Topic: Death Is The Price of Imperial Money (Read 1494 times)

If Bitcoin had been the coin of the Old Republic, perhaps the Empire would have not conquered, built the Death Star, and struck fear in the hearts of millions of citizens throughout.

Since Trump named John Bolton as National Security Advisor, death has come closer.

There is really nothing new under the sun.  What we have today is not different from about 100 years ago.  When the global imperial money has lost most of its prestige due to mounting debt and loss of real economic power, what it has left is military power, and that must be put to good use to strengthen the imperial system.

Whether in Syria, Iran, or North Korea, the goal is the same: American credibility must be preserved -- since everything else depends on it.  (At least in the sense of changing the hell out of your regime if you don't toe the line.)

All of lockheed martins big shareholders are wallstreet investment firms and banks.

When lockheed martins F-35 costs more than $1 trillion.

Taxpayers could ask themselves if the cost is justified or whether the project is a huge wealth re-distribution scam intended to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.

 

Depends on what you mean by 'death.'  Currencies around the world are massively devalued all the time.  Sometimes a currency is abandoned in favor of a new one.  Virtually all fiat currencies are at least 'half dead.'  The strongest, say, the dollar and pound sterling, are worth a small fraction of their values, say, 100 years ago, both in terms of purchasing power, and in terms of gold.

Are you sure about this, according to me for a major fiat to die, the country of the fiat has to die first. While in case of EUR its more than one country buy for USD it's the USA, and you are speculating that in the coming 80-100Yrs we will see the death of USA. Well if you asked this few years ago I would have been 100% sure that wouldn't happen, but today it very well might be possible but still the probability is very low, i mean it's the world leader(more or less) 1 bad president certainly can't cause its death.

If I had to guess, I would guess what you say.

But the values of the 'core' currencies are never really determined by market forces.  The imperial system uses war and regime change to intimidate governments around the world to support the dollar in one way or another.  That makes for a complex system that is hard to predict.

Even small countries like Syria must be taught a lesson.  Noam Chomsky uses the term 'mafia principle' to describe the system: if a small shopkeeper refuses to pay protection money, the amount is not important, but other shopkeepers might get the idea they can defy the mafia.  In the case of Syria, the straw that broke the camel's back was only the issue of allowing a natural gas pipeline from Qatar.

What you state is a real moral dilemma, but fortunately we don't have to deal with it in this topic.  The reason is that helping the local people fight dictators and terrorists is never the real reason for US intervention -- it is only the advertised reason.

The Rwanda genocide lost a few hundred thousand lives, but since the country held no importance to the imperial financial and economic system, the genocide was allowed to occur.

The main point of the original post was to poke a hole in the advertisement by the imperial elites and the media, that it is all about the local people.  It is about supporting the dollar and the rest of the imperial system.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

Iraq and Lybia are now close to being failed states (other countries in this list are already there). Obviously, Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi were not angels (didn't even come close), but they certainly were a lesser of evils in regard to what we see in these countries right now, i.e. an endless civil war of all against all, which is spreading to neighboring countries at that (see Syria). It seems that the US itself now recognizes that overthrowing Hussein had been a bloody mistake. I don't even speak about the contrived reason why the US attacked Iraq in 2003



Remember that?

I understand this is a pretty popular view, but I suspect profits from war alone don't really justify the 'reputation risk' to the US for fanning the flames of war and conflict.

Again, I think the key is to understand the role of money and finance.  The US elites really have no choice: the deceptive nature of their money and debt threatens a partial or total collapse of their system (and thus the loss of most of their power.）  This threat may be small at any one time, but it grows and they can't afford to give it too much time.

This is most true at this stage, after two major bubble busts in the US itself, when confidence in their assets or in growth is no longer really there, but the elites have already issued so many assets that they really need confidence and growth to stabilize them.

War and conflict give them two benefits at once: their political and military superiority, as well as their control of the media, give them the upper hand come any conflict, so war and conflicts are good tools for putting pressure on regimes around the world to help support the dollar and related assets.  At the same time, as we know, war and conflict tend to breed very bad actors, Nazis and Japanese militarists in the past, and terrorists and ISIS in our day.  When things get really bad, the empire can finally regain their 'moral superiority' by leading the world in a crusade against the bad actors.  At the end of the great conflict, they will have so much power over all countries that they will be able to remake the financial system (i.e. increase financial repression, in effect) and blame any changes on the great conflict.  This was what happened at the end of World War II.

You notice I put 'moral' in quotes...  That is because in order for their scheme to succeed, they must secretly nurture the bad actors into a strong force.  If ordinary people suffer as a result, well, too bad.  (We know for a fact, for example, that after 9/11 many high level leaks came from the US government that served no purpose besides helping al Qaeda, such as the fact that the US was able to track bin Laden's electronic communications -- causing him to stop using them quickly.  These leaks are still not investigated.)

this can not be. The government will not allow it. Money - it is a tool to manipulate people. And if they do not become the state simply disappear

I can see the USD surviving for at least another 20 years. After the Trump era is over, we'll see how the big financial crisis was inevitable. Both EUR and USD are under a big wave coming. If EUR fails USD fails, if USD fails EUR fails.

We are going to see the end of a big fiat currency die in our lifetime, the cycle is almost over.

You're right that death doesn't come directly from using the imperial money.  It comes indirectly.  Since imperial money is a system of theft by its issuing elites, the theft must be covered up by deception (e.g. artificially cheap oil.)  But deception causes all kinds of financial and political instability, some of which eventually leads to war and conflict, whether directly started by the US or not.  (E.g. The US used Saddam Hussein's Iraq to attack Iran after Iran overthrew the US-friendly shah.)

And it seem that recently the US itself has been starting wars and conflicts more often.

This seems a reasonable outcome, since the imperial financial and economic system has been made fragile by the 2 major bubble busts since 2000, and more pressure must be put on regimes around the world to help support the system.

I think I forgot to mention something...

It's true, as you say, the governments being overthrown by the US are corrupt and/or brutal, but that is the nature of most governments, and especially those who ally closely with the US and serve American interests first, e.g. Saudi Arabia and Japan.  (Japan's central bank lends money directly to companies, and as a result the entire system is deeply corrupt, yet you never hear of it in the media, nor of Saudi Arabia selling oil cheap.)

The US has the power to decide which corrupt regimes to expose and remove, and that is the basis of imperial power.

I almost didn't believe it when you said it. Had to look it up.

Somalia - https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/world/africa/obama-somalia-secret-war.html?_r=0

Afghanistan - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2015%E2%80%93present)

Iraq - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Iraq_(2014%E2%80%93present)

Lybia - http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/iraq/u.s.-troops.htm

Syria - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Syria

Yemen - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/15/us-bombed-yemen-middle-east-conflict

The real question is - should the US just sit back and watch as Dictators and Terrorist tear existing countries or peaceful people apart? If your neighbor is being attacked, do you join in the fight to help your neighbor or do you sit back and let them figure it out? What's the right move?

While I can see the point you're trying to get across, for a lot of people there is no death that comes to them simply because they use money issued by governments, and in fact, for a lot of them, they manage to live for longer because of their contributions, and they get rewarded for that via pensions or whatever.

The US is run a lot like a giant business. Wars are good for the arms industry, and the medical industry too, and as long as the US prints money that can be used to buy other tangible things, they don't give a fuck.

War is profitable for the state, war is needed for the economy. Why not fan the flame of war when you are the one directly making profits out of it?
USA realized that there is no enough places in the world where they could intervene anymore so why not keep already war torn countries burning?
I don't believe that combined forces of USA and Russia can't defeat ISIS in Syria, I don't believe that if they wanted they couldn't stop permanently some conflicts in Africa.

It is true about what you have said .Where ever the US intervened from Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq, and now Libya, Syria and Yemen, all have either become failed states or been embroiled in endless civil war and the new president does not want to see refugees in their country ,when they literally made this situation to millions of people.

Did you read what this thread is all about . You cannot just increase your activity just like that. 

What you say is all understandable, but consider my main point:

If the goal is to make the lives of the country's people better, and the US has made their lives worse, again and again, by bringing regime change to these countries, without learning any lessons from past failures...

Shouldn't we suspect the motive was never really to help the local population?

Two further factors support the theory of hidden motivation: 1. Can we really believe US politicians will do any good for people half way around the world?  2. Surely policy insiders must know bringing freedom and democracy to these countries is bound to fail?  So why try?

In as much as I dont support US decision in entering any country with the motive of restoring peace or any other reasons they might have as you have rightly stated and at the same time they have been at most times of leaving those countries in more precarious situations that they have been met, whether by conspiracy or their intention, let the active players be the judge. However, before US will enter a particular country to the little I know, they always want to have legitimate reasons for their actions and if they are successful at that, I wont blame them much rather would blame the leaders of such country to give them the chance in the first place and among other reasons will include staying in power for decades, silencing opposition, extra judicial killings, corruption etc among any other factors.

Right, although it's funny how the Western media is so convincing to the average viewer, my past self included.  Isn't the tyrant terrible?  (Cross out the part about being a US-stooge in the past.)  Time for some more democracy-spread'n.