I see an economic diasater coming...

[SeaMonkey]

The "Economic Disaster" which looms is taking shape.

Conclusion: The mechanism of central banking is purposeful ruin. The end-result of this ruin is global governance. In the short-term this goal is disguised by an academic patina. But the long-term goal, an increasingly apparent one, is a brutal restructuring of the lives of seven billion people to benefit a handful of elite controllers.

And there is this:  Why America's brutal warmongering
pursuit of World Domination is nearing its end.

But why is "that era is now ending"? What's changed since 1997 when Brzezinski referred to the US as the "world's paramount power"?
Brzezinski points to the rise of Russia and China, the weakness of Europe and the "violent political awakening among post-colonial Muslims" as the proximate causes of this sudden reversal. His comments on Islam are particularly instructive in that he provides a rational explanation for terrorism rather than the typical government boilerplate about "hating our freedoms." To his credit, Brzezinski sees the outbreak of terror as the "welling up of historical grievances" (from "deeply felt sense of injustice") not as the mindless violence of fanatical psychopaths.

[SeaMonkey]

Why Washington is addicted to war.

By Doug Bandow at the National Interest

The last two administrations have followed a bipartisan policy of constant war. Unfortunately, the consequences have been ugly: every intervention has laid the groundwork for more conflict.
Yet the architects of this failure claim that all would be well if only Washington had acted more often and more decisively. In their view, the problem is not that America goes to war, but that it doesn't go to war nearly enough.

This approach is based on the belief that Washington is capable of solving every international problem. If only unnamed bright people implemented theoretically brilliant strategies backed by unidentified resolute citizens, terrorism would be suppressed, ISIS would be defeated, Russia would be compliant, Iraq would be successful, Syria would be peaceful, Libya would be united and China would be respectful.

Alas, our experience suggests that such people and policies don't exist. Otherwise, why would recent military operations have turned out so badly? If the right conditions for success weren't present in the last fifteen years, why should we expect them to occur in the next fifteen?

The biggest problem is the belief in immaculate intervention. More troops should have stayed longer, more bombs should have been dropped, and more no-fly zones should have been established. Advocates rarely bother to explain the practical requirements and consequences of those policies.

[Dog-One]

Peace on Earth is achievable and it isn't all that difficult to do.


All you need is one really big bomb and things will be quiet for many years to come.
Whether the bomb is actually detonated or not is irrelevant.

[SeaMonkey]

The shape of things past and future as the
Disaster approaches:

JFK Assassination was an Inside Job

Corporate Totalitarianism

Manufacturing Civil Unrest

America the Debt Pig

[SeaMonkey]

Will this be the next chapter in the story of
America's (and the World's) March to Disaster?