By Nathan Barton

Recently, I talked about the insane behavior of too many politicians and lots of other people, including the mainstream media, with their ramped-up emotions, nutty phobias, and panic attacks when it came to Trump and guns.

But there are lots more insane acts (and actors) out there. And the usual suspects (the politicos, media, and Tranzis in general) are not one-trick ponies.  They do lots of crazy things – and try to get people to do more.

Consider the New York Times (as shared with me by Laissez Faire). The paper’s editorial board declared the following:

“Given its economic, military and technological trajectory, together with its authoritarian model, China, not Russia, represents by far the greater challenge to American objectives over the long term.

“That means President Trump is correct to try to establish a sounder relationship with Russia and peel it away from China.”

Thus they continue a theme they started spouting about 1919 or so.  Can’t say they aren’t consistent: a whole century.  This is that Russia (Soviet, then, “Democratic” now) is meant to be America’s (well, Uncle Sugar’s – the FedGov’s) best friend. Oh, they hide it now and then – remember how Russia (not China) is supposed to be meddling with our “democracy.” But this is definitely on the weird – no, insane – side.

The NYT and its bosses, backers, and such, clearly do not know anything much about geopolitics, demography, geography, or basic natural laws. Nor are they willing to admit (surely they must know) that both Russia and China are doomed, completely, in relatively short order.

But even more, just WHAT are “American objectives” anyway?   Based on their warmongering and general tone, the NYT may think these are:

• World domination (maybe even the entire Sol System)
• In turn, domination by the Tranzi elite (including the owners and managers of the NYT)
• Adopting, promoting, and living a totally human-oriented worldview and society in accordance with the wishes of the Tranzi elite

The NYT isn’t going to admit these, of course, but I suspect their college days bull sessions and their daydreams come pretty close to that.

The FedGov’s apparent objectives are probably much simpler: as much power and wealth for the powers that be and their families as possible: defacto enslavement of everyone and everything else. When I say FedGov here, I mean the “Deep State” and the political and economic and technocratic leadership. As seen in the lives and lifestyles of the Kennedys, the Bushes, the Clintons, the Obamas, the Udalls, and others.

I’d suggest another set of objectives for the Fifty States and “We, the People.”

• Liberty for all, at home and abroad, on land, sea, in air and space, with all of us responsible for our own actions
• Prosperity for all, based on individual and cooperative, voluntary cooperation and competition
• Peace internal and external, as far as it depends on us

To put it another way, “Life, Liberty, and Property” (even if we call it Pursuit of Happiness).

Of course, I’m fairly certain that however much almost all of us want these things (or at least one or two), the people now “in charge” and who have been in control most of our 243 years as a federation won’t let it happen.  In control? All the greats: Jackson and Lincoln, Roosevelt I and Wilson, Roosevelt II and Johnson II. Them and their stooges and their puppetmasters.

It is obvious, even if they won’t fess up to it, that the FedGov and NYT don’t see it that way, either. Liberty means no opportunity for domination and enslavement (de facto), when coupled with prosperity, and peace means fewer crises to further increase power and wealth. Indeed, we could summarize the objectives of the FedGov and the NYT versions as “keep everyone from having these three things!”

But I do have to say that in the sad, sick 6,000 or so years of human civilization, these Fifty States came closest to achieving those three objectives. Even if we now seem to be rapidly drifting away from Liberty, Prosperity, and Peace.

Back to Russia and China, though.  I do not quite see how either of those two countries (and regimes) could be a “greater” challenge to either the FedGov or NYT version of “American objectives.” Both could be challenges, at least in the short term. And they each have different strengths and weaknesses, as selling points.  But in reality, both China and Russia are more facilitators than challenges to the elite dominating the world and keeping us all enslaved, poor, and wartorn.  They become excuses, if nothing else.

But I think the reality is darker than that: both Russia and China have a very little time to remain as nations and cultures and societies. Their collapse may or may not make America dominant in the world (and beyond): it depends on whether they pull the Fifty States down with them or not.

If we do as the NYT urges, and cleave to Russia, that increases the chances of being pulled down with the two of them, despite the significant advantages the Fifty States have.  Ditto if we stay close with China.  The collapse of these two landpowers could then very quickly lead to the Total Collapse of Western Civilization.

Fortunately, there is an alternative: we in the Fifty States don’t need either of them. We don’t have to join up with Russia OR with China.

More on that in the next installment.