The Looking Glass Splinters

Former MI6 senior officer sets out in the below article the consuming panic of the elite at the continuing fracturing of the long established Western order. Crooke says this panic and fear is cloaked beneath an outer attitude of "studied Panglossian hauteur".

Interestingly, I watched live a broadcast by Ruptly last Saturday of Act 21 of the Gilets Jaune protest in Paris. It was peaceful, had music and singing along the way and was only interrupted by the Gendarmes who blocked access to the more touristy central part of Paris (Arc de Triomphe).

But what surprised me was the never-ending flood of well wishers sending messages of support from around the world - and endless stream of several hours of support from all corners of the world. Were I what Crooke calls the "war elites" watching this I would be truly fearful that my world is fragmenting and how else could I act other than to present a facade of "studied Panglossian hauteur".

https://www.strategic-culture.org/n...gnI7tanYLBQFOmzEqjCJjcQCZkOOg64M8V76xT-yUJtHY

 

It does appear that the status quo is being threatened. I hope drastic change is in the immediate future.

 

There are three future possibilities:

1) The traditional American model of democracy, freedom, and small government.
2) Increased secular government control over our lives through socialism, with a dose of communism mixed in. This is the statist/totalitarian option.
3) A Muslim theocracy.

Which way do you want to go?

 

Interesting article. I created a thread not to long ago that parroted most of the points made in this piece (although I had never read it).

I read a couple books about cycles in history a long time ago "Blood in the Streets" James Dale Davidson and Sir William Reec-Moog - written around 1987.

In 1994 - when the second book came out by said authors "The Great Reckoning" Sir William had been Lorded .. he was now "Lord Moog". Editor of the London Times and Chairman of the BBC.

What was interesting is that many of the predictions in the first book - had come true by the writing of the second. In the second book - the US housing bubble is predicted.

This was not done on the basis of some crystal ball - but by simple analysis of cycles in history - and how these patters play out and how they repeat.

Another thing that was predicted was the decline of US hegemony and signals of this decline. (remember that this was written in 1994)

They point to an expected increase in guerilla style attacks - terrorism - as nation states decay.
They talk about the expected increase in expropriation of US assets abroad - as an indication of weakening hegemonic control -and the increased willingness to stand up to the big Bully.

More than 2 decades after the writing of this book - this is exactly what is happening.

It used to be that the US would just have to "whisper" its desires - and nations would rush to comply. The US at the time was - by en large - the only economic game in town -and everyone wanted a piece of the action - it was a situation of "walk softly but carry a big stick".

Fast forward - Now the US is using the "Nuclear Option" - Sanctions, threatening our closest allies with being blocked out of the international system of payments - basically using the stick to try to club nations into submission. Even using these tactics - there are many nations that are showing the US "the bird" - middle finger.

Italy has signed on to China's "belt and road" initiative -and others in the EU are showing interest - despite US protest.
India has gone ahead with the S-400 system - despite US threats - Turkey has done the same.
Saudi Arabia is looking at doing business in currencies other than the Petro dollar.
Iraq - not surprisingly - is moving towards Russia and Iran.
Qatar is working with Iran.
Both Germany and France have been strongly protesting US sanctions using the strongest of language "messing with our sovereignty" - In Public - not private.

The EU is moving towards an alternative to the US dollar.
The BRIC nations are fast moving towards that goal

 

1) The US is not following this model now - chances of getting back to this during the troubled times ahead are slim and none.
2) you can include corporatism in the mix
3) Societies do tend towards extremism in troubled times.

 

mmm... personally I don't think any of this is going to go smoothly. A bit of a "small countries should wear the helmet and kneepads in the forward compartment" scenario

 

It seems you are ignoring or downplaying the status quo--a Christian theocracy with strong militarism bringing perpetual war.

 

The euros appear headed for an anti western alliance with russia and iran driven by their growing muslim populaton

 

We don't have a theocracy here in the U.S. I can't speak about other countries.

Perpetual war is only necessary if those that hate us are warring against us.

 

Its just liberal Hate-Americism from every direction they can think of

 

This post brought to you from 2005.

 

The word so many here are struggling to find is "Paternalism". The state provided egalitarianism, equality, blah blah... all masking what is actually in the offing, subjugation and cowing of the public. This is actually what the elite have been fighting for, because gosh durnit, they just know more, and better.... It's why they always end up couching their rhetoric in the same demeaning way when discussing those who disagree with them. Many terms.. "deplorables" "white nationalists" etc. But have you noticed the underlying thread that joins these narratives? All globalists who haven't been able to cement their political control of a large enough swath of humanity to start their little dictatorships yet.

For every liberal who suddenly wants to rekindle the cold war with Russia, these are the same folks who are snug in the same bed with their Chinese autocrats. Lest we forget, it was Obama who so famously whined that he wasn't nearly as effective as he could be if only he were running the US the way the Chinese run China... The elite lap that up. See the above cited article. Same smarmy pseudo intellectual masturbation we see everywhere across the confederacy of socialist elitists.

 

The EU is doing what is in the interest of the EU. They are not just doing deals with Russia and Iran .. China is also a big player. Italy just signed up to the Chinese "Belt an Road" initiative.

Not sure if you were including Russia in the "growing muslim population" statement but the idea that Russia is driven by Muslims would be preposterous nonsense on steroids.

There is no doubt that the US is losing its global hegemonic power. This is the natural cycle. A number of decades ago the US was pretty much the only economic game in town - dwarfing other nations by a huge amount.

As such - we only needed to "whisper" our desires and other nations would come running to fulfill them - because they all wanted to play in the US economy.

Things have changed. The US is still a big player - but - it is no longer the only player. The purchasing power of China is now greater than that of the US. I believe it was in 2013 that more cars were sold in China than in the US ... so if you are a car maker - or a car parts maker - this matters.

The EU is as large as the US in terms of Purchasing power.
India combined with a few other nations is as large.

Looking at position of the global economic chessboard through the lens of what that position used to be - is a huge blunder- a blunder that the current and past administrations have been making - and this is harming our long term economic security.

Rather than "whispering our desires" - like in the past we are now trying to force nations into submissive obedience via threats of the most serious kind - including using the "nuclear option" = threatening to block national banks out of the US system of international payments.

The backlash has been massive - and you can not really blame these nations - no nation likes another nation to usurp its sovereignty. Can you imagine if another nation was to do this to us ?

We just do not have the clout we used to - but we are pretending that we do. While we are standing around threatening and alienating nations - including our closest allies - these nations are moving on without us - making deals - trade agreements and so on.

As we continue to lose our economic clout - this situation is only going to get worse unless we start playing ball and start playing by the rules - rules that we set ! This whole "do as we say - not as we do" attitude is already biting us in the backside.

It used to be that international corporations had a big advantage over competitors. If we keep on doing what we are doing - we are going to be sitting in the back seat - not the drivers seat. Our actions on the world stage matter.

Despite your ardent belief to the contrary - what other nations think of us matters - and it is going to matter more and more as we lose our economic clout.

Rather than "walk softly but carry a big stick" - we have been running around using that stick as a cudgel - breaking the rules that we set while expecting others to follow them. This is not how to win friends and influence people. This is how you get dissension in the ranks.

We still have a whole lot of clout and we need to use this clout wisely because every year that passes we have less economic clout.

Now is the time to be out there doing deals - setting ourselves up for economic success in the future. We are doing the opposite.

 

GDP in trillions of dollars in 2018:

U.S. ... $20.5
European Union ... $18.7
China ... $13.4
Japan ... $5.0
Germany ... $4.0
UK ... $2.8
France ... $2.8
California ... $2.7
India ... $2.7
Italy ... $2.1
Brazil ... $1.9
Texas ... $1.7
Canada ... $1.7
Russia ... $1.6
New York ... $1.5

 

I assume you are touting globalism as the next lib wave of the future now that communism is a proven failure

Globilism will only serve to impoverish more Americans and I dont look forward to that

 

1) is the western model in general, not just American. 2) makes no sense, especially when you start throwing words such as communism, statist and totalitarian around. Western governments, ours included, are all secular (not sure how that could be "increased") and all include a healthy dose of socialism. None of them are in any way communist, statist or totalitarian. That is hyperbole on your part. 3) is exceedingly unlikely ever to occur in any western country, no matter how frightened you are of people from another part of the world who generally adhere to a different but similar Abrahamic religious tradition to that of western Christians.

 

GDP - with respect to the context of this conversation - is not a good metric. A better metric is purchasing power.

The reason this is a better metric is because if you are an international corporation - and you want to sell something to some nation - you are far more interested in their purchasing power than their GDP.

For example - more cars are now sold in China than in the US. If I am a car maker or car parts maker - this statistic matter far more than what that nations GDP happens to be. Obviously there are other factors which have nothing to do with GDP that also matter - such as what the regulations are in that nation - tariffs, tax law, royalties, political unrest and so on.

 

I have no clue what you are talking about - and am pretty sure that you don't either. What on earth do you mean by "Globalism" and how does this relate to anything I have said ?

What does pissing off our allies and the rest of the world via threats, sanctions and other things - have to do with "Globalism"

What is impoverishing Americans is

1) outsourcing of our manufacturing base
2) allowing international corporations to siphon money out of the US economy.
3) related to 2 - but a separate category - Debt and Deficits.
4) Dumb laws and dumber regulations, and political actions which unnecessarily impede the flow of global capital.

I am against all of the above.

 

1) We do not have a "full on Theocracy" but the claim that we don't have laws made on the basis of religious belief (= theocracy) is false.

2) Since WW2 - Name one war - or wars/conflicts that we were involved in - where the nation we went to war against was warring against us = attacking the homeland.

Afghanistan doesn't count since we were fighting the Taliban - not Al Qaeda - but we will give you that one anyway.

Name another ?

 

If you’re saying our government is based largely on our Judeo-Christian heritage, I agree with you.

We defended South Korea, South Vietnam, and Kuwait from external aggression by totalitarian regimes. Those were noble efforts, even though there was no immediate threat to U.S. territory.

 

You OBVIOUSLY don't know much about Vietnam, at ALL. Had DC listened to the military professionals, we'd have never been there. The French were smart to leave.

Our generals knew full well, the people's hearts were with the North. They knew it was a situation we couldn't win and they were ordered to anyway. Not a damn thing "noble" about it. Then when Nixon gets a bunch of Americans killed to help give him cover for Watergate? Get out of here with your "noble" revisionist history. Nobody who ever studied the histroy of that conflict, would see our role as "noble". Noble is what you were TOLD to believe.

Vietnam was BS, and it ruined many of my uncles, who were there, and saw for themselves first hand. Vietnam noble, what an offensively prepoterous statement!

Kinda like saying, well The Holocaust wan't THAT big a deal really.

 

I have no idea what "Gov't based on Judeo-Christian heritage" means - do you mean it is based on this now .. or founded on this ?

Our Gov't certainly wasn't founded on the basis of "Judeo-Christian Heritage" .. certainly not with respect to separation of Church and State - Secularism vs Theocracy.

Our Gov't was founded on the basis that the authority of Gov't comes from "we the people/consent of the Governed" as opposed to "divine right"/God = Theocracy.

The other principles is that essential liberty is "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't = The Gov't is not supposed to have the authority to make any law - of its own volition - messing with essential liberty - never mind law on the basis of religious belief.

The only way law messing with essential liberty is legitimate is if there is "overwhelming consent" - at least 2/3rd majority (in come cases 75% is the bar) -aka "super majority".

That is where the bar is supposed to be - that is the basis on which this nation was founded. Now - if you had a super majority of people agreeing to some law based on religious belief .. then law on the basis of religious belief would be "quazi legitimate" - legitimate with respect to the process but not legitimate with respect to valid rational for law.

Obviously - we do not follow the founding principles - I am sure you can rattle off a bunch of laws that do not have overwhelming consent - if not - I can

In many cases - those laws were made on the basis of religious belief - based on what is referred to in both Republicanism and Classical Liberalism as "tyranny of the Majority".

Tyranny - on the basis of religious belief - is a form of theocracy... any way you slice it or dice it.

 

Vietnam was winnable, just not the way we fought it. You can’t fight a war with one hand tied behind your back. In hindsight, that’s how we fought it and we never should have been there. It was a waste of 55,000+ lives, and that doesn’t include the injuries. I blame Johnson more than Nixon.

 

So am I

 

While that's certainly arguable, it's also quite arguable, that had we taken measures to actually win, it could have escalated, and even that it's likely that it would have, into something even bigger, involving Chinese or Russsian direct involvement. IDK, it's armchair quarterbacking by now for sure.

I would suggest, anyone who enjoys GREAT fiction novels, and is interested in genuine fairly authentic, and fairly well studied fictionalized accounts of cold war Era politics, following a group of young officers from WW2 to Vietnam, that will give an accurate understanding of these conflicts from a military perspective, I suggest WEB Griffin's "Brotherhood of War" series, starting with "The Lieutenants, and ending with "Special Ops".

Though he has some inaccuracies, particularly with timelines and such, the description of military politics and views on vietnam are quite good, and give a good feel for what the era was like. His writings not perfect, but he does a really good job making it a compelling story and giving a pretty good idea what it was like through the eyes of militay brass throught much of the "cold war".

He also offers a lot of insight into the starnge politics of the American military through the years.