I recently encountered a report of a girl bounced from a graduate psychology program because she refused to accept the claim that homosexual proclivities were normal. She apparently is not the first to be so treated. This sounds like censorship to me. Also, it was not so long ago that I heard that pressure had been put on a number of collegiate researchers who were still claiming that global warming was not proved. As my cousin put it, if they have to threaten to cut your funding and oust you from your position to get you to support a supposedly scientific conclusion, there must be something wrong with their science. It doesn’t matter, though, whether the position is scientifically valid, as long as there are no scientists willing to risk the statement that it is not.

From W09: “Until the 80′s, it was always the Dems that were dragging us into other peoples fights.”

I am old enough to remember some of that. I think part of the problem back then was that there was enough anti-soviet anti-communist feeling in the country to support McCarthy-esque socialist witch hunts, and so the liberals in our country had to communicate a clear opposition to the extremes of their position. That truncated the liberal end of the Democratic party, because they had to purge the socialists from their network. It also created a situation in which if there was evidence of socialist/communist aggression somewhere in the world, a solid conservative such as Eisenhower could ignore it, but a liberal like Kennedy would have to take steps to assure the moderates that he was not sympathetic to the socialist/communist agenda. One newscaster in the early eighties noted that it was easier for a chief executive to advance policies consistent with his opposition–his own party would support him because it was essential to party unity, and the opposition would see him leading where they wanted to go anyway. For a Democrat to take the country into armed conflict against socialist insurgents strengthens his support with the moderates and gives him a strong base–all the Republicans supporting the fight against communism, the Democrats following their President’s leadership. Were a Republican to lead in the same direction, the Democrats would balk and make him look like an ineffectual leader.

Politics. Can’t live with it, can’t end it.

From W09: “It boils down to the fact that we want guns and the ability to smoke weed.”

See, that’s funny to me. I see the effort to decriminalize marijuana as a liberal party position, and as a conservative I am against it. It is one of the issues that pushes me toward the conservative candidates.

From Eric: “As pointed out, this is a center-right country”

I think that current election results do not really demonstrate what you claim. Things are still bad and not improving. It can be argued quite reasonably that Obama won in part because things were getting worse and voters wanted to oust the Republicans who were then perceived as being in charge. Now the Democrats are perceived as being in charge, and voters are still unhappy and want to change the leadership by ousting the Democrats–although Republican incumbents are also facing severe challenges. A lot of the mail I see wants to toss out every incumbent who is up for re-election regardless of party affiliation, voting record, or stated positions. That that means more Democrats than Republicans makes it appear as if it were a right-wing rejection of left-wing positions, but it’s really more a referendum on present conditions and the failure of the present government to fix quickly problems that might not be reparable at all.

–M. J. Young

The modern day conservative can be seen as the descendant of the classical liberal, as basically a classical liberal, as one of the Founders with an Ipod. The Libertarian is a radical cousin descendant of the classical liberal who only understands part of his ancestor’s wisdom.

By this reading of history, both sides in the Civil War had much to blame. Neither side really defended true classical liberalism.

The Tories, Southern Fireeater Dems, Copperhead Dems, FDR Dems, Nazi Symps and Commie Fellow Travellers, and Modern Day Progs are all varieties of aristrocrats and good peasants. Its why HP Lovecraft was able to switch from Aristocrat supporting to Socialist supporting. They’re basically the same thing.

As to the Mid-East in the wake of a US collapse, let me reccommend John Ringo’s The Last Centurion. Its an optimistic response as a hero deals with issues with a column of tanks and APC behind him.

1. US Military experience is NOT proportional across Red/Blue population. Very, very few of the Elite Blue have any military service at all. Most of the Military is Red. This supposition by my first corresponder depends on the notion that Blue area ex-military are really Blue. Highly doubtful.

2. The conservatives would start to lose again…..supposedly. This is more problematic. In the First American Civil War, the defenders of the Agrarian Way were the the group that supported usage of humans as property were the Democrats. The Democrats still support the usage of humans as property, just different humans. A fetus is chattel property for a mother is their arguement which is remarkably similiar to the Dem arguement for slavery….a chair has no right to flee its owner.

We know that the R Party did not support it as the First R Party President was Lincoln.

So the question is, does the Copperheads, the Northern Dems who fought Lincoln, and the Southern Dems who fought against the Union represent the true nature of the Dem party, or does the fact that both resistances to coastal ambitions arose from the South represent some dark conservatism in the South’s heart? In other words, who do we blame? The South or the Democrats?

Once you realize that many of the Highlanders in the South did not own slaves, and in fact, had never seen one, it becomes clearer.

Although, I’m usually willing to ladle out blame widely as humans are deserving of it, even ‘good’ ones. But from my ‘Go Red!’ perspective, and my Highland house, and my Conservative politics, I’d like to say the Dems are more to blame.

3. As predicted Spectre is toast. Crist in Fl is getting real toasty. Scott Brown won in Taxachusetts. Gov. Chris Christie is a moderate R, but he won in NJ. As pointed out, this is a center-right country…perhaps not as much as my county where 2 of 3 votes went for Sarah Palin and That Other Guy in 2008, but that’s not center right. That’s further over to the right. I realize I’m a bit fringey, but I’m not center-right either, I’m fairly hardcore right.

4. WO9, I saw a couple people talking about Partition the other day. I ought to write a Partition Red v. Blue world.

One of my World A Week articles was based on the suggestion of the formation of Yukonia. One writer contended that Yukonia (Oregon, Washington, Yukon Territory, and Alaska) was underdeveloped and not properly targetted by its gov’ts for development, and that with a new gov’t it would recieve a flood of investment. Possibly.

Its certainly true that Alaska could produce a whole lot more oil if city folk from the East weren’t messing with what they did not understand.

But when Washington DC called out for help from NATO, about the only ones to help would be Britain. 1. Most of NATO doesn’t want to strain itself. 2. Most of NATO doesn’t have the muscle. One comparison of Free World militaries was the US elephant, the British donkey, and a long line of ants for the rest. Send a bunch of French troopers into Tennessee and the French would either hole up in a safe area, or melt like a cup of ice tossed in a very large campfire. It would be hunting season with no bag limit.

I like most of your above post.

Perhaps Columbia would stabilize as they drove out the drug kingpins who no longer would have a steady flow of US cash to support them. This might cause problems with the neighbors.

Hat tip to Casey Research for directing me to this article. I can’t find a flaw in his case. Maybe the Rah Rah America crowd can.

Monday, August 16, 2010

10 Signs The U.S. is Becoming a Third World Country

Activist Post

The United States by every measure is hanging on by a thread to its First World status. Saddled by debt, engaged in wars on multiple fronts with a rising police state at home, declining economic productivity, and wild currency fluctuations all threaten America’s future.

The general designations of the ranking system for world status date back to the 1950s, and have included countries at various stages of economic development. Since the Cold War, the definition has come to be synonymous with repressive countries where a wealthy class of ruling elites segment society into the haves and have-nots, many times capitalizing on the conditions that follow an economic crisis or war.

While much of the world is still mired in poverty, the reduced cost of innovative tools such as computing and connectivity ironically puts traditional Third World countries at the forefront of a new lean-and-mean economy that is based on ideas of empowerment for the disenfranchised. For better or worse, the world is leveling due to Globalism. However, America and other over-leveraged countries face this re-balancing of the globe at a time when they have dwindling resources. We can speculate about who and what is to blame for America’s fantastic fall, but for the purposes of this article we shall focus on the obvious signs that the United States is beginning to resemble a Third World country.

30,000 Section 8 wait for 455 vouchers

1. Rising unemployment and poverty: Unemployment numbers, food stamps, and home foreclosures continue to reach new record highs. The ugly reality of those numbers was recently on display when 30,000 people showed up to apply for public housing in East Point, GA for 455 available vouchers. Fights broke out, people were fainting from the heat while in line, and riot police showed up to handle the angry poor.

2. Economic dependence: The United States finished 2009 with a debt-to-GDP ratio of 85%, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The current trend projects the United States to finish 2010 at 94% and 2011 at 98%. The 90% level has become the IMF’s make-or-break point for countries hoping to grow their way out of debt. If the government debt load climbs above 90% of GDP, economic growth slows so much that growth is no longer a viable solution for reducing that debt, and the IMF insists on austerity measures. Surpassing this debt threshold has also caused China’s lead credit rating agency to cut America’s credit rating.

3. Declining civil rights: Everyday freedoms are often a casualty of a society in collapse. As the anger of the populace mounts in response to declining economic conditions and political corruption, the government counters by increasing draconian measures that restrict the political rights and civil liberties of its citizens.

America is becoming a country like China, which has one of the lowest scores according to Freedom House. In America, private discussions and movements are monitored, free speech is corralled, the freedom to assemble for protest is by government decree, and independent thought that questions the political system is increasingly looked upon with suspicion. A final indicator is when the government insists upon secrecy for its own actions, while new laws and systems are created to put the individual under nearly constant surveillance.

4. Increasing political corruption: When political corruption becomes the accepted norm, as opposed to the exception, then there’s a good bet your country resembles the Third World. Congress and all major institutions face a growing crisis in confidence, where a record-low 11% of the population believe Congress is doing a good job. It now seems obvious to all observers that big corporations directly control the agenda in Washington — much like typically corrupt Third World countries.

5. Military patrolling the streets: The rise of a militarized police state is a hallmark of most Third World countries, particularly in times of rapid economic collapse. America’s declaration of the War on Terror has created a constant threat to National Security that has allowed for the military to be deployed on American soil. Building upon the War on Drugs, this has created a fusion between the military and local police, where military-grade weapons and tactics are being used against American citizens in a cascade of violent confrontations over non-violent offenses. Military checkpoints are moving farther inland, away from meaningful border control functions, and a full-blown military presence in American cities has been planned by the U.S. Army War College.

6. Failing infrastructure: As 46 of 50 states are on the verge of bankruptcy, cities are going dark, asphalt roads are returning to the stone age, and nationwide budget cuts are leaving students without teachers, supplies, or a full-time education. These are common features one will see as they travel through the poorest of Third World countries.

7. Disappearing middle class: During the last presidential debate season, they argued that a family income of $250K was solidly middle-class. Well, Census data shows less than 15% of families make over $100K, and only 1.5% of families make over $250K. The income gap between the rich and poor has increased at a staggering pace, while many more middle-class folks join the ranks of the poor every day. Cavernous income gaps may be what Third-World nations are best known for.

U.S. Dollar Monetary Base

8. Devalued currency: The value of the Federal Reserve Note (U.S. dollar) has declined 96% since the inception of the Federal Reserve in 1913. The value of the dollar is based on its supply in circulation and, to a lesser extent, the demand for those dollars. For the last three years, the money supply has spiked literally off the charts. It can be argued that the dollar has become America’s top export as the world’s reserve currency, and if the volatile dollar is scrapped, which the U.N. and IMF now suggest, then demand will plummet, killing the currency.

9. Controlling the media: A government-influenced media that censors information is a key component of Third World countries. In some countries it is openly owned by the State. In America, privately-owned major media is not as balanced or as diverse as it seems; the concentration of ownership has led to censorship when national and corporate interests have sometimes overlapped. The persecution of high-profile investigative journalists such as WikiLeaks is set amid a backdrop of the proposed Internet censorship of bloggers who wish to remain anonymous. The end of net neutrality creates a pay-to-play system that can lead to further corporate and government control of information and opinion. Cybersecurity initiatives are the final nail in the coffin, as the entire free flow of information can be vetted in a China-style system of “identity management.” On the street, the police state and media control have converged in the recent rise of arrests for those who videotape the police. This is a huge blow to First Amendment rights and the role of photojournalists who wish to document public police behavior.

10. Capital Controls: Many nations have enforced capital controls as their economies collapse. It most recently happened in Argentina and Venezuela as they sought to keep the remaining wealth within their borders. The SEC already has adopted policies to allow money market funds to suspend withdrawals during a financial crisis, while the recent HIRE bill (HR 2487) puts restrictions on Americans moving capital to foreign countries. Some economists suggest that the national debt has gotten so high that the government must now force investment of private capital into U.S. Treasury debt.

Key economic indicators point to a situation potentially worse than the Great Depression. The land of opportunity for so many is devolving into a system of government corruption, corporate looting, and military rule that threatens to sink the American Dream. The capital flight from America has left a dwindling middle class holding an empty bag. This style of underinvestment in the foundation of society is similar to what already has led to the exodus from the rural Midwest. Now, there are ominous signs of a silent exodus of young, intelligent professionals seeking opportunities to realize their dreams outside of America; they are becoming known as Generation Xpat. Lastly, many skilled immigrants have returned to their home countries to seek a better quality of life, which might be the scariest indicator of all.

link:http://theburningplatform.com/blog/2010/08/18/10-signs-the-us-is-becoming-a-3rd-world-country/

Washington’s response would be violent, and as a result everything would go to hell within a 6-month or less period.Radical criminal,and racist groups would take the opportunity to try and achieve their goals,underneath a wider conflict of citizen-secessionists vs. citizen-loyalists. Also worth noting is, due to a traitorous security agreement with NATO and U.S. client states, such a situation would guarantee the current government trying to survive by declaring Martial Law and having NATO, the U.N., and PMC’s fight to prop it up, in addition to the 1200 or so intelligence agencies, the anti-drug soldiers, DHS, and others.

You probably realized I left a critical factor out: the U.S. military. I feel that the U.S. military will become like the Afghan army for foreign troops:it will pretend to do its job, mainly acting as a mediocre referee, during the day. During the night, those same soldiers will attack disguised as insurgents. There would also be some unfortunate friendly fire incidents with air strikes, artillery, etc. Of course, there is also the possibility of open warfare between the foreigners and our military, but I’m not sure it would happen that openly when guerrilla tactics are much more cost effective. Elements of the military that are members of gangs or racial/radical groups will undoubtedly “disappear” or go “M.I.A.” to join up with their organization. After the sucessful secession, the various military units from the different branches would probably become part of the different coalitions of states.

I purposefully left out China and Russia from the equation. Why? Because I think they would probably sell weapons to the different factions to make a killing in profits, as they have previously done in Africa, South America, the Middle East, and the Balkans. Depending on Alaska’s governor, Alaska might willingly join Russia, become and independent oil-based country, or be forcibly invaded by Russia. China is a bit of a wild card, because they hold our debt. On the one hand, supporting the rebels and their new governments would increase China’s trade influence and result in a very slow repayment of debt through commerce, but the debts would be paid. On the other hand, the current government is only going to screw the Chinese over more and more in the coming years.

The third choice for China (also a choice for Russia) would be to simply send agents over, find rebels and govt. officials with access to certain key pieces of military hardware (F-22 avionics, anyone?) and bribe them to sell them to China, the reasoning for the govt. being that such exchanges are payment for the debt. In the case of rebels, it would probably be a trade off for weapons systems from China, perhaps such things as a hand-held Sunburn missile for anti-air use, or some of China’s newer rifles and machine guns. I think it would be naive to doubt that the Chinese (and Russians) wouldn’t want to test their weapons systems through proxy, but there is just as much for them to gain by trade offs, bribes, weapons sales, and diplomacy as there is by them using brute force, so these nations’ role in our second civil war is unpredictable to say the least.

I will briefly diverge and state that as a result of this Balkans in the New World, Europe and other parts of the world in general will erupt into warfare without an ovebearing U.S. govt. watching what they’re doing. Current U.S. wars in the Middle East would probably be aborted to deal with the conflagaration and home, so Iraq and Afghanistan would be left to whoever wanted to gain access to minerals and oil and has the forces to do it. China and Iran come to mind. States like Saudi Arabia would either go to war with neighbors or be overthrown and replaced. Wars between Russia and its neighbors would probably occur, as well as old west European rivalries. Africa would remain the same, South America would probably have some conflicts(mostly ones already occuring, like Colombia), but not many.

Mexico would turn officially into a feudal narco-state, expanding to California and possibly parts of the other border states. Canada would either sit it out or send peacekeepers in and then quickly withdraw them once they realized that the U.S. has/had become another Iraq or Bosnia.They would also have issues with refugees and guerrilla sanctuaries in some of the bigger wide open spaces on their border.

While the results of any war are unknowable ahead of time, it is likely that the foreign troops would be forced to leave after being driven themselves to debt levels approaching the U.S. government’s, along with unacceptable casualty levels. The mercenary organizations would remain as long as it didn’t look like they would be wiped out. If the government remained, but was too weak to prevent secession from occuring, they would probably become the new army of the “U.S.”, which I quote because in all likelihood by then the U.S. will consist of D.C., parts of Northern Virginia, parts of Maryland, and maybe New York state and the tri-state area. If D.C. was overrun by violence itself, they would probably relocate to Canada or some other country and take that last check from D.C. while telling them to screw themselves, and any nominal thing calling itself the “U.S.” would probably cease to exist.

California, being the third world basket case that it already is, would have the southern half become part of Mexico and the northern half would probably join Washington and some nearby states, possibly becoming a tech-based or “Apple/iPod” country or coalition. Florida’s southern half would become Cuban/South American influenced (if not directly annexed), while the northern half would join some southern coalition. The northeast states closest to Canada would probably form a separate country or coalition, as would most of the south. Racial groups and gangs would fight each other, but eventually die out a few years after the wars of secession end. States with nukes would become regional powers, and would also probably become models of the use of nuclear energy for civilian purposes. I will say I don’t think nukes would be used for political reasons, loss of government control, and the factor of too many participants being in close proximity to each other (urban warfare). Hard to say how the different states other than the border ones would arrange themselves afterward though.

Look up and read some of the things people like Thomas Chittum and Matthew Bracken have written, as well as various other sites such as the Burning Platform and the EU Times, and you will understand why I have decided a peaceful resolution is unlikely at best. It is regrettable, but my personal opinion as an American citizen is that the U.S. will have a Yugoslavia style breakup due to issues related to multi-ethnicity, economics, high gun ownership, and creeping government power grabs.

If you want advice on how to prepare, checkout youtube or the net.Some people to lookup are MrLockandload and Nutnfancy, among others. If you don’t think the scenario I outlined is likely, please explain why, but I suggest you read some of what Thomas Chittum and Matthew Bracken have said before criticizing. I will end this post by noting that a anonymous person from the oil industry said recently at the london times or some other website that in an investment forecasting program for the next 50 years or so, no matter what they did, civil war erupted in the U.S. within a 25 year period from now (2010) to 2035. This could be avoided if the government would listen to us, but I think we’re past the point of no return.

“Alisha posted a comment which for some reason is not showing up, but I received an email on it.

Mea culpa. I get lists of new posts with the first few words, the poster’s name, and the name of the article to which they were attached, and somehow I thought Alisha’s was Spam (mistook her for a bot looking to post pseudo-relevant stuff so that the link on her user name would increase traffic to some site). It did not occur to me that it really was a relevant post. (I’m not entirely convinced even now that she’s a real poster, but since you’ve responded I’ll take it that the subject is relevant and give her the benefit of the doubt.)

My apologies to both of you.

–M. J. Young, Moderator

….Did GM deserve the bailout? You ask me, I would say NO…..why? When Honda and Toyota were out inventing new cars, GM was busy boasting about its pride, and showing off its hungry hungry daughter the Hummer…..

Point by point. No GM did not deserve the bailout. However, at the costs of billions of Taxpayer money, Obama now owns a car company, and he’s paid off his political allies the Unions. My rejection of the bailout is more broad than Alisha. I’m opposed to bailouts in all but national security desperation. GM doesn’t qualify even if they were not proud and arrogant.

Of course, pride and arrogance of the unworthy is extremely galling. It also has the problem that it creates false guides. We look to the successful for advice on how to succeed. GM was apparent succeeding, and it may do so in a few years again (but its not True Success. Its success bought with Taxpayer money.) And worse, this rewarding of bad behavior encourages more bad behavior. Will GM reform now that they have been given billions for being bad?

The Hummer is where I disagree with Alisha. I can’t afford one. They probably wouldn’t even let me breath on one. I don’t object much to superyachts, or to Lear Jets. If Al Gore wants to fly in his private 727 or whatever, I cannot object except where it contradicts his stated belief that the world is about to die because of overdoses of carbon dioxide.

Perhaps I should scribble up a world where the Anointed Rich fly about in Lear Jets, and the Poor struggle with rickshaws while a few heroic inventors try to build Solar Power Satellites in orbit and Nuke Power Plants on the earth so thate everyone can have cheap electricity rather than just the Beautiful People. It’d be a religious tyranny, with extreme factions of the religion of Gaia engaging in human sacrifice.

Neocons. We face a nexus of WMD and rogue states. WMD are getting easier and easier to make. The future holds nuts in their basements making fusion bombs. We’re not there yet.

We also have a resurgence of barbarism worldwide. I suspect that China is ultimately behind much of it which I deal with in my upcoming book–Anoniblogger.

As nukes and other WMD proliferate it becomes easier to ‘lose’ a nuke to a terrorist group which would provide deniability and then send the nuke in aboard a tramp freighter or in a cannister. Boom. Buh-bye one American city.

How many cities are we going to lose before we decide to just vape the whole Mid-east? Three?

Thats one endstate. Canned Sunshine. Nuclear genocide. I don’t like that one.

Another endstate is we surrender to the terrorists. Dhimmitude. I get beaten and my granddaughters get kidnapped because I’m a Christian. I don’t like that one either. (And I don’t have grandchildren yet, my tykes are quite young.)

One endstate is putting up borders with robotic machine guns….Fortress America. Problem is, the Maginot Line didn’t work that well. I think this would turn into Option One over a decade or two.

The last option is that we try to reform them. Its not a great option mind you. But its better than genocide or slavery.