War--Foreign And Domestic
Finally, become strong in the Lord through his power and might. Put on God's armor so you'll be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil, for ours is not a struggle with flesh and blood--we're fighting against the rulers and powers, against the cosmic powers of this dark world, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavens. Ephesians 6:10-12
America is a warlike nation in many senses. We, as a nation, seem to be possessed of a Neognostic style Manichean spirit—the concept of a duality in this world of Good and Evil, Light and Darkness, and eternal conflict. We, the Sons of Light, must inherit the earth by disinheriting the Sons of Darkness—everyone else who doesn’t submit. The US proper, NATO, The Evil Empire—our existential enemies. It’s all actually quite similar to Islamic ideas:
dar al-Islam (lit. territory of Islam/voluntary submission to God), denoting regions where Islamic law prevails, dar al-sulh (lit. territory of treaty) denoting non-Islamic lands which have concluded an armistice with a Muslim government, and dar al-harb (lit. territory of war)
Reading about the banking crisis and related geopolitical matters over the last several days really drove home to me the many ways in which we as a nation are at war with the world. In a very real sense we are at war with reality, with human nature and the human condition of imperfection. Our national life is consumed, certainly on a rhetorical level, with overcoming all human limitations or, failing that, refusing to recognize and act with awareness of those limitations. Wars on poverty, drugs, inflation, hunger—all rhetorical ploys to avoid facing up to the reality that we ourselves are responsible for much of this and may need to change ourselves to solve those problems we “war” against, by throwing money at them. And then, of course, we have wars against Evil Empires of one sort or another. The latest twist is wars to extend our “values” throughout the world by paying other people to make war—those “values”, in Ukraine, include shutting down opposition parties and closing monasteries. The list goes on, and embraces the full spectrum of evil.
Let’s get Alinskyite and put a face to this evil—the face of our ruler and her values
Yellen’s ‘Ruthlessly Eugenic’ Economic Case for Abortion
According to Yellen, the legalization of abortion nationally “helped lead to increased labor-force participation. It enabled many women to finish school; that increased their earning potential.”
Nicholas Ebestadt, the Henry Wendt Scholar in political economy at the American Enterprise Institute, told the Register that Yellen’s claim was “breathtakingly utilitarian.” He said it was similar to “a ruthlessly eugenic argument, that one could also make about old, sick people being a burden on the economy. We have a little bit of what was once in Germany called the ‘lives not worth living’ problem here because they’re a little bit inconvenient.”
Speaking of earning potential and work force participation … a reminder:
Janet Yellen has made at least $7m from speaking fees, records show
Incoming US Treasury secretary was paid for events at Goldman Sachs, Barclays and others
The incoming US Treasury secretary, Janet Yellen, has been paid at least $7m (£5.1m) for speaking engagements at government-regulated banks, consultancies and hedge funds over the past two years, according to newly disclosed documents.
Seven million buckaroos in two years. Who thinks these powerful people were paying to hear Janet’s half-baked ideas—as opposed to paying for influence in the event she became the real power behind doddering Zhou? Have I mentioned recently that we have the best government money can buy? It’s the face of evil.
Danielle DiMartino Booth doesn’t call it the face of evil, but look at the country she describes—what kind of country is that? She’s describing a country consumed with warfare—a class war. This comes at the end of an hour long video interview in which she’s been discussing the SVB situation and the Fed response. The interviewer poses the closing question, what does she think Powell will do with regard to interest rates?
Q: Do you think that Powell's mission to destroy the Fed Put will still be successful?
A: It ain't gonna be easy to stay tight. I'm in a minority that's getting smaller and smaller. But you hafta stop at some point and say, What's right and what's wrong? And constantly bailing out private equity? It doesn't seem like the right thing to do. It just doesn't, because--at last check?--the person who made the most in that world, his one year paycheck was $1.27 billion dollars. I'm not losing any sleep over whether he won't be able to buy the biggest yacht in the world. I'm just not. But those are the types who have benefited the most from zero interest rate policy, from quantitative easing, from the securitization markets being wide open, from the fact that you can't make a decent yield on cash savings. Why isn't anyone talking about savers right now? Because in a zero interest rate world private equity does fine, savers are screwed. There's more than one contingency to be advocated for, here.
C’mon. We didn’t wind up in this situation—the rich at war to despoil the country and beggar everyone else—by some weird mistake. I won’t call it a conspiracy, but this didn’t happen by accident. The people who were smart enough to profit from this were also smart enough to suss out the consequences for everyone else. It’s war, and the face of evil.
Also yesterday I was listening to Alexander Mercouris. Toward the end of his video he attempted to explain how the SVB banking crisis can be explained as the outcome of US foreign policy over the years. He’s talking about what we here in the US call a “guns and butter” policy approach. You may disagree with some of his particulars, and you may wish to distinguish the before and after the Cold War periods, and so forth. His real bottom line is that our foreign military adventurism has distorted out economy and was a significant contributing factor to the outsourcing of America’s manufacturing capacity. I would add, to balance this perspective, that our domestic wars have also been extraordinarily distorting factors in our national life—both of our character as a people and of our economy. Again, that’s a 25 words or so statement, and you may wish to point out the complications of the history, but as a big picture view I think it holds together.
So here’s very partial transcript, toward the end:
The US finds that it no longer has the industrial means to supply Ukraine with the weapons systems it needs.
The financial system is not supporting the industrial base and the US has come to think of its problems in pure dollar terms. Its solution to all its problems is to throw money at the problems, which means creating more money to throw at the problems. This is what comes if you unmoor the financial system from the actual economy it's supposed to serve. Inevitably when this happens you're gonna see problems like the ones we've just seen (SVB, etc.).
If you add to those problems of your financial system by engaging in a war with an adversary which is self sufficient both in resources and in industrial terms and which has a financial system that's far more conventionally organized than your own, then you're gonna make your problems worse. Especially if that adversary, Russia, plays a central role in the global economy because it's such a key commodities producer. You will see inflation rise, you will see shortages of goods, you will have problems with energy, and you're gonna hafta find ways to reconcile all these problems, try to contain your inflationary pressures by increasing interest rates--which undercuts and weakens this very same financial system that you've created and has all of those problems.
The United States is not gonna be able to end these recurring problems--which might turn catastrophic, turn into the kind of implosion some people are talking about--unless and until it starts to conduct a much more realistic foreign policy, one which is much more grounded in its actual resources and based on its real needs. A realistic financial policy, a realistic monetary policy, depend in the end on a realistic foreign policy. If your foreign policy remains as disconnected from reality as the current US foreign policy is, then all the tinkering that you do, all the adjustments, all the rearrangements--QE, playing with interest rates--will only kick the can a little further down the road.
It’s not the full picture, but it’s worth considering as a part of the bigger picture. From the perspective I sketched out above, what we’re seeing, in part, is our national need to have boogeymen to be at war with at all times. Thus the hysteria over China, an ocean away. Our absurd effort to encircle and squeeze the Eurasian landmass.
By the way, I have to wonder whether Mercouris may have had a sneak peek at Doug Macgregor’s latest full length article. The similarity of theme is readily apparent:
America’s self-inflicted trouble in Ukraine aggravates our dangerous trouble at home.
The crisis of American national power has begun. America’s economy is tipping over, and Western financial markets are quietly panicking. Imperiled by rising interest rates, mortgage-backed securities and U.S. Treasuries are losing their value. The market’s proverbial “vibes”—feelings, emotions, beliefs, and psychological penchants—suggest a dark turn is underway inside the American economy.
American national power is measured as much by American military capability as by economic potential and performance. The growing realization that American and European military-industrial capacity cannot keep up with Ukrainian demands for ammunition and equipment is an ominous signal to send during a proxy war that Washington insists its Ukrainian surrogate is winning.
Russian economy-of-force operations in southern Ukraine appear to have successfully ground down attacking Ukrainian forces with the minimal expenditure of Russian lives and resources. While Russia’s implementation of attrition warfare worked brilliantly, Russia mobilized its reserves of men and equipment to field a force that is several magnitudes larger and significantly more lethal than it was a year ago.
…
… The higher interest rates rise, and the more Washington spends at home and abroad to prosecute the war in Ukraine, the closer American society moves toward internal political and social turmoil. These are dangerous conditions for any republic.
… Most Americans are right to be distrustful of and dissatisfied with their government. …
…
Americans are not fools. They know that members of Congress flagrantly trade stocks based on inside information, creating conflicts of interest that would land most citizens in jail. They also know that since 1965 Washington led them into a series of failed military interventions that severely weakened American political, economic, and military power.
I highly recommend the entire article. Macgregor spends a fair amount of time discussing the need for a negotiated settlement to extricate us from this crazy venture. He warns, toward the end, that the time may be coming soon when “negotiations will be extremely difficult, if not impossible.” In fact, Putin’s spokesman’s, Dmitry Peskov’s, statement yesterday strongly suggests that that moment has already arrived. The Tass translation isn’t the best. Basically Peskov is saying that the conditions for negotiations simply don’t exist (a position that Macgregor enunciates very clearly) and that Russia sees war as the only way to a solution. Further, Peskov specifically rejected the idea floated by former chairman of the Munich Security Conference Wolfgang Ischinger, which proposed a “contact group” to be created to prepare for negotiations. The basis for Peskov’s rejection wasn’t entirely clear. I suspect that it had to do with the collective West’s refusal to negotiate without preconditions and without accepting Russia’s non-negotiable conditions—a neutral, non-NATO, Ukraine.
Peskov’s statement seems to me to reflect the attitude of a nation that knows it’s in the driver’s seat. The latest breaking news suggests also that Russia is getting increasingly fed up with dangerous US provocations. To understand this event, I believe you need to be aware that the latest Russian missile strikes were launched from the Black Sea. That probably means that the US drone was very close to the Russian ships engaged in actual military action:
This confirms that the drone was flying with transponders turned off and was attempting to approach the Russian ships that were launching missile strikes.
Full statement of Ministry of Defense of Russia:
On the morning of March 14 this year, an American MQ-9 unmanned aerial vehicle flew over the Black Sea near the Crimean Peninsula by means of the airspace control of the Russian Aerospace Forces in the direction of the State Border of the Russian Federation.
**The flight of the unmanned aerial vehicle was carried out with the transponders turned off, violating the boundaries of the area of the temporary regime for the use of airspace established for the purpose of conducting a special military operation, communicated to all users of international airspace and published in accordance with international standards.**
In order to identify the violator, fighters from the air defense forces on duty were lifted into the air. As a result of sharp maneuvering around 9.30 (Moscow time), the MQ-9 unmanned aerial vehicle went into an uncontrolled flight with a loss of altitude and collided with the water surface.
The Russian fighters did not use airborne weapons, did not come into contact with the unmanned aerial vehicle and returned safely to the home airfield.
Shot: "According to Yellen, the legalization of abortion nationally 'helped lead to increased labor-force participation. It enabled many women to finish school; that increased their earning potential.'"
Chaser: "The financial system is not supporting the industrial base and the US has come to think of its problems in pure dollar terms."
Labor-force participation. Industrial base.
Needless to say, those of us who grew up in the 1970s got the message loud and clear that working in a factory was hell, and no one should be consigned to hell by reason of birth. Therefore all Americans should go to college and get a college degree and a desk job. Especially women, who should control parturition by abortion if necessary.
By the 2000s, it was right and just to ship our dirty manufacturing to China because developmentally, they needed that work while we were ready to move on into clean green knowledge work, and we would get paid royally for our unparalleled creativity.