Hit the like button above and use the share button to share this across social media. Leave a comment if the mood strikes you to do so (be nice!), and don't forget to subscribe if you haven't done so already.
Health is back to 100%, and posting will proceed as usual. I appreciate your patience.
The internal stability of the US is remarkable; USD being the global panic reserve helps. (But there are IRL reasons, independence from shock, a broader anti-fragility, see Norway).
However, on US foreign policy, the "all sticks" is slowly taking a toll. To quote myself 😎
"America is burning international political capital, always choosing coercion over cooperation when it comes to its allies. A rigid enforcement of Washington’s absolute will is the State Department’s default stance. This is almost unprecedented in my lifetime, with one exception: the brief global grieving period right after 9/11; for a short while America got a carte blanche to stomp around as far as the world was concerned. Now however, there’s little sympathy, only fear."
"Chinese foreign policy is all carrots, no sticks. A mutual indifference to each other’s internal politics is expected by Beijing, but that’s it. Even if you disagree with this policy and prefer to be nosy, at least it’s mutual, which as pragmatic as it gets in diplomacy.
I’m not happy about this, I don’t want the West to lose, but I’m not an American, I don’t even have a single vote on the matter. Where I do have a vote is the European Union."
"Having no power of our own, Washington only communicating down to us through sticks and being forced to foot the bill for their adventurous mistakes is the worst possible situation for Europe. It’s humiliating and unsustainable."
I mentioned below that Europe has been my biggest surprise in all this. So far Europe seems to have little to win and everything to lose in this proxy war between the US and Russia and yet they seem completely docile in their policy positions. I grew up admiring Europe, perhaps France most of all, as they seemed quick to protest and fight for even small policy decisions. I viewed Americans as too fat and too hooked on reality tv to fight for anything (I still might be right on this in many ways but distrust being at record lows for all institutions didn't fit in this view neatly, I thought they would be too unaware to have such high levels of distrust).
What did I miss or get wrong about Europe? I know it's not some homogenous group of countries but in terms of policy regarding Russia and Ukraine it might as well be.
This has also been quite a surprise to me. Europe has indications of wanting to be a dominant power, yet have been almost completely subservient to the US on this. Americans are quite fat and complacent in the populace, but the controlling class is more energetic and aggressive than ever. I've seen it myself raising a child - the level of competition to get into the top schools or get top scholarships is astonishing to me. I was competitive back in the early 90s when I entered college (I got a full ride), but I'd be lucky to get my tuition covered if I were entering college today. There may be a soft, creamy middle, but there's a razor-sharp crust.
Political cowardice, exhaustion, comfort under the American defense umbrella that allows them to spend money elsewhere (the French are upset about this attitude from their fellow Europeans) covers most of it.
The French barely spend 2.0% of GDP on defense and have sent scant aid to Ukraine (1.41 billion euros, or 0.06% of GDP).
The French aren't spending like they want operational independence from America, they are spending enough that when they complain about not having operational independence from America they have a (single, starveling) leg to stand on.
1. Europe needs to unlearn its learned helplessness on the international stage
2. Europe needs to retvrn to de Gaulle
De Gaulle has done this before, post-WWII, at a time when Europe was more devastated and Washington (and Moscow as well) was way more dominant, both on the Old Continent and globally.
I'm quoting Wikipedia of all places here:
"His vision stood in contrast to the Atlanticism of the United States and Britain, preferring instead a Europe that would act as a third pole between the United States and the Soviet Union. By including in his ideal of Europe all the territory up to the Urals, de Gaulle was implicitly offering détente to the Soviets. As the last chief of government of the Fourth Republic, de Gaulle made sure that the Treaty of Rome creating the European Economic Community was fully implemented, and that the British project of Free Trade Area was rejected, to the extent that he was sometimes considered as a "Father of Europe""
What I would add to this megapost is this: Orban said, as a bit of a troll, that if Donald Trump was president, the Ukraine war wouldn't have happened. Bit of citation needed - if such is possible for hypotheticals - from me.
I'd put it this way: if Europe had a de Gaulle from 2008, but at least from 2014, the Ukraine war would not have happened. When the US overplayed its post-9/11 hand with the Iraqi War in 2003, Europe missed a chance to decouple from Washington.
De Gaulle was a one-off. Because of his background and experience he had the assurance to lead the way he did. He also had several advantages: the legacy of Vichy left the old Right demoralised and discredited and, therefore, easier to mould and co-opt, while the USSR (and the French Communist Party) actively co-operated with De Gaulle when required because they saw his brand of nationalism as less of a threat than Atlanticism. Above all, De Gaulle ruled over a nation that still retained a vivid sense of itself.
There is no one remotely like De Gaulle in Europe today. Europe itself is vastly less European than it was. Several generations of Americanisation plus wave after wave of mass migration have transformed the continent. De Gaulle's vision of a common European home was directly invoked by Putin years back and the EU leadership recoiled in horror.
Orban's comment was cheeky and misleading. Trump lacked the effective authority to constrain the US intelligence community and their Ukrainian minions. It is unlikely that he could have stopped anything.
The EU simply lacks the capacity to resist Washington. Germany's supine response to the Nordstream sabotage demonstrates that.
I fear that Europe still has a way to go before it turns the corner. I wish it were otherwise. On the bright side, Hungary is out of step with Brussels and that is the safest course for the foreseeable future.
However, and this is where my perspective as an inhabitant of a German colony offers some insight, there's more than one example, and more recently. Quoting again from the megapost above:
"Nord Stream 2 is the second most important counterpoint to anyone doubting that independent European foreign policy was ever possible after 1945. NS2 is the proof that we (well, the Germans) had some agency, up until the mid-2010s. Despite Washington openly objecting to its construction, both the Obama and the Trump White House and the rest of the Swamp-adjacent think tanks raising the alarm, Berlin went ahead.
It took until this September to remedy this insolence."
Germans, in the Merkel era, had no trouble asserting themselves against Washington, chiefly to protect their commercial interests. And they definitely had no trouble lording over the rest of Europe, they're not the beta dog meme from our perspective, the Greens are even more vicious enforcers of the Kraut will.
Their castration on the pragmatist/international level is very recent, and not 100% complete, despite the clowns they've elected last year. When it comes to the Klaun-in-Chief, Scholz, I'm an optimist.
They still have some fight in them, but due to this imbalance, it ends up making things worse for the rest of us:
"To the question “what could Washington do to Berlin without suffering any consequences?” the answer right now is “anything”.
The Germans are unwilling and incapable of retaliating in either action or words. That’s the state of the leading economic and political power in Europe at this point.
Yet Germany is still willing and capable of bossing the rest of Europe around; so in effect we’re lead by cowards."
And to provide an argument for a more assertive foreign policy that even Germans will understand:
"Europe’s pragmatist local power was pushed out of Ukraine after the resolution of the 2014 Crimea crisis by Post-(trans)-Neocon warhawks, leaving Berlin and Paris with no seat at the table; 8 years later, when it inevitably blew up, the continent is happily eating the losses from Washington’s gamble. No complains. If anything, we’re asking for more. It would have been cheaper and better for everyone if we meddled in our backyard, as powers supposed to do; European cowardice and indifference regarding post-2014 Ukraine ended up being the worst choice (to German readers: the most expensive choice)."
I don't think Europe lacks the capacity to resist America. What can they do in retaliation, blow our pipelines up? That river has been crossed already.
Regarding Hungary's course being safe: it is anything but safe. On the other hand, the risks Hungary takes are for its own, and on some level for Europe's sake. They are at least gambles that are aimed to benefit our own side. That's, unfortunately, is a rarity in Europe today.
My only criticism of him is that he just can't let go of gotchas, can't help getting himself entangled in the stupidest kulturkampf battles. Sometimes it's wiser to just stay quiet or to walk away.
Peter, nigga, you have a megaphone and a podium, act like it!
Oh well, if he has the extra energy.
Our political discourse is keenly aware of topics we call "chewtoys", that only dummies waste time and energy on. Distractions with very little upside, debates where engagement will be a net loss, even if you "win". Peter? He jumps right in. I adore the spirit, but I don't look.
When Trump gave up Flynn he lost any hold or allies in IC.
Trump made no allies in the Civil Service and he could have, because he wanted to 💩 post on Twitter and let Javanka have a portfolio, and what a portfolio it was.
Trump never had a chance to change the system, he lost it 5 years before he was even born, in 1941, when Burnham made it clear how elected top dogs won't be able to go against the unelected momentum of the managerial class.
💩posting made him a president who actually could do something against the wishes of this class: to 💩post straight to the public.
Just compare him to 2 terms president Obama, who basically said - and channel your best Obama impression in your mind - "I don't.. heh.. wanna rock.. any boat!.. heh". And so he did not.
Flynn was definitely the turning point and it happened at the very beginning of Trump's presidency. A catastrophic failure of judgement and character on Trump's part. Flynn was more feared than Trump himself. And with good reason.
Not sure if there ever were any potential allies in the Civil Service.
Re Javanka...am unsure what or who to believe. 'Insider' gossip is invariably 99% bullshit. The public love it and the low and medium level insiders live and breathe it in the creepiest way possible, but it is mostly about misdirection and reputation mgt.
My guess is that Javanka were used. I do not believe that Jarred was behind the Platinum deal, more likely the human mascot given credit for someone else's work. The 'name' always plays that role across all policy areas. As for the deals with Saudi...he was the public face or emissary only. State Dep't is worse than toxic in Saudi Arabia, so a personal emissary from White House was needed. Family is the only political institution the Gulf Arabs feel comfortable with. The Saudi turn to Russia and China was all but inevitable, speeded on by Keystone Cops standard intrigue by the US IC (Kashoggji).
I've shared the Turbo-America articles with a few people and it's funny how mad they got at the idea that America is NOT about to collapse or enter a civil war.
You would think living in the richest most powerful country in history would make people happy or at least grateful, and the idea of the Jeffersonian experiment surviving would make Americans of almost all stripes optimistic, but it seems many people (esp the Extremely Online) are so poisoned with bile they can't handle good news.
Since we're living in an age of proxy psychological diagnoses, I'm gonna add that what's up next on our menu of mass-formation hysteria is Freud's return of the repressed (I'm gonna be a Nazi since everyone says that's the worst thing you can be!) and also the return of the infantile, where if I (or my side) can't win everything and watch my enemies cry, the game needs to be thrown over and destroyed.
Turbo-America may be the dominant institution poised for a 1000-yr reign, but the inmates in this asylum keep getting crazier!
Why would they be happy? They aren't the benefactors after all. The US is in many ways an oligarchy is it not? Although I do understand some of what you mean. As Europe is showing us it's better to be in the eye of the storm than in it's path (the storm being the actions of the US empire). We might even see the benefits of industry moving from Germany and other places to the US ( and I ask, how can they go along with this?).
As far as what's next "our menu of mass-formation hysteria" I can see your point. You already see this playing out.
While we might be in the middle of the reign one thing I do wonder is if everything is speeding up. So while we might be in the middle in relation to Rome, that doesn't mean we have the same amount of time ahead of us than behind us. It truly feels like things that would have taken 20 years are happening in the span of 5 years, does it not?
oh absolutely History moves at fast-forward speed now, and the image that always pops into my head is of a tornado (the tornado being modernity and its machines) pulverizing all in its path (that all being all that exists).
there is definitely a good chance of some unseen cataclysm up ahead, the iceberg that sinks our ship, but there's also a chance that America warps and mutates yet survives for a few more centuries in some slightly different form.
CP, you got that one right! The people who get everything wrong right now will inevitably use hindsight to launder their reputations and will end up collecting the rent on their pretended foresight.
My guess at this stage is that Turboamerica declines relative to other powers, but morphs into a post-unipolar regional hegemon (Empire #2) with a few outlying vassals (Australia and Brazil).
Domestically, Turboamerica becomes either a new iteration of the current regime (a better version of Venezuela, suitably rebranded) or, at best, a Sunbelt Shogunate with a token president in Panem on the Potomac and a cluster of half-way prosperous industrialised regional power centres in the old Confederacy under allegiance to the multinationals.
One great question remains: what will the culture be like? The music? Will the soundtrack of managed decline be good enough to dance to? I despair of any great literature getting written anytime soon, but some good music would be nice.
My crystal ball foresees inevitable immiseration and Brazilification, as we move into a postnational state (Enterprise Zone 1?) with half a billion Americans who mostly hate each other but are too dazed by Huxley's soma to fight or care, and as our globalist overlords escape to mountain lairs and private islands with private armies (and leave the governing to Skynet).
As for literature, it will be conveyed in ideograms suited for our postliterate future (maybe a return to hieroglyphs or cuneiform in the form of emojis); as for music, my only hope is that any use of Autotune is a felony punishable by firing squad.
You need the Morality Police to keep the repressed in its place...Television is replete with great Moralising, but is conflicted as it earns its money from Repressive desublimation, thanks to Maddison Ave...(Controlled demolition of the nations Morality) ?
A lot of people just want drama. I blame way too much infotainment.
Also, there is a desire for a Gotterdammerung...the collective form of a death-wish developing amongst a population that despairs of ever achieving a dignified future. And we are a long way off from peak crazy...the synergies between the mass consumption of drugs and the dysfunctional socialisation produced by social media have yet to reach full force.
All you can do is read the classics, listen to good music and eat in good company.
I continue to be fascinated by this thesis. I do accept that populism is being beat back effectively internally. I'm very curious to see how the empires external efforts will work out. Clearly the grip on Europe is stronger than I ever thought possible, but in many cases the grip on the non-west world seems weaker than I thought. The things that will be on my radar are:
1. Saudi Arabia appears to be the one of the main indicators for me. I would have thought they were a vassal state like Europe, yet they seem intent on rebuking the empire time and time again (I mean the US has been bombing Yemen for how long on their behalf and still they seem closer to Russia than the US).
2. The oil cap just enacted among G7. This is quite a flex. Imposing your own price on Russian oil and expecting the world to go along. My feeling is much of the world is not going a long, and what does this mean? If the west is crippled with higher energy prices this must have some downward effects.
3. The continuing sanctions against Russia, now Europe will not buy Russian oil even by ship if I understand correctly. How will Europe be able to remain viable like it has while at the same time increasing energy prices significantly on itself? (they were able to stockpile for this winter due to Russian energy, what comes next year?)
4. BRICS. Will BRICS grow in size and power, and most importantly be able to present an alternative to the dollar, especially in the trade of oil?
5. The war in Ukraine. Russia appears to be on the cusp of making a much bigger push in Ukraine. While the US is admitting that Ukraine has run through a lot of it's artillery and weapons already, and doesn't have the capacity to replenish them in short order. Will it matter if Ukraine faces defeat and a new migrant crisis on an even larger scale results from this?
On the home front the one thing that is attracting my attention is just how bad Hollywood is doing. It's gone all in on pushing the new religion of the west but the returns aren't there. It seemed for a while that they could push without fear, as Marvel and other IP would fill in any gaps. Now, after the worst Thanksgiving weekend ever (not even adjusted for inflation), there is more and more evidence that a correction of some sort is inevitable. Disney's most "woke" show ever, Strange World, will likely lose them a figure not way off 200 million, which must rank among the worst flops ever. Art appears to have been the first victim of the empires new religion, and I wonder what effect this new total dark age will have and whether it will matter or not within your thesis.
BRICS won't amount to anything. The main reason is nothing unites the said countries elites like the way American and European(and other Western elites are) are united. West has a common religion(liberalism) in a way BRICS doesn't. The West also has one leader. So easier to manage the relationship. Denmark might not listen to Australia but both will listen to the US. Who is the leader of BRICS?
I actually think they are very united right now, but don't know if it will last. They are united by their distrust of the US. They are united by what they saw happen to Russia with all the sanctions, with former neutral institutions being weaponized as quickly as they were (although so far I'm not convinced these sanctions have worked, but that is because of how quickly these other nations seemed to unite in part). Some countries like Iran would probably do just about anything to make it work as it would finally allow them to move from the bad kids table.
I see your point about a leader (although I'm guessing China will likely be the closest thing to a leader). That's why I asked if they can truly create an alternative to the dollar. This is a herculean effort and It's difficult to imagine how this will happen as there isn't a clear leader to push BRICS to use their currency like the US did with the dollar. My understanding is they are looking at a commodity based currency like gold given that they won't be able to pick from an existing currency. If they can really pull this off though then it will be proof that BRICS really is a force to be reckoned with.
It could work in a similar fashion to OPEC+. While at times fissures have created problems within it, for the most part it has been pretty resilient (am I wrong that they don't have an obvious leader too?).
Brazil won't dare do anything against the US. Lula, Bolsanoro doesn't matter. Every Latin American knows who runs this hemisphere.
India nationalists hate Muslims the most, then the Chinese, and only then the US. Indian nationalist faction will not work with the Chinese against the US, at least not in any long term project. And never in a million years will they accept China as leader. Also don't forget that increasing number of middle class Indians are becoming liberals in terms of LGBT and feminism due to Western influence. It's weird they hate Muslims, but support LGBT. If that faction comes to power, will they side with the Russians or the US?
You might be right, I only mentioned this to be something to watch. I certainly don’t know Indian politics and attitudes in any way, so I will take your word there.
My main point is only that we are seeing a lot of realignment right now. After all you would not have to go back many years to hear from our most prestigious foreign policy experts that there is not future in which Russia and China become strong partners given their history. Yet, here we are witnessing just that and from what I can see it’s a match made in heaven (China being the worlds great manufacturer but lacking in natural resources, energy, and land for growing food, while Russia is the basically the exact opposite).
True, I have said it before but geopolitics are impossible to predict. US looked very weak last year after its humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan but now it looks all powerful. This could change as quickly as well.
India is too big, too complex and too divided for anyone to predict long term trends with any great accuracy. It is also very dynamic and the Indian elite are constrained by the ambitions of the urban middle classes and the masses.
India does not need a close alliance with China, just a degree of communication and co-operation. This is readily achievable. China and India both seek stability in Burma and Afghanistan. China does not need or seek India/Pakistan tensions. Both India and China are close to Russia and both are happy enough see Iran remain independent of the US and powerful enough to constrain Sunni fundamentalism.
The US will find friends and allies within India (and even more so in Pakistan), but these will not have a free hand. India simply cannot be controlled effectively by a comprador elite. US foreign policy elites lack the cultural skills to understand India.
Russia is essential for India. It is a reliable supplier of energy, an enthusiastic trade partner and plays a key role in power politics across Asia, from Turkey to Korea and Japan. Military ties are close. Trust and respect genuine. Moscow is pragmatic and does not seek to project power in South Asia...it just needs local friends and allies. Russia and India have a shared interest in the peaceful development of Central Asia, above all Afghanistan.
My best guess is that India will tilt towards Russia and will achieve a modus vivendi with China. Pakistan is the wild card.
I just got back from an archeological expedition to Ancient Egypt. There I found a previously undiscovered tablet with incredibly intact hieroglyphics. It's a prophecy that, if I'm translating right, reads "the U.S. dollar will surrender global reserve currency status just as soon as the U.S. gets good at soccer." So, you could say a lot's riding on the guys in 2026.
Napoleon’s policy on logistics and money was make war pay for itself- so foraging, looting and the associated murders.
Not to mention war is killing and destruction.
Napoleon’s view of humanity was their motives and his levers were force and gain, also his practice.
If you want to say moral is propaganda, that’s fair. Sure.
Its true, although soldiers morale is largely their condition physically, victory, leadership, cohesion.
My point is that Napoleon’s quote on moral advantage over material is very misunderstood.
To your valid point in the present you are totally correct, my nation is led by the abyss in human form, the Republic is overthrown, the soldiers and worse military families are walking away, are afraid to shoot (Uvalde is happening everywhere) and the entire thing is hollow.
yes, napoleon was 'hitler' to early 19th century europe.
my image of moral superiority is the vc over saigon, which was corrupt as to make the viet minh preferred.
no amount of materiel would win, and annihilation was/is no answer.
sadly, i think in the present debacle is existential and materiel will decide.
amusing is posing poutin as evil, and the object when the repacements are ultra nationalists who would not send donetz militia against western mercs....
BRICS does not need a leader or a uniting ideology. They do not have to agree on everything, just co-operate on the basics: settlements and exchange systems, economic integration adapted to maintain sovereignty and support for region or country specific development models designed as alternatives to the US one. They all need economic development that is more socially inclusive than US style oligarchic capitalism.
BRICS is not a utopian project. It is a pragmatic adaptation for the needs of the ruling mafiosi of a selection of countries who realise that they have a very problematic future within the crumbling US-led system. A kinder, gentler (or at least more realistic and sustainable) form of politics than Turboamerican Clown World kleptocracy.
Not having a leader could be its major strength. Besides, countries that have, ostensibly, nothing in common can unite and unite hard in the face of a powerful enemy that is out to subjugate them all.
The US has screwed with the Saudis. The dominant element within the US Deep State backed the rivals of Prince Muhammad Bin Sultan. They lost and MBS has little choice but to seek support elsewhere. MBS faces the danger of a US backed coup.
In addition, the inability of the US to displace Bashar al-Assad plus the weaknesses of the US military and poor quality/value for money of US weaponry contrast with the successes of Putin's Russia.
Ultimately, the Al-Sa'ud are responsive to power shifts internationally.
The dynamism and multiple assymmetries of the big picture are extraordinary. Turboamerica has tightened its grip on Europe but is weakening relative to Russia and China. At home the regime flourishes, despite Clown World sinking into constant hysteria.
"Turboamerica has tightened its grip on Europe but is weakening relative to Russia and China."
This seems to me to be exactly right. But, at the same time, wouldn't that be evidence *against* the Turbo America thesis?
I mean, this looks like Turbo America is becoming *less* powerful against it's big global rivals, and is instead simply retreating back to the comfort of NATO Europe where it can become an even more abusive landlord. It kinda looks like Turbo America is becoming less Turbo, not more. IDK.
Good point. It depends what "Turbo" means for you. It is certainly an inspired formulation.
The connotations "Turbo" have for me are drawn largely from 'turbocapitalism', a term coined by Edward Luttwak to describe post Cold War capitalism unconstrained by social or political limits: Turbo America is simply the imperial champion for an aggressive form of global capitalism and the old American nation-state is the home or central province of the global empire, which is now an empire in retreat.
Turbo America is strengthening its ties to (or hold over) key dependencies and client states (above all Europe, Canada and Australia) despite losing ground elsewhere. But a reconstituted empire could thrive for generations to come, though this would not necessarily benefit the people of the USA.
From Rome HBO series: "400 years after its last king was driven of the city, the Republic of Rome rules many nations, but cannot rule itself".
Looking at the dysfunction of urban America, and the hollowing out of rural America, I think this quote sums up the Republic of America pretty well as well.
"global hegemonic position" is essential evil and opposed to the traditions of the usa since george washington warned of 'foreign entanglements' is the 1790's.
usa belligerence is evil.
the usa and its population is about where the 'good germans' were in 1940....
hegemon is inherently immoral, and rules based in propaganda for rule!
The US will try to sell exportable goods into the European marketplace. Then the US will realize it doesn't make exportable goods. Then Europe will buy everything it needs with the belt and road initiative, thereby dealing a devastating victory to China.
OTOH, look at the persistent, high levels of US trade deficits. A first order approximation would be that the US does not make exportable goods. Europe won't be able to get the manufactured goods it needs from the US. The US cannot even fully supply its own domestic markets for most manufactured products. Apparently we're even having a hard time making enough artillery shells to supply Ukraine.
No matter how dumb or arrogant they seem and likely are, their power is unfathomable, and the one thing they are undeniably good at is maintaining it
Internally we are back at the center on economics, foreign policy, and maybe in the future even some surprise issues like immigration, but with a hard left bent on social issues that doesn't seem likely to abate given the huge structural advantages one party has over the other
Abroad, I still hold out a little hope that America's allies will find their balls. Some indications lately that Latin America is going to be as anti-Yankee as it's been in a while. Asia seems to be bristling a little at the possibility of being asked to sacrifice for Taiwan like Europe is for Ukraine. And I do think the situation in Ukraine has the potential to strengthen the EU against American influence in the future, even if they're still cucking for now
I'm new to this thesis but haven't noticed a change in American foreign policy. It is as blundering and destructive as ever.
The USA is a stable third-world country. Having a nuclear deterrent while surrounded by oceans helps keep the rest of the world at bay. Hating your poor helps with domestic issues.
The USA is an exemplary Third World country...a superior version of Brazil siphoning off wealth from its empire (a legacy of the apogee of industrial supremacy in the mid 20th c.).
"Darth Brandon has managed to stumble, Jar Jar Binks style, into almost complete imperial dominance."
Thank you for sharing that.
Agree with Menyhei and you. We, America, are burning through all the political capital, global goodwill and benefit of the doubt that was earned from a muscular post WW2 foreign policy. And our team is good with it.
We were leaders of a liberal democratic philosophy that included an independent NATO. We kept paying all the bills and eventually started acting like we were entitled to make all the decisions. That would be okay if we were led by a Metternich. A stable world order keeps the money and influence flowing more effectively than the current winner take all strategy. I'm concerned that our hubris becomes arrogance where we can't fend off all the states that want to reassert their sovereignty. That would be a big angry dog-pile. The fall would be quick and a much bigger shock than 9/11; and it won't just be Palestinians dancing in the streets. Hope I'm wrong.
I'm a freeloader, but you've almost got me; maybe for Christmas. Also, glad you're feeling better.
I don't think Americans truly understand the colossal strength of their soft power. In the West we all live in some form of America. You have decades of global goodwill left to burn through.
While I’m divided on the question of America’s power in the world (it seems to me to be both powerful and fragile at the same time, like a Killdozer that could shut down at any moment if a valve breaks), one thing I do agree on is that a civil war seems highly unlikely. That said, I’m thinking in terms of a truly militarized, SHTF situation civil war, and something Evil Political Scientist has observed is that many civil wars just look like sustained periods of high violence—and by some standard, we’re arguably already in that.
You may be mistaking inertia for solidity, but it’s probably too soon to tell.
Still don’t think I’d quite put the Armed Forces in Blue. DOD sat on its hands Jan 6, the ARNG was essentially duped and knows it, and to put them Left at all is simply wrong.
They may obey orders, its very iffy. The retention and re-enlistment rates are plummeting far below sustainment levels.
They may well be melting away.
Military families is a very real thing, its really generational and usually police same families.
They walk replacing them for war or even current commitments would require conscription.
A very unlikely development that wouldn’t be positive.
A military Empire headed by a kleptocracy who’s police despise it isn’t very stable either.
USG is happy with this development. Because now they have a solid justification to recruit from beyond the borders. Just as the US Chamber of Commerce says due to labor shortages we need mass immigration, DOD would say due to the "enlistment crisis", we need to recruit from strong American allies such as Mexico, Nigeria and India. Who's gonna oppose it? Senator Chuck Grassley? Lmfao.
And when the conservative dad from suburban Dallas sees Private Kumar saluting the American flag in a slick DOD commercial between his college football games, his heart will swell with American pride and he will drop all his opposition to the recruitment of foreigners. Because that's racist you know. Because they are fighting for America despite not being born here. So they are more American than me!
It's sad how pathetically easy it is to psyop the average conservative into supporting the most depraved policies just by dressing it up in the American flag.
So mark my words, just as the Franks and the Goths replaced Italians in the Roman Army, so will foreigners replace Americans in the US Armed Forces in the coming decades.
Great points, but I have reservations. We are in uncharted waters. The weakening of the military is obvious but the regime's most spirited domestic opponents are aging suburban whites who are most alive when they watch TV. Under historically normal conditions Biden and Harris would be paraded in a cage and then hung, drawn and quartered before cheering crowds. The passivity and confusion on show and the success of the regime in managing the dysfunction is truly extraordinary.
The kleptocrats do not need traditional stability. They just need to hang on, maintain a bit of control and normalise the weirdness and managed decline. Throw in a few productive Crackerstans sustained by re-industrialisation, a handful of solvent states with bullion deposits and Helms Deep in Florida and you have all anyone needs for an improved version of South Africa. The kleptocrats will cheerfully settle for this.
If it is to survive the regime needs to reign in the financial sector, reform the entire monetary system, manage public debt of astronomic proportions and successfully restructure trade and supply chains so that living standards do not collapse. It has to do this without either the legitimacy of properly conducted elections and transparent and reliable institutions or a population with the trust or cohesion necessary for significant sacrifices. And there are a ton of insiders who'd be sick of their colleagues and frightened for the future should the villains hang on for another generation or more of looting and curated dysfunction.
If I were a Yank, I'd pray that the Party of Fortinbras gets its act together ASAP. Once Odessa falls Panem-on-the-Potomac will go into full fuhrerbunker mode. I expect 2023 to be eventful.
It appears that someone is jerking Biden's chain bigly. Here is a thirteen minute podcast by coincidence theorist Dr Joseph P. Farrell on the incineration of some Secret Security vehicles used by the Biden family. If Farrell is right, Late Imperial Clown World is getting sinister.
Hit the like button above and use the share button to share this across social media. Leave a comment if the mood strikes you to do so (be nice!), and don't forget to subscribe if you haven't done so already.
Health is back to 100%, and posting will proceed as usual. I appreciate your patience.
For paying subscribers, the chat feature has now been enabled. See here for details - https://niccolo.substack.com/p/fisted-by-foucault-subscriber-chat
The internal stability of the US is remarkable; USD being the global panic reserve helps. (But there are IRL reasons, independence from shock, a broader anti-fragility, see Norway).
However, on US foreign policy, the "all sticks" is slowly taking a toll. To quote myself 😎
"America is burning international political capital, always choosing coercion over cooperation when it comes to its allies. A rigid enforcement of Washington’s absolute will is the State Department’s default stance. This is almost unprecedented in my lifetime, with one exception: the brief global grieving period right after 9/11; for a short while America got a carte blanche to stomp around as far as the world was concerned. Now however, there’s little sympathy, only fear."
"Chinese foreign policy is all carrots, no sticks. A mutual indifference to each other’s internal politics is expected by Beijing, but that’s it. Even if you disagree with this policy and prefer to be nosy, at least it’s mutual, which as pragmatic as it gets in diplomacy.
I’m not happy about this, I don’t want the West to lose, but I’m not an American, I don’t even have a single vote on the matter. Where I do have a vote is the European Union."
"Having no power of our own, Washington only communicating down to us through sticks and being forced to foot the bill for their adventurous mistakes is the worst possible situation for Europe. It’s humiliating and unsustainable."
The EU needs to have its own foreign policy.
I mentioned below that Europe has been my biggest surprise in all this. So far Europe seems to have little to win and everything to lose in this proxy war between the US and Russia and yet they seem completely docile in their policy positions. I grew up admiring Europe, perhaps France most of all, as they seemed quick to protest and fight for even small policy decisions. I viewed Americans as too fat and too hooked on reality tv to fight for anything (I still might be right on this in many ways but distrust being at record lows for all institutions didn't fit in this view neatly, I thought they would be too unaware to have such high levels of distrust).
What did I miss or get wrong about Europe? I know it's not some homogenous group of countries but in terms of policy regarding Russia and Ukraine it might as well be.
This has also been quite a surprise to me. Europe has indications of wanting to be a dominant power, yet have been almost completely subservient to the US on this. Americans are quite fat and complacent in the populace, but the controlling class is more energetic and aggressive than ever. I've seen it myself raising a child - the level of competition to get into the top schools or get top scholarships is astonishing to me. I was competitive back in the early 90s when I entered college (I got a full ride), but I'd be lucky to get my tuition covered if I were entering college today. There may be a soft, creamy middle, but there's a razor-sharp crust.
Political cowardice, exhaustion, comfort under the American defense umbrella that allows them to spend money elsewhere (the French are upset about this attitude from their fellow Europeans) covers most of it.
The French seek alternatives in Africa and will try again in mideast no doubt.
France much better for DeGaulle.
The French barely spend 2.0% of GDP on defense and have sent scant aid to Ukraine (1.41 billion euros, or 0.06% of GDP).
The French aren't spending like they want operational independence from America, they are spending enough that when they complain about not having operational independence from America they have a (single, starveling) leg to stand on.
What makes you think that any EU foreign policy would serve the interests of the Europeans?
If successful, Turboeuropa might well be a catastrophe in its own right.
1. Europe needs to unlearn its learned helplessness on the international stage
2. Europe needs to retvrn to de Gaulle
De Gaulle has done this before, post-WWII, at a time when Europe was more devastated and Washington (and Moscow as well) was way more dominant, both on the Old Continent and globally.
I'm quoting Wikipedia of all places here:
"His vision stood in contrast to the Atlanticism of the United States and Britain, preferring instead a Europe that would act as a third pole between the United States and the Soviet Union. By including in his ideal of Europe all the territory up to the Urals, de Gaulle was implicitly offering détente to the Soviets. As the last chief of government of the Fourth Republic, de Gaulle made sure that the Treaty of Rome creating the European Economic Community was fully implemented, and that the British project of Free Trade Area was rejected, to the extent that he was sometimes considered as a "Father of Europe""
https://www.magyar.blog/p/bsp4-whose-foreign-policy
What I would add to this megapost is this: Orban said, as a bit of a troll, that if Donald Trump was president, the Ukraine war wouldn't have happened. Bit of citation needed - if such is possible for hypotheticals - from me.
I'd put it this way: if Europe had a de Gaulle from 2008, but at least from 2014, the Ukraine war would not have happened. When the US overplayed its post-9/11 hand with the Iraqi War in 2003, Europe missed a chance to decouple from Washington.
Now we have a second chance. See, optimism!
De Gaulle was a one-off. Because of his background and experience he had the assurance to lead the way he did. He also had several advantages: the legacy of Vichy left the old Right demoralised and discredited and, therefore, easier to mould and co-opt, while the USSR (and the French Communist Party) actively co-operated with De Gaulle when required because they saw his brand of nationalism as less of a threat than Atlanticism. Above all, De Gaulle ruled over a nation that still retained a vivid sense of itself.
There is no one remotely like De Gaulle in Europe today. Europe itself is vastly less European than it was. Several generations of Americanisation plus wave after wave of mass migration have transformed the continent. De Gaulle's vision of a common European home was directly invoked by Putin years back and the EU leadership recoiled in horror.
Orban's comment was cheeky and misleading. Trump lacked the effective authority to constrain the US intelligence community and their Ukrainian minions. It is unlikely that he could have stopped anything.
The EU simply lacks the capacity to resist Washington. Germany's supine response to the Nordstream sabotage demonstrates that.
I fear that Europe still has a way to go before it turns the corner. I wish it were otherwise. On the bright side, Hungary is out of step with Brussels and that is the safest course for the foreseeable future.
Okay, so de Gaulle's one. That is more than zero.
However, and this is where my perspective as an inhabitant of a German colony offers some insight, there's more than one example, and more recently. Quoting again from the megapost above:
"Nord Stream 2 is the second most important counterpoint to anyone doubting that independent European foreign policy was ever possible after 1945. NS2 is the proof that we (well, the Germans) had some agency, up until the mid-2010s. Despite Washington openly objecting to its construction, both the Obama and the Trump White House and the rest of the Swamp-adjacent think tanks raising the alarm, Berlin went ahead.
It took until this September to remedy this insolence."
Germans, in the Merkel era, had no trouble asserting themselves against Washington, chiefly to protect their commercial interests. And they definitely had no trouble lording over the rest of Europe, they're not the beta dog meme from our perspective, the Greens are even more vicious enforcers of the Kraut will.
Their castration on the pragmatist/international level is very recent, and not 100% complete, despite the clowns they've elected last year. When it comes to the Klaun-in-Chief, Scholz, I'm an optimist.
They still have some fight in them, but due to this imbalance, it ends up making things worse for the rest of us:
"To the question “what could Washington do to Berlin without suffering any consequences?” the answer right now is “anything”.
The Germans are unwilling and incapable of retaliating in either action or words. That’s the state of the leading economic and political power in Europe at this point.
Yet Germany is still willing and capable of bossing the rest of Europe around; so in effect we’re lead by cowards."
And to provide an argument for a more assertive foreign policy that even Germans will understand:
"Europe’s pragmatist local power was pushed out of Ukraine after the resolution of the 2014 Crimea crisis by Post-(trans)-Neocon warhawks, leaving Berlin and Paris with no seat at the table; 8 years later, when it inevitably blew up, the continent is happily eating the losses from Washington’s gamble. No complains. If anything, we’re asking for more. It would have been cheaper and better for everyone if we meddled in our backyard, as powers supposed to do; European cowardice and indifference regarding post-2014 Ukraine ended up being the worst choice (to German readers: the most expensive choice)."
I don't think Europe lacks the capacity to resist America. What can they do in retaliation, blow our pipelines up? That river has been crossed already.
Regarding Hungary's course being safe: it is anything but safe. On the other hand, the risks Hungary takes are for its own, and on some level for Europe's sake. They are at least gambles that are aimed to benefit our own side. That's, unfortunately, is a rarity in Europe today.
Peter Hitchens has described his political worldview as "British Gaulleism" or words lie that.
I cannot praise Hitchens enough. He is invaluable.
My only criticism of him is that he just can't let go of gotchas, can't help getting himself entangled in the stupidest kulturkampf battles. Sometimes it's wiser to just stay quiet or to walk away.
Peter, nigga, you have a megaphone and a podium, act like it!
Oh well, if he has the extra energy.
Our political discourse is keenly aware of topics we call "chewtoys", that only dummies waste time and energy on. Distractions with very little upside, debates where engagement will be a net loss, even if you "win". Peter? He jumps right in. I adore the spirit, but I don't look.
Britain needs 10 more Hitchens. So does Europe.
Edit: make it a 100. Have some for us, Hungarians too.
When Trump gave up Flynn he lost any hold or allies in IC.
Trump made no allies in the Civil Service and he could have, because he wanted to 💩 post on Twitter and let Javanka have a portfolio, and what a portfolio it was.
Trump never had a chance to change the system, he lost it 5 years before he was even born, in 1941, when Burnham made it clear how elected top dogs won't be able to go against the unelected momentum of the managerial class.
💩posting made him a president who actually could do something against the wishes of this class: to 💩post straight to the public.
Just compare him to 2 terms president Obama, who basically said - and channel your best Obama impression in your mind - "I don't.. heh.. wanna rock.. any boat!.. heh". And so he did not.
Flynn was definitely the turning point and it happened at the very beginning of Trump's presidency. A catastrophic failure of judgement and character on Trump's part. Flynn was more feared than Trump himself. And with good reason.
Not sure if there ever were any potential allies in the Civil Service.
Re Javanka...am unsure what or who to believe. 'Insider' gossip is invariably 99% bullshit. The public love it and the low and medium level insiders live and breathe it in the creepiest way possible, but it is mostly about misdirection and reputation mgt.
My guess is that Javanka were used. I do not believe that Jarred was behind the Platinum deal, more likely the human mascot given credit for someone else's work. The 'name' always plays that role across all policy areas. As for the deals with Saudi...he was the public face or emissary only. State Dep't is worse than toxic in Saudi Arabia, so a personal emissary from White House was needed. Family is the only political institution the Gulf Arabs feel comfortable with. The Saudi turn to Russia and China was all but inevitable, speeded on by Keystone Cops standard intrigue by the US IC (Kashoggji).
I'm aware that people with insight and credibility tremendously disliked Jared's meddling and were aware of his side deals for $$.
And there were allies in the Civil Service for rationalizing the madhouse government that is governed by none.
Trump who is good at making enemies but not allies missed this chance.
Elections are not domestic stability.
5000 IUs of Vitamin D3 daily.
Plus 5000 IUs of Vitamin A. Turbocharges the immune system.
zinc as well.....
and i do 1000mg vit c.
often quercetin.
I've shared the Turbo-America articles with a few people and it's funny how mad they got at the idea that America is NOT about to collapse or enter a civil war.
You would think living in the richest most powerful country in history would make people happy or at least grateful, and the idea of the Jeffersonian experiment surviving would make Americans of almost all stripes optimistic, but it seems many people (esp the Extremely Online) are so poisoned with bile they can't handle good news.
Since we're living in an age of proxy psychological diagnoses, I'm gonna add that what's up next on our menu of mass-formation hysteria is Freud's return of the repressed (I'm gonna be a Nazi since everyone says that's the worst thing you can be!) and also the return of the infantile, where if I (or my side) can't win everything and watch my enemies cry, the game needs to be thrown over and destroyed.
Turbo-America may be the dominant institution poised for a 1000-yr reign, but the inmates in this asylum keep getting crazier!
Why would they be happy? They aren't the benefactors after all. The US is in many ways an oligarchy is it not? Although I do understand some of what you mean. As Europe is showing us it's better to be in the eye of the storm than in it's path (the storm being the actions of the US empire). We might even see the benefits of industry moving from Germany and other places to the US ( and I ask, how can they go along with this?).
As far as what's next "our menu of mass-formation hysteria" I can see your point. You already see this playing out.
While we might be in the middle of the reign one thing I do wonder is if everything is speeding up. So while we might be in the middle in relation to Rome, that doesn't mean we have the same amount of time ahead of us than behind us. It truly feels like things that would have taken 20 years are happening in the span of 5 years, does it not?
oh absolutely History moves at fast-forward speed now, and the image that always pops into my head is of a tornado (the tornado being modernity and its machines) pulverizing all in its path (that all being all that exists).
there is definitely a good chance of some unseen cataclysm up ahead, the iceberg that sinks our ship, but there's also a chance that America warps and mutates yet survives for a few more centuries in some slightly different form.
Either way it'll all be obvious in retrospect!
'Either way it'll all be obvious in retrospect!'
CP, you got that one right! The people who get everything wrong right now will inevitably use hindsight to launder their reputations and will end up collecting the rent on their pretended foresight.
My guess at this stage is that Turboamerica declines relative to other powers, but morphs into a post-unipolar regional hegemon (Empire #2) with a few outlying vassals (Australia and Brazil).
Domestically, Turboamerica becomes either a new iteration of the current regime (a better version of Venezuela, suitably rebranded) or, at best, a Sunbelt Shogunate with a token president in Panem on the Potomac and a cluster of half-way prosperous industrialised regional power centres in the old Confederacy under allegiance to the multinationals.
One great question remains: what will the culture be like? The music? Will the soundtrack of managed decline be good enough to dance to? I despair of any great literature getting written anytime soon, but some good music would be nice.
My crystal ball foresees inevitable immiseration and Brazilification, as we move into a postnational state (Enterprise Zone 1?) with half a billion Americans who mostly hate each other but are too dazed by Huxley's soma to fight or care, and as our globalist overlords escape to mountain lairs and private islands with private armies (and leave the governing to Skynet).
As for literature, it will be conveyed in ideograms suited for our postliterate future (maybe a return to hieroglyphs or cuneiform in the form of emojis); as for music, my only hope is that any use of Autotune is a felony punishable by firing squad.
You need the Morality Police to keep the repressed in its place...Television is replete with great Moralising, but is conflicted as it earns its money from Repressive desublimation, thanks to Maddison Ave...(Controlled demolition of the nations Morality) ?
A lot of people just want drama. I blame way too much infotainment.
Also, there is a desire for a Gotterdammerung...the collective form of a death-wish developing amongst a population that despairs of ever achieving a dignified future. And we are a long way off from peak crazy...the synergies between the mass consumption of drugs and the dysfunctional socialisation produced by social media have yet to reach full force.
All you can do is read the classics, listen to good music and eat in good company.
I continue to be fascinated by this thesis. I do accept that populism is being beat back effectively internally. I'm very curious to see how the empires external efforts will work out. Clearly the grip on Europe is stronger than I ever thought possible, but in many cases the grip on the non-west world seems weaker than I thought. The things that will be on my radar are:
1. Saudi Arabia appears to be the one of the main indicators for me. I would have thought they were a vassal state like Europe, yet they seem intent on rebuking the empire time and time again (I mean the US has been bombing Yemen for how long on their behalf and still they seem closer to Russia than the US).
2. The oil cap just enacted among G7. This is quite a flex. Imposing your own price on Russian oil and expecting the world to go along. My feeling is much of the world is not going a long, and what does this mean? If the west is crippled with higher energy prices this must have some downward effects.
3. The continuing sanctions against Russia, now Europe will not buy Russian oil even by ship if I understand correctly. How will Europe be able to remain viable like it has while at the same time increasing energy prices significantly on itself? (they were able to stockpile for this winter due to Russian energy, what comes next year?)
4. BRICS. Will BRICS grow in size and power, and most importantly be able to present an alternative to the dollar, especially in the trade of oil?
5. The war in Ukraine. Russia appears to be on the cusp of making a much bigger push in Ukraine. While the US is admitting that Ukraine has run through a lot of it's artillery and weapons already, and doesn't have the capacity to replenish them in short order. Will it matter if Ukraine faces defeat and a new migrant crisis on an even larger scale results from this?
On the home front the one thing that is attracting my attention is just how bad Hollywood is doing. It's gone all in on pushing the new religion of the west but the returns aren't there. It seemed for a while that they could push without fear, as Marvel and other IP would fill in any gaps. Now, after the worst Thanksgiving weekend ever (not even adjusted for inflation), there is more and more evidence that a correction of some sort is inevitable. Disney's most "woke" show ever, Strange World, will likely lose them a figure not way off 200 million, which must rank among the worst flops ever. Art appears to have been the first victim of the empires new religion, and I wonder what effect this new total dark age will have and whether it will matter or not within your thesis.
"1. Saudi Arabia appears to be the one of the main indicators for me."
Agree totally with this. The visit by Xi scheduled for the end of this week may be instructive, as will any reaction from the US.
petroleum: china and russia are investing in iran and iraq as well as dealing long term contracts with saudi arabia....
the usa may still have an in with pakistan, but that puts india off...
watch the brics and the shanghai coop org (sco) expand....
BRICS won't amount to anything. The main reason is nothing unites the said countries elites like the way American and European(and other Western elites are) are united. West has a common religion(liberalism) in a way BRICS doesn't. The West also has one leader. So easier to manage the relationship. Denmark might not listen to Australia but both will listen to the US. Who is the leader of BRICS?
I actually think they are very united right now, but don't know if it will last. They are united by their distrust of the US. They are united by what they saw happen to Russia with all the sanctions, with former neutral institutions being weaponized as quickly as they were (although so far I'm not convinced these sanctions have worked, but that is because of how quickly these other nations seemed to unite in part). Some countries like Iran would probably do just about anything to make it work as it would finally allow them to move from the bad kids table.
I see your point about a leader (although I'm guessing China will likely be the closest thing to a leader). That's why I asked if they can truly create an alternative to the dollar. This is a herculean effort and It's difficult to imagine how this will happen as there isn't a clear leader to push BRICS to use their currency like the US did with the dollar. My understanding is they are looking at a commodity based currency like gold given that they won't be able to pick from an existing currency. If they can really pull this off though then it will be proof that BRICS really is a force to be reckoned with.
It could work in a similar fashion to OPEC+. While at times fissures have created problems within it, for the most part it has been pretty resilient (am I wrong that they don't have an obvious leader too?).
Brazil won't dare do anything against the US. Lula, Bolsanoro doesn't matter. Every Latin American knows who runs this hemisphere.
India nationalists hate Muslims the most, then the Chinese, and only then the US. Indian nationalist faction will not work with the Chinese against the US, at least not in any long term project. And never in a million years will they accept China as leader. Also don't forget that increasing number of middle class Indians are becoming liberals in terms of LGBT and feminism due to Western influence. It's weird they hate Muslims, but support LGBT. If that faction comes to power, will they side with the Russians or the US?
You might be right, I only mentioned this to be something to watch. I certainly don’t know Indian politics and attitudes in any way, so I will take your word there.
My main point is only that we are seeing a lot of realignment right now. After all you would not have to go back many years to hear from our most prestigious foreign policy experts that there is not future in which Russia and China become strong partners given their history. Yet, here we are witnessing just that and from what I can see it’s a match made in heaven (China being the worlds great manufacturer but lacking in natural resources, energy, and land for growing food, while Russia is the basically the exact opposite).
True, I have said it before but geopolitics are impossible to predict. US looked very weak last year after its humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan but now it looks all powerful. This could change as quickly as well.
Very true. I still struggle to imagine there isn’t a price to pay for this level coercion. Very unpredictable.
India is too big, too complex and too divided for anyone to predict long term trends with any great accuracy. It is also very dynamic and the Indian elite are constrained by the ambitions of the urban middle classes and the masses.
India does not need a close alliance with China, just a degree of communication and co-operation. This is readily achievable. China and India both seek stability in Burma and Afghanistan. China does not need or seek India/Pakistan tensions. Both India and China are close to Russia and both are happy enough see Iran remain independent of the US and powerful enough to constrain Sunni fundamentalism.
The US will find friends and allies within India (and even more so in Pakistan), but these will not have a free hand. India simply cannot be controlled effectively by a comprador elite. US foreign policy elites lack the cultural skills to understand India.
Russia is essential for India. It is a reliable supplier of energy, an enthusiastic trade partner and plays a key role in power politics across Asia, from Turkey to Korea and Japan. Military ties are close. Trust and respect genuine. Moscow is pragmatic and does not seek to project power in South Asia...it just needs local friends and allies. Russia and India have a shared interest in the peaceful development of Central Asia, above all Afghanistan.
My best guess is that India will tilt towards Russia and will achieve a modus vivendi with China. Pakistan is the wild card.
I just got back from an archeological expedition to Ancient Egypt. There I found a previously undiscovered tablet with incredibly intact hieroglyphics. It's a prophecy that, if I'm translating right, reads "the U.S. dollar will surrender global reserve currency status just as soon as the U.S. gets good at soccer." So, you could say a lot's riding on the guys in 2026.
You didn’t say men’s soccer! I guess the dollar is over.
>Ancient Egypt
>calls it soccer
It's over for Euros.
usa is nearly bankrupt in the moral dimension.....
they make it against putin bc there is not moral reason for thier order and putin is luther to the grafting pope...
in war the moral is to the material as 3 is to 1; napoleon bonaparte
He meant morale and courage, spirit, not morality.
The French Grande Armee?
Are you kidding?
no,
all are 'hired men'....
was all our motivation about the fanatic propaganda?
Napoleon’s policy on logistics and money was make war pay for itself- so foraging, looting and the associated murders.
Not to mention war is killing and destruction.
Napoleon’s view of humanity was their motives and his levers were force and gain, also his practice.
If you want to say moral is propaganda, that’s fair. Sure.
Its true, although soldiers morale is largely their condition physically, victory, leadership, cohesion.
My point is that Napoleon’s quote on moral advantage over material is very misunderstood.
To your valid point in the present you are totally correct, my nation is led by the abyss in human form, the Republic is overthrown, the soldiers and worse military families are walking away, are afraid to shoot (Uvalde is happening everywhere) and the entire thing is hollow.
So you are correct in the end
yes, napoleon was 'hitler' to early 19th century europe.
my image of moral superiority is the vc over saigon, which was corrupt as to make the viet minh preferred.
no amount of materiel would win, and annihilation was/is no answer.
sadly, i think in the present debacle is existential and materiel will decide.
amusing is posing poutin as evil, and the object when the repacements are ultra nationalists who would not send donetz militia against western mercs....
BRICS does not need a leader or a uniting ideology. They do not have to agree on everything, just co-operate on the basics: settlements and exchange systems, economic integration adapted to maintain sovereignty and support for region or country specific development models designed as alternatives to the US one. They all need economic development that is more socially inclusive than US style oligarchic capitalism.
BRICS is not a utopian project. It is a pragmatic adaptation for the needs of the ruling mafiosi of a selection of countries who realise that they have a very problematic future within the crumbling US-led system. A kinder, gentler (or at least more realistic and sustainable) form of politics than Turboamerican Clown World kleptocracy.
Not having a leader could be its major strength. Besides, countries that have, ostensibly, nothing in common can unite and unite hard in the face of a powerful enemy that is out to subjugate them all.
The US has screwed with the Saudis. The dominant element within the US Deep State backed the rivals of Prince Muhammad Bin Sultan. They lost and MBS has little choice but to seek support elsewhere. MBS faces the danger of a US backed coup.
In addition, the inability of the US to displace Bashar al-Assad plus the weaknesses of the US military and poor quality/value for money of US weaponry contrast with the successes of Putin's Russia.
Ultimately, the Al-Sa'ud are responsive to power shifts internationally.
The dynamism and multiple assymmetries of the big picture are extraordinary. Turboamerica has tightened its grip on Europe but is weakening relative to Russia and China. At home the regime flourishes, despite Clown World sinking into constant hysteria.
"Turboamerica has tightened its grip on Europe but is weakening relative to Russia and China."
This seems to me to be exactly right. But, at the same time, wouldn't that be evidence *against* the Turbo America thesis?
I mean, this looks like Turbo America is becoming *less* powerful against it's big global rivals, and is instead simply retreating back to the comfort of NATO Europe where it can become an even more abusive landlord. It kinda looks like Turbo America is becoming less Turbo, not more. IDK.
Good point. It depends what "Turbo" means for you. It is certainly an inspired formulation.
The connotations "Turbo" have for me are drawn largely from 'turbocapitalism', a term coined by Edward Luttwak to describe post Cold War capitalism unconstrained by social or political limits: Turbo America is simply the imperial champion for an aggressive form of global capitalism and the old American nation-state is the home or central province of the global empire, which is now an empire in retreat.
Turbo America is strengthening its ties to (or hold over) key dependencies and client states (above all Europe, Canada and Australia) despite losing ground elsewhere. But a reconstituted empire could thrive for generations to come, though this would not necessarily benefit the people of the USA.
Niccolo, of course, sees things differently.
From Rome HBO series: "400 years after its last king was driven of the city, the Republic of Rome rules many nations, but cannot rule itself".
Looking at the dysfunction of urban America, and the hollowing out of rural America, I think this quote sums up the Republic of America pretty well as well.
"global hegemonic position" is essential evil and opposed to the traditions of the usa since george washington warned of 'foreign entanglements' is the 1790's.
usa belligerence is evil.
the usa and its population is about where the 'good germans' were in 1940....
hegemon is inherently immoral, and rules based in propaganda for rule!
both russia and china see!
All true, but not a solution
Clearly Niccolo includes no room for miracles in his surgical assessment of Machiavellian elite power dynamics
A few minor suggestions -
i.e. "revisionist power" --> i.e. (the "revisionist" powers)
in total --> in general OR completely
regarding its standing in fear that it is ebbing away --> that its standing in the world is ebbing away
. This remains [...] --> The actual event of its power ebbing away [...]
[otherwise the 'this' here is ambiguous as to what it refers back to]
What do you think that the US will do with a degraded and (partially) deindustrialized Europe? Abandon? Use to attack China?
Hopefully Europeans will come to their senses and renew their economic ties with Asia.
The US will try to sell exportable goods into the European marketplace. Then the US will realize it doesn't make exportable goods. Then Europe will buy everything it needs with the belt and road initiative, thereby dealing a devastating victory to China.
lol the US makes exportable goods, especially high technology ones. its experiencing the start of a capex boom right now as well.
You're right of course. I exaggerated.
OTOH, look at the persistent, high levels of US trade deficits. A first order approximation would be that the US does not make exportable goods. Europe won't be able to get the manufactured goods it needs from the US. The US cannot even fully supply its own domestic markets for most manufactured products. Apparently we're even having a hard time making enough artillery shells to supply Ukraine.
No matter how dumb or arrogant they seem and likely are, their power is unfathomable, and the one thing they are undeniably good at is maintaining it
Internally we are back at the center on economics, foreign policy, and maybe in the future even some surprise issues like immigration, but with a hard left bent on social issues that doesn't seem likely to abate given the huge structural advantages one party has over the other
Abroad, I still hold out a little hope that America's allies will find their balls. Some indications lately that Latin America is going to be as anti-Yankee as it's been in a while. Asia seems to be bristling a little at the possibility of being asked to sacrifice for Taiwan like Europe is for Ukraine. And I do think the situation in Ukraine has the potential to strengthen the EU against American influence in the future, even if they're still cucking for now
I'm new to this thesis but haven't noticed a change in American foreign policy. It is as blundering and destructive as ever.
The USA is a stable third-world country. Having a nuclear deterrent while surrounded by oceans helps keep the rest of the world at bay. Hating your poor helps with domestic issues.
The USA is an exemplary Third World country...a superior version of Brazil siphoning off wealth from its empire (a legacy of the apogee of industrial supremacy in the mid 20th c.).
Check out this Bret Stephens piece arguing for dramatically MORE U.S. defense spending: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/06/opinion/military-defense-spending.html
"Darth Brandon has managed to stumble, Jar Jar Binks style, into almost complete imperial dominance."
Thank you for sharing that.
Agree with Menyhei and you. We, America, are burning through all the political capital, global goodwill and benefit of the doubt that was earned from a muscular post WW2 foreign policy. And our team is good with it.
We were leaders of a liberal democratic philosophy that included an independent NATO. We kept paying all the bills and eventually started acting like we were entitled to make all the decisions. That would be okay if we were led by a Metternich. A stable world order keeps the money and influence flowing more effectively than the current winner take all strategy. I'm concerned that our hubris becomes arrogance where we can't fend off all the states that want to reassert their sovereignty. That would be a big angry dog-pile. The fall would be quick and a much bigger shock than 9/11; and it won't just be Palestinians dancing in the streets. Hope I'm wrong.
I'm a freeloader, but you've almost got me; maybe for Christmas. Also, glad you're feeling better.
Non-American Western elites worship America.
I don't think Americans truly understand the colossal strength of their soft power. In the West we all live in some form of America. You have decades of global goodwill left to burn through.
While I’m divided on the question of America’s power in the world (it seems to me to be both powerful and fragile at the same time, like a Killdozer that could shut down at any moment if a valve breaks), one thing I do agree on is that a civil war seems highly unlikely. That said, I’m thinking in terms of a truly militarized, SHTF situation civil war, and something Evil Political Scientist has observed is that many civil wars just look like sustained periods of high violence—and by some standard, we’re arguably already in that.
You may be mistaking inertia for solidity, but it’s probably too soon to tell.
Still don’t think I’d quite put the Armed Forces in Blue. DOD sat on its hands Jan 6, the ARNG was essentially duped and knows it, and to put them Left at all is simply wrong.
They may obey orders, its very iffy. The retention and re-enlistment rates are plummeting far below sustainment levels.
They may well be melting away.
Military families is a very real thing, its really generational and usually police same families.
They walk replacing them for war or even current commitments would require conscription.
A very unlikely development that wouldn’t be positive.
A military Empire headed by a kleptocracy who’s police despise it isn’t very stable either.
USG is happy with this development. Because now they have a solid justification to recruit from beyond the borders. Just as the US Chamber of Commerce says due to labor shortages we need mass immigration, DOD would say due to the "enlistment crisis", we need to recruit from strong American allies such as Mexico, Nigeria and India. Who's gonna oppose it? Senator Chuck Grassley? Lmfao.
And when the conservative dad from suburban Dallas sees Private Kumar saluting the American flag in a slick DOD commercial between his college football games, his heart will swell with American pride and he will drop all his opposition to the recruitment of foreigners. Because that's racist you know. Because they are fighting for America despite not being born here. So they are more American than me!
It's sad how pathetically easy it is to psyop the average conservative into supporting the most depraved policies just by dressing it up in the American flag.
So mark my words, just as the Franks and the Goths replaced Italians in the Roman Army, so will foreigners replace Americans in the US Armed Forces in the coming decades.
Decades?
Great points, but I have reservations. We are in uncharted waters. The weakening of the military is obvious but the regime's most spirited domestic opponents are aging suburban whites who are most alive when they watch TV. Under historically normal conditions Biden and Harris would be paraded in a cage and then hung, drawn and quartered before cheering crowds. The passivity and confusion on show and the success of the regime in managing the dysfunction is truly extraordinary.
The kleptocrats do not need traditional stability. They just need to hang on, maintain a bit of control and normalise the weirdness and managed decline. Throw in a few productive Crackerstans sustained by re-industrialisation, a handful of solvent states with bullion deposits and Helms Deep in Florida and you have all anyone needs for an improved version of South Africa. The kleptocrats will cheerfully settle for this.
They’ll settle - yes.
will it work?
Would not put my money on it.
If it is to survive the regime needs to reign in the financial sector, reform the entire monetary system, manage public debt of astronomic proportions and successfully restructure trade and supply chains so that living standards do not collapse. It has to do this without either the legitimacy of properly conducted elections and transparent and reliable institutions or a population with the trust or cohesion necessary for significant sacrifices. And there are a ton of insiders who'd be sick of their colleagues and frightened for the future should the villains hang on for another generation or more of looting and curated dysfunction.
If I were a Yank, I'd pray that the Party of Fortinbras gets its act together ASAP. Once Odessa falls Panem-on-the-Potomac will go into full fuhrerbunker mode. I expect 2023 to be eventful.
It appears that someone is jerking Biden's chain bigly. Here is a thirteen minute podcast by coincidence theorist Dr Joseph P. Farrell on the incineration of some Secret Security vehicles used by the Biden family. If Farrell is right, Late Imperial Clown World is getting sinister.
https://gizadeathstar.com/2022/12/news-and-views-from-the-nefarium-dec-1-2022/