When you look at the Western media narrative surrounding the war in Ukraine and compare the actual behavior of NATO on the ground, you find that there are some glaring contradictions that are starting to become more and more visible as this whole charade drags on. Sure, we can assume that getting Slavs to kill one another advances the agenda of NATO any way that you slice it. And, the propaganda is consistent: we are being told (honestly for once) that this is all being done to promote the Liberal World Order, which is just a rebranding of the older New World Order term, which is really just a synonym for a better acronym much-beloved by right-wing dissidents: ZOG.
People criticize Russia for having a strongman autocrat, but at least he is actually a strong man trying to make his country stronger militarily, economically, and culturally. WTF do we have here in the USA? The form and symbols of a representative democracy, but none of the reality. We are governed by demagogues who are not strong themselves and who are actively working to weaken our country militarily, economically, and culturally, merely to line their own filthy pockets and advance their catamite agenda. Russia is focusing its military on developing new and better weapons systems and battlefield techniques; meanwhile, our American military is focused on pronouns and safe spaces. If Putin is the enemy of our illegitimate Alphabet-Pride ruling class, then he is no enemy of the American people: the enemy of our enemy is our friend.
"Phrased another way, the question is: who is going to hold all that increasingly worthless Western debt? The answer is: no one." The US really shot itself in the head with the anti-Russian sanctions since it's just accelerated the already ongoing de-dollarizing process. Imagine buying US debt so they can place NGOs in your country and promote child trannies and man-on-man anal ramming.
This de-dollarizing process is inevitable, but US treasury reserves still make up a huge bulk of foreign countries' dollar holdings. The ultimate question, which I haven't seen any economists answer, is how long will this de-dollarizing process take? Because shit will hit the fan in a serious way once it's in full swing and the US can't export it's debt anymore. Michael Hudson seems to think this new cold war will last 20 or 30 years. I just want to get my farm before that happens.
> Such is the nature of the Liberal World Order i.e., the global oligarchy; it is all built on insider deals and corruption
> Only someone who is un-bribable can stand up to this tyranny of stolen money. Either someone who wouldn’t have anywhere to spend the money, even if he got his hands on it or someone who has enough money to be uninterested in trying to get their hands on more.
Yep, Oligarchy (#MuhDemocracy) is much more expensive to run than an Autocracy. There is only one autocrat - and he gets to live in the Presidential Palace and enjoy the accoutrements of office anyway. Yeah, he might get his kids some plum jobs but he can't steal nearly as much as the thousands and thousands of corrupt insiders necessary to prop up an Oligarchy. Plus, to bolster his own leadership, he has a strong incentive not to be personally corrupt and also to ferret out corruption in the government and industry. Oligarchs have the opposite incentive - they must increase the corruption to spread the gravy around.
This analysis aligns well with the Hoppean critique of democracy, which observes that elected rulers, possessing only an unstable and temporary ownership of the state, are incentivized to short-term looting.
In contrast, monarchy makes state authority a heritable property, incentivizing the ruler to maximize long-term national wealth.
This explains why, for 2000 years between the fall of the Roman Republic and World War I, monarchy was the rule rather than the exception.
The worldwide experiment in "representative government" is barely 100 years old. Interestingly, that experiment coincides with the replacement of hard currency with fiat, an indispensable tool for looting a nation and corrupting its authorities.
That short experiment is ending in a supernova of corruption, poverty and genocide, and we may yet live to see the reversion to the status quo ante of monarchy.
To those who make legitimate critiques of monarchy, such as that some monarchs will neglect long-term national interests in favor of present and personal interests, we agree that this makes it the worst form of government, except for all the others.
The fact that Russia is winning the war despite being outnumbered on the battlefield and outspent by Zog to an incalculable degree is not only hillarious but pretty strong evidence that oligarchy isnt able to wage wars against anything like peer opponents.
"It seems that people in power are being paid to go along with the Liberal World Order."
That sound's contradictory. Someone who is paid never has all that much power. High ranking employees get paid. Did you want to suggest that the visible people in power are just figure heads obeying their masters?
People criticize Russia for having a strongman autocrat, but at least he is actually a strong man trying to make his country stronger militarily, economically, and culturally. WTF do we have here in the USA? The form and symbols of a representative democracy, but none of the reality. We are governed by demagogues who are not strong themselves and who are actively working to weaken our country militarily, economically, and culturally, merely to line their own filthy pockets and advance their catamite agenda. Russia is focusing its military on developing new and better weapons systems and battlefield techniques; meanwhile, our American military is focused on pronouns and safe spaces. If Putin is the enemy of our illegitimate Alphabet-Pride ruling class, then he is no enemy of the American people: the enemy of our enemy is our friend.
Another good post, Rolo. It's always the Benjamins, one way or another.
Very good analysis, thanks Rolo.
"Phrased another way, the question is: who is going to hold all that increasingly worthless Western debt? The answer is: no one." The US really shot itself in the head with the anti-Russian sanctions since it's just accelerated the already ongoing de-dollarizing process. Imagine buying US debt so they can place NGOs in your country and promote child trannies and man-on-man anal ramming.
This de-dollarizing process is inevitable, but US treasury reserves still make up a huge bulk of foreign countries' dollar holdings. The ultimate question, which I haven't seen any economists answer, is how long will this de-dollarizing process take? Because shit will hit the fan in a serious way once it's in full swing and the US can't export it's debt anymore. Michael Hudson seems to think this new cold war will last 20 or 30 years. I just want to get my farm before that happens.
> Such is the nature of the Liberal World Order i.e., the global oligarchy; it is all built on insider deals and corruption
> Only someone who is un-bribable can stand up to this tyranny of stolen money. Either someone who wouldn’t have anywhere to spend the money, even if he got his hands on it or someone who has enough money to be uninterested in trying to get their hands on more.
Yep, Oligarchy (#MuhDemocracy) is much more expensive to run than an Autocracy. There is only one autocrat - and he gets to live in the Presidential Palace and enjoy the accoutrements of office anyway. Yeah, he might get his kids some plum jobs but he can't steal nearly as much as the thousands and thousands of corrupt insiders necessary to prop up an Oligarchy. Plus, to bolster his own leadership, he has a strong incentive not to be personally corrupt and also to ferret out corruption in the government and industry. Oligarchs have the opposite incentive - they must increase the corruption to spread the gravy around.
This analysis aligns well with the Hoppean critique of democracy, which observes that elected rulers, possessing only an unstable and temporary ownership of the state, are incentivized to short-term looting.
In contrast, monarchy makes state authority a heritable property, incentivizing the ruler to maximize long-term national wealth.
This explains why, for 2000 years between the fall of the Roman Republic and World War I, monarchy was the rule rather than the exception.
The worldwide experiment in "representative government" is barely 100 years old. Interestingly, that experiment coincides with the replacement of hard currency with fiat, an indispensable tool for looting a nation and corrupting its authorities.
That short experiment is ending in a supernova of corruption, poverty and genocide, and we may yet live to see the reversion to the status quo ante of monarchy.
To those who make legitimate critiques of monarchy, such as that some monarchs will neglect long-term national interests in favor of present and personal interests, we agree that this makes it the worst form of government, except for all the others.
The fact that Russia is winning the war despite being outnumbered on the battlefield and outspent by Zog to an incalculable degree is not only hillarious but pretty strong evidence that oligarchy isnt able to wage wars against anything like peer opponents.
Good analysis
"It seems that people in power are being paid to go along with the Liberal World Order."
That sound's contradictory. Someone who is paid never has all that much power. High ranking employees get paid. Did you want to suggest that the visible people in power are just figure heads obeying their masters?