The Fall of the American Empire

[DrDelirium]

All the saber-rattling, the global military deployments and the coups and proxy wars around the world are really directed at preventing this: An alternative to conducting world trade in fiat dollars. That alternative is approaching very rapidly and it is unlikely that it can be stopped or even markedly slowed by anything short of major war.

A nice little primer on the subject: https://journal-neo.org/2017/10/19/china-ruble-settlement-and-the-dollar-system/

 

[JackLuis]

All the saber-rattling, the global military deployments and the coups and proxy wars around the world are really directed at preventing this: An alternative to conducting world trade in fiat dollars. That alternative is approaching very rapidly and it is unlikely that it can be stopped or even markedly slowed by anything short of major war.

A nice little primer on the subject: https://journal-neo.org/2017/10/19/china-ruble-settlement-and-the-dollar-system/

Interesting shift in the world these days. China has billions of our debt and will use that to fuck us if/when we piss them off enough.

 

[seekr_]

Fascinating.

I was only aware of the "Pipeline Wars" theory that was often bounced around when the events in Ukraine Syria and Middle East unfolded.

 

[DrDelirium]

Fascinating.

I was only aware of the "Pipeline Wars" theory that was often bounced around when the events in Ukraine Syria and Middle East unfolded.

Both Saddam Hussein and Moamar Gaddafi were attempting to set up large scale international trade in oil (and other resources, in Gaddafi's case) without using the American dollar, before they were overthrown. Could be a coincidence.

 

[seekr_]

Oh boy. The article is quite difficult to read especially for those who, like me, don't have a full grasp of History and Economics.
Left brain thinking author and packed with all sorts of specialized concepts. I went through it and highlighted it twice, and I still have to go through it a few more times in order to fully understand it.
But it's absolutely Groundbreaking.


PART ONE

The part that provides some sort of background by carrying us from World War Two to the present, would merit a separate thread of it's own. As you alluded to, it would be fascinating to go through the years and try to tie in all the major events (coups, proxy wars in the Midle East, Perestroika then fall of the USSR) to the changing needs of the American economy and oligarchy.
"This is what has Washington in a dither. Their options are fading by the day. Military, financial, cyberwarfare, color revolution–all are increasingly impotent from a country that allowed its own industrial and manpower base to be destroyed in the interest of a financial oligarchy. That was how the Roman Empire collapsed in the Fourth Century, as did the British between 1914 and 11945, and as did every empire in history based on debt slavery."
And is Global Trumpism (in US and Europe) just a spontaneous popular backlash against Globalism and neocons, or also by design?


PART TWO

"The fact that the dollar remains the most significant foreign central bank reserve currency, still some 64% of all world reserves at present, with the Euro at 20% the closest rival, gives the US Government an extraordinary advantage. [...Moreover] If the Trump tax cut legislation now becomes law, the US deficits will hit the moon. This is the backdrop to better understand what China and Russia and allied countries are preparing in order to reduce their vulnerability to what is on a ballistic trajectory to a bankrupt global dollar reserve system.

Peoples’ Bank of China has just announced a payment-versus-payment (PVP) system for Russian ruble and Chinese yuan transactions.
Two years ago, in October 2015, China initiated the China International Payments System (CIPS). While it has signed a cooperation agreement with the dominant SWIFT, it gives a potential option in event of US sanctions on China to function independent of SWIFT.

China’s Belt, Road Initiative (BRI) (also named the New Economic Silk Road) is a vast network of high-speed rail linkages being constructed criss-crossing the countries of Eurasia including Central Asia, Mongolia, Pakistan, Kazakhstan and, of course, the Russian Federation and extending to Iran, potentially to Turkey and East Africa. Altogether at present some 67 countries are participating or have asked to join the ambitious project ."

 

[seekr_]

Both Saddam Hussein and Moamar Gaddafi were attempting to set up large scale international trade in oil (and other resources, in Gaddafi's case) without using the American dollar, before they were overthrown. Could be a coincidence.

Thanks.

This paragraph also gives additional insights?: "In 2012 Washington pressure on the private Belgian-based SWIFT international bank clearing system, through which virtually every international transaction between banking institutions goes, to block international clearing for all Iranian banks, froze $100 billion in Iranian assets overseas and crippled her ability to export oil."


"If the Trump tax cut legislation now becomes law."
Catered mainly for the rich, I presume. So disappointing. Many people thought that Trump was 'It'.

 

[DrDelirium]

Oh boy. The article is quite difficult to read especially for those who, like me, don't have a full grasp of History and Economics.
Left brain thinking author and packed with all sorts of specialized concepts. I went through it and highlighted it twice, and I still have to go through it a few more times in order to fully understand it.
But it's absolutely Groundbreaking.


PART ONE

The part that provides some sort of background by carrying us from World War Two to the present, would merit a separate thread of it's own. As you alluded to, it would be fascinating to go through the years and try to tie in all the major events (coups, proxy wars in the Midle East, Perestroika then fall of the USSR) to the changing needs of the American economy and oligarchy.
"This is what has Washington in a dither. Their options are fading by the day. Military, financial, cyberwarfare, color revolution–all are increasingly impotent from a country that allowed its own industrial and manpower base to be destroyed in the interest of a financial oligarchy. That was how the Roman Empire collapsed in the Fourth Century, as did the British between 1914 and 11945, and as did every empire in history based on debt slavery."
And is Global Trumpism (in US and Europe) just a spontaneous popular backlash against Globalism and neocons, or also by design?


PART TWO

"The fact that the dollar remains the most significant foreign central bank reserve currency, still some 64% of all world reserves at present, with the Euro at 20% the closest rival, gives the US Government an extraordinary advantage. [...Moreover] If the Trump tax cut legislation now becomes law, the US deficits will hit the moon. This is the backdrop to better understand what China and Russia and allied countries are preparing in order to reduce their vulnerability to what is on a ballistic trajectory to a bankrupt global dollar reserve system.

Peoples’ Bank of China has just announced a payment-versus-payment (PVP) system for Russian ruble and Chinese yuan transactions.
Two years ago, in October 2015, China initiated the China International Payments System (CIPS). While it has signed a cooperation agreement with the dominant SWIFT, it gives a potential option in event of US sanctions on China to function independent of SWIFT.

China’s Belt, Road Initiative (BRI) (also named the New Economic Silk Road) is a vast network of high-speed rail linkages being constructed criss-crossing the countries of Eurasia including Central Asia, Mongolia, Pakistan, Kazakhstan and, of course, the Russian Federation and extending to Iran, potentially to Turkey and East Africa. Altogether at present some 67 countries are participating or have asked to join the ambitious project ."

One note- the author uses the term "BRI" but this project is more often called OBOR ("One Belt, One Road"). These are the same thing, in case you come across it elsewhere.

Re: 'Trumpism.' I would say there is a spontaneous global backlash against the neocons/neoliberals and their globalist project, yes. Trump et al, however, are taking advantage of this for their own purposes and are not truly aligned with the popular base of it. The various Trumps around the world are attempting to withdraw from the globalist project, which they see as being on the verge of collapse, and 'fort up' to retain power and some semblance of stability in their local domains. This is a parallel of a much longer, but similar, process that took place in the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, resulting in feudal states. I don't suggest that we will return to feudalism per se, but an era of local strongmen is probably coming.

The Trumpistas believe they have to control their own supply chain, especially the military supply chain, on a domestic basis, but this will severely damage the corporate globalist, and the more accommodations that are made to protect them in the retrenchment, the more it will damage American citizens in general. While it seems as though Trump wanted to manage a 'soft landing,' the resistance of the globalists means that the transition will be driven from outside (China, Russia) rather than inside, and hence be much more chaotic. To the extent that Trump can still influence events, some kind of war is probably required to achieve the necessary social discipline. Since we have already been in continuous war for over fifteen years, only a dramatic escalation could serve this purpose, and dramatic escalations cannot be made safely these days. It is not clear to me that Americans of any political persuasion are ready to support a major war, no matter what the NYT says about Russian election tampering or even Korean nukes. But that doesn't matter much in a 'pre-emptive strike.'

 

[DrDelirium]

Thanks.

This paragraph also gives additional insights?: "In 2012 Washington pressure on the private Belgian-based SWIFT international bank clearing system, through which virtually every international transaction between banking institutions goes, to block international clearing for all Iranian banks, froze $100 billion in Iranian assets overseas and crippled her ability to export oil."


"If the Trump tax cut legislation now becomes law."
Catered mainly for the rich, I presume. So disappointing. Many people thought that Trump was 'It'.

Yeah, that's pretty key. That event launched CIPS and a similar Russian system. Nobody wants the US to have the ability to simply seize all their money and keep them from making more. And Trump's decertification of the Iran deal just makes it worse (and Tillerson's "Go ahead and invest in Iran," and "No, just kidding, we might take your money," two days later doesn't help much either). Internationally, people feel that the US cannot be trusted to maintain its agreements, so what's the point of negotiations? The Japanese and the Europeans are too interlocked with the US to do much squawking, but they are quietly freaking out. When OBOR reaches a certain critical mass, Japan will bolt, the Eurozone will disintegrate and Europe will connect to OBOR a country at a time. The 'little Trumps' in Eastern Europe are already making this clear, and independence movements in Catalonia and northern Italy show a lack of cohesion in the components of the European Union.

 

[seekr_]

1.The various Trumps around the world are attempting to withdraw from the globalist project, which they see as being on the verge of collapse, and 'fort up' to retain power and some semblance of stability in their local domains.

This is a parallel of a much longer, but similar, process that took place in the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, resulting in feudal states. I don't suggest that we will return to feudalism per se, but an era of local strongmen is probably coming.

2.Re: 'Trumpism.' I would say there is a spontaneous global backlash against the neocons/neoliberals and their globalist project, yes.
Trump et al, however, are taking advantage of this for their own purposes and are not truly aligned with the popular base of it.

1and 2.. Yup. One senses it, and also that fantastic article in the OP puts many dots on the ii's as to 'why'.

2.The 'how they are doing it' is also an interesting topic, of course it's in no Power's interest to show it.



((Digressing a bit:
I was listening to this podcast 'Free speech in the networked world' the other day.
Some parts of it drag on, but th. main points were that:

A common but mistaken popular belief nowadays is that the current means of social manipulation and social control nowadays are Orwellian in nature.
"Orwell was great, but I wish that people chucked out his books and read Huxley instead, because what they're doing is they're applying 19th and 20th century principles of social control to the modern era of the internet, when information is easily accessible and dissenting voices are harder to censor". They said that Trump and China are the most versed at using the manipulation techniques of shiny objects, dramas or fake news that distract you, drown the real news in disorganiyed and noisy chatter or make you start doubting everything."

A bit similar to the techniques of manipulation that were used in Mao-iist China, I might add. Mao was a genius from that point of view, he realized that the techniques used by communist Russia (based on intellectual manipullation so to speak) didn't apply to the more rural masses and to that particular historical context, so he operated at the level of emotional mass mobilization instead. There are some similarities to how massmedia and doing it today.

 

[seekr_]

Internationally, people feel that the US cannot be trusted to maintain its agreements, so what's the point of negotiations? The Japanese and the Europeans are too interlocked with the US to do much squawking, but they are quietly freaking out.

When OBOR reaches a certain critical mass, Japan will bolt, the Eurozone will disintegrate and Europe will connect to OBOR a country at a time. The 'little Trumps' in Eastern Europe are already making this clear, and independence movements in Catalonia and northern Italy show a lack of cohesion in the componnts of the European Union.

Yes!
Giving me some leeway for my limits in these areas, I might add:

The geopolitics of the former Eastern Block are easier to understand.
(The attempts to fragment or weaken Russia-friendly countries like Yugoslavia or Macedonia. And from the other side Syriza, and now Orban Chech Republic and Poland.
Interesting what you said about Italy and Catalonia, they fit into that map too actually)

But how does the influx of refugees fit into this?
Yes, many of them are genuine desperate refugees, some of them are imported economic migrant young men because Germany and other's birth rate and population have declined to an alarming degree and they need a huge influx of younger people to sustain them. That part seems straightforward.

But there were too many subtle changes in the social order that happened under the umbrella of combatting the hyped splits (radical islamization versus islamophobia and so on).
I feel that as far as that bit is concerned, we're part of another master plan that eludes us (I mean it's obvious that it's all about different deep State factions Elites trying to maintain their power, but through what paths)?

The Trumpistas believe they have to control their own supply chain, especially the military supply chain, on a domestic basis,but this will severely damage the corporate globalist, and the more accommodations that are made to protect them in the retrenchment, the more it will damage American citizens in general.

While it seems as though Trump wanted to manage a 'soft landing,' the resistance of the globalists means that the transition will be driven from outside (China, Russia) rather than inside, and hence be much more chaotic.

To the extent that Trump can still influence events, some kind of war is probably required to achieve the necessary social discipline. Since we have already been in continuous war for over fifteen years, only a dramatic escalation could serve this purpose, and dramatic escalations cannot be made safely these days. It is not clear to me that Americans of any political persuasion are ready to support a major war, no matter what the NYT says about Russian election tampering or even Korean nukes. But that doesn't matter much in a 'pre-emptive strike.'

I'm a bit unclear about the highlighted part.

 

[DrDelirium]

Yes!
Giving me some leeway for my limits in these areas, I might add:

The geopolitics of the former Eastern Block are easier to understand.
(The attempts to fragment or weaken Russia-friendly countries like Yugoslavia or Macedonia. And from the other side Syriza, and now Orban Chech Republic and Poland.
Interesting what you said about Italy and Catalonia, they fit into that map too actually)

But how does the influx of refugees fit into this?
Yes, many of them are genuine desperate refugees, some of them are imported economic migrant young men because Germany and other's birth rate and population have declined to an alarming degree and they need a huge influx of younger people to sustain them. That part seems straightforward.

But there were too many subtle changes in the social order that happened under the umbrella of combatting the hyped splits (radical islamization versus islamophobia and so on).
I feel that as far as that bit is concerned, we're part of another master plan that eludes us (I mean it's obvious that it's all about different deep State factions Elites trying to maintain their power, but through what paths)?





I'm a bit unclear about the highlighted part.

The basic idea is that the Trumpistas and other reactionaries like the Koch Brothers are heavily invested in the capitalism of things- actually making and producing stuff, whereas the Clintonites etc are finance capitalists who are into liquidity and moving money (ie, ones and zeros in computers) around the world as quickly as possible to maximize paper profits. This fucks with people who own and operate mines, factories and hotels big time. The Trumpistas see the instability of this, with many subservient, cheap labor locations trying to bust out of the system and operate like real countries, and they think the answer is to reduce foreign dependency by reinvesting in the US and 'near abroad.' This would fuck with the global bankers big time. So these are the biggest interest blocks among the elites, and the bankers are currently winning. But they are winning the right to continue down the path of self-destruction- very dangerous for all of us.
The Trump platform would have been good for some industries and their workers in the states, and bad for financialists and most people who consume foreign products, at least during the transition. People not engaged in primary production would like suffer a diminution of buying power. That's most of the country now, but it's possible that domestic primary production would actually have a circulatory stimulus effect on the economy, and the wages of producers would push up general economic activity and possibly 'professional' incomes as well, although quite possibly not.
However, nothing like the original aims of the Trumpistas are in the works now, and whatever they actually do will be in the context of appeasing the globalists and hence will be even tougher on average Americans. But, in practice, they won't do much.

 

[seekr_]

Many thanks.
Btw:
I just came across this article while google-ing around the topic.
It talks about things that the article in the OP and yourself already mentioned. I'm bringing it up only because I liked the way they described the changing power dynamics: as a dance of influence between the three tiers Political, Military and Internationalist/Liberal.

http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2017/10/19/who_controls_americas_china_policy_112590.html



A few quotes:

"Who Controls America's China Policy?

The order, under Section 301 of the 1974 U.S. Trade Act, opens a fast track for the president to “take all appropriate action … to obtain removal of any [trade] practice that is unjustified, unreasonable, or discriminatory, and that burdens or restricts U.S. commerce.” The initiation of a Section 301 investigation reflects both a major policy shift in the U.S. position toward the global order and the changing foreign policy coalition within the White House.

Changing structures

The U.S. foreign-policy coalition has always comprised political, military, and economic elites -- but their hierarchy and authority have changed from time to time.

During the Cold War, the military had the upper hand; political elites coordinated closely, and business elites played a secondary role.After the Cold War, the pecking order changed, with the military demoted to the third rank as business interests superseded national security concerns. Economics became a new driving force in foreign affairs.
Then [… .] international institutions such as the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund, and to establish a new, economically liberal world order. This was modified after 9/11, when the military agenda again attained a higher priority. But the defenders of international institutions (for whom former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was a spokesperson) still dominated the political wing. Military objectives were still defined within the larger framework of liberal internationalism."



I won't give more quotes in order to avoid copyright infringement. The article goes on to describe the change in political visions and the balance of the three tier power structure since Trump was elected. And how they view the implem. of section 301.

 

[DrDelirium]

Many thanks.
Btw:
I just came across this article while google-ing around the topic.
It talks about things that the article in the OP and yourself already mentioned. I'm bringing it up only because I liked the way they described the changing power dynamics: as a dance of influence between the three tiers Political, Military and Internationalist/Liberal.

http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2017/10/19/who_controls_americas_china_policy_112590.html



A few quotes:

"Who Controls America's China Policy?

The order, under Section 301 of the 1974 U.S. Trade Act, opens a fast track for the president to “take all appropriate action … to obtain removal of any [trade] practice that is unjustified, unreasonable, or discriminatory, and that burdens or restricts U.S. commerce.” The initiation of a Section 301 investigation reflects both a major policy shift in the U.S. position toward the global order and the changing foreign policy coalition within the White House.

Changing structures

The U.S. foreign-policy coalition has always comprised political, military, and economic elites -- but their hierarchy and authority have changed from time to time.

During the Cold War, the military had the upper hand; political elites coordinated closely, and business elites played a secondary role.After the Cold War, the pecking order changed, with the military demoted to the third rank as business interests superseded national security concerns. Economics became a new driving force in foreign affairs.
Then [… .] international institutions such as the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund, and to establish a new, economically liberal world order. This was modified after 9/11, when the military agenda again attained a higher priority. But the defenders of international institutions (for whom former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was a spokesperson) still dominated the political wing. Military objectives were still defined within the larger framework of liberal internationalism."



I won't give more quotes in order to avoid copyright infringement. The article goes on to describe the change in political visions and the balance of the three tier power structure since Trump was elected. And how they view the implem. of section 301.

I would just say that it is unhelpful to regard any of the groups you mention as monolithic blocs. Ultimately the political and military elites are servants of factions of the dominant economic class. Members of the political elite use the interests of non-dominant economic classes as leverage in their power struggles, but nothing happens for these groups that isn't primarily in the interest of some faction of the elite.
If you examine US policy in the context of divisions between the basic interests of different elements of the economic elites, it begins to make some sense. If you look at monolithic blocks, the policies are incoherent, and if you use terms like 'the national interest' or 'the American people,' they make no sense at all.

 

[seekr_]

I
If you examine US policy in the context of divisions between the basic interests of different elements of the economic elites, it begins to make some sense. If you look at monolithic blocks, the policies are incoherent, and if you use terms like 'the national interest' or 'the American people,' they make no sense at all.

You're right, I got temporarily seduced by the dystopian feel of that article. 'Divergent' like. Geeze.
Up till now, the best questions that I heard people ask were:

1.Are Trumpism versus Globalism a manifestation of "a division between the basic interests of different elements of the American or European economic elites"?

2.Is Trumpism "an act of ideologically constructing the current crisis as a conservative-liberal battleground? The Trump regime acting to consolidate the establishment against a perceived crisis of a wider transnational Deep System."

 

[seekr_]

And I realize that I hijacked your thread, so thank you for your curteous answers.
I'll just finish off with a catharctic rant that touches on one of my interests (social control and manipulation).

As they mentioned in that podcast, masses (myself included) who are trying to understand the bigger picture of how the systems work, are facing a different dilemma than let's say 20 years ago.
- In the pre-internet era, the obstacles to their understanding were more Orwellian in nature.
The challenge then was to weed off the layers of misunderstanding or indoctrination in order to find out 'The Truth'. To many, things seemed more straightforward or black and white then, like what's capitalism vs liberalism vs neoliberalism and the 1%.
- Whereas now the obstacles to understanding are more liquid and amorphous, Huxley - style.
In contrast to the pre-internet era, information is now at our fingertips.But at the same time we're also being constantly bombarded with a cacophony of contradictory concepts, ideologies, language terms and real and fake news.

As a result, many people feel that they both know and don't know, and they're confused about it.And for those people, this confusion makes them feel uncertain, ungrounded and amotivated.
-- Or you see the opposite reaction: some people who derive a sense of stability from sticking to only one type of information. The idelogues who subsribe to movements such as atheists versus Christians, Left versus Right, Feminists versus antiFeminists, the crazy unprecedented splitting in American society today.

 

[dan_c00000]

This F. William Engdahl guy sounds like a crank. Just a quick rundown of why.

1. He thinks global warming is "scare" tactic that will somehow reduce the quality of life. Germany gets 35% of their energy from renewable/green sources and their standard of living is pretty good. I guess Engdahl never met the dudes from Exxon who knew and lied about global warming 40 years ago.

2. Most his books are self-published. That's usually a bad sign.

3. Claims that Trump is going to "war" with Wall Street. Besides having a hoard of ex-Goldmanites on his team the bankers like Trump and they really like he's going to destroy Dodd-Frank.

4. That New Eastern Outlook journal scream Russian propaganda front. Because, it is.

5. I'm sure if I took more than 45 seconds to research this I could find the usually conspiracy stuff: NSA did 9/11, FDR knew about Pearl Harbor, etc. He's just got that smell about him.

 

[DrDelirium]

And I realize that I hijacked your thread, so thank you for your curteous answers.
I'll just finish off with a catharctic rant that touches on one of my interests (social control and manipulation).

As they mentioned in that podcast, masses (myself included) who are trying to understand the bigger picture of how the systems work, are facing a different dilemma than let's say 20 years ago.
- In the pre-internet era, the obstacles to their understanding were more Orwellian in nature.
The challenge then was to weed off the layers of misunderstanding or indoctrination in order to find out 'The Truth'. To many, things seemed more straightforward or black and white then, like what's capitalism vs liberalism vs neoliberalism and the 1%.
- Whereas now the obstacles to understanding are more liquid and amorphous, Huxley - style.
In contrast to the pre-internet era, information is now at our fingertips.But at the same time we're also being constantly bombarded with a cacophony of contradictory concepts, ideologies, language terms and real and fake news.

As a result, many people feel that they both know and don't know, and they're confused about it.And for those people, this confusion makes them feel uncertain, ungrounded and amotivated.
-- Or you see the opposite reaction: some people who derive a sense of stability from sticking to only one type of information. The idelogues who subsribe to movements such as atheists versus Christians, Left versus Right, Feminists versus antiFeminists, the crazy unprecedented splitting in American society today.

I would agree that there's more 'noise' in the internet age, and substantially less intellectual rigor. Whether the balance between lies and truths has changed, I couldn't say. There have always been more of the former available, and they have always been more easily accessible.
One difference that I find concerning is how very Orwellian the internet is. Not only in the massive pressures for groupthink consensus, but also in the way information can simply disappear 'down the memory hole.' Yesterday Oceana was at war with Eastasia. Today Oceana is at war with Eurasia. Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia.
I don't know if the percentage of people with extreme and poorly researched and developed opinions is greater now, but such people are more visible now. And their role in damping down legitimate criticism seems to be greater. The usual form of retort to damning allegations is to dismiss the source as a deranged crackpot, a less taxing exercise than calling them a communist in the old style, for which evidence for or against might be provided. It would not surprise me to find that the CIA or some like-minded private enterprise funds 'fringe' celebrities to combine legitimate critiques with various levels of nonsense to discredit the valid critiques. After all, there is a long history of agents provocateurs in this country deliberately encouraging extreme and self-destructive actions among all sorts of protest groups. Doing it on the internet is easy as pie.
In any case, both results you mention are real, and have the same effect- neutralizing political dissent.

 

[seekr_]

1.Whether the balance between lies and truths has changed, I couldn't say. There have always been more of the former available, and they have always been more easily accessible.

2.I don't know if the percentage of people with extreme and poorly researched and developed opinions is greater now, but such people are more visible now.

And their role in damping down legitimate criticism seems to be greater. Doing it on the internet is easy as pie.

It would not surprise me to find that the CIA or some like-minded private enterprise funds 'fringe' celebrities to combine legitimate critiques with various levels of nonsense to discredit the valid critiques.

1.True. That has always been consistent across time and cultures.
2.And the % of rigid or intolerant thinkers within a population hasn't changed either.

They're indeed just more visible because of the internet (spontaneously or by design as you mentioned) , and also because of the massive 'civic awakening' happening today,
- And my understanding is that these two peculiar phenomena of our times (the internet and the massive interest in civic matters) are both a potential danger, a worry for the Elites, and have also been subverted and used as a tool for social control (the internet has been made Orwellian through all sorts of means, and the political strivings of our College youths, or fears and demands of majority versus minority groups have being hyped or subverted.)

Coming back to the OP, it seems that Jack Lewis agreed, whereas danc000 disagreed with that perspective.
For those who are in accord with that view, it's hard to say which of the two would be more interesting:
to look at the past (a rewriting of History and of the motives behind the proxy wars, EU, TPP attempts and so ), or towards the future (to speculate on how will Trump and Europe and other countries react to the latest news).



ETA
I just realized that the first part of my post are platitudes we all know them.
But the second part re the OP still stands.

 

[DrDelirium]

For those who are in accord with that view, it's hard to say which of the two would be more interesting:
to look at the past (a rewriting of History and of the motives behind the proxy wars, EU, TPP attempts and so ), or towards the future (to speculate on how will Trump and Europe and other countries react to the latest news).

It seems to me that speculating on how people in power will react to the latest news is problematic because they have access to a lot more information than we have, and they can accurately identify at least some parts of the 'news' as bullshit because it's their bullshit. Some important information that we rarely have access to is what specific material interests specific people in power have, at least until after the fact. So we didn't know at the time of the Ukrainian Maidan that Joe Biden's son would be on the board of the Ukie Natural Gas consortium after the coup, but now that we do know it, it's hard to believe it's a coincidence.

 

[DrDelirium]

Speaking of China: Intriguing take on the TPP, especially since I was only aware of ot's negatives:

"United State's answer to China's One Belt Initiative was the TPP which was conceived under President Obama and was among the first thing that President Trump repudiated, because he argued that it didn't take the interest sufficiently of american workers, and that globalization is a swindle, and the workers pay the price. There's something to that argument but TPP was in fact a better version of previous trade deals.
I don't know if the Senate would have ratified it, even if Trump would not have cancelled it, because the Senate was a bit squishy on the Free Trade, because of the pre-electionclimate in the country(protectionism of Republicans in the population) and Public`s misconceptions regarding the TPP.

But nevertheless, that was the Our answer to China's One Belt road:the TPP which to me was a good answer and it should be revived. But I don't see the revival easy in the current political context. [...] So we are without any strategy on East Asian Region vis a vis our competition with China."

What is Eurasia? - Stephen Kotkin (from mins. 100.00 to 102.00)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_ghn1X7sRFs


ETA
Of course the question is: What will Trump's strategy be
to counteract China's increasing economic and geostrategic influence?

Better how? It involved a lot of giving up sovereign rights to international, basically corporate, entities for conflict resolution, and over-riding local/national laws.

 

[Rightguide]

All the saber-rattling, the global military deployments and the coups and proxy wars around the world are really directed at preventing this: An alternative to conducting world trade in fiat dollars. That alternative is approaching very rapidly and it is unlikely that it can be stopped or even markedly slowed by anything short of major war.

A nice little primer on the subject: https://journal-neo.org/2017/10/19/china-ruble-settlement-and-the-dollar-system/

Except America has never been an empire.

 

[coati]

Except America has never been an empire.

Tell that to the people of Iran. The Shah was our puppet there. We had been screwing with the Middle East for so long that it is no wonder the chickens are coming home to roost on our own soil now. And Trump, during the election, said we should have kept the oil fields in Iraq following the Bush 2 invasion. Make America Great Again.

Tell that to victims of our past puppets in Viet Nam, Central America, South America.

Much of Make America Great Again has nothing to do with a master international economic strategy-- it has to do with returning to being a bully on the international stage again. Too late for that.

 

[Rightguide]

Tell that to the people of Iran. The Shah was our puppet there. We had been screwing with the Middle East for so long that it is no wonder the chickens are coming home to roost on our own soil now. And Trump, during the election, said we should have kept the oil fields in Iraq following the Bush 2 invasion. Make America Great Again.

Tell that to victims of our past puppets in Viet Nam, Central America, South America.

Much of Make America Great Again has nothing to do with a master international economic strategy-- it has to do with returning to being a bully on the international stage again. Too late for that.

Look up the definition of "empire" and stop bullshitting yourself.

 

[coati]

Look up the definition of "empire" and stop bullshitting yourself.

The definition you are apparently clinging to must be pure semantic bullshit.

 

[Rightguide]

The definition you are apparently clinging to must be pure semantic bullshit.

Look it up. Aside from war we've never stayed in a country we weren't asked to come into.