Topic: Death Is The Price of Imperial Money (Read 1507 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.

True, and the interesting thing is that the US *must* do this.  It doesn't matter how 'moral' the country is, whatever that means.  At this stage of the imperial financial bubble, it must lean on the real resources of vassal states.

The alternative is a bubble burst that will land its top bankers in jail, since there would be tremendous economic pain, and the politicians would surely point their fingers at the bankers for causing the whole mess.

For the rest of the country, in the long run, an early bust of the bubble might actually be better than the alternatives.

That is very factual and I agree to that. America has no concern on the freedom of a certain country from tyranny but they want control over a certain country. If they cant control they will support the forces that is against that regime thus creating a way for civil war and turmoil. They want control over the government so they can access the resources and gain profit from the suffering country. USA is drowned with debt and the major source of income is through military power by exploiting countries and their resources.

Absolutely, the US can't go after everybody with military or 'rebel' power.  It only does so to the most vulnerable countries on its hit list (and today these turn out to be mostly in the Muslim world.  Is there any wonder terrorism is here?)

Larger and stronger countries on the hit list, like Russia, Iran, and now Turkey, are attacked by other means.

Money is whatever people think has value (as long as certain basic requirements are met.)

Believe it or not, the supreme irony here is that, I believe, the actor supporting today's Bitcoin value are the global elites.  And the reason they do it is that they understand their own money will need something like gold or Bitcoin for backing, if and when it's about to collapse.

Adding Bitcoin to gold and silver in the category of hard money will increase the strength of such support, and lower the average price of acquiring hard money by the elites.

Bitcoin is still cheap compared to gold, when comparing the prices of the same proportions of total supply.

some country is ready embargo in USA is can't die
and youre write not economic embargo, but all people from contry youre write can't visit and stay in USA
you see Iran and north korea, until now still economic embargo from USA, but stil life not die

If I might add...

Another interesting phenomenon is that, before the US intervenes, the media talk is all about how terrible the current regime is.  It's only after it goes in, that the topic changes to how hard it is to build a new state or make life better.

After a string of failed states, you would think high-level officials or smart commentators will mention the latter topic before the US goes in.  But that is not happening.

Thank you.  Yes, tragic.

Although Iraq, Libya, and Syria were not failed states before the US went in or stirred up rebellions.  Afghanistan was also becoming a unified Taliban-run state before the US went in 2002.  You can say Taliban rule is not good, but compared with living in war?  I'm not sure.


I guess my point was that the US wants all states to support the system.  If one state doesn't, it becomes a 'failed state' because, in that part of the world, the US can get away with overturning it.  For other, stronger states, a different line of attack must be used (e.g. against Russia, Iran and nowadays Turkey.)  But war and bloodshed are directly used against the weakest countries.


If by 'causation'  you mean that the US goes into a failed state to install a government which then implements US-friendly policies, it is of course not happening.  The US currently lacks the political capital to go through what is necessary to establish strong pro-US states.  But isn't being toppled enough of an incentive to friendly to the US?

This is not a conspiracy in the usual sense.  The scheme works mostly by a combination of US power and an incorrect assumption by the public of the reality.  I'll bet even the vast majority of US officials believe we really are going in to support freedom and democracy.  But if you just take a moment to think, even if you grant that democracy is the real motivation, surely, after so many failures, making life much worse than before we went in, we would have learned the lesson?

The key evidence for me is, why invest only enough power to break regimes, but not enough power (and not even really try) to rebuild countries, and do that again and again?

Starting with the post-Soviet Afghan 'government' in the early 90s, it seems that the US prefers failed state or civil war to a stable government that is too independent, and is prepared to make it happen one way or another.  (Of all the possible elements, the US and UN didn't include the one group that could hope to form a stable government, the mujahideen who had been fighting the Soviets for a decade.  The result was another decade of war.)

There is no need to occupy a country -- all you need is to have its central bank buy dollars for reserves.


If you think about it, can we really expect US leaders to spend political capital to fight oppression abroad?  They have enough worry about the next election as it is.

Granted, the US is the world's strongest democracy (but that's only because Americans have a healthy skepticism about their government.)  That democracy gives a lot of power to its elites, to do what they want around the world in the name of democracy.


I don't (and didn't) charge that it is intentional that we leave these countries torn up.  We just don't want to spend what is necessary to rebuild them.  But, knowing that, why go in, in the first place, if we really want what's best for their people, as we advertise?


There is no essential difference between the British and US empires.  (It's just that, in today's world, it looks too bad to occupy another country's government openly.)  And this similarity comes ultimately from the core nature of imperial-financial bubbles.  Different forms, but the same essence.  (E.g. the British were trying to keep the gold standard afloat, and we're protecting the dollar standard.)  China is just as big as India, and the People's Bank of China buying up lots of dollars while selling us artificially cheap goods over the decades, is just as good for the dollar system.

The key reason for me to include Britain and World War I in my piece was to demonstrate that the imperial elites are not too shy to bring death to their own people too, if and when it becomes necessary for supporting their system.  And judging from the current state of America, the 'when' might come sooner rather than later.

Brilliant...yet tragic.


To the OP - interesting points. I think there's logic and correlation to your two main points (1) the US starts wars with in failed states, and (2) the US expects those failed states to support the US economic or diplomatic priorities. I'm don't see causation. And it's causationt that's required to prove a conspiracy theory.

Sure, the US starts wars - but it's never in the vein of imperialism. There's no honest interest in occupying another Nation. The interest in military action is in response to the threat of instability in an area of the world. If people in Somalia are being oppressed, the US takes it upon themselves to intervene in the interest of stopping the oppression (and hopefully with the support and co-Leadership of other developed and democratic Nations).

You're absolutely right that the US doesn't build back Nations well - but this is equally (if not more so) due to the politics with the US rather than a real intent to leave the country torn up and broken. The US political system refreshes and potentially shifts every 4 or 8 years. This sets a system in place that opens regular opportunity for policies and objectives to be turned around at these specific intervals. That's what you see when Obama takes the reigns from Bush Jr. and decides to pull troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan - it's not because Obama doesn't care about rebuilding the Nation, it's about ending military action and bringing troops home. Ending the intervention.

You reference Britain at the end of your talk - what are you implying? Britain was truly imperialistic! They invaded and occupied several countries - India was probably the largest. The US has never done something so drastic. The worst the US has done is maintain military presence around the globe, which when not keeping people safe (in those weak areas) is making the US a greater target for future threats of terrorism and war. I think the egg just became the chicken!

we pretend that bitcoin has value...

it doesn't,it's not even practical

Has anyone noticed that, recently, few US-involved wars have come to an end?  From Somalia, to Afghanistan and Iraq, and now Libya, Syria and Yemen, all have either become failed states or been embroiled in endless civil war, with much suffering for their people.

These outcomes are quite different from the advertised reasons for US involvement: bringing normal life, if not freedom, democracy and prosperity to people living under tyranny of one kind or another.  How did things turn out so wrong?

Both long-established military doctrine and US officer training stress that you don't fight a war by leaving loose ends.  The only way to stop the bloodshed is to defeat your enemy totally.  Unfortunately, leaving loose ends is all the US does these days.  A clean victory would cost more American lives, which would make starting the next war politically difficult, and we will always need the next war, judging by recent history.  If leaving loose ends makes local life even worse than before we went in, well, did you really believe American politicians would fight for the sake of freedom and democracy halfway around the world?

The real purpose of US military intervention, or threat of such, is putting pressure on regimes around the world to support the imperial system.  If a regime fails to support the dollar, Treasury bonds, the trading system, or any other alliance agenda, there must be consequences.

There doesn't seem to be any other explanation why the US is so good at smashing a government, but not good at rebuilding it.  So bad at the latter, in fact, that one has to ask if it tries.  It seems, since military operations must be kept cheap, short, and low-casualty (for the US,) so that the US has enough political capital to threaten the next evil regime credibly, it becomes almost impossible to end the war, never mind rebuilding the country.  If the Middle East has become a hell-hole and exporter of refugees, well, perhaps that could be used as leverage against Western European allies.

Apparently, it doesn't really matter precisely how problems play out around the world.  Chaos is pain, whether it takes the form of migrant or political crisis, regime change, financial crisis, economic destruction, or bloody war.  Since the US is the source of the chaos, it can get every government to do as it's told, by the selective sowing and chanelling of chaotic forces.

You see, the trust in our dollars (or any other financial assets built on top of them) is bound to decay, as our political and banking elites have too many incentives to keep issuing them.  Of right, we should be in economic ruin, as we discover the paper we hold is worth a lot less than previously thought, and that we are skilled only at issuing more financial assets, or serving those few rich ones who do.  So the dollar bubble must be protected at all cost, and a big part of that is, almost exactly as during the British Empire, making governments and their central banks around the world pretend that our paper has value.

The price of imperial money is not just exploitation.  It is death, as well.

In fact, death may not be limited to foreigners.  At the end of the British Empire's reign, it showed itself fully capable of bringing death to its own people by sending them into World War I.  No one really understand why it did that, but a financial perspective helps.  The war took an unfriendly Germany out of the running for global empire and put a friendly US on the imperial seat.  It just happened, in the following decades the US would help support British assets and ease it into gentle decline, rather than a sudden burst of its bubble, which would have risked exposing its entire system to the public.