U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > Blogs > Redshadowz
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rate this Entry

Geopolitics and Ukraine

Posted 08-22-2022 at 08:15 PM by Redshadowz
Updated 10-24-2022 at 01:36 AM by Redshadowz

Originally Posted by erasure
OK, glad we agree here. So it's not only money that can produce power.
I said power rules and that money is power. I never said money is the only power. I said within a capitalist society, money always gets what it wants.

The people who hold positions of power and influence in the government are what we call the "ruling classes" or the "elites". In the middle ages the elites were the aristocrats/monarchs. Their position was dependent on the ownership of land(the means of production). The more land, the more power, because more land meant more wealth, more food, more population, and more soldiers.

Every Kingdom wanted to control as much land as possible because all wealth was land. As technology began to improve in the late-middle ages, the demand for raw materials, such as iron, began to increase. When a King wages a war, he has to pay a large Army. The soldiers spend their money where they are. If they're fighting in France, they spend their money in France. If they're fighting in Germany, they spend their money in Germany. If they're going on a crusade to Palestine, they spend their money in Palestine. Thus if a King wants to wage foreign wars he needs some way to bring the gold and silver that is leaving back again.

Early Mercantile capitalism was about creating a favorable balance of trade by having governments promote industries that produced goods that could be exported for profit. In Britain, the most profitable industry during this time was the woolen trade(textiles). Britain had the finest wool at the time. The English monarchy wanted to turn the English farmlands into fields of sheep because it was far more profitable to grow sheep than to grow food.

Britain enclosed the land, grew sheep, turned their wool into fabrics/clothes, and sold them to Europe. This brought a flood of gold and silver into Britain, but it also created a class of capitalists; Merchants, manufacturers, bankers, etc. This new "capitalist" class were not members of the hereditary aristocracy but were often richer than the aristocracy, since land was no longer a requirement for wealth.

The American Revolution is more accurately described as a "Merchant revolution". The founding fathers were all "capitalists" and very rich. Their real goal was to overthrow the old aristocracy and establish a new aristocracy ruled by them. Thomas Jefferson called it the "natural aristocracy".

"There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. Formerly bodily powers gave place among the aristoi. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground of distinction. There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent it's ascendancy." - Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson thought of the natural aristocracy in more noble terms, Friedrich Engels explains it like this... "Manufacture, on a small scale, created the middle-class; on a large scale, it created the working-class, and raised the elect of the middle-class to the throne."

Though I think Lysander Spooner is much closer to the mark...


"Among savages, mere physical strength, on the part of one man, may enable him to rob, enslave, or kill another man. Among barbarians, mere physical strength, on the part of a body of men, disciplined, and acting in concert, though with very little money or other wealth, may, under some circumstances, enable them to rob, enslave, or kill another body of men, as numerous, or perhaps even more numerous, than themselves. And among both savages and barbarians, mere want may sometimes compel one man to sell himself as a slave to another. But with (so-called) civilized peoples, among whom knowledge, wealth, and the means of acting in concert, have become diffused; and who have invented such weapons and other means of defense as to render mere physical strength of less importance; and by whom soldiers in any requisite number, and other instrumentalities of war in any requisite amount, can always be had for money, the question of war, and consequently the question of power, is little else than a mere question of money. As a necessary consequence, those who stand ready to furnish this money, are the real rulers. It is so in Europe, and it is so in this country.

Thus it is evident that all these men, who call themselves by the high-sounding names of Emperors, Kings, Sovereigns, Monarchs, Most Christian Majesties, Most Catholic Majesties, High Mightinesses, Most Serene and Potent Princes, and the like, and who claim to rule “by the grace of God,” by “Divine Right” – that is, by special authority from Heaven – are intrinsically not only the merest miscreants and wretches, engaged solely in plundering, enslaving, and murdering their fellow men, but that they are also the merest hangers on, the servile, obsequious, fawning dependents and tools of these blood-money loan-mongers, on whom they rely for the means to carry on their crimes. These loan-mongers, like the Rothschilds, laugh in their sleeves, and say to themselves: These despicable creatures, who call themselves emperors, and kings, and majesties, and most serene and potent princes; who profess to wear crowns, and sit on thrones; who deck themselves with ribbons, and feathers, and jewels; and surround themselves with hired flatterers and lickspittles; and whom we suffer to strut around, and palm themselves off, upon fools and slaves, as sovereigns and lawgivers specially appointed by Almighty God; and to hold themselves out as the sole fountains of honors, and dignities, and wealth, and power – all these miscreants and imposters know that we make them, and use them; that in us they live, move, and have their being; that we require them (as the price of their positions) to take upon themselves all the labor, all the danger, and all the odium of all the crimes they commit for our profit; and that we will unmake them, strip them of their gewgaws, and send them out into the world as beggars, or give them over to the vengeance of the people they have enslaved, the moment they refuse to commit any crime we require of them, or to pay over to us such share of the proceeds of their robberies as we see fit to demand."
If you recall from the George Orwell I linked before....

George Orwell, 1984

"Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude toward one another, have varied from to age to age; but the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibrium, however far it is pushed one way or the other.

The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim -- for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives -- is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves, or their capacity to govern efficiently or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High. Presently a new Middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins over again. Of the three groups, only the Low are never even temporarily successful in achieving their aims. It would be an exaggeration to say that throughout history there has been no progress of a material kind. Even today, in a period of decline, the average human being is physically better off than he was a few centuries ago. But no advance in wealth, no softening of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought human equality a millimeter nearer. From the point of view of the Low, no historic change has ever meant much more than a change in the name of their masters."
Hans-Hermann Hoppe also explains the dynamic in "From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy".


The history of the world has always been a battle of "elites", both within governments/kingdoms, as well as across. Where the "middle" are in a perpetual battle for power against the "high" by conspiring together in various factions to seize power in one way or another.

Thus in order to have stable governance, you need to devise a system where the most capable and ambitious men are able to reach positions of power/influence after being "educated" in a similar manner as to hold similar ideas, so that they will have no reason to conspire or to throw over the table.

Which begs the question, if the merchants became rich and overthrew the monarchy, why did the monarchy let them get rich enough to overthrow them? Because they had no choice. The Kings needed the money/production of the merchants and manufacturers to make/buy the guns, ships, etc, to fight wars, because there were dozens of hostile countries all across Europe who would seize on any sign of weakness. Kings had to pursue industry, technology, and profits at all costs or become too weak to defend themselves. Both from foreign governments and from within.

The middle might desire to become the high but rarely do they have the power to depose those in power. Thus in most instances of history, the middle in X country would ally with the high of Y country, who would help them overthrow the high in X country to establish themselves as the new high.

This was standard US policy during the Cold War. Find a faction who wants to gain power and give them lots of weapons and money. Then once they seize power militarily, demand they do X, Y, and Z in exchange for the military and economic assistance necessary to stay in power.

This was fundamentally how communism took power in the Soviet Union. The Bolsheviks were Jews who were treated as second-class citizens in the Russian Empire and were barred from positions in the government. Russia's enemies in Europe were supporting anti-Tsarist organizations in an attempt to destabilize the Russian Empire. During WWI, the Germans hoped to knock the Russians out of the war by helping Vladimir Lenin overthrow the Tsar. Germany made a deal with the Bolsheviks for a Peace Treaty before they ever took power.

I love this quote as well, which explains the dynamic.... "To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." - Zbigniew Brzezinski

The same basic mechanisms are happening in Ukraine and Russia today. John Bolton discusses how it works in regards to Iran, but it works the same way in Russia. That was the original plan in Ukraine. We hoped that the wealthy Russian oligarchs would "switch sides" against Putin to protect their money/status. Which is why the US government focused sanctions on particular oligarchs and seized their yachts. We want to pressure the only people with the power to depose Putin.


With that said, the Bolsheviks were not really communist. They were only using communism as a weapon against European monarchies and against the capitalists to seize power. Once they gained power there was no real communism. Just the face of communism, which was really just anti-Americanism/anti-colonialism.

Likewise in Ukraine today, where Russia pretends to oppose Nazis as a justification for the war, while the United States supports Nazis because they hate Russia. As you are probably aware, some of the biggest financiers of Ukrainian Nazis are Israeli Jews. The oligarchs of Ukraine don't care whatsoever about the Ukrainian people or the Ukrainian state. They want money and power, they want the natural resources, they want to control Donbass industry, and they need to remove Russia to get it.

Moreover, they also want US/EU money. Tens of billions of dollars are flooding Ukraine as we speak and much of it is completely unaccounted for. They do not want any oversight. A bunch of oligarchs are pocketing billions of dollars while sending Ukrainian men to die. And the longer they keep it going, the more money they can steal. Corruption is the only thing that keeps this war going.

Russia and China are currently promoting all kinds of destabilizing ideologies in the United States. They want to collude/conspire to start a Civil War, or to find Americans/organizations friendly to them to give money/intelligence to to help them gain power. Which is the same thing George Soros and the National Endowment for Democracy NGO's did in Eastern Europe that helped bring down the Soviet Union and led to the coup in 2014.

That is also why China is pumping vast quantities of drugs into America, especially fentanyl. It is trying to create as much havoc as possible. I believe China was also funneling support to the Canadian Trucker protests, as well as the riots in the United States. It is difficult for China because the United States controls the entire international financial system and can track every transfer of money. Moreover, there are no contiguous borders by which China can transfer anything physically into any country in the Western hemisphere, so it is far more difficult for China to operate effectively in the United States than the reverse.

Which is why China is trying to establish relations with Mexico to use Mexico as a base to attack the United States. Through drugs, mass-migration, and I think in the future, separatism in the American Southwest.

The purpose of authoritarian governments is to keep out foreign influence. What has kept America safe for the last 250 years is that we are essentially a continental island, protected by two oceans, surrounded by weak and dependent neighbors. The Germans tried to convince Mexico to attack America during WWI in the infamous Zimmerman telegram(to retake the southwest), but Mexico would have gotten completely BTFO.

As a virtual island, and with the most powerful Navy in the world, America can meddle in foreign countries, while sitting in complete safety.

The United States is democracy. There would be no democracy without the United States. The United States could have never existed had it not been in its own hemisphere. Democracy does not work when you are surrounded by powerful neighbors. Which is why we have a Monroe Doctrine, and Woodrow Wilson wanted to "make the world safe for democracy". Democracy is only safe if everyone is a democracy in a global capitalist system. Democracy CANNOT exist without capitalism.


In any case, the above is a kind of geopolitical framework for how the world and politics functions. I'm not saying the "people" don't matter or that democracy is entirely fake, but we are far more restricted than you realize, because we are constantly threatened from both the inside and out.

There is one last thing to understand. While the capitalists hold extraordinary power in democracy, the capitalists aren't a monolith, and often have competing and incompatible interests. The real cause of the American Civil War was that the capitalists in the south were existentially threatened by the capitalists in the north. And the only reason the capitalists in the south attempted to secede was because they believed they would be supported by France and Britain, but France and Britain were too far away to provide much support.

If you go back to the 1950's, the capitalists weren't a monolith but none of them had incompatible interests. The car manufacturers needed the steel manufacturers who needed the coal and oil/gas companies. One of the problems in 2022 is that the capitalists in America no longer have shared interests. The energy companies are at war with the alternative-energy companies. The more international companies(such as tech) are at war with the more national companies. Since each feel threatened by each other, they have essentially "raised the ante" in terms of politics. There is far more to gain from winning, and far more to lose from losing.

As it relates to Russia, one of the problems is that there isn't a diverse set of economic interests. There are energy companies who form essentially a cartel to dominate power and keep everyone else out. The same dynamic happens in other resource-rich countries, who end up pseudo-dictatorships with a thin veneer of democracy.

In any case, I hate democracy with a fiery passion. Not only is democracy controlled by capitalists, but democracy is necessarily divisive. It makes people hate each other. George Washington explained it pretty well in his farewell address. He despised political parties.


"The spirit of party serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection... The Unity of Government which constitutes you one people... is a main Pillar in the Edifice of your real independence." - George Washington

If you followed everything I wrote here. This video by John Mearsheimer will make complete sense. Especially the part where he talks about his time in Vietnam.

Posted in Uncategorized
Views 48 Comments 0
Total Comments 0



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:14 AM.

© 2005-2023, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top