Got a new article up on Counterpunch, Collapse: A Foregone Conclusion. Read it here:
In the second paragraph of ‘Collapse: a Foregone Conclusion’ you make the case that the US dollar is tied to a finite resource and that the US will collapse as that finite resource declines. I agree with everything else in your article. But I think the US will collapse or become exhausted before the world runs out of oil.
Actually the Russians don’t subscribe to the notion of oil as a fossil derivative. During WW2, desperate to find new sources of oil, Russian scientists established the abiotic theory of oil creation inside the earth. Their theory was proven after drilling to previously unheard of depths, much deeper than possible to find oil if the abiotic theory was incorrect. They found immense amounts of oil and Russia until today has continued to find oil where western experts say no oil can exist. Russian experts have helped other nations to find oil where it’s not supposed to be found.
The rest of your article I agree with and fold into my thinking and observations of the ongoing shift of Eurasia (SCO, BRICS, etc) away from the rogue US and its EU vassals. The East is creating new institutions independent of US control. This process will continue, and accelerate. Almost every week a new currency swap is created that does not trade through the dollar.
Even where I think differently than you on the finiteness of oil you are more right than wrong in that US leaders actually believe that oil is a finite resource and on the basis of that are acting aggressively which is causing the East to react with increasing resolution against the West.
The US is its own worse enemy. In desperation it is causing the new institutions in the East to coalesce, institutions that the US is desperate to prevent. The West is sinking into a super debt cycle collapse. The East is starting its ascent.
I read your article “Collapse: A Foregone Conclusion” in Counterpunch.
You need to learn to write much more clearly before publishing such articles. The writing in this article is so opaque that a reader is inclined to disagree with whatever thesis may lie obscurely buried in your tangled prose. I, as reader, am called upon to do what you, as writer, ought to have done: to clarify your thinking. (For the record, I gave up when I was half-way through.)
Quoting George Kennan was a terrible mistake: the lucidity of Kennan’s prose establishes a stylistic standard fatal to yours.
You are young and if you care about the validity of your ideas it is worth your while to summons the humility and patience good writing requires.
The world needs people like you who are willing to challenge conventional thinking. But confusing challenges to conventional thinking do not threaten conventional thinking: rather, they re-inforce it by communicating the impression that opposition to conventional thinking is incoherent.
There are two ways of defending conventional thinking: (1) defending it; (2) attacking it incompetently. Do not fall into the trap of thinking that by using the second method of defending conventional thinking you are in fact attacking it.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.