The Tide of Power
by Jeff Thomas: Thomas
Jefferson on Liberty
people in strange ways. In great nations (the ones we admire most
not necessarily the ones that are the most powerful), power is
generally expressed quietly in most instances and is only expressed
dramatically when events necessitate it. This was largely the case
for most First World countries in, say, the 1950's. However, as
a nation declines, and as its people have less and less faith in
their respective governments' authority to rule them, governments
typically tend to beef up the level of force.
the reader can see where this observation is going Today, in Europe
and America, we are seeing increasingly draconian laws being passed
to allow the powers that be to express their dominance ever more
forcefully and arbitrarily. There can be little doubt that the objective
is to instil a level of fear amongst the population that their leaders
still hold the mace and that it can come crashing down at any moment.
In recent years,
this has been seen dramatically, especially in America, with the
passage of the Patriot Act some ten years ago and the more recent
National Defense Authorization Act one year ago, along with
a host of other, similar laws.
But other First
World countries are just as involved in this effort. The degree
of authority has been ramped up dramatically recently; however,
autocratic rule has generally been on the rise for several decades.
Along the way,
Europe and America have also been at work at controlling the rest
of the world. In the last twenty years, the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD), which is made up of thirty countries
and is headquartered in Paris, has led a campaign to force all countries
to adopt the same financial standards that they adhere to. Any country
that fails to burden its people with a level of tax equal to OECD
countries is threatened with being cut off from First World banking
should a citizen flee from a First World country and seek asylum
in a foreign country, the First World countries have, increasingly,
been dictating to other countries whether or not their offers of
asylum will be acceptable.
years ago, this sort of behaviour was almost unheard of. Yet today,
we have become accustomed to accepting that "the big guys can
bully the little guys if they wish."
by the most powerful nations has existed for millennia, the world
has never before seen the sophisticated minutiae of dominance that
we are now witnessing, universally.
So, what is
the logical outcome of this trend? Certainly, thanks to computers,
the internet, etc., the breadth of opportunities for power-centre
control will become ever-greater as the future unfolds. But the
question is whether the unlimited power that political leaders typically
seek will be possible.
the present economic crumbling of the First World may play a major
part. If currencies collapse, if stock markets tumble, if entire
governments fall, what level of power will these countries have
to continue their effort of ever-increasing force?
can be no doubt that the desire to control will not diminish (and
the bluster from political leaders indicates that they continue
to believe in their omnipotence), if we are watchful, we may begin
to spot fissures in the ramparts that were not there previously.
these cracks are small Greece laying off a large percentage of
civil servants, cities in the US cutting back on basic services,
such as police and fire departments, the UK closing public buildings
due to lack of funds. All of these suggest a trend in the collapse
of the bureaucracies that provide force. Although this trend is
only in its beginning stages, each time we see these minor cracks
in the walls, we should step over to the mental blackboard and make
another chalk mark next to the examples that are there.
As we remind
ourselves that these initial occurrences are taking place, we can
begin to balance them with the claims that the leaders are an unstoppable
elite force that will one day have total power.
court ratifies political refugee status for Belarus former investigator"
~ MercoPress, 28 August, 2012
The quote above
is from a Uruguayan newspaper. The publication is a useful daily
read, as it regularly reports events that often do not see the light
of day in the First World media.
refers to Aliaksander Barankov, a Russian whistleblower who had
the temerity to reveal that the family of Russian President Alexander
Lukashenko had been involved in fraudulent activities. Ecuador announced
last year that they would provide Barankov with asylum. Recently,
Russia appealed the decision, putting increased muscle on Ecuador.
In response, Ecuador's highest court threw out the renewed Russian
request for extradition. Whilst this may not be news in the First
World, First Worlders may be aware that Ecuador recently granted
asylum to another whistleblower, Julian Assange, who feared his
death if the US authorities were to get custody of him.
Chalk up another
one for Liberty.
Again, at present,
these events are small demonstrations of refusal to the bigger,
more powerful countries. In themselves, they are of little importance
to the average world resident. However, historically, whenever the
"little guys" have gotten fed up with the tyranny of the
"big guys" and sensed that the big guys were weakening,
it has always been small incidents such as these that have been
the bellwether of things to come. The more often such resistance
occurs and the more light is shone on such occurrences, the more
other "little guys" tend to question whether, in fact,
the "big guys" still maintain the power to bully them
to the degree they wish.
The fact is,
as any empire begins to crumble, it finds itself short of the funds
to pay to fight such battles, as other, more critical areas are
short of funding and must be attended to. Historically, the maintenance
of the periphery of the empire (be it geographical or ideological)
becomes increasingly unmanageable.
At some point
along the way, the resistance from the little guys begins to succeed
and, through general awareness, grows. When this occurs, the reaction
by smaller countries becomes more unified, as they realise that
"We don't have to tolerate this nonsense any longer."
In recent history,
there have been quite a few examples of Second and Third World countries
that have experienced diminished control, but, to date, no First
World country has had to concede its ability to dominate over smaller
So, are we
at the tipping point? Unfortunately, no, but the cracks are now
showing. Every crack is a step in the right direction the liberty
for small sovereign nations to determine their own way forward,
without the interference of the "big guys."
For those who
value liberty, this concept is of central importance. If the country
in which we live is headed in a direction that is not to our liking,
we would like to believe that there are other, more favourable countries
that we could choose to relocate to. In recent decades, Europe and
America have worked to close off or neutralise these possible exits.
As we observe
Great Unravelling, we would do well to keep an eye on increasing
resistance by the rest of the world to dominance by the big guys.
As a growing trend, it can only mean greater freedom for all people,
the world over, to be able to choose where they wish to reside.
our consciousness is focused on the increased effort of the world's
biggest powers to enforce subjugation of their populations. Historically,
this is always an endgame move, as the powers grow nearer to the
end of their run. In the coming years, we would do well to regularly
assess the opening-up of other jurisdictions as the old leaders
you enjoyed this article, you might like our complimentary report, The
Best of Jeff Thomas. Pulling no punches, Jeff shares
his thoughts on the greatest threat to gold ownership, finding a
bolthole on a budget, as well as the coming hyperinflation. You
may download this free report immediately in our member's
area. Or, if you are not a
for free here.
Man with permission.
Thomas [send him mail]
is British and resides in the Caribbean. The son of an economist
and historian, he learned early to be distrustful of governments
as a general principle. He began his study of economics around 1990,
learning initially from Sir John Templeton, then Harry Schulz and
Doug Casey and later others of an Austrian persuasion.
© 2012 International
Best of Jeff Thomas