This is an interesting article on
Zerohedge which argues that the can-kickers of the US financial elite, which
has been observably taking place since 1987, are finding it
harder and harder to kick an increasingly heavy can:
Since
policy is not a zero-sum game, i.e., one participant’s loss does not
necessarily entail a gain for another, this paradox has a logical explanation.
A crisis erupts within any system when there is a discrepancy between its
internal structure and the sum total of available resources (that is, those
resources will eventually prove inadequate for the system to function normally
and in the usual way).
There are at least three basic options for addressing this situation:
There are at least three basic options for addressing this situation:
- Through reform, in which the
system’s internal structure evolves in such a way as to better correspond
to the available resources.
- Through the system’s collapse,
in which the same result is achieved via revolution.
- Through preservation, in which
the inputs threatening the system are eliminated by force, and the
relationships within the system are carefully preserved on an inequitable
relationship basis (whether between classes, social strata, castes, or
nations).
The
preservation method was attempted by the Ming and Qing dynasties in China, as
well as the Tokugawa Shogunate in Japan. It was utilized successfully (in the
19th century) prior to the era of capitalist globalization. But neither of
those Eastern civilizations (although fairly robust internally) survived their
collision with the technologically more advanced (and hence more militarily and
politically powerful) European civilization. Japan found its answer on the path
of modernization (reform) back in the second half of the 19th century, China
spent a century immersed in the quagmire of semi-colonial dependence and bloody
civil wars, until the new leadership of Deng Xiaoping was able to articulate
its own vision of modernizing reforms.
This point leads us to the conclusion that a system can be preserved only if it is safeguarded from any unwanted external influences, i.e., if it controls the globalized world.
The contradiction between the concept of escaping the crisis, which has been adopted the US elite, and the alternative concept – proposed by Russia and backed by China, then by the BRICS nations and now a large part of the world – lay in the fact that the politicians in Washington were working from the premise that they are able to fully control the globalized world and guide its development in the direction they wish. Therefore, faced with dwindling resources to sustain the mechanisms that perpetuate their global hegemony, they tried to resolve the problem by forcefully suppressing potential opponents in order to reallocate global resources in their favor.
This point leads us to the conclusion that a system can be preserved only if it is safeguarded from any unwanted external influences, i.e., if it controls the globalized world.
The contradiction between the concept of escaping the crisis, which has been adopted the US elite, and the alternative concept – proposed by Russia and backed by China, then by the BRICS nations and now a large part of the world – lay in the fact that the politicians in Washington were working from the premise that they are able to fully control the globalized world and guide its development in the direction they wish. Therefore, faced with dwindling resources to sustain the mechanisms that perpetuate their global hegemony, they tried to resolve the problem by forcefully suppressing potential opponents in order to reallocate global resources in their favor.
Having already finance-raped the US
middle class, they simply can't find enough external wealth to keep the pyramid
scheme going. Hence the finance-rape of Ukraine and the failed finance-rapes of
Syria and Iran. If the author is correct, about the only places left for them
to find any remaining wealth are Saudi Arabia, Japan, and Singapore. Russia has
already been looted, China is off-limits, and the EU is as tapped-out as the
USA.
Up
until 2015, America’s elite (or at least the ones who determine US policy) had
been assured that they possessed sufficient financial, economic, military, and
political strength to cripple the rest of the world, while still preserving
Washington’s hegemony by depriving everyone, including (at the final stage)
even the American people of any real political sovereignty or economic rights.
European bureaucrats were important allies for that elite – i.e., the
cosmopolitan, comprador-bourgeoisie sector of the EU elite, whose welfare
hinged on the further integration of transatlantic (i.e., under US control) EU
entities (in which the premise of Atlantic solidarity has become geopolitical
dogma) and NATO, although this is in conflict with the interests of the EU
member states.
However, the crisis in Ukraine, which has dragged on much longer than originally planned, Russia’s impressive surge of military and political energy as it moved to resolve the Syrian crisis (something for which the US did not have an appropriate response) and, most important, the progressive creation of alternative financial and economic entities that call into question the dollar’s position as the de facto world currency, have forced a sector of America’s elite that is amenable to compromise to rouse itself (over the last 15 years that elite has been effectively excluded from participation in any strategic decisions).
However, the crisis in Ukraine, which has dragged on much longer than originally planned, Russia’s impressive surge of military and political energy as it moved to resolve the Syrian crisis (something for which the US did not have an appropriate response) and, most important, the progressive creation of alternative financial and economic entities that call into question the dollar’s position as the de facto world currency, have forced a sector of America’s elite that is amenable to compromise to rouse itself (over the last 15 years that elite has been effectively excluded from participation in any strategic decisions).
Already the European
peoples are starting to develop more trust and confidence in Russia than in the
USA. The new nationalist governments will not be friendly to the USA due to the
way in which the US government is at least partially responsible for the
migrant invasion. It is the coming break between the 70-year unequal alliance
between the USA and Western Europe that will end the Pax Americana, although in
light of how many countries have been invaded by American troops in the
interim, Rex Americana would probably be a more accurate term.
