The Reset We Keep Ushering In, Part III — The Course Correction

Guest Opinion by Alicia Haggermaker

By now, the pattern should be uncomfortably clear.

Systems don’t collapse because people are immoral, lazy, or irresponsible. They collapse because incentives compound, buffers are stripped, and correction is deferred until failure becomes unavoidable.

Resets are not evidence of resilience — they are evidence of missed correction windows.

So the question isn’t whether another reset is coming — it’s whether we keep repeating the same responses — or finally change what feeds the loop.

Prediction Isn’t Fate — It’s Pattern Recognition

There’s a tendency to hear warnings about collapse, currency shifts, or global instability and treat them like prophecy — fixed outcomes we’re powerless to change.

That’s a mistake.

Prediction without agency is useless.

Pattern recognition without correction is resignation.

Seeing where a system is headed is not the same thing as accepting it as inevitable. It’s an invitation to intervene earlier — where the cost is lower and the damage is reversible.

If we act as though every warning is destiny, we guarantee the outcome we claim to fear.

Self-Sufficiency Is Not Isolation

One of the most distorted ideas in modern politics is the belief that self-sufficiency means withdrawal from the world.

It doesn’t.

Self-sufficiency means the ability to function when guidance is incomplete, delayed, or wrong — whether that guidance comes from markets, institutions, or global authorities.

A self-sufficient system can cooperate without collapsing.

A dependent system panics when support is withdrawn.

We learned this the hard way.

• When medical judgment was outsourced wholesale, flexibility vanished.
• When supply chains centralized, resilience disappeared.
• When decision-making moved further away, correction slowed.

None of that required malice — it required over-reliance.

You Can’t Police the World While Running on Empty

There’s a fundamental contradiction we keep refusing to confront.

You cannot credibly stabilize external systems while your internal ones are brittle, exhausted, and fragmented.

You cannot lecture others about governance while:

• families are financially unstable
• infrastructure is aging without repair
• healthcare and insurance function as second bills
• trust in institutions is eroded

That isn’t strength — it’s projection.

Policing the world has become a substitute for fixing ourselves — a way to manage anxiety outward instead of correcting inputs at home.

Stabilization abroad becomes a performance when coherence is absent domestically. And:

• Performance is not governance.
• Dominance Is Not Resilience

Control feels reassuring during instability.

So does consolidation.

So does having someone “in charge.”

But dominance is fragile by design.

If a system only works when everyone else depends on it, then it must constantly enforce that dependency. When enforcement becomes necessary, legitimacy is already failing.

This applies to:

• military power
• economic leverage
• currency dominance

The moment a system must be maintained through force or fear, it has stopped competing on merit.

That doesn’t mean power disappears overnight — it means the cost of holding it rises — fast.

Currency Is a Signal, Not a Foundation

Gold, silver, crypto — all of these are being discussed as potential anchors for the next reset.

That tells us something important.

People are searching for trust.

But currency is not the root system.

It’s the scoreboard.

Backing money with tangible assets can provide discipline — but it doesn’t create value on its own. A handful of scarce materials cannot carry a modern economy unless that economy is already productive, resilient, and trusted.

True backing isn’t metal — it’s capacity.

• Can people create useful things?
• Can systems repair instead of replace?
• Can communities function locally when global systems hiccup?

Without that, any currency — fiat or hard-backed — becomes another abstraction propped up by force.

The Middle Path We Keep Ignoring

This isn’t a choice between global domination or total withdrawal.

That framing is itself a failure of imagination.

The middle path has always been available:

• strong local production
• distributed capacity
• repairable systems
• wages that reduce dependency instead of expanding services
• supply chains short enough to see and correct
• governance close enough to feel consequences

None of this is radical — it’s systems engineering.

What Real Correction Looks Like

Breaking the reset loop doesn’t require revolution.

It requires humility and early intervention.

Correction looks like:

• paying people enough to live so fewer systems are needed to prop them up
• designing goods to last, repair, and adapt
• stabilizing families before punishing breakdown
• building redundancy instead of shaving margins
• trusting people by default instead of —designing everything around worst cases

Most people follow rules.

Designing everything for edge cases creates universal friction.

Why This Matters Now

Resets used to “work” because the world had slack. We don’t anymore.

• Burnout is baseline.
• Buffers are gone.
• Trust is thin.

Which means the next reset won’t feel like renewal — it will feel like compression.

That’s why cheering consolidation right now is so dangerous. It trades short-term relief for long-term fragility — and calls it strength.

The Actual Choice in Front of Us

This isn’t about left versus right, or America versus the world — it’s a choice between managing collapse timing or reducing the conditions that cause it.

Between exporting instability or building internal coherence.

Between repeating the same reset with fewer reserves or fixing the inputs while correction is still possible.

The Question That Ends the Series

The question isn’t whether another reset is coming.

It’s whether we keep sending the bill forward — or finally stop ordering collapse on autopilot and pretending we didn’t click “buy now.”

Alicia Boothe Haggermaker is a lifelong resident of Huntsville, Alabama, and a dedicated advocate for health freedom. For more than a decade, she has worked to educate the public and policymakers on issues of medical choice and public transparency. In January 2020, she organized a delegation of physicians and health freedom advocates to Montgomery, contributing to the initial draft of legislation that became SB267.

Opinions do not reflect the views and opinions of ALPolitics.com. ALPolitics.com makes no claims nor assumes any responsibility for the information and opinions expressed above.