empire watch, latest, United States
Comments 81

The Emerging World Order

Eric Zuesse

The Post-World-War-II world order was dominated by the one WWII major combatant that had only 0.32% of its population (the lowest percentage) killed by the war: the United States. The Soviet Union’s comparable number killed by the war was the highest — it was 13.7% — 42.8 times higher than America’s.

The US was the main force that defeated Japan and so won WWII in Asia. The USSR, however, was the main force that defeated Germany and so won WWII in Europe. The USSR suffered vastly more than did the US to achieve its victory. In addition to suffering 42.8 times the number of war-deaths than did US, the USSR’s financial expenditures invested in the conflict, as calculated by Jan Ludvik, were 4.8 times higher than were America’s financial expenditures on the war.

Thus, at the war’s end, the Soviet Union was exhausted and in a much weaker condition than it had been before the war. By contrast, the US, having had none of the war’s battles occurring on its territory, was (by comparison) barely even scratched by the war, and it was thus clearly and overwhelmingly the new and dominant world-power emerging from the war.

That was the actual situation in 1945.

The U.S. Government did not sit on its haunches with its enormous post-war advantage, but invested wisely in order to expand it. One of the first investments the U.S. made after the war was the Marshall Plan to rebuild the European countries that had now become the U.S. aristocracy’s vassal-states. The heavily damaged USSR possessed no such extra cash to invest in (rebuilding) its vassals. Furthermore, the USSR’s communist regime was additionally hobbled by Karl Marx’s labor theory of value, which produced prices that contained no useful information about demand and thus no constructive information for planners. (Planning is essential regardless whether an enterprise is private or public.)

Thus, the USSR was doomed to lose in its economic competition with The West, so that the Cold War was actually a losing proposition for them, from the very start of the post-war era. America’s post-WW-II dominance, combined with Marx’s crippling economic theory, and produced the exodus of East Europeans to The West.

America’s aristocracy thus increasingly rose on top internationally. Like any aristocracy, the American aristocracy’s main concerns were foreign trade, and so US international corporations increasingly expanded even at the expense of the corporations owned by its competing, now-vassal, aristocracies, and the US aristocracy’s corporations and brands thus came to dominate the entire capitalist sphere. The growth-bug, if it becomes an addiction, is itself a disease. Out of control, it is a cancer, which can destroy the organism.

This is what happened in America.

Conquering also the communist sphere was the U.S. aristocracy’s long-term goal, so that they would ultimately dominate every nation, the entire world. By the time of 1980, the US aristocracy’s top goal (world domination) became also the U.S. Government’s top goal. The cancer had spread to the culture’s brain. Growth, backed by “Greed is good” economics, became practically the American religion, viewed as patriotic, and not merely as the nation’s economic model (which was bad enough, with its increasingly imperialistic thrust — such as 2003 Iraq, 2011 Libya, 2012- Syria, 2014 Ukraine, 2016- Yemen, and maybe now Iran).

America’s unchallengeable dominance lasted from then till now, but clearly has now reached near its end. The United States is trying to restore its post-Soviet (post-1991) global supremacy, by intensifying the US regime’s secret war against Russia and its allies, which started on the night of 24 February 1990 and which could reach a crescendo soon in WWIII unless something will be done by America’s allies to force the by-now wildly flailing U.S. aristocracy to accept peacefully the end of the American aristocracy’s hegemony — the termination of their, until recently, unchallengeable control over the world.

By now, with the Soviet Union and its communism and its Warsaw Pact mirror of America’s NATO military alliance gone since 1991 and yet no peace-dividend but only ever-increasing wealth-concentration into the tiny number of billionaires who benefit from war weaponry-sales and conquests, America needs to abandon its addiction to growth, or else it will proceed forward on its current path, to WW III. That’s its current path.

According to Josh Rogin in the Washington Post on November 14th, U.S. Vice President Mike Pence had just said, as Rogin phrased it, that…

“the United States has no intention of ceding influence or control over the [Pacific] region to Beijing”

…and that if China won’t do everything that the U.S. demands, then the U.S. is fully prepared to force China to obey.

The same newspaper had earlier presented Robert D. Kaplan, on October 9th, saying,

“The United States must face up to an important fact: the western Pacific is no longer a unipolar American naval lake, as it was for decades after World War II. The return of China to the status of great power ensures a more complicated multipolar situation. The United States must make at least some room for Chinese air and naval power in the Indo-Pacific region.”

But the U.S. regime is now making clear that it won’t do that.

The US regime appears to be determined to coerce both Russia and China to comply with all American demands. With both of those countries, as with Iran, the US regime is now threatening hot war. Trump, as the “deal-maker,” is offering no concessions, but only demands, which must be complied with, or else. The United States is threatening WW III. But what nations will be America’s allies, this time around? If many European nations abandon the US, then what?

Key for the U.S. regime is keeping the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

Rockefeller Capital Management, Global Foresight, Third Quarter 2018 presents Jimmy Chang, Chief Investment Strategist, headlining “Nothing Trumps the Dollar, Yet”. He writes:

The reserve currency status gives the US a significant advantage in handling its finances. American economist Barry Eichengreen observed that it cost only a few cents for the US to print a $100 bill, but other countries would need to produce $100 of actual goods or services to obtain that $100 bill. The world’s need for the greenback allows the US to issue debt in its own currency at very low interest rates.

French Finance Minister Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, who later became the president, coined [in 1965] the term ‘exorbitant privilege’ to describe America’s advantage of the U.S. dollar over any other nation’s currency. That “exorbitant advantage” never went away. Chang concludes: “As for the King Dollar, its short-term outlook appears robust.”

However, few other observers now share that view. Increasing numbers of countries are pricing goods in other currencies, and China’s yuan and the EU’s euro are especially significant contenders to end dollar-dominance and to end the advantages that U.S.-based international corporations enjoy from dollar-dominance.

Other than dollar-dominance, the key barrier to world peace is NATO, the military alliance of the northern aggressor-nations. Proposals have been put forth for the EU to have its own army, which initially would be allied with NATO (i.e., with the US regime). On November 17th, Russian Television bannered “EU army: Will it be easy for Europe to get rid of American political diktat?” and pointed to the US vassal-nations that would be especially likely to stay in NATO: UK, Poland, Netherlands, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.

Perhaps the other EU nations and Russia could form their own military alliance, which will formally be committed to the independence of those U.S. vassal-nations, and which will welcome individual peace-treaties with each of them, so as to indicate that aggression is only the US regime’s way, and thus to lay the groundwork for peace instead of war, going forward. Clearly, the people who control the US are addicted to invasions and coups (“regime-change”s), instead of to respecting the sovereignty of each nation and the right of self-determination of people everywhere. America’s conquest-addiction threatens, actually, every other nation.

Perhaps a reformed and truly independent EU can provide the new reserve currency, and also in other ways the foundation for global peace between nations. NATO will be irrevocably opposed to this, but it could happen. And if and when it does, it might tame the aristocratic beast that rides the American warfare state, but this isn’t likely to happen anytime soon. A step forward toward it is the courageous statement by “The Saker” at the American news-commentary site, Unz dot com, on November 15th, “Thanking Vets for Their ‘Service’ – Why?” He boldly notes that after World War II, all US invasions have been criminal, and that it’s a remarkably long string of evil — and this doesn’t even include the many coups, which have likewise destroyed some nations.

Nationalism is just as evil in today’s America as it was in Hitler’s Germany. It is hostile to people in any other nation. It demands conquest. And wherever nationalism rules, patriotism dies and is replaced by nationalism.

Only by restoring patriotism and eliminating nationalism can WW III be avoided. Ending dollar-dominance is part of the path toward an internationally peaceful world that focuses more on serving the public’s needs and less on serving the aristocrats’ cravings. But ending NATO is also necessary.

Either these things will be done, or there will be WW III.

Originally published at strategic-culture.org

81 Comments

  1. Robbobbobin says

    “Furthermore, the USSR’s communist regime was additionally hobbled by Karl Marx’s labor theory of value, which produced prices that contained no useful information about demand and thus no constructive information for planners.”

    Rubbish. Marx himself attributed the “labour theory of value” to multiple predecessors over the preceeding century, including Adam Smith (sort of) and Ricardo (more so), both of whom I bet you go a bundle on. Marx’s criticism includes inserting into that theory his new insights into the distribution of “surplus value” and its distortion, under capitalism that, from his earlier, pre-economist thought as a moral philosopher, he identifies as leading to capitalism’s rapacious exploitation, hence alienation, of workers and a wholesale destruction of the communal social fabric. Of all the classical economists, only Marx had a clear understanding of, and foresae the predictability of, the boom-bust cycle that characterizes all extractive (“rentier”) economies and facilitates the unfettered exploitation of labour. Market signals of demand remain as clearly identifiable under Marxism as under any other market system.

    The “hobbling of the USSR” came not from the theories of Marx, but from the “vanguardism” of Lenin, a nasty, self-serving political opportunist if ever there was one, who extolled the virtues of the soviets only until he got his feet firmly under the top table, whereupon the “rule of proletariat” insincerities he had spouted to get there were ditched in the blink of an eye to make room for the rigidly heirarchical, autocratic extraction of power that was at the base of all his primarily base instincts. Lenin was the rock on which Stalin built the “state capitalism” of the grand misnomers in the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” (an entity almost nothing to do with any “soviets” and almost entirely devoid of “socialism”). Trotsky, who externalised his inherent personal gutlessnes by joining the Bolsheviks and becoming their first vicious Enforcer in Chief could have done something about it when Lenin offered him the succession, but again he ran away, taking his previously neglected ideals with him, hence his terminal problems with Stalin. From its acquisition of state power onwards the USSR had bugger all to do with either Marx or his communistic theories.

  2. Global Warming: The Emerging World Disorder?

    “Donald Trump’s supporters (scientists, not historians) on the problem of Global Warming. Recommended!

    Climate Change Will Shrink US Economy and Kill Thousands, Government Report Warns
    By Jen Christensen and Michael Nedelman

    November 23, 2018 “Information Clearing House” – A new US government report delivers a dire warning about climate change and its devastating impacts, saying the economy could lose hundreds of billions of dollars — or, in the worst-case scenario, more than 10% of its GDP — by the end of the century.
    The federally mandated study was released by the Trump administration on Friday.

    David Easterling, director of the Technical Support Unit at the NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information, emphasized that the Earth is experiencing climate change unlike any other.

    “The global average temperature is much higher and is rising more rapidly than anything modern civilization has experienced, and this warming trend can only be explained by human activities,” Easterling said.

    Coming from the US Global Change Research Program, a team of 13 federal agencies, the Fourth National Climate Assessment was put together with the help of 1,000 people, including 300 leading scientists, roughly half from outside the government.

    The report’s findings run counter to President Donald Trump’s consistent message that climate change is a hoax.”

    1
    1
    • Vexarb, I highly recommend climatologist Dr. Tim Ball’s latest little gem of a book:

      Human Caused Global Warming, The Biggest Deception In History.

      In only 121 pages he exposes the whole fraud & names names.

      Website: http://www.drtimball.com

      The 1%s tried to bankrupt & bury Dr. Tim under expensive lawsuits. They failed: crowdfunding & friends rallied round.

      Some facts:

      1) CO2, Carbon Dioxide, is plant food. Plants take in CO2 & put out Oxygen, O2.
      Humans breathe in Oxygen & breathe out CO2. That’s a lovely symbiosis. Long may it continue. animals live by eating plants, & humans live by eating plants & animals.
      CO2 is thus the basis of ALL land-based life on Earth.
      Demonising CO2 is sheer lunacy.

      2) CO2 & climate. There has been no significant warming for 20 years plus.
      No matter what the fake news MSM brays out.
      The best scientific analysis up to this moment shows that CO2 concentrations rise AFTER warming, on a lag of 800 years, plus or minus 200 years.
      Rising CO2 concentrations are a RESULT of warming, not a cause.
      The ONLY place on Earth where CO2 preceeds warming is in the UN IPCC computer models

      3) The greenhouse gasses comprise ~2% of our atmosphere.
      Of these, water, H2O, comprises over 95% of the Greenhouse effect, by both volume & effect. CO2 comprises less than 4%, both by volume & effect.
      Of the CO2 in the atmosphere, less than 4% is produced by man.
      Over 55% of CO2 is out-gassed by warm tropical oceans.
      Rotting vegetation produces a huge amount.
      The notion that man-made CO2 drives our climate is lunacy on steroids.

      4) Oceans cover ~71% of Earth’s surface & absorb 22 times the heat our atmosphere does
      & distribute the Sun’s heat around the Earth: the Gulf Stream keeps UK & NW Europe warm. A similar current affects Japan. Our oceans are a climate driver. CO2 is not.

      John Doran.

      • “CO2 is plant food and comprises tiny percentage of atmosphere.”

        The biggest strawman and otherwise illogical argument ever in my opinion. It just makes me scratch my head in complete wonder.

        You know, John, that iron is essential to the human body and anaemia is a serious health problem? What about tripling the amount of iron in your blood? Would you be happy with that? Would you think that that was simply more of a good thing and could only be healthful?

        The phenomenon of “trace” is prevalent in plant and animal biology and in the biosphere. If only 280 ppm of CO2 keeps us at a nice toasty temperature and all the plants growing well you think that 840 ppm will just be a “more of a good thing” situation or do you think it might be potentially lethal in the same way as tripling the amount of iron in our blood might be?

        • You accuse me of strawman then introduce a completely inappropriate comparison?
          HAHAHAHAHAHAHA What sort of moron are you?

          FYI in a greenhouse, the glass is there to keep the SUN’S HEAT in. The CO2 is there for plant food. A preferred CO2 level for commercial growers is ~ 1200ppmv – 1500ppmv. CO2 is purely & simply plant food: it produces NO HEAT.

          In our climate, CO2 works primarily as plant food: its effect on climate is, IMHO, zero to negligible.

          I challenge you to outline the mechanism by which CO2 produces heat: it is physically impossible for a gas to produce more heat than it has absorbed, from the Sun.
          That would contravene the second law of thermodynamics.

          I repeat, water, invisible as vapour, or visible as clouds comprises 95% plus of the greenhouse effect, both by volume & band widths it absorbs & re-radiates in.

          Zero out of 10, dunce. Perhaps you’d care to bone up on a subject before you spout nonsense?

          Dr. Tim’s little gem is a good introduction, but there’s a lot more meat in Geology Prof. Ian Plimer’s great work of scholarship:
          Heaven and Earth, Global Warming: The Missing Science.

          Over 2,000 ref’s to peer-reviewed papers, etc.. 500 pages +

          Run along & study, dunce.

          • “Water vapour comprises most of the greenhouse effect.”

            Another strawman. Of course, it does. Do you actually read what climate scientists say? Yes, water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas by far but it doesn’t accumulate the way CO2 and other greenhouse gases do. That’s the problem. You can drink lots and lots of water but it doesn’t make you fat, does it? You just eliminate it – water vapour does the same in the atmosphere.

            I’m not going to hijack this thread with climate change comments. I’ve argued enough on that in any case. I’ll leave you to your illogical argument.

            • You post the sheerest nonsense.
              You embarrass yourself.
              There has never ever been the slightest correlation between CO2 & Earths’s temperature:
              http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescle.jpg

              I would advise that you educate yourself on this subject, which you plainly know less than zero about, before spouting further stupdities.

              John Doran.

        • Admin says

          What is the percentage of iron in the blood as compared to the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere? You need to make this clear in order for your comparison to be valid.

          • Yes, I should have done that. And guess what? It exists in blood serum in far lower concentrations than CO2 does in the atmosphere although proportionally the normal range seems quite big considering the lowest normal level is 0.8 ppm. You wouldn’t think a whole ppm more than that would still be OK.

            “The normal level [of iron] in blood serum — obtained by centrifugation of blood — is 0.8 to 1.8 ppm.”

            https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131120081242.htm

            • The % of CO2 in the atmosphere is ~ 400 ppmv, parts per million by volume = 0.04%
              the man-made portion of this is less than 4%
              3.4% according to Dr. Tim’s little 2016 book, page 27.
              CO2 does NOT accumulate in the atmosphere. Over 55% is outgassed by warm tropical oceans, while plants take out large amounts for growth, a large volume is dissolved back into cold polar oceans. The workings of the carbon cycle have long been known. We are currently at historic low levels of DO2. I cheer the rising concentrations, which have been greening the planet this past 30 years: go on YouTube & put in search box: Matt Ridley on Fossil Fuels greening the planet 19 mins.
              Matt is science writer for The Times newspaper, & author of The Rational Optimist, which I enjoyed & recommend.

              Climate Change is always happening: “for about 4.5 Billion years.”, as Buzz Aldrin correctly said.

              The major climate influences are: Solar variable radiation (heat & light); Solar variable magnetic field (sunspots, an 11/22 year cycle); Earth’s variable orbit & tilt (milankovitch cycles); Solar variable position (pulled by gravity of Jupiter & other heavy planets. This relates to 11/22 year cycles); Solar wind/rays (output of ionised, ie electrically charged particles), which are the basis of cloud formation; Galactic Cosmic rays also, which form more clouds when the Sun’s magnetic field is weak.

              This is NOT A FULL LIST.

              Our oceans capture & distribute around our planet 22 times more heat than our atmosphere.

              UN IPCC’s definition of climate change:
              “A coupled non-linear chaotic complex system, for which predictions are not possible”

              They get round this by issuing dire PROJECTIONS, as their multibillionaire Rockefeller masters have ordained.

              Tim Ball names the names, & their motives.

              UN IPCC ignores water H2O, 95% + of greenhouse effect,
              It concentrates, as its founding charter demands, solely on possible man-made effects via CO2.

              The greenhouse effect serves to slow warming & cooling: it does not cause warming, as the fake news MSM blares nonstop.
              There Are two warming sources: Solar & geothermal/ volcanic.

              Best,
              JD.

      • @jdseanjd: “Vexarb, I highly recommend climatologist Dr. Tim Ball’s latest little gem of a book:
        Human Caused Global Warming, The Biggest Deception In History. In only 121 pages he exposes the whole fraud & names names.
        Website: http://www.drtimball.com

        Thank you, John Doran, for these powerful arguments against CO2 increase being the cause of Global Warming; and of the reality of Man Made Global Warming as a potential catastrophe comparable to the 5 Mass Extinctions. I notice that your link to Dr.Tim Balls refers to “the 1%” being the villains behind the “fraud” of Global Warming; and I am aware that highly respected modern historian Engdahl makes the same powerful argument against GW as a _political_ $cam.

        No doubt the scientific proponents of Global Warming likewise have powerful arguments on their side. I think it is time for us Lay People to consider the scientific arguments (on both sides) seriously in the public arena. This was the method adopted by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. They focussed on the science, and thus gradually convinced mathematically and scientifically trained Lay People that the World Trade Centre could not possibly have been brought down by any means other than controlled explosive demolition.

        I hope your issues Con will be discussed objectively versus issues Pro — and a realistic conclusion arrived at before the end of this century. (I believe that Pro GW theorists give us 2 centuries to put our Global House in order; but if proposition Con is real then we may have a much longer period of grace in which to Save the Planet from Homo Sapiens).

        “It is difficult to make predictions about the future” — Niels Bohr. (And difficult to make predictions about the past. — Vexarb)

        • Thanks for your calm & rational response.
          John Doran.
          You are quite right: 2 planes cannot cause the controlled demolition of 3 towers within their own footprint.
          Building 7 suffered no impact: it was “pulled”, a demolition term.
          The tall towers were built to withstand plane impact: steel framed, concrete floors & facades. Non-combustible materials, in the range of temperatures jet fuel could provide.
          We live in a web of lies woven by the 1%s.
          JD.

        • I’ve read Engdahl’s “The Lost Hegemon”, & I agree he is a voice worthy of respect.
          Best,
          JD.

  3. David Eire says

    There is nothing wrong or dangerous in normal healthy Nationalism; nor is nationalism identical with fascism or imperialism. In today’s globalizing world nationalism is more important than ever.
    Neoliberal globalization involves the transfer of power and governance away from sovereign nations to transnational institutions and treaties. This effectively means the transfer of power away from governments and nations (democracy) to transnational corporations. A transnational corporation is in essence a privately owned global empire. Many of them today are wealthier than most nations; and their common enemy is the sovereign nation state which can regulate and tax them.

    10
  4. The World in 1, 2, 3 says

    1. Trump to the prince of Arabia: We protect you
    2. The prince of Arabia to Trump: Our money controls you
    3. The Australian prime minister to Assange supporter: I can send my mates to fuck you!

    Meanwhile, and on top of the openly declared invasions, the American military is waging at least secret drone campaigns against 8 countries that none of them is at war with the US.

    8 countries now. Is your country next?

    12
  5. The New World Order emerging in the Ukraina:

    “In Smila, Cherkasy region, they are preparing to declare a state of emergency. 68,000 residents of the city have no heating. Including hospitals, day cares, schools. That’s alright though. You have visa-free access to Europe. Then later you’ll be in NATO.”

    https://thesaker.is/the-ukraine-without-heating-by-ruslan-ostashko/

    “The problems of Smila are consequences European Integration in Ukraine, which opened the gates to animal capitalism in the style of the 90s [in AZC Looted Russia] but much worse. The higher the price of gas for the population as required by the IMF, looming behind the gas companies, the more Smilas will happen in Ukraine.”

    • Satiric article by Ruslan Ostashko in Saker Vineyard continues:

      “… until February 2014, [when] they overthrew the cursed [pro-Russian] Yanukovych, there was no problem with heating in Smila. But as soon as the final “European integration” began, the … new Maidan government, headed by Prime Minister Vladimir Groysman, gave the gas supply to some new legal entity called GazImpex. Information about this office is publicly available: authorized capital? 1,000 hryvnia ($35!)”

      From this satiric (but true) account of the Emerging World Order in former Russian Ukraina, one can deduce how easy it was for the EU$A’s “animal capitalism” to loot Yeltsin’s Russia in the 90s. Oust the President by an armed coup, a few small loans to members of the Yeltsin junta from the AZC, and for “registered capital” sums from $35 upward the “animal capitalist” bloodsuckers implanted their fangs in key Russian industries, then — when driven out by Putin — waddled back to the City of London like bloated, bloodfilled bugs,

      • mark says

        At one stage, 7 spiv oligarchs, acting as agents of western banks, owned 70% of the wealth of Russia. Berezovsky, Fridman, Khordokovsky etc. Vlad the Bad upset this apple cart and has been demonised ever since.

  6. Such articles are always interesting. Looking at what is happening now – non-stop streams of lies and slander against Russia, overt aggression (NATO expansion, coup in Ukraine at the very borders of Russia, etc), permanent sanction regime, isolation attempts (though, expectedly unsuccessful), extreme demonization, wild Russophobia built into a cult in some countries (USA, Great Britain, Poland, Ukraine etc) – I increasingly think about this topic. Mean, about the topic of the Second World War. And again and again I come to the conclusion that the roots and causes of all of the aforesaid are precisely the results of this terrible war.

    Of course, what I will say is very simplistic, but I see it this way – the Western elites (both then and present) could not realize/accept/survive the fact that the USSR turned out to be a winner, not a defeated one. Moreover, the Soviet Union helped to liberate from the fascist occupation many European countries that are now so zealously professing Russophobia. Surprisingly, but that’s true – they do not like you, and often they hate you precisely because you helped them. Of course, the age-old arrogance of the West in relation to the “barbarous East” also affects. I even think that this is the main factor. Both then and now, the Western elites consider themselves better, more progressive, more moral (for example, I highly recommend reading the colonel’s James McDonough fascist article called “Russia’s moral hypocrisy” – https://taskandpurpose.com/russias-moral-hypocrisy/), more valuable (for the world) than some of the “wild Asian hordes”. The White Man’s Burden… Do you think, can the Western elites (many of whom were liberated by the USSR), referring to USSR/Russia in this way, “accept” the help of the USSR? Of course not. They did not like the USSR anyway, but it not only did not lose in the war, but won, and, moreover, liberated them. How to take/accept it? Impossible.

    It’s like your neighbor, whom you really don’t like, hate or even despise, but you’re forced to live with him in the neighborhood. So this neighbor suddenly provides you with a vital service – for example, gives you money for an expensive operation for your wife, without which she could die. Or, becoming a donor, donates his own kidney to save your wife. How to stand it? You are forced to put up with such a situation, to pretend to be grateful to the one you hate, and at the same time in your soul you hate your neighbor even more – including the fact that you yourself were unable to help your wife, but this bastard did it.

    You have always considered (and still think) yourself to be smarter, better, more beautiful, richer, more successful, stronger than your neighbor, but in a critical situation it turned out so that he was stronger, smarter and more noble than you are. As a result, the service provided to you by your neighbor constantly annoys you, makes you angry, reminds you that all your ideas about your position in the world probably do not correspond to reality.

    The situation is aggravated by the fact that in that war many European countries, in fact, fought against the USSR in a varying degree. Conducting a solemn parade on May 9 every year, Russia thereby reminds all these Western countries of those events. Russia as if shame these countries. Never wondered why these countries are not as happy as Russia in the beginning of May? Why is there no such enthusiasm, unity, joy, pride as in Russia? It would seem that this is the end date of the most terrible war in the history of mankind. Indeed there’s something to celebrate! Of course, if you feel like a winner, and if something does not gnawing you inside…

    For example, how France can sincerely and loudly celebrate, given the fact that the country was ranked among the winners of the Second World War only thanks to Stalin, despite the fact that they were the French who defended the Reichstag to the end, fighting against the advancing Soviet army? The need to “endure”/“tolerate” the joy and pride of Russia from the victory in that war causes an additional hatred. This applies not only to France, of course. By the way, hence the incessant attempts to rewrite the history and results of the Second World War, trying to belittle/distort the role of the USSR in that war. Some especially wild ones – first of all, Baltic States – are not ashamed to say that Stalin and Hitler are equally guilty at the beginning of this war, and communism is essentially identical to fascism. This is not surprising, seeing how in these countries the authorities glorify and rehabilitate the Nazi accomplices…

    Of course, this is a very simplified description, but this is how I understand the situation. It’s my personal opinion. There is something fundamental, significant in what happened in that war ~70 years ago. From there comes the entire dislike and hatred of Russia, at the present stage dressed in a monstrous form of Russophobia.

    Speaking about this article, it seems to me incorrect that the author compares the USA and the USSR in the Second World War – their losses, financial costs, etc.

    Firstly, for the USSR it was not the Second World war. It was the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945). And every year on May 9, Russia celebrates the victory in the Great Patriotic War, not in World War II.

    Secondly, the main forces of Hitlerite Germany were sent to conquer the USSR, not some other country. Of course, Hitler led the battles on several fronts (USSR, Europe, north of Africa…), but the fighting against the USSR was a priority and determined the outcome of the entire war.

    Third, Hitler attacked the USSR in 1941, thereby starting what is called the Great Patriotic War in Russia (the conventional ‘World War II’ was launched much earlier). Hitler did not attack the United States.

    Fourth, the United States did not disdain to actively trade and conduct business with Hitlerite Germany – mean, already after the beginning of what is called the Second World War, and after the attack on the USSR.

    Therefore, it seems to me natural that the USSR has much more losses in that war than the USA. It was USSR’s war, it was not USA’s war. The same is about destruction (and, as a result, restoration costs) – the war was on the territory of the USSR. There was no war in the United States, no one bombarded American cities with artillery guns, no one dropped thousands of bombs on American cities, no one organized a blockades of American cities etc. Moreover, in financial terms, the United States not only did not suffer as a result of that terrible war, but they benefited.

    I do not agree with the author of the article in some other places, but for now I will limit myself to what has already been written.

    • alaffcreator, your version of Western Capitalism’s response Communist Russia’s good turn in saving Western Europe from the Frankenstein monster of Fascism that the West itself had created, neighbour reminds me of a sentence in Aristotle’s Ethics: “Never do anyone a good turn; give them a hand they will want the whole arm.” A most Pre-Christian Good Neighbour Policy — but apparently applicable to today’s Post-Christian West.

  7. Seamus Padraig says

    Nationalism is just as evil in today’s America as it was in Hitler’s Germany. It is hostile to people in any other nation. It demands conquest. And wherever nationalism rules, patriotism dies and is replaced by nationalism.

    I hear this all the time, and it’s so wrong. There is no meaning difference between nationalism and patriotism. In practice, you really can’t have one without the other. What sense would it make to say you loved your patria (your ‘fatherland’) while hating it’s people (your nation)? None!

    No, both patriotism, which seeks to protect the sovereignty of one’s land, and nationalism, which seeks to protect the sovereignty of one’s people, are opposed to imperialism, which is about dominating–or being dominated by–other peoples.

    Hitler, in other words, was not really a nationalist at all, though he might have played one on TV. He was actually an imperialist, intent on creating a ‘New Order’ in Europe. But next to good old Uncle Scam, he was still a piker! Legend to the contrary, Hitler never in his wildest dreams thought of conquering the entire world. As it turned out, even just western Eurasia was too much for Germany.

    8
    2
  8. The article starts with a significant lie – namely:

    “The US was the main force that defeated Japan and so won WWII in Asia.”

    The Soviet Union defeated Japan’s “Million Man Army” in Manchuria prompting the surrender of Japan to Stalin which put the US into panic mode so they promptly dropped 2 Nuclear Bombs, Nagasaki & Hiroshima to force the Japanese to surrender to the US & not the Soviets.

    This heinous war crime was carried out by Truman to take the Surrender & to send a warning to the Soviets.

    25
  9. The emerging world disorder doesn’t just happen, it is blamed on someone or something.
    The ability to only look OUT – or project blame and punishment is the persistence of the very thing being attacked in others under whatever script of self-justifications.

    So a doublespeak operates the use of the word order when it actually means managing sickness rather than alignment in health. I agree that organised crime is the nature of a world in which everything is BACKWARDS.

    “Everything is BACKWARDS; everything is upside down! Doctors destroy health, Lawyers destroy justice, Universities destroy knowledge, Governments destroy freedom, Major media destroys information, And religions destroy spirituality”. (Michael Ellner)

    Organising ourselves differently, means challenging our thinking and our behaviours which actually reveal more of what we really think than we might want to think we think.

    Organism as a whole is an alignment of unified purpose in all its parts – even as specific functions within the whole. The idea of control as an imposition of inhibiting and redirecting energy and attention is associated with the fight-flight response. This ‘war-mind’ has become a persistent and pervasive psychic-emotional consciousness at cost to a truly present and grounded awareness. The divided and ruled self replicates itself in cultural expressions of social and economic developments as a ‘war-economy’ of dependence on war, sickness, scarcity and conflicted and competing interest because all of these are the justification and necessity for control.

    Systems management (technocracy) seems to offer a way to re-engineer the mind and behaviours within frameworks of incentives so as to hold order over chaos by removing or suppressing the seeming causes of imbalance in the system. But this leads to the replacement of the human will by its own mechanisms as designed and managed by a new priest class – or at least in new clothes.

    “Man is not made for the law; the law is made FOR Man”, remains my appreciation – as an extension of the nature of what Life Is – and is FOR. Incentivised automatons know not what they do or That the Are.
    Nor are they trusted or encouraged to learn – excepting through the generation of un-maskable DISORDER – which breaks the mind or ‘world-view’ to ‘question everything’.

    The breakdown of communication to a chaos invoking an overruling and coercive ORDER is a Very Old Archetype.

    The emerging World Disorder is the emergence of the ‘order and chaos’ dichotomy in which perhaps we recognize they are two facets of one thing and as one thing open another choice that is not available under the mind of invested identity in conflict.

    Even within the epicycles of human war, peace is generally an exhaustion of discharge rather than the condition in which the true nature of being is revealed as an order of a different ‘order’ than sickness or risk management – and the narrative control.

    Charge potential in a system is its capacity for active expression. To limit potentials may reduce ‘risk’ but at cost of Life. Human history is the story of giving power to tools – first as thought, and now as systems – to which we sacrifice in compliance and conformity. What the tool is FOR belongs First. Active purpose is the fundamental aligner of thought, word and deed. But in the framing of own tools, we run the same purpose as set the mind against a feared and hated nature. And so fear and hate are hardwired (so to speak) into the consciousness of a survival mechanism that is of course now working against our survival as a maladaptive response. Working ‘backwards’ and so more desperately evoking manipulative deceits to uphold its presentation against the true relation.

    Whatever true relation IS – cannot be appreciated under the intent and attempt to ‘control’ it. But the loss of the sense of ‘control’ is the greatest fear to the invested identity in it – who will project fear onto love and react as if attacked, thus justifying attack on ‘evil’ as the protector of the world.

    6
    1
  10. Ole Olesen says

    ERIC ZUESSE BULLSHIT : ” Nationalism is just as evil in today’s America as it was in Hitler’s Germany. It is hostile to people in any other nation. It demands conquest. And wherever nationalism rules, patriotism dies and is replaced by nationalism.” DOUBLE BULLSHIT ! ….. From where does the Author deduct that Nationalism is hostile to other Nations and demands Conquest ? …The distinction between Nationalism and Patriotism is verbal SOFISTERY which has NO MEANING and only has the PURPOSE of EXTENDING OLD HISTORICAL LIES ! On the Contrary .. one cannot be tolerant ..if one is NOTHING …. But an old COMMIE like Eric Zuesse ..is unwilling …or unable mentally …to accept .. that this is so .. even when contradicting all his current geopolitical positions. And therein he discloses his HYPOCRACY…saying under a sofistery Mantle : Nationalism is good in Russia .. but bad in National Socialist Germany … Come on man.. keep talking to morons .. not me !

    7
    18
    • Makropulos says

      Since Zuesse seems to be rejecting Marx’s labour thry of value he is hardly an “old commie”.

  11. kevin morris says

    But sadly, and whatever the system., it’s usually the psychopaths that rise to the top.

    20
    2
  12. JudyJ says

    Just when you thought things couldn’t become any more unbelievable…
    The new head of the British Army, Gen Mark Carleton-Smith, has declared in his first interview since appointment that Russia “indisputably” presents a greater threat to the security of Britain and her allies than Islamist extremist groups – more ‘Russia is the indisputable enemy’ propaganda designed to sustain the brainwashing of the gullible masses. In the PTB world, just casually throw in the word “indisputably” to make the assertion indisputable. Dangerously, but no doubt intentionally, this will serve the purpose of endorsing the message that Russia is the enemy of the people in Syria and everywhere else, and not the murderous scum that they have been succeeding in eradicating. And it would provide justification for any UK military aggression against Russia in Syria in defence of terrorist groups. Carleton-Smith clearly has aspirations to be Britain’s own John McCain and is another one desperate to make his name in the context of another world war.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/23/russia-poses-greater-threat-britain-isil-says-new-army-chief/

    47
    • wardropper says

      Yep. I was appalled, yet not particularly surprised, to read that in the Groan today.
      “Wildly flailing” is the correct terminology, and yet that awful paper can still pretend it has something to crow about in its utterly lost, “dedicated to the truth” readership, some of whom actually subscribe to the instrument of their own intellectual disintegration…

      24
      • JudyJ says

        No coincidence that the two MSM outlets giving Carleton-Smith’s statement the most coverage are the Grauniad and the BBC!
        A rhetorical aside – do you think he would have got the job if he’d been plain old Mark Smith?

        24
        • ZigZag Wanderer says

          @Judyj

          He went straight into the Army from Eton at 18 years old … Daddy was an Army bigwig .

          So yes …. he didn’t need the hyphen to get the job !

          21
          • @JudyJ. Daddy being an army bigwig, sonny got the big army job. Like in a WW1 farce by Bernard Shaw called, Augustus Does His Bit. Captured by the Germans, Augustus is promptly given safe conduct to continue Doing His Bit for Britain. With characters like Carleton-Smith and St.Theresa leading in their latest farce, The Whitehall needs no foreigners’ plots to help give the world a good laugh.

            20
    • Molloy says

      .
      @judy

      Well, entirely believable to me. Exactly why little Carletone popped up from the 4th form and was given the job.

      Part of his job spec. Russians bad. Corporate fas$cism good. Don’t let the public think that FUKUS are exploited by racists and arms dealers.

      Status. Virtue-seeking. Money. (In a war-criminal regime it’s ‘normal’.)

      .

      13
    • kevin morris says

      But that is what the armed forces of every country do: they talk up the threat so that hopefully they will receive a little more funding, certainly more than they have since the major cuts to UK armed forces of October 2010. It’s all a game and if we were in their position we would do the same.

      1
      10
    • mark says

      People like him are despised by the rank and file in the forces. Anyone over lieutenant colonel is just a politician,

    • Seamus Padraig says

      Well, in one sense, Carleton-Smith is just telling the truth here. Since most of the Islamic terrorist movements in the ME today are run either by ZATO or the Gulfies, how can they ever present a genuine threat to the Western establishment? Russia is indeed ‘dangerous’ to the Western establishment in the sense that it is truly sovereign and not under their control.

      10
  13. Frankly Speaking says

    With the US dominating all spheres and attempting to subjugate China and Russia, we should not forget that this process is already well underway to bring the EU to heel, and even cause it to fall apart into the constituent countries. Divide and conquer is the neoconservative playbook.

    All those European countries would remain under the control of Washington via their NATO membership. Any one threatening to leave NATO would see a scandal about them appearing in their press and they’re replaced, or colour revolutions instigated.

    In this context Brexit suddenly makes sense. It’s not some launch for sovereignty to be awarded to the British people, rather the transfer of the UK from the EU sphere to become 100% within the US sphere.

    As it pulls away more countries may follow it, especially pro-US Poland, and the EU could remain as just a handful of countries, weakened permanently. Hence US and UK panic about the EU army where no doubt Macron and Merkel have finally realised that the US is no longer a friend. Inevitably Macron and Merkel will be replaced.

    Indeed we live in dangerous times Eric.

    15
    3
    • Your faith in the EU is astounding, and very, very sad. The EU is fully on board with American foreign policy. The EU can never match American spending on offensive weapons. It can’t overtake the American economy. It doesn’t have the American ability to keep so many of its citizens living in glorified sheds and being proud of it.
      UK leaving the EU doesn’t change our relations with America, we are a client state who’s influence is likely to diminish after Brexit, which will make it easier for us to put some distance between us and them.
      The EU can’t “pull away”, they’re fully signed up to expansion under neoliberal precepts and a European army would only protect the existing world order and is unlikely to happen unless Europe decides to shift its economy to large scale arms production.

      2
      1
    • The EU is wholly complicit in American foreign policy. They can never match American offensive spending and can’t compete with the American arms economy. The current talk about a European army is a response to Trump’s demand they raise NATO contributions…which they will after a bit of steam is released. The European construct is hand in glove with America and happy to keep on fighting the cold war forever…as long as they have American weapons to back them up they can carry on with the neoliberal fantasy.
      We, in the UK are an American client state who would benefit from leaving the EU as it would leave us less beholden on the USA because we would no longer be the American’s voice at the European table and more likely to be allowed to plot our own course in the world.

      3
      1
      • mark says

        Britain is even more of a US satellite than the old GDR was of the former Soviet Union. Seriously. The old East German regime sometimes defied its Kremlin masters in ways that satraps like May and Blair would never dream of. The Kremlin was opposed to building the Berlin Wall, but the East Germans went ahead and did it anyway.

    • Seamus Padraig says

      Britain–along with the rest of the EU–already is under Washinton’s thumb. What would lead you to believe that the EU is some fierce bastion of resistance against US hegemony? Has the EU, as an institution, ever once defied the US on any issue of significance? Some individual post-war European countries have occasionally done that (though in general, none too effectively). But the EU as a whole? When? At most, as in the Iraq War, they remain neutral. But even then they didn’t require their member states to remain neutral!

      And as far as the plans for an EU army are concerned, beware: the whole thing might just be a ruse to trick recalcitrant NATO members into spending more on defense. Isn’t that also one of Trump’s stated goals?

      6
      1
  14. DunGroanin says

    A bit late to the party?

    It seems to be what many of us having been saying all this for years.

    So is there some catching up? Or is it fancy dress and a disguise being thrown on by the MSM and sideshows.
    Hair shirts in pubic. Hand maidens in private.

    I don’t know about Zeusse.
    I am pretty cynical about many others.

    The DS is not just deep it is wider by the day. Clean skins and old revolutionaries. Regular revelations about long term conspiracies and their, in hindsight obvious, deep cover.

    • wardropper says

      Perhaps not so many of us have been saying all this for years.
      After all, how many people know that this particular site and a few others like it even exist?

      • DunGroanin says

        That is why i share the links – it can become exponential in readership.

        That is their worry and why the DS is in deepshit.

        Spread the word! It ain’t no fake news bro!

  15. John says

    Sorry but Marxist economics is A not dogmatic it has flexibility’s and B works, but America keeps sanctioning any county that says you won’t rape our nation. Russia still has sanctions that were placed on it 100 years ago

    11
    2
    • Francis Lee says

      I would add that Marxism is not economics; as the sub-title on the cover says it is ‘A critique of Political Economy’. Moreover the Labour theory of value started with Adam Smith, was refined by David Ricardo, and given a final polish by KM.

    • Frankly Speaking says

      Neoliberalism is a disaster.

      Marxism is idealistic and failed every time. Can you provide any example of a truly successful Marxist country? You can’t just blame the US for this.

      A mixed economy is the only way, cooperation but with incentives to innovate but not to exploit, contribute towards society, infrastructure, the environment. Scandinavian countries, Austria and Switzerland are probably the most successful examples to date in this respect.

      10
      8
      • Makropulos says

        Marxism was/is a genuine critique of political/economic systems and their development. The world has been an increasingly capitalist world for the past few centuries. And the depressions, recessions, wars etc. are the product of this capitalism. Even countries who initially “went communist” were pressurised into adopting the capitalist mode. Now indeed there is no communism even in a nominal sense. Which is why the powers that be are in such a panic. Capitalism, as John McMurtry pointed out, is a cancer and now that it has spread everywhere it has nothing left to feed off but itself.

        17
        1
        • Frankly Speaking says

          “The world has been an increasingly capitalist world for the past few centuries”
          Capitalism has been with is since year dot. We’ve also have serfdom since year dot and those serfs ruled by barons etc. It’s no different now other than we’ve grown from a tens / hundreds of milions of people to 7+ billion and rapidly rising.

          Even countries who initially “went communist” were pressurised into adopting the capitalist mode
          No, they mainly failed from within because they were utterly corrupt and there was privilidged class also within that structure. In the 70s and 80s I well remember empty supermarkets with empty shelves in Russia. Poland had special shops with western goods that were open only to those who could get western currency.

          The original form of communism, which originated as far as I am aware in France, was a very fair communal system, the town or vilalge cooperating. Indeed, communes are the fundamental unit of democracy even today in France and Switzerland with signifcant law making and tax taking power, especially in Switzerland.

          Even today in these two countries, outside of the hell-holes of Paris and Marseille, there is generally a sense of community, togetherness. Millionaires and even billionaires walk down the same urban streets as everyone else, not flashing their wealth, discreet, yet playing football in the local club, supporting local charities, other good deeds. They pay their local taxes too and some of the communes are affluent as a result, everyone benefits. there are no beggars in these places. Those unfortunate or less well off receive a tgenerous top up from the communal funds; it’s their obligation to do so.

          I’ve seen it in action, over many decades, the right balance between a MANAGED / RESTRICTED capitalism, i.e. not the rapacious neoliberal strand, coupled with communal and societal awareness and responsibility is a win-win situation. Conversely, neoliberalism will destroy the planet. Soviet communism destroyed itself and put those countries back decades.

          Now Russia is catching up and is becoming in some respects a responsible capitalist country having originated it’s capitalist journey with the raping of the country by Oligarchs. Putin and his party have a much more balanced approach, it’s far from perfect but it’s heading in the right direction. Are you proposing that Russia returns to its Marxist-Leninist days?!

          In simple terms, here and elsewhere, I see such polarised views. I guess it’s becasue neoliberalism and fascism in the West have gone so far to the right that people’s natural reaction might be to go far to the left or ehichever extreme. All extremes are bad. Millions get killed when we swing from one to the other. There IS a sensible middle ground to choose. Yes, it’s boring, it’s conventional, but people live far longer in these Scandinavian countries and Switzerland, and are more healthy, because so far it’s the best way we’ve found to manage society and the economy. Extremes kill, please don’t forget that.

          10
          3
          • Makropulos says

            I’m sorry but I couldn’t get past your assinine “capitalism has been with us from the year dot”. This is one of the great metaphysical leaps of bourgeois ideology. Capitalism depends on so many presuppositions e.g. standardised money system, mass production technology, the concept of the “free individual” etc. – all these having historical roots which for the latter two at least are only a few centuries old. Here’s a starter hint: The Flintstones, to choose just one example, is a cartoon that projects capitalist relations back into prehistory and does not represent the reality of stone-age times.

            4
            1
            • Makropulos says

              Now that I’ve perused the rest, there is some entertaining stuff there. “Russia is catching up and is becoming in some respects a responsible capitalist country”. And how will Russia demonstrate its newfound responsibilty? Perhaps a couple of nuclear bombs on, say, Japan?

              And this old “Oh let’s avoid the extremes and not get nasty” thing. I’m afraid that the very nature of capitalism is to constantly move the ground under your feet – and most cetainly not to your advantage – unless you’re one of those happy-go-lucky “billionaires” who “walk down the same urban streets as everyone else”.
              And as all those liberals and middle ground folk are telling us to just sit tight and be ever so mature in our serenity, we are becoming increasingly impoverished and – oh what’s the word?, ah yes: shafted!

              7
              2
              • Frankly Speaking says

                You’re all theory mate. In the real world Marxism has failed.

                Don’t misunderstand me, it’s a great ideal and i do wish humanity could make it work, but we cannot yet escape our evolutionary survival of the fittest drive. It makes us very competitive which creates winners and losers unfortunately.

                The best we can do at the moment is to temper extremes of exploitation and tax the bastards and redistribute their wealth accordingly.

                Forcing society into Marxism or Communism simply doesn’t work in the long run. Keep up with your Ivory Tower thinking though!

                1
                1
                • Makropulos says

                  “You’re all theory mate. In the real world Marxism has failed.”

                  Let’s consider the real world of capitalism i.e. the actual world around us. The recessions, the depressions, the famines, the wars, the mass poverty, the fact that the wealth is now so concentrated that eight people have as much of it as half the global population. Oh but of course, this has nothing to do with capitalism does it? It’s “crony” capitalism or “neoliberalism”. Hell – it might even be “Marxism”!

                  “Don’t misunderstand me, it’s a great ideal and i do wish humanity could make it work, but we cannot yet escape our evolutionary survival of the fittest drive. It makes us very competitive which creates winners and losers unfortunately.”

                  Yes it’s nice to try to hold on to that easy little Western view of a fair playing field – but this only ever worked when the inequality wasn’t so dismal and vast swathes of the population are sinking into a generational despair because they know the dream is over. And this “survival of the fittest” was an ideology that was projected onto the entire natural order from a capitalist mindset only to be read back as a justification for that same mindset.

                  “The best we can do at the moment is to temper extremes of exploitation and tax the bastards and redistribute their wealth accordingly.”

                  Ah – that little theory of restrained capitalism which has held sway for our lifetimes but which has now been revealed as a sham.

                  “Forcing society into Marxism or Communism simply doesn’t work in the long run. Keep up with your Ivory Tower thinking though!”

                  I love this crass comment: it “doesn’t work”. Every system works for somebody living under it. The question we should ask is not this vacuous “Does it work?” but “HOW does it work” and “WHO does it work for?”. It is clear that this capitalism works very well indeed for a small number of people. The trouble is that they are declining in number as the rest lose more and more. Unfortunately it is these declining numbers who control the media and have constantly pumped out this cretinous capitalist cliché factory.

          • Starac says

            Capitalism is savage and predatory. Very difficult to change, tame, train to be responsible.
            It is less difficult to improve Communism/Socialism, which are more advanced.

            4
            1
          • John G says

            You are conflating capitalism with commerce and trade.

            Commerce and trade will happen under any system. Humanity doesn’t need a class of owners and rent seekers for it to occur.

            7
            1
      • Yossi says

        I think you are right about a mixed economy but suspect that it is too late for even that. Constant growth is only possible on an infinite planet and although it all appears to have gone a bit quiet on that score we are slowly depleting the fossil fuels that are necessary for constant growth. However we still have just enough left to continue to precipitate runaway global warming and its consequences.

        2
        1
  16. First time I heard of “The New World Order” was from the mouth of Hitler; second time was from the mouth of GWBush Sr. Now from your esteemed columnist to describe the situation above. This is what the phrase means to me:

    From Anonymous BTL Saker Vineyard on November 23, 2018 · at 3:42 pm EST/EDT

    “I remember a season [on U$ TV] where the mob takes over a local business. They do to that business exactly what the numbers show for Ukraine. That is they ….

    1) Borrow all they can possibly get. Buy on credit when possible. Take out loans.
    2) Steal everything they can get. Those goods bought on credit are being carried out the back door and sold on the black market instead.

    Thus, the numbers of the business (if properly kept), would show ever increasing debt. But decreasing sales revenue as less is sold and more is stolen. Exactly what Ukraine’s numbers show. Then, when the company had too much debt and lower sales and losing customers, the business declared bankruptcy.

    The best mental model to understand the government is organized crime. Think of the government as the mob, and usually it all makes sense.”

    17
  17. Excellent, Eric.

    However, there is patriotism and patriotism. Oscar Wilde said “Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.” and Samuel Johnson said “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.”

    On the other hand:

    “Patriotism is one of the key components of the Russian self-consciousness, moreover, unlike some European countries, in Russia the feeling is not lost, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Thursday while answering a question from a participant of the All-Russia People’s Front (ONF) media forum what the Russian national idea is.

    “”For Russia, for a Russian person, the feeling of patriotism, the sense of national identification are very important – what is unfortunately being lost in some European countries,” Putin said. “We’ve got that inside of us, in our heart – love for the homeland.”

    “The Russian leader expressed confidence that “one of the key components of our self-consciousness, one of the values and ideas is patriotism.”

    “Putin recalled the words of outstanding Soviet Russian scholar Dmitry Likhachev that patriotism drastically differs from nationalism.

    “”Nationalism is hatred of other peoples, while patriotism is love for your motherland,” Putin cited his words.”

    Source: https://www.rbth.com/news/2016/04/08/putin-reminds-that-patriotism-drastically-differs-from-nationalism_582943

  18. godfree@gmail.com says

    “The US was the main force that defeated Japan and so won WWII in Asia.”??

    No, the US contribution in Asia was no greater than its contribution to the victory in Europe: about 10%. The heavy lifting was done by China and Russia.

    America benefited greatly from the postwar settlements in Asia and Europe, but contributed little militarily.

    10
  19. John G says

    Apart from Wall St banks what are the corporate benefits to this perceived dollar dominance?

    There seems ti be a lot of Libertoonian myths making their way into the progressive side of the spectrum lately.

    Bretton Woods fell over in 1971. Time to understand the new system.

    2
    5
    • DunGroanin says

      We could all do with learning some history.
      https://www.cmi-gold-silver.com/history-american-money/

      Some gems in there including the sordid nature of the colonisation of the US:
      ‘No tax on imported persons (bonded servants) shall exceed ten dollars. Note the reference to “dollars” in this provision.(Article I, section 9, clause 1.)’

      ‘Today, the American economy operates under a monetary system which is completely outside the Constitution. Its fiat money is continually manipulated both in value and quantity. This has had a devastating impact on its purchasing power, which is now down to about 8 percent of its 1933 value. It has eroded the value of savings, insurance policies, retirement funds, and the fixed incomes of the elderly.’

      Not just the yankee Dollar – most central banks are private, just like the Fed, in fact owned by the same dynasties.

      That is maybe what Zeusse should write next.

      6
      1
      • John G says

        There are no private central banks. Reading those gold bug sites will fill your head with elite disinformation.

          • A federal goverrnment agency responsible for conducting the payments system and monersry operations.

            It operates at the order of Congress and is junior to Treasury.

            The ‘private Fed’ myth may be widely believed but it is disinformation. A distraction.

            • Ron Paul Liberty Report – Who Owns The Fed?
              The Federal Reserve isn’t “federal” and it has no “reserves.”
              Is it a public institution? No…
              Is it private? No again…
              Is it Constitutional? Absolutely not!…
              Who owns The Fed?

              https://youtu.be/dg0aysCJZyc

              [Vexarb’s answer: The Rothschild Crime Family and Mob. Like Bank of England is a government institution — which borrows Rothschild’s newly printed “fiat money” at interest from private banks which are all ultimately connected to tthe Ratschild Mob]

              • You libertarians can be awfully gullible. The Fed is s government agency.
                It would make no sense for your fantasy villain family to own it. It would defy logic.
                Ron Paul et al work for the billionaire class.

            • mark says

              The Federal Reserve is NOT a government controlled, state institution. It is owned and run by a private banking cartel in its own interests.

              • There is no private ownership of the Federal Reserve Zero, zilch, nada.
                Central banks are just big spread sheet operations. They have little real power.

  20. Fair dinkum says

    It’s not your average US citizen that wants control of the world’s economy, air space and shipping lanes.
    It’s the psychopaths in charge.
    Anarchy (rules WITHOUT rulers) is the ONLY way to dismantle all hierarchies.
    Unfortunately, it’s gonna take a cataclysm or two to wake the sleeping masses and bury the psychopaths.

    19
    • Gary Weglarz says

      Fair dinkum – well put. It is clear that the same type and category of amoral psychopathic idiots who comprised JFK’s Joint Chiefs of Staff – a group that unsuccessfully tried to get him to first nuclear strike Moscow and Havana – remains entrenched at the helm of U.S. military and deep state power.

      I fear that only a total global economic collapse perhaps facilitated by a massive environmental crisis might be required to save us from these lunatics launching WWIII and destroying the entire planet in the process. We are talking about a truly bizarre and rarified form of collective madness here when a group of men can openly insist on literally “controlling the entire world” no matter the consequences.

      22
      • When the economy collapses we’ll go to war with the people we’ve been demonising don’t think people will stop and critically assess the situation they’ll look for scapegoats but without using mirrors

        • If it is, as you say, a msthematical certainty, you should be able to calculate when this collapse will occur.
          Please let us all in on it.

    • Sorry but anarchists are just people who’ve never been told off who seem to think things will magically happen. Like in Spain in the 30’s the anarchists collapsed immediately because no one wanted to organise they just wanted things to happen through wishful thinking

      1
      7
      • Clashic says

        Try some anarchosyndicalism then.

        ‘It’s upto you not to hear the call up’.

      • Eileen says

        Spain collapsed because of interference by the church. Priests actually blessed the
        tanks that went out to kill people who were completely innocent and were not attacking
        anyone. Since the Spanish Civil War was won by Franco the Catholic Church has
        had control of society and a lot of it’s activities are still permitted nowadays, although
        the Spanish people are gradually waking up to what is happening.

Please note the opinions expressed in the comments do not necessarily reflect those of the editors or of OffG as a whole