What
can be done to make imperialism and Britain great again? Commercially looting
and sacking Russian natural resources might be a place to start. The world has
run out of easy continents to loot and sack, so apparently Russia is about the
only place with a plausible possibility. Margaret Thatcher helped end a cold war; Theresa May fuels getting it restarted.
Is Britain up to the task? If only Winston
Churchill were still around to stand up to the bully. Fortunately British
leadership again may draw upon the U.S.A. as the enforcer of its stranglehold on
the Russians. When two Russians were poisoned by nerve agent in England
recently, and Britain, who invented the nerve agent GB positively identified
the poison as nerve agent, the west fell in line behind Britain in containing
Russian so the looting and sacking might become closer to fruition. The phrase
‘win one for the Footsie’ took hold.
American foreign policy makers should have
quality strategic goals rather than reactionary donkey replies in
Stimulus-Response (SR) mode to any phenomenal political event or false flag
operation abroad designed to manipulate gullible or disingenuous U.S. political
leaders. Making Russia and China solid friends and moderate defense associates
ought to be strategic goals of U.S. foreign policy. That would enable better
global allocation of finite government resources from defense spending to
ecospheric recovery and removal of vestigial elite, aristocratic crimes upon
the poor. The nation’s political leadership has squarely
bungled the peace dividend that should have followed the end of the cold war
and transition of the Soviet Union to a market economy. There really isn’t any
excuse for that, and it has harmed American economic national interests.
It would be wrong to give credit
to U.S. Government leadership for political wisdom when it is perennially
lacking. Stages in evolving national history occur; now’ists have symbiotically
upsurged into being dialectically concentrated corruption with two corrupt
parties conjugating as one under judicial oversight pissin on principles of the
founders. Corporatism has ended democracy.
The cost of failing to develop a mutually
prosperous and secure military relationship with Russia after the cold war is
high for each respective nation. The United States had all of the advantages at
Cold War’s end and should have been the dance leader in a dialectical
reformation of capitalism for Russia as it related to the U.S.A. The U.S.
instead choose to develop an antagonistic relationship because it could so long
is it could find opportunities to dispute with Russian President Vladimir
Putin. American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War seemed to require
perennial military conflict in some form in order to keep the Defense budget as
high as at Cold War levels.
If one considers the real
military situation of the U.S.A. today it can be difficult to find large scale
enemies or enemy relationships that could not be fairly readily transformed
into non-belligerent conditions. Fundamentally China and Russia are the sole
enemies that comprise potential survival threats militarily, and each of those
probably have no interest in war or the old idea of conquest.
China does have a communist
party corps that distrusts the most rich and aristocracy well-founded on its
own imperial past. Richard Nixon began the process of normalizing U.S.-Chinese
relations and that has continued so far as to bring China and the U.S. into
reasonably amicable trade relations. America buys lots of stuff from China; no
one needs war.
That leaves Russia as the best
potential enemy to justify a large defense budget. Yet the only real Russian
military threat is nuclear and maybe some secret trick weapons. Yet the vast
Pentagon budget has a huge number of military personnel taking home too-high
salaries. Before the volunteer army E-1s might take home 62 dollars to 350
dollars I recall. Now it’s something like $24,000. Cutting the Defense budget
by half would be a good idea if we were on-good-commercial with Russia as with
China. If that were the case there would no large standing military threat of
world war scale on Earth challenging the U.S.A., Russia, China, Europe or Latin
America and that would be a good thing.
U.S. leadership cannot bring
themselves to comprehend the importance of saving the nation a half a trillion
dollars annual from the Defense budget. A tacit agreement with China and Russia
could create an agreement for them to freeze their own defense budgets and even
roll them back toward new, lower U.S. levels. Realistically the greatest
threats to U.S. national security are not conventional war these days. It is
instead terrorism from a number of organizations globally some of which are
state organizations. There are dangers of surprise nuclear and biological war.
I suppose there are even dangers of kinetic weapons launched from space.
Defense spending might want to adjust to the new military reality instead of
prepping to fight old wars that require nothing more than simplistic
Hatfield-McCoy role playing.
Russia, China and the United
States face the mutual threat of global ecospheric degradation and perhaps
eventual collapse in the greatest mass extinction underway in millions of
years. They face similar challenges of terrorism and like all nations require
security from global organizational imperialism subverting national interests.
U.S. leadership should choose to
use logic as well as myopia in prioritizing foreign and domestic policy. A free
world with a security and ecologically recovering Russia as a business and
military partner is better than with Russia as an isolated foe. Leadership in
peace is requisite for logic and political progress as well as the ability to
resist invaders or return to hostile relationship as the normal condition.
The incipient trade war with
China might have gone in many directions. China might have begun trying to grow
its own apples in Inner Mongolia or some better place. Washington State apple
growers might have found a way to make apple energy bars replete with vitamin
B, C and D in shiny foil wrappers that were loosely based on applet and
cotlets; the translucent, sweet apple and apricot candy bars famous from
Cashmere. Chinese selection of
Washington State apples for possible tariffs may have supported a communist party
bias against the exploitation of labor. The Washington State apple growing
industry exploits vast numbers of poorly-paid migrant farm workers. It is such
businesses that demand cheap foreign labor. The West Coast of the U.S.A. and
the South are an archipelago of illegal alien workers laboring far below
minimum wage. The Federal Government does nothing to eliminate that serfdom as
it easily could be attaching felony penalties for paying anyone in the U.S.A.
anything less than minimum wage for work-even if they are illegal workers. The
United States cannot have a vast evil serf labor empire benefiting the most
corrupt powers of concentrated wealth and pretend to be a good moral force on
the world; especially if it tries to force a Sodom and Gomorrah social ethic of
homosexual marriage on the rest of the world. A billion Muslims, a billion
Chinese an a billion Latin Americans might resist. Tolerance for the life
choices of others is important. The Middle East might have experienced the
goodness of apples without an expiration date. Wars lead sometimes to places
that none expected to go. One should tolerate heterodox forms of political
systems rather than exterminate them.
Mass movements of populations in
a world with nine billion people is itself dangerous in a number of respects.
U.S. leadership is however Britain’s bête noir easy to exploit as an enforcer
of British imperial interests. Europe too seems to prefer belligerence with
Russia rather than neighborliness on a positive basis. Russia’s vast lands have
always attracted the interests of foreign invaders and now that mind-set again
comprises an element in the inability of
Europe and the United States to move beyond the old paradigm to something new;
a planet restoring its ecosphere, developing renewable and sustainable
economics with liberty justice and security for all.
