Richard W Posner (ColdWarBaby) and I had a running conversation recently on our blog, Dropout Nation. The theme of Richard's original article was that convinced members of the public should support and contribute to those few organisations that are attempting to spread awareness of the ravages of global capitalism and a monetary system based on private banks and loan-interest. Our conversation took us into even more sinister territory and though we did not reach a full agreement, I thought the ground we covered might be of interest to readers here.
I am well aware that some would dismiss our discussion as a debate between the far left and the farther left still, but I'll take that risk for the sake of all who value any honest attempt to seek out the truth. I hope you enjoy our exchange.
A theme that's been running through this blog since the start is not far under the surface here, and that is the complete dissociation of the superficial circus of US politics from the real issue that is at the root of the crisis, which as you correctly say, is the privately owned debt-&-interest based financial system.
I must admit though that this is the first time I've heard anyone suggest that we could beat them at their own game, simply by raising enough funding for organisations promoting alternatives. It's worth giving it a try, but it's going to be a hard sell, especially if you weigh up the benefits of giving your last spare $5 to AMI (American Monetary Institute), Red Cross or the homeless guy on the corner. Tough one.
It's an impossible sell by now. American society is so divided and fragmented that it's simply impossible to get enough people focused on a single issue to get anything done. And this is the only single issue that will get anything done.
All the causes you mention are of course worthy but, in the end, will amount to nothing but momentary catharsis.
If the privately controlled monetary system is not eliminated, there will soon be no causes to donate to. This country is being pushed into the ranks of the third world much more quickly than it seems. Unless this fundamental change to the monetary system is made very soon, we'll be seeing U.N. or NATO "peace keeping" forces brought in to quell riots and put down a civil war. Then we'll be faced with "refugee camps" for the new american majority, which will simply be a slave labor force. That's how bad it will have to get before the american zombies try to come back to life.
I'm always a bit wary of any claim that one issue is the only issue that matters. Take the two Georgias for example. In the newer of the two, the American economy is very important; in the old one, a bigger concern is whether the Russian tanks will stay on their side of the border. It's a truism that the American economy affects the whole world, but if it collapsed tomorrow, the world would get along. That's maybe why I'm more concerned with pragmatic ways of improving local conditions than with taking on the Machine. In fact, I think it's important to do both, seizing whatever opportunities present themselves and always looking for more. But that's pragmatism.
The capitalist economic paradigm; a privately controlled monetary system, commodity currency circulated at interest (usury), privately owned manufacturing, privatized everything, is a disease that has infected, to a greater or lesser extent, every nation on Earth.
As long as such privately controlled, commodified money is the basis of the global economy no significant or lasting changes are possible.
The moment any movement, group or even a sovereign nation, shows the slightest indication of being a genuine threat to the globalist plutocracy, steps will be taken to make certain it is eliminated.
The imminent collapse of the american empire may well be a purposed step in the agenda of those who are establishing the New World Order.
Please do not laugh off that phrase as just another "conspiracy theory".
"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." - David Rockefeller
"The world can therefore seize the opportunity [Persian Gulf crisis] to fulfill the long-held promise of a New World Order where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind." - George Herbert Walker Bush
"In the next century, nations as we know it [sic] will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all." - Strobe Talbot, President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992.
It's no laughing matter and no amount of "improving local conditions" will hinder it in the slightest.
What you're suggesting is something akin to putting a terminal cancer patient in hospice in order to make the last days a little less excruciating.
I won't disagree with the idea of working at both these efforts simultaneously. However, I am close to certain, and I emphasize "close" most emphatically, that if eliminating the usurious monetary system is not given priority, all the local efforts at improvement will be undone without hope of recovery.
Richard, you said - "The moment any movement, group or even a sovereign nation, shows the slightest indication of being a genuine threat to the globalist plutocracy, steps will be taken to make certain it is eliminated."
I agree with that in respect of grass roots movements, opposition parties and smaller or less powerful countries. But if, as I expect, Russia rises again from the ashes of the Soviet, it's going to be a tough nut to crack. Because I think the Kremlin has its own view of a new world order in which the gang of Western bankers don't feature. In other words, there is not just a single coterie seeking world dominance. For all the rhetoric of the Rockefellers, some very proud and old nations will not fall in line.
Of course, this can lead to another World War. Not good. But isn't it as least as likely a future as the one you are envisioning?
If the re-emergence of Russia as a world power or the fall of the amerikan empire is seen as advancing the globalist agenda, either or both those things will be allowed to happen. If such events are deemed highly desirable, they will be given whatever impetus is required. I really think a point has been reached and passed where the supremacists have grown so powerful that they can readily manipulate world events. The sovereignty of nations has been more or less eliminated. The illusion is left intact only because it better serves the agenda at this time. When that is no longer the case, all pretence will be abandoned.
This attitude may seem extreme and I have resisted it as long as I could. The more I study, the more I learn, the more conclusive the evidence becomes.
Among this evidence, can you cite instances of meetings that can reasonably be understood as 'cabinet' meetings of this unified supremacist group? I'm not for a second questioning the existence of such people, but I'm less convinced that they are united and operating cooperatively, not least because competitive activity, not cooperation is the nature of that particular beast.
I think two other scenarios are plausable - one is that there is a competition for global dominance going on, rather like an enormous game of Risk. In previous times the protagonists were states and empires. Now they are banks and corporations. Or two, the machine of interest based global finance is simply in runaway, no-one knowing how to stop it, most not even knowing how to get off.
The meetings go on yearly. G8, G20, Bilderberg, WMF, World Bank, BIS, Trilateral Commission, Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. There are numerous gatherings of the ruling class and their cronies. Some may be inconsequential, some not. We are not permitted to know. That should tell you something right there.
There may be "competition" going on but I don't think it's amongst the "royal" names such as Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Dodge, Mellon, Pratt, Harkness, Whitney, Duke, Harriman, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, DuPont, Guggenheim, Astor, Lehman, Warburg, Taft, Huntington, Baruch and Rosenwald.
I think it will ultimately be shown that truth is more outrageous than fiction.
This is not by any means a modern phenomenon. Even Plato was an advocate of totalitarianism. The lust for supremacy has been the primary engine driving the cycle of human history. That engine has always been fuelled by the same archetype. For many centuries it has been the same families, their descendants and branches.
The rise and fall of empire has always been confined to limited regions. The explosion of technological "progress" in the twentieth century has at last made actual global conquest, by a relatively small group of individuals, a real possibility.
I really think it's that simple. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Yours is a plausible interpretation and I certainly agree that there are people whose lust for power knows no bounds. Where I can't follow you is in the notion that this is the only game in town. Maybe it is, for a time, in the modern US, but I see far more diversity elsewhere and many peoples who would rate the global financial model pretty low down in their list of major issues. My experience is that all universal answers are wrong, or at least inadequate to describe the complexity (and richness) of the human condition. Whether political or religious, all faiths fail in the face of diversity, just as every prophet since the beginning of time has been proved wrong, by events. As you know, I've had similar arguments with our friend Magdy, less about his content than about his certainty that his is the only truth.