First, for all my Orthodox Christian readers: Happy Easter. Христос Воскресе, Christ Is Risen! Now, back to our everyday routine and why I cringed reading this headline.
First reason why I cringed is the fact that presstitudes' propensity for grandiose and overly dramatic declarations is on a full display here. They need drama to sell themselves in the game of shells which is "European democracy". It is cringe-worthy and absolutely doesn't reflect reality. Hence the second reason for my cringing: I don't speak French and I don't know France beyond pop-cultural and pop-consumer cliches, but there are no "huge implications" for France in these elections because it doesn't matter who wins. It merely means the difference between the speed with which the remnants of France will be deconstructed and what's left will be fully incorporated into the globalist project.
With Macron it will happen faster, with Le Pen--somewhat slower. Here is explanation:
If to accept this explanation at a face value (it is Associated Press' piece), then what is highlighted in yellow is risible. If French are that dumb, that Macron was "an unknown factor" for them in 2017 when for the rest for the world he was very well-known as a globalist shill and media-construct, then French totally deserve their unenviable fate. And it is unenviable, especially considering another cringe-worthy issue of ANY Western politician's promises being nothing more than pure BS, be that Macron's or Le Pen's. Nothing is going to change in principle, because all Western "elites" are not into the business of national salvation, despite their rhetoric to the contrary. There are no new De Gaulles in France, because French "system" cannot produce anymore real statesmen. But, in the end, these are French people themselves who decided to resign themselves to irrelevance and nothing could be done with it.
I am on record--same was done by Russians to themselves in 1990s (one of the major reasons I ended up in the United States), but they learned their lesson by barely avoiding the next step into the abyss of national suicide. French, however, as well as most of Europe with the exception of Hungary, seem to be unteachable and here is where I want to defend the United States a little bit. The US at least elected in 2016 a genuinely non-systemic candidate who scared the shit out of the establishment until he turned out to be more of a pathological narcissist than genuine American nationalist. But give the United States the credit where the credit is due--American voters did force the shift and did change the political dynamics in the US. It is not pretty, it is troublesome today and may even lead to disintegration but the US had its moment of "you cannot live like this anymore". French, evidently, will continue to live themselves into globalist oblivion until the process of moral and economic decomposition concludes.
Now, I can be more specific. Before being more specific I need to remind you couple things:
1. You all well know that I am no Sinophile--I am on record, constantly, that Russian-Chinese "alliance" is a situational one, and that it is predicated on political and economic stability of China. Russia is a thing in itself and is civilization on her own. But modern Russia IS NOT an Asiatic country.
2. China is a great civilization with rich culture and an extremely complex ethnic and cultural composition. It also has a mind-boggling variety of dialects, which precludes any person without highly focused effort to study China, to be called a Sinologist. I am no Sinologist, not even close and I fully understand this. I, as well as many others in my line of writing, thus are forced to rely on the opinions of real Sinologists.
I have couple of sources I use for insights into China's economic and political reality, one of those sources being Nikolai Vavilov (no relation to other Vavilov, a geneticist of Stalin-times fame) who has an excellent grasp of Chinese political and economic elites. Here is one of his books on China (The Uncrowned Kings of China) in Russian, New one came out recently and Nikolai has a serious claim on knowledge on China, not only he lived and worked in China for many years, including work for Chinese Xinhua news-agency. He is fluent in many Chinese dialects, so when he speaks, I listen. And now important stuff.
1. China DOES NOT offer world the alternative to globalism. China IS a globalist power and for many people who for years have been misled by China's massive scale economic plans, the recent G-20 address by Xi should come as an unpleasant surprise. Here are some points, we start with this:
This is, for now, merely a suggestion but the nature of this suggestion is that the world should follow China's already in place and in active use code system which does this (In Russian):
a) Each Chinese city has its own "platform" on Alipay or WeChat, where everyone is obliged to register with their own "code";
b) The system tracks everyone by their QR-code and assigns the color in which "green" means that you can go pretty much anywhere, and then limitations are imposed if the code is "orange", let alone "red" which forbids any movements.
Well, my friends, if this de facto electronic concentration camp (or ghetto) hasn't been implemented yet in your neighborhood, let's open Comrade Xi's remarks on the BRICS summit five days ago and here is what he said:
Wait a minute! No, no, no, no--this is NOT how it works--it is precisely economic globalization and the orthodoxy of a Free Trade which are in the foundation of the global economic crisis, for which grossly inflated threat of COVID-19, serves as a good excuse. Including a strange correlation between Chinese so called Komsomol (Hu Yaobang's Trotskist and globalist heirs) leaders getting to power with American Democratic Party Presidents being elected. Correlation doesn't mean causality, do not misinterpret me, but what is not open for misinterpretation is the fact that:
1. China needs globalism because...
2. Chinese economy, for all its gigantic size, is not doing that well
3. US Democrats are truly neo-left globalist cabal who also seem to "influence" Comrade Xi at BRICS Summit. Like this, as he himself states:
Fifth, we need to pursue green and low-carbon development, and strive for harmony between man and nature.
How not well, you may ask, is China's economy? Simple: China STILL is dependent on these two markets:
1. The United States--a lot of statistics is being faked to show China "reducing" this dependency. Reality, however, is grim for China and the US--the level of mutual dependency remains very high.
2. Japan. And then South Korea.
Remove them and China's economy collapses. But then, of course, there is this:
Pay attention to highlighted and remember, 65% of China's electricity generation is based on coal, which increasingly becomes scarce and increasingly expensive to extract with many mines in China already going as deep as 1,000 meters (1 kilometer). And we all know what that means, right? Just to give you some idea on generation--in the United States coal amounts to 22.8% of generating sources, In Russia--it amounts to around 16%, so you get my drift, right? Well, this also is not the whole story, costs for China will continue to grow and the shift from coal to gas, nuclear and other sources is a daunting task for the export economy the size of China's and which is dramatically vulnerable to fluctuations on markets. Let's remember what was the foundation of Trump's economic platform which he was running on--right, decoupling from China. Recall also an abrupt limitation to education of Chinese students and researchers in the United States. Nasty, aggressive? Undeniably so, typical arrogance BUT...give Trump, for all his bluster and being full of shit, a credit, he found Chinese cojones and grabbed them. And now the main part:
1. China's attempt to focus on domestic consumption to support her economy has failed (in Russian);
2. "Second circulation" policy is now in place, another attempt at internal market. Enter Nikolai Vavilov (sadly in Russian only).
Right, 12 years China was effectively printing money, they went, right, right, right, into the real estate. Guess, China was becoming the US 2.0 by producing debt. Guess what this second attempt will be? Right, inflation and debt and "export", again. But now even more, while many praise recent RCEP signed by China and East Asian nations, many forget that this same RCEP, which originally was a Japanese idea, reduces 90% of tariffs not only for China-made consumer goods, but for such things, among many, as Japanese cars and parts for them, same goes for Korean automakers. Bye, bye Chinese auto-industry. Now that you know these peculiar facts, ask yourself a question if at least some influential parts of Chinese elites were not interested in removing radically anti-Chinese Trump and getting a democrat in the office? There is another funny fact, the origin and spread of COVID-19 somehow was limited to the cities and provinces which are managed by those very same representatives of China's Komsomol who made fortunes at the American market. Coincidences, coincidences. How can you remove Trump? Right.
But in general, especially after Xi's remarks at BRICS' summit it remains patently clear that the only way China can remain more or less (primarily less) healthy, for now at least, economically is to continue to export until the whole thing collapses, because globalism and Free Trade are collapsing. Yet, Xi praises these moribund practices as if nothing what is happening in the world today is related to the subjects he praised. I will omit here the sheer anti-scientific idiocy of CO2 emissions. Of course, Chinese didn't congratulate uncle Joe with becoming a President-elect (and he is still not), in fact, the statement of Chinese Foreign Ministry (a level below official protocol) was down-right humiliating to Biden, who insulted Xi and China not for once. But behind globalist totalitarian mafia of the Democratic Party we all can see the silhouettes of the Clintons and the Obamas and their vast network of political operatives who want to turn the United States, the remnants of the flawed Republic, into the playground of the most destructive, amoral, anti-human and criminal forces which will stop at nothing, including high treason to get to power. Remember this?
I do. It is a good idea to refresh sometimes a decade old statements, they contain so much in them. Recall who was China's President then? Right, and read what Hu Jintao's one of the main foreign policy "accomplishments" was during his term.
This phrase opens a whole new can of worms which allows to understand why Russians are really nonchalant about CREP and why all this blatter about Russia being junior partner in Russian-Chinese duo is just that--pure BS. There are many things we don't see, as it is supposed to be in the real life, but there is a reason why I constantly point out to a simple fact of China still preferring Russia to lead in geopolitical arena. So, do I say that COVID-19 is a global operation of influence? No, what I say it that there is a viable motive. And again, correlation does not mean causality but only sober and factual assessment of real strength of participants in the game can give good insight into intentions of everyone.
The issue here is not the climate change protests, by now one can expect it from primarily "Western" so called dopamine-driven humanities "educated" youth. The issue here is that no one pointed out that exploitation of autistic, suffering from depression and Asperger's, semi-literate teenager is a full blown child abuse by low-lives constituting "progressive" public. Not only Greta's parents are irresponsible, typical, Swedish upper-class cucks who exploit their daughter for obvious gain:
We literally are witnessing a collective West's madness reminiscent of massive hallucinations of middle ages. As Yakov Kedmi characterized it--it is a political pedophilia. I concur. Oh boy, but can you imagine how much money could be made from this child abuse and pedophilia. That is unless Western economies meet what everyone with even fleeting acquaintance with political economy expects--a major economic shitstorm. The clouds are on the horizon and increasingly irrational and real anti-American activity by Democratic Party and its minions in mass-media sewer are just private manifestations of a massive political and economic crisis of the so called West. I begin to notice evaporation of the remainders of rational thought, adherence to which was always praised as West's fundamental value, even in the places I thought would be the last refuge--I was wrong.
It is then not surprising to read in Sergei Lavrov's latest article what I am writing about for years:
For people who read my latest book it will be surprising (or maybe it will not be at all) to see how much what I wrote as a sharp criticism, in fact, condemnation of the so called "liberalism" and its primitive instruments of power, corresponds to what Lavrov expresses in his program article.But it has to be understood clearly--the West as it exists today is not Russia's long term interest or goal. In fact, in some sense Lavrov's article is a declaration of this fact. Not only Russia has a bigger fish to fry, but she is in a direct contradiction to increasingly degenerate contemporary Western "culture" and in this sense Russia is not a Western country in terms which define the West of today. In fact, there is no West anymore. There is, also, no Europe left in any meaningful form. Globalist project annihilated last vestiges of European thought through bringing up degenerate and, frankly, dumb political class and "intellectuals". Parading sick and unfortunate child in a front of the whole world as a messiah for globalist agenda is a major sign of a terminal illness. And then, of course, there is American political panopticon. Will we see someone from DNC behind bars?Hope dies last, I heard.
I am often critical and sometimes outright dismissive of US foreign policy and a "doctrine" which is in the foundation of a disaster which US foreign policy is. I still remain on this position and I can justify it; it is not very difficult to do. Having said all that, when looking at the sorry state of today's world and understanding that it is undergoing profound changes, there are constants one must consider when analyzing those changes. Among those constants are legitimate national interests of the United States of America. The United States does have national interests which she absolutely must protect and her livelihood depends on protection of those interests. But what are those interests? What is "legitimate" in this case, what is worth for the US to draw real red lines and fight for? This is not an easy question to answer. Once pathos-ridden globalist rhetoric, which permeates most of American geopolitical documents, is discounted, one has to recognize that far from being self-proclaimed guarantor of "world order", the United States not only contributed greatly to its destabilization but ran out of resources to even barely maintain this order, let alone take on what US considers her main geopolitical rivals: Russia and China.
As Bronislaw Malinowski wrote in his An Anthropological Analysis Of War in 1941:
Another interesting point in the study of aggression is that, like charity, it begins at home.
In 1951 Daniel J. Levinson in his Authoritarian Personality And Foreign Policy went further:
America has only recently come of age internationally; the understanding of international relations requires an ability and a readiness to think in terms of institutional abstractions to which Americans are only just getting accustomed; our newspapers and other communications media tend to perpetuate the existing confusion and ideological immaturity... The American nation as a symbol is glorified and idealized; it is regarded as superior to other nations in all important respects. Great emphasis is placed on such concepts as national honor and national sovereignty. Other nations are seen as inferior, envious, and threatening. At the worst they are likely to attack us; at best they seek alliances only to pursue their own selfish aims and to "play us for a sucker".
This was written 66 years ago. Most of it applies today easily to current America and it is precisely a set of the US' recurring attitudes which prevents her from both formulating her vital national interests and defending them. I could go deep into American Founding Fathers ideas and wax historical here but those points of view and ideas are so well known that it simply makes no sense to repeat them again. Maybe with the exception of John Quincy Adams' reminder to US Congress in 1821 that America:
Adams was prescient. But the problem of modern day America turning into "empire" is the fact that US fails miserably as an empire to start with and, for all intents and purposes, is not very good at fighting those "imperial" wars. Not to speak of Adams' warning which came true completely--"enlisting under other banners", those banners being, of course, first of all banners of Israel and of Arabian Peninsula medieval satrapies. A catastrophe in the Middle East was not in American national interest, not to speak of the millions upon millions killed, maimed, displaced innocent Arabs, Christians, Alawites etc. But then again, how US can define her real national interest when she fights constantly for someone else' interests, many of which far from being merely economic ones, are very often genocidal, such as the case of Saudi Arabia's (with US support) behavior in Yemen or Israel being more interested in the existence of Al Qaeda and ISIS than of secular Syrian government.
One may wax anti-colonial and anti-imperialist whatever one wants--yes, Belgian behavior in Kongo was inhumane--but British imperialism didn't leave just negative marks on its colonies. It left after itself often whole government institutions which worked, it also left skilled administrative, technical and intellectual local elite, it also provided a developmental impetus in places where such a development was greatly retarded. It is not a secret that many in current political and military elite in India went through Oxford and Sandhurst. Friedrich Engels, hardly a Russophile, defined Russian imperial expansion as:
Despite her Slavic dirt and baseness, Russia provides civilizing influence on her Asiatic subjects.
But this is not what US does with her "empire". Whole Middle East is on fire, Western Europe which was liberated by Allies in WW II is in a cultural death spiral and economic troubles, US involvement in Indo-China in 1960s resulted in utter destruction of the region, with millions of people dead. Building "democracy" in Afghanistan or even Iraq--places which never had a culture even remotely compatible with "democracy"--is an unmitigated disaster. In the end, the so called "liberal democracy" practiced in US resulted in cultural and political trends which completely torn the nation apart and threaten to bury it completely under the rubble of cultural, racial, economic, ideological and political warfare. How can one possibly formulate sensible national interests when the subject which must generate these interests is in a state which is hardly conducive for calm and productive discussion on what real American national interests ARE?
Are American national interests "large" in economic sense? Absolutely they are--US is still second economy in the world and has a huge internal market and it shouldn't have surrendered her industry to China to start with. What are REAL military threats to the US? Is North Korean missile program a threat to the US? Potentially, yes but how serious a threat? The Fat Thing in Pyongyang is not suicidal. Is Russia a threat? Militarily--only within US globalist world view, since will keep US from global military "dominance" (greatly overrated and talked up), once globalist (and treasonous) US "elite" is discounted, Russia becomes a natural ally, but what about China? Is US maritime dominance under challenge? Only in littorals of the nations US wants to attack, Russia included. US ocean dominance is not under threat and nobody really cares to challenge it there--overwhelming majority of nations are for safe navigation and movement of the goods. Is Latin America a US' "backyard"? Objectively it is but what is US' game plan there? Is globalism a national security threat to US herself? Absolutely--it is poison which kills US slowly but surely. Those questions are numerous and they must be first stated and then answered before one can even start formulating real national interests of the United States. Donald Trump started doing this during his campaign but we all can chip in. Will we?
UPDATE: what a coincidence, Pat Buchanan, whom I respect deeply, despite not always agreeing with his point of view, published today (a day after my post) a piece with telling title: What Is America's Goal In The World.
There Pat discusses a lot of issues which I posted about yesterday. As I said, I do not always agree with Pat but he is always worthy of listening to.
