Olduvaiblog: Musings on the coming collapse

Home » Economic » It’s Not “If;” It’s “When” – International Man

It’s Not “If;” It’s “When” – International Man


It’s Not “If;” It’s “When” – International Man.

By Jeff Thomas

Cicero had it right when he described the Sword of Damocles.

To be the leader of a country is like having a sword constantly dangling over your head from a single horse hair. You never know if or when the sword is going to cause your demise, but you know that the danger is ever-present.

That is just as true today as it was in Cicero’s time, but the modern-day Sword of Damocles hangs over the heads of not just the world’s leaders. It hangs over the heads of the populations as well.

If we rely on the conventional media for our interpretation of world economic and political conditions, we may well be scratching our heads continuously as to what needs to be done to “save” the situation.

Whether the discussion is over the debts of nations, the likelihood of war, or the increase in the loss of rights, the governments of much of the world are heading in a similar direction.

And that direction is not a positive one.

However, the pundits in the media offer a wide variety of solutions for the problems being discussed.

The solution to national debt is either to expand monetisation or to back off on it, depending upon who is speaking at the moment. Whether debt monetisation is the right thing to do in the first place is rarely discussed.

The solution to the Middle East problem is either to arm the rebels or send in the military.

The solution to domestic terrorism is either to build up the power of the various authorities, or to pass more dramatic laws restricting basic freedoms.

And so, we are to be forgiven if we imagine that the solution to such problems lies in whether we choose one destructive approach or another.

Truth be told, the most difficult assessment for us to make is that we should sit very far back from the rhetoric and ask ourselves, “Is a solution even possible at this point, or have the powers-that–be gone past the point of no return?”

Here’s why the problems won’t be solved:

As regards the debt of the most prominent countries of the world, the point of no return has certainly been reached by most.

Historically, once the present level of debt has been reached, no amount of monetisation will save the economy. It may be possible to give the addict yet another injection of heroin to stave off the immediate withdrawal symptoms, but at some point, it becomes necessary to go cold turkey.

It may be a very painful thing to do, but it truly is the only solution. A country cannot reach solvency through increased debt.

However, political leaders are loath to go cold turkey. To do so is to cut the horse hair that holds the sword hanging above their careers. Better to push the situation further into ruin, if it can buy a little more time.

As regards the rapid deterioration into police states that is occurring in so many countries, no amount of discussion by the pundits in the media will reverse the present destruction of basic rights. After all, the decision is not in their hands. It is in the hands of congresses, parliaments, presidents, and prime ministers.

They know that, very soon, the façade of “economic recovery” will come tumbling down, and they have no intention of allowing the populace to have the basic freedom of removing them from power, once the veil has been removed from the lie that a solution is in the works.

Political leaders, whose hold over power is in danger, will always do whatever is necessary to retain that power.

As regards warfare, it is interesting that none of the pundits who discuss the subject in the media ever raise the question, “How can a country that is facing bankruptcy possibly fund a war—traditionally the most expensive undertaking for any country in any era?”

Yet, throughout history, political leaders have often used warfare as a distraction when a government has reached the tipping point economically. As Hermann Goering said,

“The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

The disconnect here seems to be that the populace seems to believe that the governments of the West sincerely hope to avoid war, so the discussion in the media revolves around what can be done to that end.

However, far from seeking peace, the governments of the day consciously seek to create war. After all, a populace that is otherwise unhappy with its government tends to toe the line if the country is at war. Further, the government has a greater ability to silence domestic detractors in time of war.

Thus, the ability to hold power is assured. A state of war is the single most effective tool in silencing dissent in any country.

In considering all of the above, not only as a present-day anomaly, but as a recurrent theme throughout history, any discussion of “if” there will be an economic collapse, “if” there will be an increase in the loss of basic freedoms, “if” there will be a ramping up of warfare, becomes a non-starter. It is a question of “when.”

Of course, in spite of this, there will be those individuals who will say, “I like to be positive. I’m going to hope for the best.”

But, in truth, this is not positive thinking at all. If we see the truth before our eyes and then cover our eyes in order to be positive, we are merely delving into self-deception.

Positive thinking begins with truth. Once we accept what is true, we may then be as positive or as negative as we wish regarding what that truth means to us.

If we are faced with the fact that much of the world is, once again, passing through the classic cycle of economic decline / removal of rights / distraction of war, we can either shut our eyes to that fact and hope for the best, or we can open our eyes and recognise that the one choice left to us is to try to step aside of coming events.

As Benjamin Ola Akande wrote, “Hope is not a strategy.”

If we recognise that the sword of Damocles is indeed hovering above our own heads, we would be unwise to continue to sit below it and ponder whether the horse hair may break.

Instead, we should understand that our very first move should be to put some physical distance between ourselves and the potential harm that unquestionably hangs over us.

Editor’s Note: When you are dealing with a desperate government, it is always better to be proactive than reactive. Internationalization is your ultimate insurance policy. You can find specific guidance from Casey Research on this critically important topic—so that you can take action before it’s too late—by clicking here.

 


5 Comments

  1. I have a problem with someone looking at the world drawing conclusions and making predictions. Purely because it’s just too vast with too many variables, different cultures, religions, and politics. What is a disaster waiting to happen in one country is S.O.P. to another. Probably why the smaller emerging nations are running rings round the “old guard” and they haven’t got a clue what to do about it. Someone taking a Western viewpoint on Eastern business practices or visa-versa is going to be generalist at best.

    I can sort of understand where this guy is coming from but to my unlearned eye he stands more of a chance of predicting the second coming than making vague “not if but when” statements..

    • I agree and disagree with you. I agree that it is mere fanciful storytelling when one predicts what the future will hold. Similar to meteorological forecasting, the impact of the all the variables (not to mention feedback loops) as one goes further away in time makes the prediction more difficult (and less likely). A pertinent example was our local forecast this past few days. Up until today the forecast was for 25+ centimetres of snow on the weekend. Today it is calling for rain rather than snow, and tomorrow it will likely be different once again. However, like the one particular snowflake that sets off an avalanche, we know an avalanche will occur but we just don’t know when. I believe that economic collapse will occur at some point (history certainly suggests so) but when it will occur is anyone’s guess. It could be set off by something globally significant (e.g. Japan-China military conflict) or something that appears non-significant in the grand scheme of things (e.g. Spanish bank failure). The snow is falling, the drifts are accumulating, and the wind is picking up; an avalanche is coming but we just don’t know when.
      If you haven’t watched the documentary Collapse with Michael Ruppert, I would suggest watching it. He makes some bold (and very disturbing) predictions that seem to be getting closer and closer to reality.

  2. Interesting stuff BUT it sort of proves my point.
    It’s too easy to play the prediction card yet we personally changed from listening to opinion (if not fantasy) to fact.

    The EU is going under, all the experts say so, BUT despite riots in every major city, the rise of extreme nationalism, hunger, and ruin, nothing changes AND IT WON’T yet.
    Why? It’s simple, big business or the New World Order B.S. won’t let it because they will lose too much money.

    They are waiting as the new world leader isn’t quite in place yet and until they are it’s same shit, different day.

    Ultimately big business will decide who is going to win and become the World Number one.
    Personally I’m thinking it’s China’s turn with Russia picking up the spare YET that’s another prediction.

    Will it mean the end of Western capitalism? No way. It’s just a change of bank note as always. Will that affect John and Joan Doe? After the first couple of months or so, no. Governments can’t afford to let it destroy them so they will adapt.

    • I think you’re correct that the-powers-that-be will attempt to put your basic plan in place (i.e. New World Order government), perhaps even using some type of global ‘crisis’ to manufacture consent. I also believe that the world is too complex for them to be able to imagine every reaction and nuance to their plans and thus prevent unintended consequences, to say nothing of black swans.

      The other card in all this is the resource depletion issue, especially oil. I’m partial to the Peak Oil group that predicts a vastly different world in terms of economic (and, therefore, geopolitical) relationships. Globalisation as currently contrived cannot continue for much longer nor exist in a post-carbon world. We have no viable substitution for oil and that will definitely impact global transportation and as a result trade.

      You can’t say we don’t live in interesting times…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 313 other followers

  • 70,128

Top Clicks

  • None

Archives