News & Analysis
Rachman Reveals the End of America?
Denial is not a strategy ... Recently I met a retired British diplomat who claimed with some pride that he was the man who had invented the phrase, "the management of decline", to describe the central task of British foreign policy after 1945. "I got criticised," he said, "but I think it was an accurate description of our task and I think we did it pretty well." No modern American diplomat – let alone politician – could ever risk making a similar statement. That is a shame. If America were able openly to acknowledge that its global power is in decline, it would be much easier to have a rational debate about what to do about it. – Financial Times/Gideon Rachman
Dominant Social Theme: Look, America is going under. That's just the way it is. Get over it. These thing happen.
Free-Market Analysis: It's been a while since we noticed a Gideon Rachman/Financial Times article, but this is a quite powerful one. Richman sees the decline of America as inevitable – not the product of warmongering and monetary debasement but simply a kind of "turning of the tides."
We, of course differ. To us, the problems of America are self-inflicted, or rather they are inflicted by an elite group of central banking families and their associates and enablers who print money from nothing to fund wars and undermine individual freedoms in order to promote world government that will be run by them.
Who is this man who writes of America's future with such inevitability? He appears of course in the Financial Times, the same newspaper that has spent decades trumpeting numerous failing memes such as global warming and the implacable arrival of Charlemagne's second empire via the European Union. Here's something from Wikipedia:
Gideon Rachman is a journalist who has been the Financial Times chief foreign affairs commentator since July 2006. He studied at Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge University where he obtained a first class honours degree in History in 1984. While at Gonville and Caius, he was a friend of future MI6 agent Richard Tomlinson, whom he provided with a reference for his Kennedy Scholarship application ...
At the Financial Times, Rachman writes mainly on American foreign policy, the European Union and globalisation. Gideon Rachman maintains a blog on the FT.com site. In December 2008 Rachman published a controversial blog post on the Financial Times online entitled, "And now for a world government" which radio show host Alex Jones, among others, have cited as proof of an elitist plot to establish global governance.
Rachman would seem to have an agenda from what we can tell. It is his task to enunciate a power elite dominant social theme that America's Golden Age is long gone and that there is no use in blaming anybody or trying to impose a corrective on trends that are inevitable. The idea, of course, is that America is declining just as internationalism is rising.
America and its citizens have generally stood in the way of globalist plans because America in particular is culturally dissonant from the standpoint of global governance. The culture is republican and there is a healthy libertarian constituency as well.
It's not Europe; though given the Internet Reformation and its truth-telling, European citizens, too, seem to be waking up regarding the one-world order descending on them like a black curtain of smog.
There are about 60 million people in the "red states" and efforts to remove their guns have thus far failed, though not for lack of trying. This populist constituency still believes to some degree in individualism and American exceptionalism. It is a problem for those who believe in the ascendency of world government. Hence the leveling of the Financial Times's most compelling ink-stained wretches – including Rachman.
It's not just certain writers who have attacked American exceptionalism, of course. America has been rent asunder by a sustained legalistic attack. She has been saddled like a recalcitrant and resentful mare with an ever-expanding array of complex and inefficient laws and regulations.
Major modern components of her downfall include a central bank, a graduated income tax, a standing military and an Intel-industrial complex with seeming ambitions to wiretap and micro-chip every American citizen, especially the law-abiding ones.
This is not how Rachman sees it. The American decline – evidently and obviously the result of this sustained attack on American industry and liberties – is merely a natural turn of events. Like the tide, American exceptionalism flowed inward bearing gifts of prosperity and peace; now that is coming to an end and the country must "manage its decline."
The Financial Times, like the Economist magazine, is evidently and obviously a mouthpiece of the elite. Within this purview Rachman resides as something of a megaphone, amplifying promotional memes of fear with the deliberate intention of shoving the middle class toward surrendering wealth and power to globalist institutions.
Rachman, then, has an agenda from what we can tell. It is his task to convince us that America's Golden Age is long gone and that there is no use in blaming anybody or trying to impose a corrective on trends that are inevitable. Here's more from the article:
Decline need not mean the end of peace and prosperity. But it does mean making choices and forging alliances. In an era of massive budget deficits, and rising Chinese power, the US will have to think harder about its priorities. Last week, Hillary Clinton insisted that America will remain a major power in Asia – with all the military expenditure that this implies. Very well. But what does that mean for spending at home? Few politicians are prepared to have that discussion.
Instead, particularly among Republicans, they fall back on feel-good slogans about American "greatness". Those who refuse to entertain any discussion of decline actually risk accelerating the process. A realistic acknowledgement that America's position in the world is under threat should be a spur to determined action on everything from educational reform to the budget deficit. The endless politicking in Washington reflects a certain complacency – a belief that America's position as number one is so impregnable that it can afford self-indulgent episodes such as the summer's near-debt default.
The failure to have a proper discussion of relative decline also risks leaving American public opinion unprepared for a new era. As a result, the public reaction to setbacks at home and abroad is less likely to be calm and determined and more likely to be angry and irrational – feeding what the historian Richard Hofstadter famously called "the paranoid style in American politics ..."
It is this last paragraph that provides us, finally, with a larger clue as to the article's intentions. As we have surmised in the past, the Anglosphere elites are quite aware of what they have unleashed. In the era of the Internet, their grand manipulations are obvious. And in a time of scarcity people are likely to turn to the Internet and identify the correct source of the problem.
The power elite is determined to actuate global government and needs chaos and a "Greater Recession" to do so. But in creating such misery, the elite is probably still constrained by the knowledge that if it pushes too hard there could be what Intel agencies call "blowback."
The 21st century is not the 20th and the elites have lost control of the media and cannot spin a homogeneous message. They are exposed as never before in modern history and thus apparently need to ensure that as their plans mature the public is not made irredeemably hostile.
Conclusion: The "decline" has to be managed. The masses have to be palliated, momentarily anyway, even as they are goaded to cliffs of globalism preparatory to being shoved off into space.
l 
|
You must be a site member to submit suggested edits or post feedback. In addition to submitting edit suggestions and posting feedback, your Free Membership to The Daily Bell gives you access to our Member Zone where you will discover a plethora of other member benefits. Want to learn more? click here |
|||||
|
|
||||
 |
Posted by frick on 10/20/11 11:40 AM
More on CONSENT.
"We hold these truths to be self-evedent, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.-That to secure thesr rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their JUST powers from the consent of the governed."---The Declaration of Independence
" Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have
found out the exact measure of inJUSTICE and wrong which will be
imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted
with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are
prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."---Frederick Douglass
|
Posted by frick on 10/20/11 11:25 AM
"It is a settled point with writers on the natural law, that all men inherit from nature a perfect liberty and independence, of which they cannot be deprived without their own consent."
"These three kinds of law of nations, the voluntary, the conventional, and the customary, together constitute the positive law of nations. For they all proceed from the will of nations, - the voluntary from their presumed consent, the conventional from the express consent, and the customary from tacit consent: and as there can be no other mode of deducing any law from the will of nations, there are only these three kinds of positive law of nations."
Vattel - Law of Nations
 |
Posted by rossbcan on 10/20/11 05:45 AM
"Do you believe that world GOV would end war?"
NO GOV can EVER end war. Government IS WAR. A perceptual disconnect between the gov (those who decree) and the people (those who are compelled / pay) always has and always will result in eternal conflict between those who use pretext of rule to be unproductive predators and, the prey, who are expected to toil, to serve their owners under various false pretexts, all of which are refutable, and must and therefor always will converge to "might is right", guns pointed at "we, the productive".
To prove this, some argumentation is required (From Ignorance to Civilization):
Click to view link
Culminating in From (The Purpose and Nature of Civilization):
Click to view link
13.2 Inevitable Polarization Within The Group
The unavoidable necessity for individual man to become a member of a group was a major environmental change for mankind, affecting his very nature. The organized power of the group provides protection from non human predatory forces of nature at the cost of the individual having no choice but to associate with the most dangerous predator of all, other human beings. Further, the dictates of group survival requires that the individual cooperate either voluntarily or under coercion. Individual man, in a group environment is still compelled by the most basic need of life, to survive. This must be achieved in an environment of like minded individuals, whose survival dictates that they must seek advantage over you, as you must seek advantage over them. Within the group, resources are still limited. A further consideration is that not all individuals have the same strength. Since the topic is the choices of intelligent man as offered by physical reality, there is absolutely no requirement for morality or consideration of the survival of others, including the group. The only consideration is to individually survive. In a group environment, this means by seeking advantage over others and preventing others from achieving advantage over you. It is still every man for himself in a very dangerous environment.
The initial result of these environmental factors is that the strong cooperate to enslave the weak. The result is a division of labor within the group where some do the work and others force them to do the work. The group is now composed of two sub-groups. This division of labor is an intellectual environmental change for both sub-groups, who no longer have the same survival considerations, resulting in a division of viewpoint. Survival for those who rule demands that they do whatever is required to stay in control and extract the maximum possible tribute from those who do the work. Survival for those who do the work demands that they do the best they can to resist this rule and minimize or eliminate the tribute that is extracted.
Of course, there are always more prey than predators (basic survival economic fact) and, there is absolutely nothing apart from ignorance and cowardice preventing the prey from collectively dealing with their predators.
In historical fact, this is where the "rule of law" came from, before vigilance was lost and predators again gained control of the law:
Click to view link
.jpg) |
Posted by Kriss Robin on 10/20/11 03:30 AM
"And although the internet may be "awakening" many, I haven't seen the soul searching yet that I feel is the prerequisite before the "repenting" necessary, before the effective actions required to turn NWO's progress around."
Yes, I agree. The Inner Rebellion (Awakening) has to happen first before the Outer Awakening can be fully Recognised.
Then there is no power on earth, guns, tanks, etc, that can stop this Awakening, after it has Happened Within.
Many are knocking at the door, with protests of unfairness, but the Inner Light has not yet dawned, consequently Inner direction is seemingly still dormant. The beast is stirring, but is in part still confused by old mind tricks being played. When the Light dawns in the few this will impact the masses, this will be a spectacle to See.
|
Posted by frick on 10/19/11 10:45 PM
Is the assumption that the PTB wish to "fix", as in repair, the free market?
Umm, don't think so.
The way to fix it is to get hands off it.
Not in the PTB's playbook, as a hands off aproach would leave no PTB.
|
Posted by Danny B on 10/19/11 10:28 PM
OK, I have a few hypothetical questions for both DB and the readers. Would you support world-GOV if it brought an end to war? We all know about the elusive peace-dividend. Do you believe that world GOV would end war? Could end war?
Wars are fought mainly for resources and ideology. Ideology is mainly the province of theocracies. Fortunately, theocracies are slowly giving way to reason.
Since war is a huge consumer of resources, it would seem that there would be more to go around if we didn't waste so much. There are very promising emerging technologies;
Click to view link
Charging_Electric_Car
Look at the economic integration achieved by post-war Europe. Would world-wide economic integration achieve the same results? The previously posted link;
Click to view link
says that ;
"Reserve accumulation has accelerated dramatically in the past decade, particularly since the 2003-4. At the end of 2009, reserves had risen to 13 percent of global GDP, doubling from their 2000 level, and over 50 percent of total imports of goods and services. Emerging market holdings rose to 32 percent of their GDP"
OK, so there are huge reserves being accumulated. Sooner or later, it will become obvious that the consumer is skint. He has declining purchasing power. The money can be skimmed off and held as reserves but, they're essentially useless.
Money does NOT make the world go round. Profit makes the world go round.
Investors worldwide are screaming that there is no yield. Everybody is printing to support the credit bubble. The resulting inflation will make yields LESS than zero.
Velocity is crashing. Either the PTB find a way to return purchasing power to the consumer OR, they face endless dissipation of capital and revolution. All these reserves are useless if they aren't put to work. Profit is only created in the production-consumption cycle.
It will all come to a skidding stop without profit. A "world currency" won't fix it either.
|
Posted by frick on 10/19/11 08:56 PM
I don't know. Even a single global paper currency seems like it might be too much trouble even for them. When they could just establish a one world digital cashless currency instead. Allowing a defeat of a one world paper currency would be the equivalent of throwing the masses a bone.
|
Posted by Don on 10/19/11 07:31 PM
@rossbcan
"'they' believe in 'might is right', so, will 'die by the sword'"
Goes without saying really that one wants to keep one's own head (attached so to speak) in these situations. That reminds me, rumor has it when a bigwig, President, Senator, whatever, deigns to visit the catacombs that the indigenous bureaucrats therein go all "Yes, Sir!", "Whatever you say, Sir!" Their publicly proffered acquiescence lasts about as long as a bigwig's visit.
|
Posted by rossbcan on 10/19/11 07:13 PM
"seems a much harder sale."
Who sez they will sell it?
There are two way to compete:
a - By excellence, have your wares / ideas freely chosen
b - By destroying the competetion, making your wares / ideas the only option
... and, "they" believe in "might is right", so, will "die by the sword" which, as collateral damage cuts a large swathe through innocent bystanders.
|
Posted by Don on 10/19/11 06:59 PM
@Abu Aardvark
"in the eyes of the IMF at least, the best way to ensure the stability of the international monetary system (post crisis) is actually by launching a global currency."
Fiat was a fairly easy sell back when paper at least theoretically converted to gold. Fiat by authoritative proclamation seems a much harder sale.
 |
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 10/19/11 06:35 PM
DB: "In December 2008 Rachman published a controversial blog post on the Financial Times online entitled, "And now for a world government" which radio show host Alex Jones, among others, have cited as proof of an elitist plot to establish global governance."
-----------------------------------------------
Also from the Financial Times:
"IMF blueprint for a global currency - yes really.
FT Alphaville missed this IMF paper when it first came out in April, 2010. Authored by Reza Moghadam, director of the IMF's strategy, policy and review department, it discusses how the IMF sees the International Monetary System evolving after the financial crisis.
(... )
in the eyes of the IMF at least, the best way to ensure the stability of the international monetary system (post crisis) is actually by launching a global currency.
And that, the IMF says, is largely because sovereigns - as they stand - cannot be trusted to redistribute surplus reserves, or battle their deficits, themselves.
The ongoing buildup of such imbalances, meanwhile, only makes the system increasingly vulnerable to shocks. It's also a process that's ultimately unsustainable for all, says the IMF.
Or as they put it:
The global crisis of 2008/09, for all its costs, has not jeopardized international monetary stability, and the IMS is not on the verge of collapse. That said, the current system has serious imperfections that feed and facilitate policies-of reserves accumulation and reserves creation-that are ultimately unsustainable and, until they are reversed, expose the system to risks and shocks that a reformed system could minimize.
All in all, the IMF believes there has simply been too much reserve hoarding going on:
(... )
they conclude:
It is understood that some of the ideas discussed are unlikely to materialize in the foreseeable future absent a dramatic shift in appetite for international cooperation."
Click to view link
Gee, sounds exactly like, 'Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.'
Click to view link
Reply from The Daily Bell
This is very interesting!
|
Posted by rossbcan on 10/19/11 05:49 PM
until peace is traded for peace, nothing can be traded, just siezed / defended.
... and, I am not so morally pure as I pretend, when it comes down to it, I will not be asking the mooose's consent:), which is why elites do not ask ours.
 |
Posted by Dave Jr on 10/19/11 05:02 PM
Nah, we won't be able to afford any corn, and neither will Canada. You got any moose meat to trade?
 |
Posted by Agent Weebley on 10/19/11 04:58 PM
Who's Niacin and Thiamine, anyway? Are they friends of snap, crackle and pop?
|
Posted by frick on 10/19/11 04:23 PM
A fundamental principle of logic that any system of propositions that accepts both a statement and its negation as valid, that is, which accepts a contradiction, accepts all contradictions, and provides no basis for deciding among them. If decisions are made, they are not made on the basis of the propositions, but are arbitrary, and that is the definition of the rule of men, as opposed to the rule of law.
That being said, one cannot accept the benefits of, and participate in socialist democracy, while at the same time condemning socialist democracy, democracy being the rule of men, the antithesis of republic, the rule of law. This would be illogical with any justifications being irrational. As I see it, Americans are here in their logic, hopefully only temporarily.
Most Americans do not understand the republics of their founders and as such do not recognize the democracy they are consenting to.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." We just haven't figured it out yet.
Mike
|
Posted by Don on 10/19/11 04:23 PM
@rossbcan
At the very least, Canada ought to decline into separate English and French sovereign nations. BC deserves its own sovereignty, as do the Plains and Atlantic Provinces, which leaves Ottawa governing the nation of Ontario.
|
Posted by rossbcan on 10/19/11 04:05 PM
Canada is poised to absorb New England, Great Lakes, Midwest, Great Northwest.
but, be warned, we will be very polite, perhaps confusing and traumatizing for some, and Quebec may demand you learn French, or a least fume with it being on your cornflakes boxes.
|
Posted by rossbcan on 10/19/11 04:00 PM
Unfortunately, the west in general and, the US in particular, is in strategic denial that the heart of western civilization, the "rule of law" has been ripped out and consumed by predators on the bench who are at present, voraciously consuming the rest of the carcass of western civilization. So, rather than graciously dealing with the west's demise or, taking concrete steps to reverse it, it will be like this:
Click to view link
 |
Posted by gabe on 10/19/11 03:49 PM
Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney and Gideon Rachman agree that we must continute to fund the war making efforts at current or increased levels, impose higher taxes on the civilians, hand in our weapons at home and learn to accept being a lower rung country.
|
Posted by frick on 10/19/11 02:06 PM
If in fact, 30% of Americans believe in God, it has done no good that they have thrown their lot into a republic destroying democracy along with the unbelievers.
Mike
|
|
