Doug Casey nails it..... AGAIN

tanstaafl72555

tanstaafl72555

This Member's Account Has Been Permanently Banned
Life Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2017
Messages
7,207
Location
Spring Hope NC
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
Very interesting opinions. Great read. Thanks for posting Tans.
 
Very nice points about civil war vs. war of secession. Also quite true about the lack of knowledge about the military. I didn't serve, and most of what I have learned has been from those of you on this forum (and the one I used before this one).
 
I don't think I completely agree with Economically, he doesn’t have a clue - he knows what helps and what hurts business, which is better than a lot of politicians. He's definitely no economist, though. (although that's not exactly a negative either...)
 
random said:
I don't think I completely agree with Economically, he doesn’t have a clue - he knows what helps and what hurts business, which is better than a lot of politicians. He's definitely no economist, though. (although that's not exactly a negative either...)
Click to expand...

Macro vs Micro economics one might say. I’d agree Trump is not a brilliant macro or long term economic planner. He’s like every other President. He fudges the numbers and massages the BS to get re-elected. But in this case I’ll hold my nose if it means we don’t get a Commie in office. Lesser of evils IMO. Plus he at least appears to want to lessen our military involvement around the world. Which would help our economy and budget. At least in theory. Although our Federal budgets don’t show any signs pf sanity any time soon.
 
"In my opinion the best option is for the US to break up into new countries, new regions – as outlandish as that sounds. "

Balkanization is a really bad idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HMP
charliesgrave said:
"In my opinion the best option is for the US to break up into new countries, new regions – as outlandish as that sounds. "

Balkanization is a really bad idea.
Click to expand...

Why? Isn’t it already happening? Does a lifelong NYC lib have anything in common with a dude from bumb f*ck Arkansas? Should they be forced to agree on everything and live by the same laws? Not sure I know the answers, but I do know what the commies answer is.
 
CZfool68 said:
Why? Isn’t it already happening? Does a lifelong NYC lib have anything in common with a dude from bumb f*ck Arkansas? Should they be forced to agree on everything and live by the same laws? Not sure I know the answers, but I do know what the commies answer is.
Click to expand...
Imagine a bunch of weak nation states with little resources inside their own borders. How's that going to end up?
 
I don't see Balkanization in the traditional geograhic sense, because in a given geographical region, you still have people that believe differently. Rural NY is different from NYC. Rural CA is different from LA or San Francisco. That's where the moral and ethical divides are, between rural and urban. IMHO
 
CZfool68 said:
Why? Isn’t it already happening? Does a lifelong NYC lib have anything in common with a dude from bumb f*ck Arkansas? Should they be forced to agree on everything and live by the same laws? Not sure I know the answers, but I do know what the commies answer is.
Click to expand...

The first part of the Federalist papers is about this stuff. On one hand, it is starting to feel like we are headed in that direction. On the other hand, if we do the big winners are China and Russia. How's that sound to you? Like it or not, we are a bit of a stabilizing force in the world, or at least a balance to other ideologies. Break us up into a few smaller countries and we are none of that any longer.


charliesgrave said:
Imagine a bunch of weak nation states with little resources inside their own borders. How's that going to end up?
Click to expand...

Small wars, and lots of them. Along the lines of early Europe.
 
chiefjason said:
The first part of the Federalist papers is about this stuff. On one hand, it is starting to feel like we are headed in that direction. On the other hand, if we do the big winners are China and Russia. How's that sound to you? Like it or not, we are a bit of a stabilizing force in the world, or at least a balance to other ideologies. Break us up into a few smaller countries and we are none of that any longer.




Small wars, and lots of them. Along the lines of early Europe.
Click to expand...

:eek:

Oh no, not Russia and China! Those evil boogey men are everywhere.

I gott tell you. I am a lot more worried about American commies than foreign ones right now. They are much more dangerous.
 
charliesgrave said:
Imagine a bunch of weak nation states with little resources inside their own borders. How's that going to end up?
Click to expand...

Better than a bunch of people that hate each other trying to coexist in small spaces I suspect. Seems there has to either be a peaceful divorce or a violent one. I’d rather have us break apart in a nice orderly fashion. In hindsight maybe the Articles of Confederation weren’t so bad.

And think of all the bad things that were justified by Lincoln in order to maintain the union. Yeah, no thanks. Things change. The experiment has failed.
 
CZfool68 said:
I’d rather have us break apart in a nice orderly fashion.
Click to expand...

That won't happen. It would be drawn out, violent, and just the kind of thing where all the countries we'd screwed over would take advantage of.

Russia and China might not land troops, but if they did, no one would stop them. China would likely become WW2 Japan in the Pacific, Russia would less covertly screw with Europe.
We'd probably have the U.N. Here raping our women and trying to take away our firearms. Mexico would annex whatever it could get, and who knows? If a large enough part of the West coast asked, Canada might even move it's borders.

There's no Balkanization scenario that doesn't end in death and suffering, and the United States, or whatever would be left of it no longer being a world power.

Things aren't the worst they've ever been, despite what everyone reads on the internet and hears on cable tv. Politics have always been messy. Case in point:



We like to idolize some perfect past that we then strive to get back to. But it never was. The guy in OP's post says it himself
"he’s not one of the lunatic fringe Democrats. He’s a cultural traditionalist at heart; he wants to see the US return to the “Leave It to Beaver” days of the 1950s. "
The only place where life was really like Leave It To Beaver...was on Leave It To Beaver.

Ecclesiastes 7:10 Say not, “Why were the former days better than these?” For it is not from wisdom that you ask this.

The same impatience leads a man to disparage the present in comparison with a past age. What is the cause that the former days were better than these? He does not know from any adequate information that preceding times were in any respect superior to present, but in his moody discontent he looks on what is around him with a jaundiced eye, and sees the past through a rose-tinted atmosphere, as an age of heroism, faith, and righteousness. Horace finds such a character in the morose old man, whom he describes in 'De Arte Poet.
 
charliesgrave said:
That won't happen. It would be drawn out, violent, and just the kind of thing where all the countries we'd screwed over would take advantage of.

Russia and China might not land troops, but if they did, no one would stop them. China would likely become WW2 Japan in the Pacific, Russia would less covertly screw with Europe.
We'd probably have the U.N. Here raping our women and trying to take away our firearms. Mexico would annex whatever it could get, and who knows? If a large enough part of the West coast asked, Canada might even move it's borders.

There's no Balkanization scenario that doesn't end in death and suffering, and the United States, or whatever would be left of it no longer being a world power.

Things aren't the worst they've ever been, despite what everyone reads on the internet and hears on cable tv. Politics have always been messy. Case in point:



We like to idolize some perfect past that we then strive to get back to. But it never was. The guy in OP's post says it himself
"he’s not one of the lunatic fringe Democrats. He’s a cultural traditionalist at heart; he wants to see the US return to the “Leave It to Beaver” days of the 1950s. "
The only place where life was really like Leave It To Beaver...was on Leave It To Beaver.

Ecclesiastes 7:10 Say not, “Why were the former days better than these?” For it is not from wisdom that you ask this.

The same impatience leads a man to disparage the present in comparison with a past age. What is the cause that the former days were better than these? He does not know from any adequate information that preceding times were in any respect superior to present, but in his moody discontent he looks on what is around him with a jaundiced eye, and sees the past through a rose-tinted atmosphere, as an age of heroism, faith, and righteousness. Horace finds such a character in the morose old man, whom he describes in 'De Arte Poet.
Click to expand...


You don’t think there would be death and suffering if we are ruled by Democrats? Have you seen what they have done to the big cities?
 
CZfool68 said:
You don’t think there would be death and suffering if we are ruled by Democrats? Have you seen what they have done to the big cities?
Click to expand...

I know, it's a miracle we made it through the Obama term. Two terms actually. Turns out he wasn't the antchrist after all.
Might as well pack it in now, roll over and give up this grand experiment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HMP
CZfool68 said:
:eek:

Oh no, not Russia and China! Those evil boogey men are everywhere.

I gott tell you. I am a lot more worried about American commies than foreign ones right now. They are much more dangerous.
Click to expand...

Long term not short term. They are the other two large powers. Both with real imperial intent. Both actually looking to enlarge land holdings and push the ideology by force. Sure marxist/communists in house are a big deal right now. But you were asking what the problem with breaking up the union is. The problem is other large powers in the world gaining influence, the in fighting directly among the new smaller countries, and the history of foreign countries allying with different sides to pit them against each other. All that would happen in the break up. Because it always happens. Hell, that's our current foreign policy in the middle east. To pit one faction against the other to keep them stirred up. Our current enemies would love the ability to pit us against each other to keep us weak and occupied.
 
tanstaafl72555 said:
Kinda like the USA pre 1861??????
Click to expand...
q9M0ZY5.jpg


Yeah, sort of.
 
chiefjason said:
Long term not short term. They are the other two large powers. Both with real imperial intent. Both actually looking to enlarge land holdings and push the ideology by force. Sure marxist/communists in house are a big deal right now. But you were asking what the problem with breaking up the union is. The problem is other large powers in the world gaining influence, the in fighting directly among the new smaller countries, and the history of foreign countries allying with different sides to pit them against each other. All that would happen in the break up. Because it always happens. Hell, that's our current foreign policy in the middle east. To pit one faction against the other to keep them stirred up. Our current enemies would love the ability to pit us against each other to keep us weak and occupied.
Click to expand...

China can’t subdue Hong Kong so they best stay over on their side of the ocean. And Putin isn’t dumb enough to pay us a visit. He’d be happy if we go all crazy and he can just mess around in Eastern Europe and the ME. And if the Canadians want to move the border south and annex Detroit and Buffalo they are welcome to it. As to the SW and Mexico, it’s already theirs.
 
chiefjason said:
Long term not short term. They are the other two large powers. Both with real imperial intent. Both actually looking to enlarge land holdings and push the ideology by force. Sure marxist/communists in house are a big deal right now. But you were asking what the problem with breaking up the union is. The problem is other large powers in the world gaining influence, the in fighting directly among the new smaller countries, and the history of foreign countries allying with different sides to pit them against each other. All that would happen in the break up. Because it always happens. Hell, that's our current foreign policy in the middle east. To pit one faction against the other to keep them stirred up. Our current enemies would love the ability to pit us against each other to keep us weak and occupied.
Click to expand...
China has no history of imperial expansion outside its immediate sphere of influence... ever. Russia....? Maybe. However, I don't think a country with an economy smaller than that of Texas poses much of a threat.
 
I have to chuckle at the fervent and fearful scenarios of "them" all coming to invade us the minute we become weak enough to have to mind our own business. I don't see that happening at all. WE are the only real imperial power in the world today.
 
CZfool68 said:
China can’t subdue Hong Kong so they best stay over on their side of the ocean. And Putin isn’t dumb enough to pay us a visit. He’d be happy if we go all crazy and he can just mess around in Eastern Europe and the ME. And if the Canadians want to move the border south and annex Detroit and Buffalo they are welcome to it. As to the SW and Mexico, it’s already theirs.
Click to expand...

Can't subdue Hong Kong? Well, yes they could. And easily. There are reasons they are not currently doing that, but they have nothing to do with can't. In the current climate the backlash would be considerable.


tanstaafl72555 said:
I have to chuckle at the fervent and fearful scenarios of "them" all coming to invade us the minute we become weak enough to have to mind our own business. I don't see that happening at all. WE are the only real imperial power in the world today.
Click to expand...

It's only the history of the know world. The main thing that has stopped it is the somewhat equal strength of nuclear powers since shortly after WWII. Equal destruction and all that. The long peace is based on no one wanting to flinch first. And it's not so much the invasion, it's the constant meddling. They would gladly start up strife against us by using others or put their power behind a section of the former US against other sections. You know those proxy wars in the middle east? Wanna be a part of that here? Why wouldn't they start fires in what's left of the US? Hell, they have a strategy to do it already if you believe some.
 
Last edited:
chiefjason said:
Can't subdue Hong Kong? Well, yes they could. And easily. There are reasons they are not currently doing that, but they have nothing to do with can't. In the current climate the backlash would be considerable.




It's only the history of the know world. The main thing that has stopped it is the somewhat equal strength of nuclear powers since shortly after WWII. Equal destruction and all that. The long peace is based on no one wanting to flinch first. And it's not so much the invasion, it's the constant meddling. They would gladly start up strife against us by using others or put their power behind a section of the former US against other sections. You know those proxy wars in the middle east? Wanna be a part of that here? Why wouldn't they start fires in what's left of the US? Hell, they have a strategy to do it already if you believe some.
Click to expand...

So they can’t cause they won’t. The political cost would be too high. Wonder how it would go if they were shooting brown people in CA? :p
 
It’s pretty simple. The choices:
  • Continue as is and continue to slide towards communism. This isn’t likely to happen simply because history goes around the corner roughly every 100 years and we are about due.
  • Break up and create separate zones where the groups can live as they wish
  • Ignore the problem and we break up after a violent conflict that is a mess.
  • Take the fight to the communists and subdue them, subjugate them, eliminate them, or kick them out.
This nation was birthed in blood and gave rise to liberty over an opposing force that wanted to subject it to its will. We now face a similar situation. Oh, the people “voted”, so what. I’m sure the People in England and plenty of loyalists here had similar views of the colonies as the marxists and communists do now.
 
tanstaafl72555 said:
China has no history of imperial expansion outside its immediate sphere of influence... ever. Russia....? Maybe. However, I don't think a country with an economy smaller than that of Texas poses much of a threat.
Click to expand...

Russia is no threat any longer. Probably never really we're. They're on par with the the average European country and declining. They don't have the money, manpower, or military muscle to be a legitimate threat.

China, on the other hand, is growing in technology by leaps and bounds, has more bodies than they can count to throw at any situation, is more wealthy by the day, and after being kicked around by the Japanese for hundreds of years, they're more ambitious than ever. If we were to collapse into a violent civil war, I would be shocked if they didn't try to capitalize and invade the west coast...
 
chiefjason said:
And it's not so much the invasion, it's the constant meddling.
Click to expand...

sorry. I got confused. Are you talking about the constant meddling they might do or the constant meddling we now do?

Forgive me. It is sometimes hard to follow when you have a old scrambled brain like mine. I am just trying to parse out who is the threat to whom here......
 
Last edited:
bigfelipe said:
China, on the other hand, is growing in technology by leaps and bounds, has more bodies than they can count to throw at any situation, is more wealthy by the day, and after being kicked around by the Japanese for hundreds of years, they're more ambitious than ever. If we were to collapse into a violent civil war, I would be shocked if they didn't try to capitalize and invade the west coast...
Click to expand...

I definitely agree that the 21st century will be the Chinese century. I am hoping that there will be a demand for individual freedom as the country develops.
A couple of observations: China PRIMARILY thinks of itself as a "middle kingdom"... that is, not too much this way, not too much that way. They want power and respect and wealth and influence, for sure.... they just don't have much of a history of wanting to invade and subjugate territory outside their immediate sphere of influence. Never have.
This is not to say that they would not consider it for the USA, but if they did, it would be like the US wanting "buffer" states between the old USSR and states we considered vital. Punish our aggressions, put us in our place... that sort of thing. They have never had a desire to rule or extend influence in the form of military dominance.
Also, China is heading for an absolute precipitous population problem. That is right. I said it. The one child policy is shaping up for an asymptotic curve DOWNWARD starting in about 2040. This, by the way, is why western Europe, and Russia(!!!!!) are having such crazy problems. No kids means no future. You need an avg of 2.3 children per couple for STASIS in a population. Under 1.4 and you have a population crisis...., or cultural extinction. China is eating its seed corn.

The booming Chinese economy is due to one thing, and that is the relative freedom to produce and profit by a billion people. I think the taste of that will provide a stark choice for China, which will be similar to ours, frankly. Do they want to continue with a path to abundance, prosperity, with the driving engines of FREEDOM AND CHOICE or do they want to emulate Russia and communism, which was described, just before they fell, as "Upper Volta with missiles."

Just as an aside, ALL the western intelligence agencies continued to posit the USSR as a serious threat to the west, that they were just itching to pour through that Fulda gap and subjugate Europe, screaming THEY HAVE PLANS FOR IT!.... even while the whole thing was collapsing from within.

They STILL have "plans" to invade Europe (I am dead serious). We have "plans" to invade Mexico, and Russia, and China, and Africa, as well. It is what pointy headed military folks get paid to do.

Would not put much stock in that, frankly.
 
charliesgrave said:
Tell that to Georgia and Ukraine.
Click to expand...
I have to grin at that one. Ukraine, where we (under NATO) came in, PHYSICALLY REMOVED their entire gold monetary backing and shipped it off to western banks, recruited them to NATO as a vassal state, and engaged in a series of false flag ops against Russia.... and we are supposed to be aghast when Russia takes Crimea, an action that would be similar to Mexico seizing Baja California if it were claimed by the USA (historically, Crimea is Russian, NOT Ukranian. Krushchev transferred Crimea to Ukraine only in 1954). Waving the seizure of Crimea as evidence of Russian aggression is .... historically naive and uninformed, frankly.

Georgia is even worse. We (the west) SWORE to Russia that Georgia would never become NATO during the breakup of the eastern bloc. The first thing we did was to recruit them, and then stick military bases in there. This led (doh!) to Russia supporting the secession of Russian loyalists in Georgia who wanted to form their own sovereign republic in Abhazia and Ossetia. This makes perfect sense to me, as you don't want sovereign hostile military forces on your back door.

Yeah, ask Georgia and Ukraine about "Soviet expansionism"... just be sure that John Bolton and Leo Strauss aren't the only translators for ya ;).
 
You: Russia isn't interested in invading other countries, they just have "plans".
Russia: Invades other countries

They'll take what they can get if it's easy pickings.
 
charliesgrave said:
You: Russia isn't interested in invading other countries, they just have "plans".
Russia: Invades other countries

They'll take what they can get if it's easy pickings.
Click to expand...

I think the issue for them is there are fewer easy pickings these days...
 
tanstaafl72555 said:
sorry. I got confused. Are you talking about the constant meddling they might do or the constant meddling we now do?

Forgive me. It is sometimes hard to follow when you have a old scrambled brain like mine. I am just trying to parse out who is the threat to whom here......
Click to expand...

Both are relevant to the conversation.

No argument that we meddle too much in places with little to no real necessity to us currently. Particularly for me, too many boots on the ground. We have the tech to selectively take care of problems if we wanted to. In some ways, we might be seeing Trump be the first president to actually understand that. Still meddling, but lowering the scale. War and conflict evolves in funny ways, generally you really have to screw something up to learn the lesson. And it costs lots of lives and money.

If we loose strength it would invite other powers to meddle here. And it would be in their interest to do it to keep us split up and weak. And that could be outright meddling on their part, which is less likely. Supporting other closer countries to meddle here, most likely. And/or conflicting allegiances leading to outright hostility between the confederacies or proxy wars between allies.
 
charliesgrave said:
I know, it's a miracle we made it through the Obama term. Two terms actually. Turns out he wasn't the antchrist after all.
Might as well pack it in now, roll over and give up this grand experiment.
Click to expand...

It's almost over anyways.

We are on a path nationally to one-party rule by Democrats. If you want to see the outcome of that, look at California, like Newsom said to do. Now extend that nationally.

Reminds me of a line from a poem
'gainst his rule, need for freedom sure will end
 
random said:
It's almost over anyways.

We are on a path nationally to one-party rule by Democrats. If you want to see the outcome of that, look at California, like Newsom said to do. Now extend that nationally.

Reminds me of a line from a poem
'gainst his rule, need for freedom sure will end
Click to expand...

This is so weird.... I have to smile. I probably have the record for being the most dismal, dour, pessimistic and hopeless person about the state of the USA on this forum. I have gotten tons of responses ranging from sideways glances like "we think you are nuts and WAY out there" to "you just hate the country, why don't you go ahead and leave"... since I have stated more than once I think a hidey hole outside the USA would be a VERY wise pre emptive step.

Now, for the first time in a good while, I think that MAYBE there might be some semblance of a respite in the form of an IG report/Flynn verdict reversal/disruption of the corruption of the intel-pentagon-state miasma of corruption, with the attendant backwash making the country AWAKE enough to actually demand change (maybe thru article V con?), and I am the one who is the optimist! lol
Not criticizing anyone else. Just weird to be the one with some degree (however small) of hope about the political future of the continent (note that I did NOT say "the nation")
 
tanstaafl72555 said:
This is so weird.... I have to smile. I probably have the record for being the most dismal, dour, pessimistic and hopeless person about the state of the USA on this forum. I have gotten tons of responses ranging from sideways glances like "we think you are nuts and WAY out there" to "you just hate the country, why don't you go ahead and leave"... since I have stated more than once I think a hidey hole outside the USA would be a VERY wise pre emptive step.

Now, for the first time in a good while, I think that MAYBE there might be some semblance of a respite in the form of an IG report/Flynn verdict reversal/disruption of the corruption of the intel-pentagon-state miasma of corruption, with the attendant backwash making the country AWAKE enough to actually demand change (maybe thru article V con?), and I am the one who is the optimist! lol
Not criticizing anyone else. Just weird to be the one with some degree (however small) of hope about the political future of the continent (note that I did NOT say "the nation")
Click to expand...

Well, I've been pretty negative on the long-term outlook for quite some time now.

While I absolutely won't claim to be some sort of modern-day Nostradamus, I've been seeing patterns and predicting things for quite some time now. In January 2004 when I sold my house, I could tell there was something up with the market, and predicted that it would peak and crash in a few years. That's one reason we never bought again until recently.

In early 2008 before primaries I saw not only Obama winning, but the (obvious) 2010 election results and the second term. I also predicted a major mass shooting, probably at a school, right after the 2012 election. (I was actually quite sad the Mayans lost that year). I was off on the amount of gun control measures that would go through as a result, thankfully.

Around the same time I told my wife that things were going to get <i>really</i> nasty on the political landscape, to where violence would be normalized. I figured 20-30 years out. What I didn't see was Trump and the reaction to him, which seems to have sped up the timeline.

We moved where we are to ensure we were not caught up in the middle of any of that, because I've thought for a long time that I would live to see the end of the United States. I just figured I would be much older when it happened.

I'm down because, so far, I've been mostly right. Maybe something will change, but I don't have much reason to expect it at this point. So far, the people of this nation have not disappointed me in their capacity for ignorance, stupidity, and hate.

I'm the pessimist at work, too. Happy to take that burden from you here :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom