The following is an excerpt from the above linked-to article by :
==== === == =
Of course, it is only sane to want a peaceful co-existence in a world where any war between the super powers would almost assuredly escalate to a nuclear shootout, but China is actually leading the way out, by 3 times offering for the US, and ‘relevant countries’ to join the New Silk Road via the Bering Strait, as part of a new paradigm where development is put first, where instead of the “Clash of Civilizations” where it is ‘each against all’ fighting over control of a dwindling resource base, you can instead have a community of sovereign nations, voluntarily engaging in win/win agreements building “towards the common aims of mankind” and in the Westphalian spirit of “the benefit of the other”
= == === ====
I tossed in a few (3) comments in the discussion attached to this article. Two were in response to other posters. The second comment was in response to Eric Blair. And the third comment was in response to Anna Zimmerman. My comments:
Building dams is damn problematic.
You make a lot of good points. I have been learning in recent months, perhaps years (I lose my sense of time), that even as someone who pays attention and has sensitive bullcrap sensors, I’m still amazed by how much crap I probably have floating around in my brain, put there by our ‘benefactors’ in power and their tools.
There’s a few things I would point out though. I’m turned off by counter arguments from the real Left that are completely one-sided. True, there’s often the obligatory (for people like me who make arguments like this) ‘China’ (or your US-targetted country of choice) ‘is not perfect, but…’ Instead of a ‘but’, I’d like to see an actual, factual, balanced report.
And bravado, which wasn’t terribly in evidence in your post, but often is in articles and commentary like this, is a bad idea. Never, never mislead the people. It isn’t good for them and it will only hurt your rep in the long run. A high regard for simple, as opposed to worldly, honesty will ensure that the progressive’s reportage will be the best that it can be. In my opinion.
Not only that, I don’t see how states that want to go their own way, and not be under the global dictatorship of the United States, can do so when the entire world is caught in the global capitalist system designed by the US and dominated by it. It is important to note the way the US dominates. It’s by rule-breaking. We should know this by now. But not only do those leaders (Saddam, Gaddaffi, Moddadegh, Assad, Chavez and Maduro for example) who want independence from uncle Sam’s “leadership” still want to play by his rules, by employing ‘his’ money system, but they act as though they are in a parallel universe, where there’s an honorable uncle Sam, where they can win if they play their cards right. There is only this universe, with a lawless, vicious American superpower in it, and you can NOT win when that superpower, who is the biggest, baddest player, is ready, willing and able to break the rules the minute its deep state thinks its class might lose if its agents don’t break those rules! Iran is under sanctions – that should not be legal, which is another way of saying that they are lawless. Russia is under sanctions and the devious Magnitsky Act. Syria is under sanctions. The sanctions that killed half a million Iraqi children were stamped “legal” – by the lawless, bloodspilling, Constitution-breaking United States.
That’s bad enough. But you can’t even opt out of the money system. Uncle Sam won’t let anyone have freedom from his dictatorship. That being the case, How can anyone truly have independence in this dark world? Not that anyone is trying to – while they pretend that they can. To my mind, a genuine effort would involve not just getting out of uncle Sam’s money system, but getting out of money altogether!
Also, There’s things I don’t get. Socialism (by which I mean worker ownership ‘and’ independence from the global dictatorship of the US and all imperialism) isn’t divorced from money, as far as I know. (When I ask about it, I never get an answer. One time, I got another question, as an answer, from someone on ZNet, which I just ignored, partly because I didn’t really understand the question.) Personally, I don’t believe for a minute that if a large part of humankind, say for example the 400 million strong Arab bloc (that isn’t one but could have been), succeeded in keeping uncle Sam out and using its natural resources to benefit all Arabs, firstly, and managed to run its own economy and have control over its monetary policy etc, it would end up benevolent or different than its competitors. (What Stephen Gowans’s book, “Washington’s Long War On Syria,” shows me is not that the realization of the secular, national Arab leaders’ [who Washington is one by one disappearing] goal of being part of a powerful Arab bloc in the same league as the other blocs means salvation for humankind, but only fairness and a welcome absence of the destruction of regime change that we see now; but not freedom from the imperfection that leads people to self-modify into monsters who oppress and exploit others.) That Arabs have been victims of rampaging lawless imperial powers and others doesn’t change their fundamental, imperfect, character as human beings. (What do you call imposing a dress code on every single female in the country?)
Those are still imperfect human beings. And they are, in fact, too without God (even if they are as decent as imperfect humans can be) and are therefore lacking his blessing (as is the rest of the world), without which success can’t be achieved. (As the Christian Bible notes, at Pslam 127:1, “Unless Jehovah builds the house, it is in vain that the workers have worked hard on it.”) Reasonable, rational Arab nationalists (‘nationalist’ being a difficult term because there’s so many bad examples of “nationalism”), who were free to run their own affairs, could not, on their own, ensure that they would not end up imitating the lawless, violent imperial powers. Maybe not immediately. Nevertheless. Just by having a money system, they are doomed, in my view. Let alone the reality, as far as I am aware, that no leader or state that contemplates or contemplated socialism (all of the Arab leaders I listed above) envisioned cutting itself off from the wider world. Trade means integration into the global money system. And you are right back to the problem of lawless, vicious uncle Sam. And if it wasn’t him, it would just be another godless state – while this dark world is with us.
Eric might have benifitted from being directed to William Engdahl’s new book about nefarious NGOs. The problem is that it’s not in English yet. I very, very much would like to read it but cannot read German.
And here’s the real issue facing humankind at this time, whether individuals know it or not and whether they acknowledge it or not. We must all – and those who can, will – respond to the Issue Of Universal Sovereignty, whether or not some think I’m not sophisticated enough to have this right.