-i-150989053?utm_campaign=patron_engagement&utm_source=post_link&post_id=150989053&utm_id=e00d5e41-f4d4-48b9-a821-b2628d602dd7&utm_medium=email
https://www.dlacalle.com/en/chinas-debt-model-creates-danger-of-stagnation/
China’s Debt Model Creates Danger of Stagnation
What is a job? It’s something to a man what a child is to a woman, a purpose and direction etc - a big deal. With AI doing all the work and men idle, no good (or money to buy AI produce) will spontaneously erupt. But I must be missing something, or even a lot.
Yeah, but I doubt that Trump sees it that way, or the tech bros who fund him.
The one place I’m going to disagree with Sean foo on is the amount of debt that Trump is going to leave us with. In eight years Trump and Biden added $16 trillion to the debt.
At the rate we’re going now and if war breaks out with Iran, believe Trump could possibly add another tree and in his second term so in a 12 year span two presidents could have added as much as $$26 trillion to the national debt. Since 2001 we have already added approximately $36 trillion to the national debt.
The only thing left to happen is that the federal reserve will become just like the bank of Japan and will monetize our own debt which will further base our currency and actually calls more inflation. We won’t have any choice, but to raise interest rates again, but let’s face the reality, in four or five years, we could easily default on the debt.
Ron Unz's weekly essay included the entire Carlson-Cruz interview. I watched the whole thing, again.
Cruz's line of reasoning is "peace through strength;" 'If we don't like a state, we try to destabilize it, impoverish it; kill it leaders; kill its people; agitate its people to turn against their government." In Cruz-think, this is the essence of America First. His claims are devoid of facts and evidence, he has affirmed to himself the rightness of his narrative so totally that he seems incapable of recognizing how irrational it is. Tragically, he is able to persuade enough legislators to agree with him.
Was the US always like this and I just started to notice?
I don't think a 'return to Christianity' is the answer: America has had multiple versions -- I call them deformations -- of Christianity and in each version, Americans have followed Christian leaders to wage war on some other peoples who, in their estimation, needed 'saving,' like Iranians need to be liberated today.
Gratified to see Groman push back against a finger being wagged at Germany.
A return to honesty --The truth, the Whole truth, and Nothing but the truth might be a good first step; perhaps the existential first movement.
Didn't our only Catholic president try to make peace or something like that with the USSR?
All the politicians who appeal to Christianity and to God for legitimacy and popularity miss the following quote from Christ:
"My kingdom is not of this world" - John 18:36.
And they also seem to miss the implications of what living according to God's will in the world means:
* God's law helps to control violent outbursts of sin and keeps order in the world (a curb).
* His law accuses us and shows us our sin (a mirror).
* His law teaches Christians what we should and should not do to live a God-pleasing life (a guide). The power to live according to the law comes from the Gospel.
Somehow all of this goes over the head of our leaders.
Well before the guns were silenced in the world wars in Europe, zionists, aided directly by Eleanor Roosevelt, began to implement Gramsci's "Long March through the institutions." https://renew.org/the-long-march-through-the-institutions-of-society
Catholic universities in the US were at the top of the list: As he was rounding up constituencies to support US entry into WWII, Catholics were a hold-out. FDR called in Edmund Walsh of Georgetown and bargained with him: in exchange for Walsh, and institutional Georgetown U.' endorsement, FDR would support establishment of a School of Foreign Affairs at the august, DC-based Jesuit university. (Irish and Italian immigrants or their children made up the majority of the US fighting force in those wars.)
The process of bargaining away a defining 'Catholic' stamp on US universities has expanded exponentially. https://tinyurl.com/2ya7kbwy
Absolutely, and the Gramscians found plenty who were willing to betray.
No doubt China is the Neo-con bogeyman. The Neo-cons understand that China is in a much better position economically than the U.S. or Europe; and that translates to greater global power and influence. Thus the fear and the panic and the lashing out.
But guess who had a very large part in causing that? U.S. government policy decisions (giving MFN status and WTO membership to China) influenced by corporate lobbyists and political corruption (see the Clintons) and concurrent and subsequent corporate decisions to outsource to China based on profits (cheaper labor, readily available raw materials, and circumventing unions and fair labor practices).
Yet now the U.S. government criticizes China and wants to penalize it. It says "Not fair! You are winning and WE are the ones who must win. You must play by our rules." What arrogance and utter disregard for their own responsibility for the current reality (and for "free trade"). The Chinese have played the best hand they could with the cards they have been dealt. And now the U.S. demands that they subjugate themselves once again because they played the game too well. Well... it's not looking so promising for the Neo-cons.
Just one other note: I think Sean Foo is largely correct in his macro analysis of economic trends. But I do believe he and many others are overestimating the negative effects of AI on the labor market. As has been noted here before, AI cannot replace human reasoning and requires human input and oversight and carries with it the limits of those. I expect this to remain the case for the foreseeable future (despite Wall Street panic based on overestimating AI's capabilities). If so, the Dollar degradation and inflation trends will likely "trump" the deflationary aspects of AI efficiency improvements and job losses for the next few years at least. Just sayin' as I am no expert.
Totally.
AI does all the clever stuff? Not in the unphotoshopped world.
How's about relying on AI doing the coding for the next generation of US defense missiles . . ?
Although at the rate Trump is going there will be no need for such things because there'll be nothing left to defend.
Today on WABC radio in NYC KT McFarland (neocon globalist) said that Trump now controls world oil. She was a guest on the 5-6pm daily show Cats and Cosby. No one disagreed with her. "Cats" is WABC radio owner John Catsimatidis, Cosby is tool Rita Cosby. WABC radio has become 24-7 Trump cheering squad. Cats has referred to Trump as his "Commander in Chief." US political class should split off from US taxpayers and pursue their interests. They have no connection with the people. Rubio and Trump may speak for themselves but they don't speak for "the United States."
Australian defence policy explained (humorously) https://youtu.be/sgspkxfkS4k
Yup.
Brilliant and yet so obvious!
I too, voted for Trump-you remember that guy that promised peace and prosperity. Instead of that we get war and poverty, brought about by very unstable idiots.
I'm not going to do an itemized reply. However, most of these instances involve military campaigns against bordering regions which had a history of incursions into Chinese areas. Tibet, Mongolia, and other border regions were historically aggressive and warlike powers that regularly invaded China. In fact, the Mongols conquered China (and Tibet) and set up the Yuan dynasty. Muslims were also problematic on China's borders. As with all large but loosely organized countries, wars to establish secure borders against unruly and aggressive neighbors were a necessity for China. Those wars were far from the one-sided Chinese invasions/conquests that you portray.
The Mongol Yuan dynasty was followed by **the last Han Chinese dynasty,** the Ming. The Ming dynasty fell in 1645 to another foreign conquest, by the Manchus--the Qinq Dynasty that features largely in your list. China, when led by a Han dynasty, has never attempted to expand beyond the regions discussed above. The Chinese have shown little to no interest in expanding beyond that, in establishing colonies beyond their own shores, etc. The wars of Han dynasties were largely focused on consolidating the Han civilizational area and certain border areas.
I actually wrote a lengthy article about the Tibetan Empire and I can't recover it with the search function, which bums me out. If anyone can do that ...
"I’m not interested in a protracted exchange"
You're kidding, right? You just wrote 1702 words in two comments and now you're not interested in a protracted exchange? It's obvious you have something going on about Tibet and China, but since you're "movin' on" I'll delete these two comments.