re: Why Can’t People Learn To Accept Permanent U.S. War In The Middle East?

quote:

---

The notion that America is an “essential” nation is warmed over Wilsonianism and is at it’s heart a progressive ideology. Such a world view is embraced by both neoconservatives and neoliberals.

---

I agree, there are many people who got us to this point.

The Cold war was a driver for this, post WW2, all the power was in the hands of the USSR and America.

We failed to ensure Europe developed its own capacity to stop Russia, especially after 1990.

quote:

---

Neoconservatives and neoliberals

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

Both ideological camps justify their actions through the rhetoric of global stability, yet their policies often prioritize corporate hegemony at the expense of national sovereignty. A key example of their shared priorities is the promotion of regime change and nation-building, which serve as conduits for both neoconservative and neoliberal foreign policy objectives.

---

Agreed, global stability itself is a good thing, however once they are in charge, its becomes a side goal to things like westernization or pulling in commercial companies.
Afghanistan was one long left wing idiocy after another. Because the bureaucracy that ran it wanted it to become Belgium.

quote:

---

Ultimately, both neocons and neoliberals place corporate hegemony and profit above individual rights, a pattern observable in repeated U.S. interventions across the Middle East.

---

Who's rights? Should non Americans have similar freedom?

In many cases they would use that freedom to restrict the freedom of others.

quote:

---

Though framed as an effort to promote democracy, the 20-year occupation of Afghanistan offers a compelling case study of the intersection between these two ideologies.

---

Full agreement.

quote:

---

This is why any vote in this UniParty® charade is ultimately a vote for the left or right wing of the Deep State. And also why Trumpism — like Reaganism and Bushism — will ultimately fail.

---

But who else even has a plan for global stability.
Libertarian thought is that trade over time makes for global stability.

It's lunacy. We've seen so many examples where politicians drive people to war and conflict that is funded via increased trade. Weve seen prosperity like the Roman West lead to mass migration of those who seek to take over.

What real plan is there other than neocon and neoliberal.

Everyone else ignores the real world and plays pretend philosopher.

quote:

---

But of course we had to gaslight the American President (W.) and people into going to war over weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that didn't exist

---

We went for the Oil. I’m pretty sure W knew that. It was just the people that needed convincing.

quote:

---

Freedom. The problem here is the competing wings of the Deep State are merely symptoms of the primary malady.

---

Thats a slogan, not a plan.

quote:

---

And that diseased organism is our nation’s print-on-demand monetary system. We largely live in servitude to a Central Bank.

Contrary to the numerous misconceptions surrounding it, the Federal Reserve has consistently functioned as a mechanism for wealth redistribution, contributing to economic inequality and facilitating governmental fiscal excess. It is indeed the funding mechanism for the Welfare-Warfare State.

---

Sure, but there is no actually thought out plan for something different.
Plus economic inequality is a good thing, its a libertarian thing.

quote:

---

You don’t have to be a philosopher to realize that our nation’s current fiscal trajectory is — by any objective measure — simply unsustainable long term. Living in the “real world” would mean recognizing that at some point, gravity is going to take over it is not going to be a soft landing for any of us.

---

Yup still there is no plan to do anything else.

quote:

---

As it stands, we can expect things to get much worse before they get better. Nothing fundamentally changes until this nation returns to a sound monetary system: NOTHING.

---

Tariffs and Doge were the only semi attempts at that.
Again, there is no plan except philosophical thoughts about extremely complex systems.
It's my problem with that type of thought.

A resignation of let it burn.

What war are we in in the ME?

quote:

---

What war are we in in the ME?

---

We have been in a near constant state of war in the Middle East since at least the First Gulf War.

US military reports a series of airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Syria…

quote:

---

Freedom from the tyranny imposed upon us by the Federal Reserve most certainly is a plan.

---

Its an idealogy, not a plan.

This is why no one takes this seriously, because even the proponents refuse to do the work involved in anything more than an abstract way.

Plus they reject all half steps.

quote:

---

Its an idealogy, not a plan.

This is why no one takes this seriously, because even the proponents refuse to do the work involved in anything more than an abstract way.

Plus they reject all half steps.

---

Do you realize that Friedrich A. Hayek was one of the foremost free-market economists of the twentieth century? Hayek’s proposal for a commodity based reserve currency was not an abstract thought experiment; it was a serious and practical monetary reform advanced by a serious and highly respected scholar.

Though it did not include detailed legislative drafting on how to transition to the plan, Hayek’s idea of a basket of commodities was a concrete proposal that outlined the institutional mechanics on how to implement it. Hayek further fully addressed the primary problems we are now facing as a nation under our present monetary system.

Hayek’s broader monetary critique directly addressed the structural weaknesses of fiat currency and central banking. Hayek correctly criticized central banks for their manipulation of interest rates and the resulting disruption of market signals.

Such centralized planning necessarily leads to systematic misallocation of resources, recurring boom-bust cycles, and long-term economic instability. Hayek ultimately warned that persistent monetary centralization threatens not only economic stability but the institutional foundations of a free society itself.

A commodity based reserve currency was just one of Friedrich Hayek’s remedies against the ill effects of central banking. Later in his career, Friedrich Hayek proposed that governments should end their monopoly over the money supply and allow private institutions to issue competing currencies.

Hayek was in good stead with his criticism of central banking. Thomas Jefferson was likewise leery of central banking:

quote:

---

Why can't you accept that another country, in that region of the planet, should be acting on that and not the US (World Police)

---

Who? Our traditional allies in the EU are as weak as the Congressional Republicans, and we have to keep the bridle on Israel, lest everything go to shite.

quote:

---

Nor the economy's reaction to such a transition.

---

If returning to free market pricing in the money supply upends the economy, that actually bolsters the argument — it is an indictment against centralized control over our monetary system. A genuinely free market does not collapse when artificial supports are removed.

quote:

---

Its a green field this might work.
Compare that to the trillions invested into the current economy on a second by second basis.

---

If normalization would trigger widespread disruption, then what we are describing is not a market economy but one sustained by continuous intervention, artificial credit expansion and continuous rate suppression. Certainly the political calculus is a tremendous obstacle, yet what Hayek offered was a concrete proposal designed to discipline money at its source.

The fact that reform would be resisted — particularly by the central planners who benefit from the present arrangement — does not diminish its economic validity. If anything, it clarifies who stands to lose from a return to free market discipline.

quote:

---

Yes, Walmart bitcoin.

---

Mocking Hayek’s ideas on currency privatization as “Walmart bitcoin” trivializes what was a legitimate structural critique of centralized monetary power. And again, actually underscores the point.

Who has more fiscal credibility: Walmart or the Feral Government of the United States? It damn sure ain’t Uncle Sam.

That is not an argument against reform. It is evidence of malicious misallocation.

The good news is, freeing control of the money supply from government manipulation would offset any temporary disruption in the economy: if interest rates were allowed to clear, if capital were priced honestly, and if credit were no longer administratively managed, the sectors most exposed would be those dependent on distortion — heavily leveraged finance, deficit-dependent public spending, and industries whose survival relies on subsidized borrowing and bailouts.

To be clear: the devastation would not fall evenly across productive enterprise. It would fall most heavily on the parasitic layer of the economy — the permanently deficit-financed government sector and those institutions whose business models rely on proximity to monetary expansion.

A system built on artificial liquidity will of course contract when that liquidity is withdrawn. Such a contraction would not be proof of failure; it is the correction of prior excess.

quote:

---

I'm not sure you can see that these ideas were never meant to actually be implemented.

---

Again, Friedrich Hayek’s proposals were not offering romantic abstractions as thought experiments. Hayek proposed a commodity basket reserve framework with defined operational mechanics and later advanced competing private currencies as an institutional check on the Feral Government’s monetary monopoly.

If the status quo cannot survive without perpetual intervention, then the problem is not the proposed reform — it is the system itself. Any “conservative” who recoils from structural monetary reform because it would be disruptive to the current economy is not defending markets; they afr defending an unsustainable status quo.