Why 2017 Is Like 1969

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds,

1969-2017: and here we are again, in so many ways.

A deeply polarizing new president, a disastrously misguided official narrative that the political Establishment doggedly supports despite a damning lack of evidence, and an economy teetering on the edge of recession–and worse.

Sound familiar? Welcome to 1969 redux. The similarities between the crises unfolding in 1969 and the present-day crises are not just skin-deep–they’re systemic.

Consider the basic parallels.

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)

1. Nixon was if anything more polarizing than Trump. If there was any politician Democrats loved to hate, it was Nixon. Yet Nixon won a close race against an Establishment Democrat, at least partly because he ran as a “peace candidate” and because he spoke to the Silent Majority who disagreed with the nation’s direction. The Silent Majority was mocked and ridiculed by the mainstream media as racist, close-minded deplorables.

2. The Democratic Party had become the Establishment bastion of war-mongering. The Democratic White House had been obscuring its devastating strategic and tactical miscalculations behind a slick PR campaign and a pervasive and often illegal program of suppressing dissenters and whistleblowers.

3. At the behest of the Establishment, an immense propaganda machinery had been running full-tilt to paper over foreign-policy failures and tragedies (including but not limited to the Vietnam War). In 2017, this immense propaganda machine is focused on discrediting the Trump presidency by unearthing or fabricating evidence of collusion with our default Bad Guy, Russia.

4. The political Establishment had decided to tamp down discontent with the Vietnam War by borrowing vast sums to pay for both “guns” (the war) and “butter” (the Great Society social welfare programs). Paying for the war and a military capable of fighting one-and-a-half other wars (at that time, the Pentagon was geared to fight 2.5 wars) would have required some sacrifice in domestic spending, and that would have further inflamed popular resistance to the Vietnam War. The expedient (and predictably disastrous) choice was to ramp up deficit spending so no domestic sacrifice was needed to pay the crushingly high costs of the Vietnam conflict. In 2017, U.S. public debt basically doubled during the Obama/congressional guns and butter borrowing spree from $10 trillion to $20 trillion.

5. The U.S. economy had by most measures topped out in 1966 or 1967, and by 1969 the veneer of permanently rising prosperity was shredding. The first wave of globalization washed ashore as our enemies and allies in World War II had built powerful export economies that had the advantage of cheap currencies via a vis the U.S. dollar.

6. China was a potentially destabilizing force that threatened U.S. hegemony in the Pacific. In 1969, China was deep in the chaotic throes of the Cultural Revolution which decimated its educated and leadership classes and destroyed much of its physical cultural heritage. In 2017, China’s monumental economic growth is losing steam even as its designs to establish hegemony in the South China Sea increasingly threaten its Asian neighbors’ security.

7. The Cold War with the U.S.S.R. was heating up in numerous places around the world, including the Mideast and Southeast Asia.

8. Beneath the relative stability of the Cold War geopolitical stand-off, the global economy and social order was changing in profound ways. Technological advances were poised to fatally disrupt many established and supposedly permanent centers of power. Trade and capital flows were shifting in ways that undermined the Bretton Woods currency order, and social/cultural revolutions were spreading around the globe like wildfire.

9. The mainstream media parroted the official narratives and “facts” until the counter-evidence was too overwhelming to ignore.

And here we are again, in so many ways. A deeply polarized nation, angry over rising expectations that no longer match economic realities, an Establishment that doubles down on failed policies and narratives rather than admit catastrophic errors of judgment, a political order that pursues public relations and “signaling” over substance, a political/ financial Elite that chooses political and economic expediency, kicking the can down the road rather than tackle thorny problems head-on, a stagnating economy that is poised on the precipice of profound technological and social disruption, and a global order that is fraying and coming apart at the seams.

The decade following 1969 was one of multiple global disruptions in the political, social, energy, geopolitical, currency and economic spheres. The difference now is that the buffers that existed in 1969 are now paper-thin, and so the potential downside of disruption and instability is much, much greater.

We Do These Things Because They’re Easy: Our All-Consuming Dependence on Debt

Our Financial Buffers Are Thinning

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
11 Comments
MrLiberty
MrLiberty
July 18, 2017 12:06 pm

In 1969 the US government was at least still moderately constrained by the existence of the ability of foreign governments to redeem dollars for gold. In 1973, Nixon severed that final “constraint” on government spending and we all see the results. Today is SO, SO, SO MUCH WORSE than it was in 1969. We had a country that still had the ability to recover. Today we have a country and economy so destroyed by the actions of government that even the smallest black swan could destroy everything overnight.

Abelard Lindsey
Abelard Lindsey
July 18, 2017 12:23 pm

Naw, its more like 1981.

Zarathustra
Zarathustra
July 18, 2017 1:01 pm

Nixon was smart. Trump is just a bullshitter.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  Zarathustra
July 18, 2017 1:08 pm

Nixon was smart?

Hardly.

He got himself removed from office because he tried to substitute a coverup lie for the simple truth he would have been forgiven for.

Bob
Bob
July 18, 2017 1:35 pm

Abe, you have cut right to the heart of the matter! 1969, or 1981 — a difference in degree of severity. And most likely, to be followed by a long wave of expansion.

It’s NOT the end of the world, people…(unless, you know, Yellowstone, Mega-Asteroid, Airborne Ebola, or some such!)

Anon
Anon
  Bob
July 19, 2017 10:38 am

Bingo. If you are married to the old ways that you were taught by the intellectuals, PHD idiots, bankster crooks, and Madison avenue, then it is indeed probably the end of YOUR world. If you are flexible in your thinking, can spot opportunity and have a good base skillset (not the nonsense mainstream of “college” but real skills) then you probably are at the beginning of some personal good fortune and prosperity.
It all depends on perspective.

Iska Waran
Iska Waran
July 18, 2017 1:38 pm

Nixon faced big democrat majorities in congress.

BL
BL
July 18, 2017 1:48 pm

It is not at all unusual for TPTB to repackage these scenarios over and over as it is a workable formula for them. The key is for the sheep to begin to recognize the game plan.

Why is it the “PEACE” candidates are always the ones who once elected drive us to war? This just keeps working for the elites over and over again and yet John Q. Dipshit never catches on. There’s BIG money in war and Smedley said it is a racket which is just another word for organized crime.

Let this time be different, just say no to the bullshit.

rhs jr
rhs jr
July 18, 2017 2:09 pm

The MSM beat Nixon but Trump might beat the Communist Propaganda Central MSM.

Anonymous
Anonymous
  rhs jr
July 18, 2017 2:27 pm

But can he beat the Republicans?

That’s where I see the real opposition lying, even if they try to be covert about it.

Hollow man
Hollow man
July 19, 2017 6:03 am

Trump it seems is facing a Republican majority who oppose him as well as Democrats.