USAID: The folly of considering subversion an investment opportunity.

I must assume that Mike Benz plays dumb here,

because out of all the possible examples of critical dependencies you wouldn't pick the horrible fate you'd meet, once you had no gum no more, since that was famously debunked when it didn't stop the Wehrmacht after Germany had been cut off from it due to the synthesis of rubber by IG Farben and the like.

Also, pencils existed long before graphite was used. Not that I want to reintroduce lead, but it's just the worst possible example.

With that out of the way, let's consider the meaningful part of this interview, which is the depiction of subversive groups as an investment opportunity for regime change.

The problem with this, provided that we're talking about a nation that is able to order its affairs, because if we don't, it's tyranny by warlords anyway, is indicated by Gregory Peck's investment in a gold mine in The Million Pound Note: It's very easy to make something appear to be a promising investment, if you have some funds to back it, and just like Peck pulls in all the other investors in that film, solely based on his possession of the million pound note, USAID funding for subversive groups can be pulled in by comparatively modest means, which is to say that US foreign policy can be led like a bull on a nose ring by simply providing the most effective local subversion, that is to say: You don't pay the devil to do your work, it is the devil who makes you finance his projects. By the way, the establishment of the Federal Reserve System is an exact analogue: For helping making the US dollar the world reserve currency and thus collecting seignorage (interest) from all over the world, the private backers only demanded 6% of it every 6 months - a good deal, for which the United Kingdom had to pay, but also one that changed the trajectory of the United States by elevating the subverters of the previous order to a state of public funding by way of sharing in the seignorage of a publicly backed currency.

In other words, the United States are being bribed with money extracted from the rest of the world for allowing those who bribe them to actually rule it. It is not a question of the means they employ, it is a question of the course set and the ability to set it. And that question inescapably leads to the rise of nationalism as the means to re-establish control over it. That this happens in the United States first isn't natural at all, but the product of careful planning, though it isn't exactly clear with what motive: One may just see it as a manoeuvre by the Catholic Church to gain control over the United States gone awry, but then again the Revelation predicts that it would go awry. (By the way, to make the US dollar the world reserve currency, the United Kingdom had to indebt itself to the United States and that it never would have, if it hadn't been for World War I, and the nation in control of World War I breaking out was France, having made the necessary arrangements with Russia on September 13, 1913, just before the establishment of the Federal Reserve System on December 23, 1913. And I mean control, not just being partially responsible or wishing it: First they kill Prince Ferdinand, then they declare alarm over Germany's reaction to it and finally they demand Russia's general mobilisation as a response to this as agreed upon, forcing Germany to declare war on Russia. Also, France indebted itself to the United Kingdom, increasing the debt burden of the latter to the United States. It was a plan, contrived likely by Henri Poincaré's cousin Raymond Poincaré - I think I've stated brother before, in any case I'm relying on Wikipedia - who became president of France on February 18, 1913.)

From a certain point of view this turn of events is desirable: Would the soft power of the United States not have been turned back against it, whosoever would have rebelled against it, would have also faced their hard power. As it is, the world has been spared that, at least for now or assuming that things proceed smoothly along the path laid out in the Revelation, and not wanting to downplay the suffering of those, who have resisted, but those were not battles for the future of mankind.

Well, there you have it. I wonder what the rest of humanity has to say on the subject.