The End Of American Exceptionalism


The battle for the universe has now turn a battle between two systems of human suspicion and governance; one formed on the vestiges of Western Neo-Liberalism and the other formed on a restating of Marxist Socialism. The implications are profound. One complement offers the probability of the delay of the human class on this planet, the other negates that possibility. This letter will try to explain the systemic differences between the two and the risk to human civilization of the one.




Let us start with a new letter in CNN Money US by Daniel Shane: He points out that China is winning the electric cars’ arms race. It is now the top marketplace for electric and hybrid cars, accounting for roughly half of all global sales.

Electric automobile prevalence is just one of many areas of activity where China is about to win economically. It also extends into many other areas good over the mercantile sphere. The Chinese design is to browbeat all nations of the universe by replacing Western Colonial Neo-Liberalism with a China centric form of Marxist Socialism.

This China centric form implies only singular participatory democracy and singular leisure of expression. It requires control of the media, the internet and education. It includes control of sacrament to the border that any sacrament presents a risk to tangible Chinese governmental norms.

The word “all for one, one for all” and “communality” is mostly used to impersonate this Chinese common alertness and its proceed to governance. Past Chinese history, eremite and other, plays an critical role.

In many ways the Chinese clarification of multitude is the conflicting of the American which is referred to as “Neo-Liberal.” Pointing out that disproportion is the purpose of this essay.

Neo-Liberalism in America is an underlying domestic truth formed on faith in the sanctification of personal “freedom” with the self-assurance that this leisure is voiced by self-determination. It extends back to the early allotment and then the essay of transcendentalist Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882) who popularized the countenance “self-reliance.” In the new American election it underlay the Donald Trump code words: “what creates America good again.” Ronald Reagan took advantage of it with his scathing use of the term “welfare queens.” It undergirds the substructure of today’s Republican Party. Senator Chuck Grassley, GOP Iowa, in an startling invulnerability of dropping “death taxes” for particular estates worth some-more than $5.5 million pragmatic that people not now influenced by that taxation are “spending every damn penny on drink or women.”

This American Neo-Liberalism in its strange and now in its solidified classic form by the Trump Administration encompasses leisure of choice in the marketplace place. With this has come an anathema of any form of supervision control over markets. American Republican Neo-Liberals currently perspective free marketplace mechanisms but supervision division as the optimal way of exchanging products and services and allocating heavenly and human resources.

The late economist Nobel Prize Winner Milton Friedman built his repute on this American faith of Neo-Liberalism. Adam Smith’s “hidden hand” had for Neo-Liberals like him turn a nearby eremite “belief.”

House Speaker Paul Ryan currently subscribes to this Friedmanian Neo-Liberal nearby eremite mercantile “belief” in the broadest sense. (Also, he is famous to be a supporter of Ayn Rand)

This complement of faith was the underlying reason Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan (A Neo-Liberal and Ayn Rand coadjutor in his younger years) directed the Congress divided from movement that could have prevented the 2008 marketplace crash. Here is a quote from him during a congressional testimony before the crash:

“Increasingly formidable financial instruments have contributed to the growth of a distant some-more flexible, efficient, and hence volatile financial system….”

Here is an early quote from Ayn Rand that explains both Greenspan’s and Ryan’s Neo-Liberal perspective on the risk of supervision control:

“We are quick coming the theatre of the ultimate inversion: the theatre where the supervision is free to do anything it pleases, while the adults may act only by permission; which is the theatre of the darkest durations of human history, the theatre of order by beast force.”

For an bargain of the risk to America currently – and the universe ‑ of Neo-Liberal thought, review my Countercurrents: The Failure Of Democracy

and perspective Norman Chomsky’s U Tube: Neoliberalism Is Destroying Our Democracy

At the same time; ask yourself: Could China, a country of 1.388 billion, successfully classify itself into a republic of community Socialistic centrism total with a tranquil form of capitalism that recognizes ecological disastrous and certain externalities? And if can, what then happens to the West?

This brings to the front very critical questions. Here are some of them:

X We are mercantile and nepotistic animals. As a result, via human civilization going back to the very beginning, mercantile energy has always been fraudulent in preference of the oligarchic blood line by way of large resources transfers to next generations. With it comes domestic privilege, intermarriage among the privileged, higher preparation and higher medical care. Chinese story has been tormented by this problem.

Can China change this pattern?

X Implicit in the arrogance of China apropos the environmental personality of the universe is the doubt as to either all other nations will follow. This has not been the case, and generally for the United States with the ascendency of the Trump administration. Unless all nations take movement together – on the pricing of Carbon for instance ‑ an ecological fall will occur.

Can China change this pattern?

X There is a need for disastrous outmost costs to be built into investment decisions via the universe good over Carbon. Every republic must attend as only one major noncompliant republic can negatively impact the outcome.

Can China change this pattern?

X There is a lethal juncture between the human dim side; identified in psychological denunciation as the neurotic/psychotic/narcissistic side, and the amatory side. Both Chinese and Western story have shown this same dichotomy. Throughout story this dim side has driven us to be enormously self-destructive. It is mostly in Western enlightenment voiced by the difference “evil” and “good.” This dim side continues to haunt the class and means huge pain and suffering.

Can China change this pattern?

David Anderson brings together a far-reaching operation of interests in his writings, namely; theology, history, evolutionary anthropology, philosophy, geopolitics, and economics.

He has created 3 books. A fourth is nearby completion. It is about a required geo political, social, religious, mercantile model change for human survival.


David is a connoisseur of Dartmouth College and the University of Hawaii (Harvard Asia Pacific) Advanced Management Program. Over his career he was an general risk manager and comparison executive at several of America’s premier multinational institutions. During that duration he became increasingly wakeful of the underlying cultural, institutional and eremite causes of past and benefaction civilizational dysfunction and conflict.

Check Also

Science says you may be drawn to people who demeanour like your relatives — here are 9 face traits that can make someone some-more attractive

Some investigate suggests that we tend to find people who demeanour like the conflicting sex …