Saturday, March 31, 2018

Schiller Institute - How To Outflank Mad Theresa May's March to World War III

A little bit of optimism, I thought, in this interesting video, although a little dry at first, but it's worth persevering with.  

Are the neocons being cornered, is neoliberalism being outpaced and about to die with another banking cras eminent? Are the Europeans fragmented over Russia? Does great evil initiate a response of even greater good and so could peaceful China eventually subdue rotten West? Could Chinese dollars locked away unused at the fed be used to rebuild America's crumbling infrastructure? A win, win, for everyone, although the US could do it itself if it caught onto MMT  KV

What can explain the lemming-like reaction of Trans-Atlantic governments, to the hysterical escalation of the British Empire against Russia, in the Skripal affair? As Helga Zepp LaRouche has emphasized, there is only one explanation, which is the desperate fear of the "elites" in power, that the days of their bankrupt empire are numbered, as the vast proportion of humanity is catching the "New Silk Road Spirit," and is being recruited into the New Paradigm represented by the "win-win" policies of China and its Belt and Road Initiative. Rather than acknowledging the failure of their system, the imperial geopoliticians pulling May's strings are falling into the Thucydides Trap, risking the danger of the annihilation of mankind in a nuclear war — all to protect a failed and dying system.  Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche discusses this and more in today's webcast.


Kaivey said...

The Schiller Institute and Larouchpac are a weird bunch, I do agree, who don't believe that there is an 'American empire' but believe instead in a British one ruled by the Royal Family.

I believe in the Anglo-US empire, maybe better called, the American-Anglo Empire, but I don't really understand this Larouchpac British Empire conspiracy stuff. Although Larouchpac are crazy they put out some good videos from time time and the Ray McGovern ones were excellent.

Tom Hickey said...

Is is an Anglo-American Empire, Kevin. The British Empire morphed into the Anglo-American Empire post WWII as the imperial age acceded to the neo-imperial age.

This is a reason that the British uppers are still so arrogant. They are covered by the "special relationship" that entwines them with US power.

The guts of the Anglo-American Empire is "five-eyes," the covert services of the US, UK, Canada, Australia and NZ, along with close military ties.

Everyone else is a vassal, a potential vassal, or an adversary on the grand chessboard. The stakes are global domination and control of the world's resources. The West uses a disportioncate amount of the world's resources and wants to keep it that way.

Global finance is controlled largely by the US and UK, so they decide on the way finance is allocated.

Economic warfare, including sanctions, are a weapon in the arsenal.

Mwarang'ethe said...

Kaivey: Read New World Order A Strategy of Imperialism by Sean Stone. Also, read the Anglo American Establishment by Carrol Quigley.

Mwarang'ethe said...

Kaivey: You can find evidence of what LaRouche is saying in The Untold Story History of the United States by Oliver Stone.

For instance, you will find that, William Stephenson, the head of the British intelligence even deployed Roald Dahl to spy on Wallace, the US Vice President!

So, its not a LaRouche conspiracy. Its documented facts.

Matt Franko said...

“Paranoia may destroy ‘ya...” Kinks/Ray Davies

Tom Hickey said...

Beware of the phrase "conspiracy theory." It's used to marginalize opponents. "Conspiracy theory" is usually a canard.

One needs to look at specific instances. For example, Alex Jones and Glenn Beck are bona fide "conspiracy theorists" but that doesn't mean everything they assert is wrong. A lot of it isn't.

So-called conspiracy theories can be every useful in bring to light or emphasizing important or at least relevant matters that are marginalized or submerged in the lamestream media. which are basically propaganda services.

Most "conspiracy theories" that go wrong and become real conspiracy theories do so because they draw unwarranted conclusions from insufficient data, all of which may be true. But some key pieces are missing, so a final conclusion cannot be drawn based on sound, evidence-based argument. So the process is largely innuendo cloaked in inadequate fact.

But it's also true that "where's smoke there is likely to be fire." Jut because the argument is not conclusive doesn't mean it is not suggestive, illumining gaps and suggesting avenues to explore.

Of course, when people just make stuff up based on preferences and an agenda, it becomes conspiracy theory, propaganda, sophistry, marketing, etc.

As far as I can tell about LaRouche and his followers, they have a social, political and economic agenda that one may nor may not agree with. It is based on assertions that can be checked for accuracy. But their agenda is also broadly values-based rather than inquiry-based, and that is what make it a social, political, and economic agenda.

One may disagree with the values, but that doesn't make of conspiracy theory. And just about everyone with a social, political and economic agenda "interprets" the putative facts. This applies to all such agendas.

Much of what GOP and Democratic politicians, and social scientists, economists other "intelligentsia" aligned with them assert is also wrong but no one calls it conspiracy theory, although it fits the profile. Sometimes it gets blatant as when in demonize an opponent or opposition.

Kaivey said...

I'm not keen on James Corbett but he does make some good videos, and he provides a good service by challenging the official narrative. In this way, conspiracy theories can be good things. We need to be critical of the official narrative.

I never liked Newsbud but they seemed to have a lot of good stuff which I liked until they said Cenk Uygur was conservative who was an imposter in the left movement who's job was to steer people back to the centre. Well, I like Cenk Uygur and I think he is a genuine guy so I went right off Newsbud after that. Jimmy Dore says he's genuine too, so that's fine by me.

Then Sibel Edmunds was saying that Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlert were lying about Syria and that Aasad had bombed a hospital. James Corbett was outraged by Sibel Edmonds insulting tweets to Vanessa Beeley and he said he would never have anything to do with Sibel Edmonds again and for the first time I started to like James Cotbett.

Then Newsbud and Sibel Edmonds also started criticizing Glenn Greenweld and Jeremy Scahill saying they were embeded in the CIA. This is crazy stuff.

GLH said...

I agree with the Saker, it is the Anglo Zionist empire.

Kaivey said...

Thank you, Mwarang'ethe.