Monday, January 6, 2025

"The Idiot’s Guide To A Class Analysis of The Great Reset – Part I: Who are ‘They’ and Who are We?" by Rusere Shoniwa


Key Definitions

Idiot(s) (the target audience) – the majority of the British middle class

‘They’ – the ruling class and their eager minions

Eager minions – mostly idiots (see definition of idiot above).

The ruling class – the oligarchy, aka the plutocracy, aka the Owners and Controllers of Global Financial Capital (OCGFC); aka the leaders of ‘they’.

Preamble

Is the Great Reset, underpinned by its much vaunted Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR), a class war? If so, what class are you in and will you survive? How should we define class in modern Western economies dominated by the ‘service’ sector? Does class matter anymore?

I want to reassert David Hughes’ view that this is indeed a class war. ‘Twas ever thus, but it has entered a new and decisive phase – a final top-down revolution, if they succeed. Hughes describes it as “an undeclared global class war… aimed at the controlled demolition of liberal democracy and the institution of global technocracy, a novel, bio-digital form of totalitarianism.” Correct, notwithstanding that liberal democracy was always an illusion. The illusion is now being dispensed with, although the language of ‘democracy’ persists in the way that uplifting music was sometimes played to accompany a concentration camp inmate to his execution.

Normies love to indignantly ask us “what do you mean by ‘they’?”, when we use the pronoun to loosely refer to the psychopaths who govern us and their eager minions. It seems to me that the main objective of class analysis ought to be to systematically arrive at an understanding of who is being screwed by whom in modern industrialised societies. This tool was developed and perfected by the Left, so it beggars belief when a mainstream leftie, and idiot, asks, “Who is this ‘they’? I believe that looking at the Great Reset through the lens of class is an effective way to identify this ‘they’. It also helps to highlight how ‘they’ make fools of us by using class to divide and rule.

What does it mean to be working or middle class today? If the Great Reset is a class war, and you are neither working class nor owning class, whose side are you on? One’s economic status, the type of work one does, conflicts between and within the individual, and whose interests you serve in acting and thinking in certain ways are paramount in answering these questions.

I won’t use terms like ‘petite bourgeoisie’, except in this one sentence. I’d love to, but I don’t want this Idiot’s Guide to look like it was written by an idiot, as defined at the start. What I’ll try to do instead is use recent articles by John Spritzler and Brett Scott as a springboard for my thoughts on other people’s interesting thoughts about class and its relevance to the 4IR.

It should go without saying that you should not interpret this piece as a full endorsement of Spritzler’s or Scott’s ideas, as interesting and stimulating as they are. Nor should you interpret this piece as me putting words into their mouths. If you want to know what Scott and Spritzler think, read their pieces, which I will link in due course. If you’re vaguely interested in what I think, continue reading this piece!

You might want to think of this piece as the first in a series about who the ultimate global hegemon is. Approaching the question through the lens of class is a way of analysing the mess we’re in from a systems or structural perspective, as opposed to listing organisations, people, victims and dastardly acts. I have stated in previous pieces who I think wields the most power in world affairs, but I haven’t fully made the case for it, so I will continue to do so with more evidence. I’m now reasonably certain that until we are fully cognisant of who or what wields the most power, we risk misinterpreting the actions of the subsidiary hegemonic powers beneath it.

Like football, this guide will be a game of two halves:

· Some big-picture thoughts about class, and in particular the middle class, whom I plan to give a bit of a kicking. I think it’s deserved and long overdue, but don’t take it personally. It’s directed as much at myself as anyone else.

· In part II, I’ll ponder divide-and-rule, again through a class lens, and why it matters.

First, some overarching thoughts about class and my own somewhat conflicted position. In examining the boundary between the working and middle class, traditional class analysis up to the late 1970s did not ignore economic status, but placed greater emphasis on politicised ideas of class based on identity, exploitation, and domination. From the 1970s onwards, a shift coinciding with the rise of neo-liberal economics transformed class analysis into a technical issue of measurement. That said, class analysis has not successfully adapted to spiralling levels of income inequality accompanied by neo-liberal market forces.

This has led to what Mike Savage terms the “paradox of class” – people’s subjective class membership or identity declining as social inequality increased. We have essentially become more confused about class, and I discuss this more in Part II where it is most relevant to the issue of divide and rule. There is another paradox forced by the exigencies of neo-liberalism. The intellectual Left was fooled into thinking class didn’t matter anymore; that the class war was over. It was in fact merely entering a new phase. At precisely the moment the intellectual Left should have doubled down, it sold out. But then again, the reason for this, as John Spritzler argues very convincingly, is that intellectuals on both the left and right have always despised ordinary people. They have always despised the working poor.

The problem of class identity has not gone away, and nor has class utility for the ruling class. This somewhat facetious guide does not attempt to disentangle that mess, but to rather propose a way of moving past it with the objective of uniting all of us against the ruling class, who have strengthened their position by blurring the boundaries between middle and working class. ‘They’ are still the problem from the perspective of resistance to the Great Reset and 4IR.

So, what of my own conflicted position? I do think it’s important to address class inequality and class division caused by income disparities. I have never approved in principle of the disparities (though I have benefitted from them) that exist in the economic reward for a finance professional versus say a cleaner or a worker in the somewhat euphemistically termed ‘hospitality sector’. I know that neither I as a person, nor my job as a function in society, is more important than these people or their jobs. Any rationalisations that contradict this fact are lies told to justify the arbitrary way in which The System allocates resources and extracts value for the owners and controllers of capital.

But at the same time, we need to allow for differences in economic rewards simply because we are all individuals who do not want the same things in life. An author who churns out best-sellers and finds themselves rolling in it will have more resources than the average accountant who stares at spreadsheets all day pretending to do meaningful work. That isn’t wrong! What is wrong is living under a system in which the priorities of a tiny, sick clique warp how resources are allocated.

This system determines who gets to eat well and who doesn’t. I’m very comfortable with the best-selling author being able to afford a flashy new car while I can’t. I’m not comfortable with being able to buy organic food knowing others can’t. There really are some things I’d like all of us to have, and there are other things we all can’t, and which should not be problematic. If I were to add one addendum to John Spritzler’s egalitarian movement, that would be it.

Our waking hours, and therefore a huge chunk of our lives, are assigned an economic value according to the priorities of The System’s owners. Needless to say, their priorities do not align with those of most of us, or with what is life-affirming. Thus, an ambulance crew who spend their lives saving other lives are rewarded far less than a Big Pharma executive who oversees the production and distribution of ‘vaccines’ and many other pharmaceutical preparations that are wreaking misery and havoc on humanity. To the Pharma executive, a sick individual from birth is a lifelong revenue stream. To the ruling class, a sick person is an extinguished threat to its control matrix. This warped value system is the norm and not the exception, because The System serves the psychopaths who run it at the expense of everyone else.

Unless we can confront this overarching truth about how warped the System is, we will not be able to acknowledge the many ways in which it divides us, demoralises and immoralises us, and therefore weakens resistance to criminality and crises at pivotal moments. To attempt to justify why a ‘risk manager’ at a financial institution should be paid more than a physiotherapist is to intellectually prop up a fundamentally evil system.

They’ – the ruling class

The ‘they’ are very obviously the wealthiest section of the owning class who extract value from the real creators of wealth – the working class. They are the one percent, or more accurately, the less-than-one percent. These people very deliberately cultivate a low profile. With the exception of a few of them, their names are not widely known.

The talking heads and high-profile officials in the upper echelons of government, international institutions, and think tanks are both functional and symbolic representatives. The billionaire personalities who attract media attention are also representatives, albeit more powerful than very well-paid talking heads. With their power to disperse resources, they have a seat at the top table and get to determine policy. Collectively, they make up the predator class but the head of that snake is the bankster class.

The real powers behind the throne are the controllers of the banking system – the Owners and Controllers of Global Financial Capital (OCGFC). They control access to capital and the money supply, which equates to control over how resources, including human resources, are allocated.

The Musks and Gateses of the world have their roles to fulfil in building the systems and architecture of control. Crucially, they serve as Pied Pipers for emotionally stunted hero worshippers who need ‘leaders’. Their job is to lead the masses into the jaws of hell.

Using his stone soup analogy, Brett Scott explains that the idea that billionaires build massive revenue-generating projects is a ridiculous myth constructed to serve the interests of the owning class. At best, the billionaire instigates the project. They often hijack projects and, even more often, the idea for the project is not theirs. The billionaire is in a position to instigate the venture because they have access to the capital necessary to fund it through to completion. It’s the workers who bring the ingredients, their skill and energy, to make the soup. And they are the ones who actually make the soup. The billionaire becomes a focal point or “central attractor” around which workers and managers arrange themselves. At the end of it all, the billionaire receives all the adulation because he/she supposedly ‘risked’ it all and ‘innovated’.

I’m not saying that anyone and everyone can start a business, but we need to understand that people like Musk and Gates are not where they are because they’re intrepid innovators. As Scott succinctly puts it: billionaires don’t create jobs; jobs create billionaires.

The enemy of society is middle class and the enemy of life is middle age – Orson Welles

I’ll supplement the above quote with another one by Elizabeth Warren, the US Democratic senator for Massachusetts:

“We cannot run a democracy without a strong middle class.”

If you accept that our liberal democracies are the evolution of yesterday's plantation system, then she’s right in a way she did not intend to be. Or perhaps she knew exactly what she was saying by insinuating that the engine room of our fake democracy is the middle class. In which case the joke’s on us.

The ruling or owning class could not advance its agenda of wealth and power concentration unless it created conflict between groups in societies, and incentivised certain sections to work with it and against the exploited, or working class. The class it co-opts to work with it is the middle class. The working class is the class it truly fears because it is traditionally the class with the least to lose and therefore the most likely to put heads on spikes. And here I am referring to working class in economic terms – a precariat class at the bottom of the social structure

So how could we characterise this middle class that many writers have been bemoaning the disappearance of? The middle class is both a concrete economic reality and an identity that serves power. You may find that economically you are middle class, but if you’re serious about resisting the Great Reset, you shouldn’t want to be middle class. Relax, I’m not suggesting you sell all your possessions and join a commune.

The middle class in the political sense is the class to whom the owners and controllers delegate the administration of the control matrix. The Professional Managerial Class (PMC) is a term now widely used to describe the owning class’s most important cadre within the middle class.

Not all middle class people are gleefully administering the machinery of control and psychological propaganda. Some middle class people actually have real jobs and aren’t mere parasites. There is nothing wrong with aspiring towards a more comfortable life, but aspiring to be middle class is an identity crisis welcomed by the ruling class because you’re psychologically trying to punch down and brown-nose up.

The middle class is a crucial buffer between the owning class and the working class. To the extent that there is anything concretely different in being middle class, it lies in the fact that a middle class badge-wearer is likely to have more runway between a comfortable existence in suburbia and a begging bowl at the train station. That’s what makes the middle class a reliable buffer for the owning class. Belonging to the middle class also confers additional privileges, such as taking charge of television programming and news indoctrination. In the US they are scornfully referred to as ‘liberals’ – the strata of society perceived to have a grip on the media and entertainment industries. Here in the UK this class is epitomised by the loathsome BBC and its disinformation inquisitors, typified by Marianna Spring.

Up until the entire planet was locked down and ordered to get ‘vaccinated’, the PMC or middle class needed no lessons in understanding which side their bread was buttered on. But when lockdowns and mass coerced injections were enforced on everyone, a small but sizeable minority of the middle class (mostly conservative-leaning) realised their ruling masters had significantly changed the rules of the game in that the middle class had been moved more directly into the ruling class’s line of fire. This angry bunch of middle class renegades started questioning things in a serious way. Sadly, many of them couldn’t totally shake off their middle class indoctrination, and ended up forming into a Freedom-for-me-but-not-for-thee Movement centred on core issues that offended them personally, but being very careful not to ruffle the ruling class’s feathers on other important hobbies like war, Zionism and genocide.

The middle class has therefore traditionally been incentivised not only to share the values of the OCGFC, but to enthusiastically enact them in the matrix of control and value extraction. Factors like the PMC’s functional importance in the control matrix, and how close the specific PMC specialism is to the operational end of the value extraction system, as well as its own creativity in devising ways to leech off productive sectors, all determine the reward for the services they render to the OCGFC.

Wearing a middle class badge does not change the fact that you are still a slave on the Plantation. But there are advantages to being a butler in the Big House as opposed to picking cotton in the field.

The middle class stranglehold on culture is unassailable, as it curates mainstream mass media and entertainment content. It also controls academia, a vital indoctrination hub of the PMC. Turning off the television and not consuming mainstream media news eliminates the vast bulk of the mindless rubbish and insidious owner-class propaganda spewed out by the middle class. It also greatly reduces the likelihood of having the pants frightened off you when the PMC morons are shrieking over the airwaves about the next plandemic.

Cultural brainwashing is the foundation of the plutocracy. Cultural indoctrination is why most people in Britain can listen to news announcements about how upset the Prince is about the death of his former Nanny’s stepson, and not question the fundamental premise of the existence of a family that owns 115,000 hectares of agricultural land and forests, retail properties, most of Regent Street, about 55% of UK foreshore (beaches), royal residences, six palaces, seven castles, 12 homes, 56 cottages and 14 ancient ruins.

Cultural brainwashing expunges questions such as: Was this £15.6 billion in assets acquired because the Royals are, to use a stock phrase of our parliamentary stooges, a ‘hard-working British family’? Or, why do the Prince’s parents get to delegate parenting to a nanny while the average Brit can’t afford to put their kids in daycare? Or, why do ‘liberal democracies’ still have Princes and Kings, pulling strings from Palaces, and owning half our beaches? Blessed are the whys.

Not asking questions is the oil that keeps the ruling class engine purring smoothly. Instead of asking whether all that Royal property was stolen and should be given back, the monarchist middle class take on the matter is that the Royal Family’s relationship with Britain’s land is “ancient and complex”.

A radical (in my very humble opinion) rethinking of the distinction between middle class and working class

The working class comprises those who must rent their time and skills to the owners of capital, or indeed the state, in order to survive. However, the lines between working class and middle class have become increasingly blurred since neo-liberal market forces gained ascendancy at the end of the last century.

That was an inevitable consequence of the shift in Western economies from productive to non-productive sectors. I recall ever-increasing bureaucracy being hailed as a fine thing – the transformation to a ‘mature’ economy. This was the stock response from government ministers on the rare occasion that a chattering class media type questioned the wisdom of building an economy on ‘risk management’, Power Point presentations, exporting television shows, and other meaningless activities. Making stuff was relegated to playing with Lego. We needed to grow up.

I also recall wondering why Europe’s most productive and successful economy – Germany – was churlishly resisting the urge to trash its manufacturing industries and ‘mature’. I reluctantly concluded that after losing two World Wars in quick succession, Germany was destined to never grow up.

Thus New Labour invited everyone who was no longer getting dirt under their fingernails – a majority of the workforce after the decimation of the productive sector – to self-declare as ‘middle class’. Smashing the class barriers by simply pretending they didn’t exist anymore was the thin gruel offered to compensate for offshoring real jobs to China and anyone else who wanted them.

Given this increased blurring of lines between classes (more of which in Part II), I want to propose a new way of looking at the middle and working class, which entails making a distinction between real and non-real jobs. Given the deliberate and nefarious confusion and division that has been sown by them in class analysis, I propose to untangle it with a moral paradigm that will allow us to say working class good, middle class bad. If accepted, and I have no doubt that it will be, this ought to rapidly lead to a large swathe of middle class lackeys scrambling to actually become, or at least identify as, working class. Owning class buffer zone gone – your move, ruling class!

If I am opening myself up to the accusation of fetishising the working class, I plan to deflect it by insisting that I am in fact demonising the feckless and treacherous middle class! Besides, who wouldn’t want to do real work?

Real jobs entail not merely creating value in the narrow economic sense, but doing something that has meaning or that yields tangible benefits to the consumer affected. Even if the jobs are monotonous and menial, some tangible product or valuable service is being supplied. The connection to something of use keeps the job real.

Here in the UK, there’s no sense, economic or otherwise, in regarding a plumber as working class and a librarian as middle class, when the plumber is probably earning a lot more than the librarian, and they’re both doing real jobs. Why should they be staring at each other from across the class divide?

I think that most working class people have real jobs, but not all real jobs are the preserve of the working class. This leads me to believe that covidians and new normal fanatics are overrepresented in the PMC, and more generally in the middle class. The stereotypical PMC job entails being a diligent cog in the bureaucratic machine that has grown up in the weeds of a financialised economic system in its final death throes. It is almost always soulless, pointless and therefore life-negating. Obviously, having a real job is not guaranteed immunisation against organisational indoctrination, but perhaps it makes it harder. There is clearly something about not doing real work that rusts the soul.

Most government departments and agencies are directly involved in delivering some core aspect of Agenda 2030, or at the very least are required to implement working policies that complement it. So, good luck in finding a public servant who is a climate-sceptic and isn’t lining up for their winter boosters. Now, I can see how people working in the Department of Energy and Climate Change might sincerely believe that they have real jobs by virtue of engaging in the allegedly important work of ‘saving the planet’. However, pursuing the farcical goal of ‘decarbonisation’ by accounting for, and attempting to reallocate, all the carbon atoms in the biosphere only serves to underline that delivering a tragically comic and monumental lie does not amount to real work. It merely emphasises how uncritical and subservient these people are to propaganda. A university educated person who believes cows must be prevented from farting in order to save mankind from catastrophe is not a serious person, and therefore cannot be relied on to perform serious, real work.

There is of course some unavoidable overlap in this analysis of real versus non-real jobs. Some of the overlap comes down to some middle class people doing real work, and a smaller section of the working class not doing real work. And some of it may well be attributable to self-identity conflicts and/or a gross misunderstanding by the person doing the job of what the job actually entails. For example, all doctors should be working class, since they are supposed to do the very real and life-affirming work of healing the sick. To the extent that a doctor fails to defend patients’ autonomy and reads from a script prepared by Big Pharma’s allopathic model of treating symptoms not causes, or being an unmitigated blockhead for believing that ‘vaccines’ do anything other than poison the recipient, then they are middle class or PMC. Bad.

To the extent that someone is doing a real job but wants to identify as middle class, they are suffering from a desire to punch down and brown-nose up. For the purpose of resisting tyranny, the flesh is strong but the spirit is weak. Bad.

I say all this knowing full well that I still have to pay the bills every now and again with a job that is not real. As any recovering alcoholic will tell you, facing up to one’s condition is the first step to changing it! We can redeem ourselves with an honest self-confrontation that permits us to consciously navigate our iniquitous position in the workplace, thereby avoiding selling our souls to the devil. Recognising that macroeconomic shifts beyond our control have forced many of us into work that is not real does not preclude a willingness and ability to ally with people doing real jobs against the parasites in the ruling class and the incorrigible section of the PMC.

In case I haven’t been blunt enough, the aim here is to make people who identify as middle class feel uncomfortable about being middle class. Why would you want to be the middle-man helping a bunch of psychopathic parasites attacking people doing real jobs? In the five years since the covid psyop, I have drifted from contract to contract in the public sector and not had a single conversation with a PMC moron who understands what’s happening. If they understood what’s happening they wouldn’t be a PMC moron. Not one single PMC automaton I met and conversed with did the secret Resistance handshake, metaphorically speaking. I don’t think there’s a secret handshake yet. We can address that. Sort of.

To spice up those dull Monday morning Teams or Zoom meetings, I am proposing that if you are middle class but want to be working class and join The Resistance, then doing jazz hands (the complete opposite of the Freemasons’ hidden hand sign) at an appropriate juncture in the meeting shall be the secret sign to let other Resistance members know you are blue-pilled and available for plotting the downfall of The System. If by January 2027, 75% of people on PMC Teams calls are doing jazz hands, we’ve won.

Sadly for now, the truth is that, in the normal course of daily affairs, I have yet to encounter a PMC member who is in the Resistance. On the other hand, 75% of people who I meet with real jobs more or less get it. It’s jazz hands all the way with Uber drivers. This has solidified my visceral animosity towards the PMC.

We must look for the silver lining. In its breathtaking arrogance of Operation Lockstep, the ruling class may have overplayed its hand. Questions are being asked by middle class muppets about how AI will impact their employment prospects. Some are waking up and starting to smell the 4IR coffee. Bottom line – stop trying to be middle class if you can help it. If you are middle class and there’s absolutely nothing you can do about it, keep it to yourself and quietly ally with the working class in whatever small ways you can, even if it’s just flinging organic mince pies at builders as you pass work sites. I’ll leave it to your imagination.

"Make way for billionaires!" by Dmitry Orlov


Click here for Exit the Cuckoo's Nest's posting standards and aims.

Source: Club Orlov


January 6, 2025


Make way for billionaires!

Trump's presidential entourage (the term "cabinet" seems rather limited in scope) includes quite an assemblage of billionaires. The list includes Elon Musk ($363 billion), Donald Himself ($6.3 billion), Warren Stephens ($3.4 billion), Linda McMahon ($3 billion), Jared Isaacman ($1.7 billion), Howard Lutnick ($1.5 billion), Doug Burgum ($1.1 billion), Vivek Ramaswamy ($1 billion), Steven Witkoff ($1 billion) and Scott Bessent (fortune unknown, assumed huge). This assemblage of very wealthy individuals seeing political appointments is completely unprecedented in the annals of US presidential administrations.

Musk is the obvious outlier, since he is wealthier than all of the rest combined by a huge margin, but it is notable that they are all billionaires. Why are giant overstuffed bags of money drawn to Trump like moths to the flame? What might motivate them to pick up the fallen flag of government service and march forth? What do they hope to gain? What do they fear to lose?

But first we must answer an even simpler question: Who are these people? Answer: they are filthy rich bastards. Why bastards? That's simple too: they gained their fortunes over the course of this century — a century during which the US has continuously lost ground. So far over the course of the 21st century China's industrial production has increased by a factor of 10, along with the fortunes of the Chinese population as a whole, while US industrial production has increased by a factor of 1, growing by a fraction of a percent. If we exclude from consideration the top 1% of Americans (by wealth and income) as an uncharacteristic aberration (they are a country within a country, if you will), the US has grown significantly poorer.

This becomes immediately and abundantly clear to anyone who flies into the US from one of the modern, glittering megalopolises such as Beijing, Moscow or Dubai. The place is old — simply outdated and unfashionable, rather than antique or classic, having been cheaply and hastily put together to start with. It is run down and dirty. The people are cheaply and carelessly dressed and are vulgar, slovenly, often pushy and rude, quick to anger and violence and generally abusive. The food that is widely available to them is too low-quality even for the pig trough. Unsurprisingly, many of them look ill: sallow or pasty-faced and obese to an astounding extent.

Obscenities fly about in public places whether or not there are children present. The children are a special case. They are not like normal children — curious, full of wonder at the amazing world around them and eager to explore it and to make contact with anyone they meet. Rather, they are fearful of strangers, estranged even from their own parents whose parenting often seems half-hearted and disingenuous, and sunk into the meaningless abyss of some digital device that has been thrust into their hands practically from birth as a sort of electronic pacifier. They are poised to remain blinkered, infantile and digitally addicted for the rest of their sad little lives.

And then there are the actual addicts, flopped out inside tents that stretch for many kilometers along major roads, stumbling zombie-like along the sidewalks in search of their next dose of fentanyl or standing slouched over, flopped over on the sidewalk or stumbling about some more once they find it. They are the living dead of American society — people for whom that society no longer finds a purpose except as fodder for government corruption. The government keeps the borders open, giving the drug cartels free reign. The government also prints and hands out money to the addicts which filters back to the drug cartels. The drug cartels then bribe government officials to keep the scheme in operation. The victims of this scheme are not missed: according to government statistics, they barely exist. They are not even unemployed, you see; they are a different category altogether called "not in labor force" and there is over 100 million of these — an entire third of the US population!

The mental landscape is equally wretched. Television screens are everywhere — in airports, lobbies, bars, restaurants, waiting rooms — blasting out equal portions of advertising, celebrity trivia and lies. The celebrity trivia is gradually being replaced with AI-generated content. The lies are rather curious; most of the information about the outside world seems to be organized into very specific tropes concocted by the CIA and repeated ad nauseam. Some of them are so preposterous that they are the stuff of comedy. "The Russians build their rockets using chips scavenged from Ukrainian washing machines" is one such trope. The Russians use them to laugh at Americans; but it is all that the vast majority of Americans know about the rest of the world!

As for information about the US itself, an order is in effect to maintain a sense of normalcy no matter what is happening. Bad news are always treated as a "crisis", by its nature temporary and quickly forgotten whether it has been mitigated in any way or simply ignored. The giant and growing piles of unsolved crises are treated as "old news" and never mentioned again to keep the presentation upbeat and positive, because otherwise the advertisers would start to complain.

This may seem like a digression, but it is essential to set the scene against which to gauge the success of Trump's little band of billionaires. Quite a lot of Americans might not care too much about any of the above because, you see, the people I described are losers and losers don't matter because America is the land of opportunity and if some people don't avail themselves of that opportunity then it's their own damn fault. Maybe they are unlucky or lazy or just stupid; America, for the "hard-working men and women of this great nation" oft-mentioned in political speeches, is for the taking with all of God's blessings and the above-listed Trumpean billionaires just happened to be particularly well blessed. Musk, in particular, is so hugely blessed that he is practically a demigod.

And what American wouldn't want to be a demigod just like Musk? Even an American who lives in a trailer park and dines out of dumpsters behind fast food joints still wants to have the opportunity to dream of being rich like Musk. The cult of Mammon is so deeply ingrained in American culture that it is not even perceived as such for all of its blatancy: "In god we trust", it says on American money — spelled out in all capitals, so it is most likely a lower-case god whose name is Mammon (ממון), which is Hebrew for "money" and, figuratively, "wealth".

But this begs an important question: Can someone be successful if their country is failing? In an ideal world, it is possible to imagine someone who is justly and lavishly compensated for faithfully and very effectively serving the public good — alas, there isn't enough of that public good to go around and the public cause fails as a whole, but still... But is this really the case with Trump's merry band of billionaires, or are they more likely of the ethos espoused by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, according to whom the goal is to make your "fuck you money," after which point you are no longer anyone's wage slave and can do or not do whatever you want. And what Trump's billionaires want to do is... wait for it... work for the government! What?!

If you believe that these über-wealthy types have been overcome by a sudden urge to serve the public good, then I have some very nice Florida swampland to sell you. I'll even throw in some giant anacondas and hungry-hungry alligators completely free of charge. Come and let bloodsucking flying insects suck you dry — I'm sure you'll love it! Back to our story: über-rich types generally only respond to three types of emotional stimuli: vanity, greed and fear, in this exact order. Vanity is at the forefront once greed is sufficiently satisfied. What is sufficient differs from person to person but I am sure that beyond the first billion the urge to flaunt one's wealth exceeds the urge to amass even more of it. Nor is the fear of losing it all at the forefront if everything is as rosy as mainstream American economists would have us believe. Yes, inflation is a bit high and government debt is growing faster than the economy, but unemployment is low and financial markets are stable.

Is it vanity, then, that motivated Trump's merry band of billionaires to seek political appointments within the federal bureaucracy? This seems very highly unlikely. The job of a government bureaucrat who is a political appointee is hardly a vanity job. There are lots of boring meetings to sit through and lots of mind-numbing paper shuffling. Not only that, but a government bureaucrat is expected to be a team player, which a fabulously wealthy oligarch is normally loath to do. Trump is as vane as they make them, but he has won the fabulous position of "the leader of the free world" (whatever that means) and that is a sufficiently glamorous position to tickle anyone's fancy. The billionaires on his team, on the other hand, would be playing second fiddle to another billionaire and, in the case of Elon Musk, to one who is his inferior.

Americans lack titles of nobility; instead, they determine social rank by the number of digits in someone's net worth; someone with a seven-digit salary is considered properly middle-class while a six-digit salary is far more humble and someone who only makes five digits is practically a peon. And the fact is that Musk outranks Trump, having two more digits in his net worth. Trump feels safe because, as he put it, "Elon can't be president because he wasn't born in this country, ha-ha!" That "ha-ha" has an insecure, defensive ring to it; if it were not for that legalistic catch, it would be unclear "whom would be commanding whom," to paraphrase Virginia Woolf. But Elon himself must chafe at being outranked by someone whose wealth is inferior to his. Let us therefore dismiss the notion that what drove these billionaires to seek political appointments is vanity.

Next in line is greed. While it is certainly the main motive force that drove these bloated moneybags to amass stupendous wealth even as much of their country degenerated into a third-world hellhole, it most certainly became less significant after they amassed the first billion because the second or the third billion requires doing just as much work and taking on just as much risk but produces much less of an endorphin release. Perhaps this is why the net worth of five of Trump's billionaires seems to have largely stalled out just past the $1 billion mark.

More importantly, government work is not a good way to amass billions. Look at all the effort Joe Biden and his son Hunter put into corrupt activities, turning the Ukraine first into a personal fiefdom and then into a dismembered failed state, funneling billions of in US government funds to it (most of them subsequently stolen) — all for the sake of amassing perhaps a hundred million, perhaps two hundred in kickbacks — chump change for a billionaire. And Joe Biden could afford to take the risk, hiding behind presidential immunity and having the authority to pardon his son. Someone who would be lower down on the political totem pole and already a billionaire would hardly consider taking such risks.

And so we get to fear. What do billionaires have to fear? It is certainly not the US justice system because it offers the best justice money can buy and they have enough money to buy it. And they have no reason to fear the US political establishment since both the elected and the appointed officials are quite affordably priced. By process of elimination, what they have to fear is the failure of the US financial system itself. Their net worth is denominated in US dollars and if dollar goes kaput, so does their net worth. But this still doesn't answer the following question: Why would these billionaires seek political appointments themselves instead of just finding someone to do their bidding for a reasonable fee? After all, they are not strangers to hiring people to do things for them, from domestics to legal representatives. What is different in this case? This question is most puzzling!

Why would a billionaire take to driving his own limousine, piloting his own jet or skippering his own mega-yacht? What sort of a situation would cause the denizens of the upper deck of the Titanic to abandon their cigars and their snifters of single malt and to storm the bridge, dismissing the captain and his mates and taking over the helm? Is the situation so dire that these billionaires can no longer trust anyone at all to avoid disaster?

It is easy to point to a scenario most dire. The US government debt is so large that if it were laid out in stacked containers full of $100 bills it would be visible from orbit with unaided eye. A third of that amount has to be rolled over in the course of the next year. A third of the federal budget has to be deficit-financed with more borrowing. Foreigners are no longer eager to snap up new US debt issuance, leaving the Federal Reserve and various domestic financial chumps (pension funds, insurers, money market funds) as the creditors of last resort. Close to half of the US economy is sustained through federal spending.

Nobody knows exactly when "this sucker is going to go down" (© George W. Bush) but go down it will. Financial markets will seize up and the net worth of our illustrious billionaires will shrivel, leaving them standing in the nude in an uncomfortably cool breeze. Perhaps they are clever enough to know that this is bound to happen over the next four years — the years of Trump's second and final presidential term. And perhaps they realize that following business-as-usual procedures in either the legislative or the executive branch is not going to be effective in avoiding the fiscal cliff.

This, then, is my conclusion. Trump's billionaires are wild with fear that the fiscal cliff will happen some time soon — during Trump's term. To avoid losing it all, they want to be in a position to take desperate, completely illegal, blatantly self-serving and ultimately self-destructive steps. It may involve jamming the works in a way that will simply stop the US government from spending money. It may involve some other wildly unpopular steps, being sure that there will never be any more elections at which the citizens could register their displeasure. It may involve creating crises in an effort to light backfires that might limit the scope of the coming financial conflagration. Perhaps they already have an emergency plan of some sort, or perhaps they just want to be in a position to execute on it once they have formulated it.

These billionaires are powerful and they are about to become much more powerful. And they are afraid — very afraid. And if they are afraid, shouldn't you be?

Thursday, January 2, 2025

"Your Crisis of Faith is not My Concern (There’s a Genocide Going on)" by Steve Salaita

 

Thanks to Who D. Who for contributing this article.


Click here for Exit the Cuckoo's Nest's posting standards and aims.

Source: Steve Salaita


Steve Salaita

No Flags, No Slogans




Your Crisis of Faith is not My Concern (There’s a Genocide Going on)

Understanding the Zionist mentality means acknowledging a kind of logic beyond the emotional capacity of functional human beings.

All the cruelty livestreamed onto our electronic devices has undone the old political order.  There are no more liberal Zionists, lowkey Zionists, cultural Zionists, soft Zionists, progressive Zionists, apathetic Zionists, ambivalent Zionists, non-Zionists, or post-Zionists.  Now only two categories matter:  Zionist and anti-Zionist. 

I might go so far as to argue that not identifying as anti-Zionist is itself a form of Zionism, which I suppose is another way of saying that ignorance of or indifference to Gaza is unacceptable. 

Such is the mood of the Palestine solidarity community a year into the Zionist genocide.  For decades we’ve been coerced into humoring the settler’s ego in a million ways, large and small, in what felt not like interchange but unrequited gestures of charity.  Amid the current horror hundreds of memories emerge in snippets of rage:  being made to condemn “antisemitism” before anybody would consider us sentient—in fact before anybody would address Zionism’s innate racism, or the racism built into the demand to condemn antisemitism—for this supposed act of humanism, this apparent disavowal of hatred, was never not a Zionist maneuver; being shadowed and chaperoned by devotes of the Israeli state in any public setting; being locked out of professional opportunities that would normally be commensurate with our qualifications.  We’ve had to explain ourselves in other ways.  Do you condemn violence?  Do you support Hamas?  Do you believe Israel has a right to exist?  Why shouldn’t Jews have a country of their own?  

(What about you, though?  Do you really believe that Zionism is innocent of violence?  Or is the violence merely entrenched in the meat of your tongue?) 

Since the nakba, Zionist angst has been the soundtrack of Palestinian life. 

House demolition.  Land theft.  Travel restrictions.  I have family in Israel.  Ecocide.  Expulsion.  Imprisonment.  This space is becoming unsafe for Jews.  Air raids.  Ground incursions.  The massacre of children.  But what would happen to Israelis?  Always the fantastical as a substitute for reality.  Always a void of empathy we are asked to replenish.  Always everything for all others without anything of our own.  And we tried.  Whether it was from decorum or guilt or fatigue, we tried.  We wanted to be accepted.  We wanted to become Good People.  We tried the sympathy, the indulgence, the dialogue.  The only thing these efforts got us was a genocide.  

We remember.  We have no choice, because the settler is needier than ever, demanding our validation as we agonize and mourn.  Not many are willing to offer it anymore.  Your crisis of faith is not my concern.  Those who do indulge the settler come across as weak or untrustworthy.  What the hell are you doing?  There’s a genocide going on. 

There’s been too much blood.  If you don’t share in our spirit, whether it cycles through pain or longing or fury or despair, then you’re a Zionist.  It doesn’t matter how you self-identify.  We suffer the oppression and so we get to name the oppressor.  It’s the only real benefit to being oppressed. 

(Besides, any half-serious person has surely noticed that Zionists can’t be trusted to define anything— “colonization”; “democracy”; “self-defense”; “antisemitism”—because those definitions exist only to project the settler’s barbarity onto the native.) 

*****

I’ve been thinking about how we’ve hardened our sensibilities, and how in turn the discourse has hardened, and it finally occurred to me that despite the habits of civility into which we’ve been acclimated hardness was always our fundamental condition.  The hardness isn’t a principle of aggression, but of defense.  It’s all we have to protect ourselves.  It’s the only resource Palestinians in the West can really contribute to the national movement.  We can donate and boycott and protest, but the hardness brings the diaspora closer to the homeland.  After October 7, I could see it happening, so many diasporic Palestinians shaking off these existential burdens, these humiliating accommodations, these civic commonplaces that destroy our political imagination.  We’re each undergoing a psychic intifada.  Because we always knew that the Zionist entity didn’t finish the job in 1948.  We understand the Zionist mentality.  That’s one of our biggest problems.  Understanding that mentality means acknowledging a kind of logic beyond the emotional capacity of functional human beings, a logic that invariably leads to our own demise.  Knowing Zionism, as we’ve been made to do, is an incessant suicide mission.  They were always going to try to finish the job, with or without an October 7.  They were finishing the job all along.  Every Palestinian life, every Palestinian expression of being, was an unfinished mission.  Palestinians were being exterminated as a matter of course, like infrastructure updates or budget approvals.  There is no other option available to those who hold onto the idea of Israel.  We knew it.  Even if some of our comrades thought that we were too delusional, too zealous, too uncompromising—that deep in our hearts we were hateful and fanatical, as the Oriental is apt to be—we knew.  That’s all.  Some of us fought on behalf of softness, with voting rituals, NGO activism, critical theory, all the stuff that offers a civilized façade.  But now we have no choice:  the Zionists validated our knowledge.  Hardness is the only viable option. 

We have invited others into this sensibility, from within and beyond our community.  They can get up to speed or continue in their increasingly obscene forms of appeasement.  But we’ll no longer try to sneak a toe across the dark red trench separating anti-Zionists from everyone else.  One doesn’t need prior knowledge of Palestine or a degree in political science to conclude that Zionism has no business among the living.  All it requires is an understanding that what the people of Gaza are being made to suffer is completely inhuman, or should be, anyway, if humanity is worth a damn. 

*****

According to academic convention, this return to our vital sensibilities is a bad development.  It results in nationalism, lack of nuance, binaries.  (Scary attitudes that lead impressionable people to communism and other unpleasant ideas.)  But all in all I see it as a positive.  Palestine was never going to be liberated by adhering to the bourgeois commonplaces of academe or civil society.  Liberation will necessarily upset the intellectual classes, for those classes exist only because they’re amenable to the economic order in which Zionism thrives.  Dissent is beginning to appear in those spaces, as is, in turn, increased repression.  “Free speech” is only valid until the ruling class feels threatened.  When people protest the Zionist ethostate, egghead technocrats happily drop the pretense.  Put up a tent and, bam, the police show up.  Head to the voting booth and, look out, yet another psychopath.  Say the wrong thing and, poof, here comes a passel of irate deans and vice presidents.  We have learned through decades of desecrated civil liberties to prioritize Palestine’s liberation because the system that promises us rights also produces genocide (while failing to uphold the rights).  We can no longer respect the conventions that have so dramatically failed us.  Palestine comes first and last, no matter how crude we have to be about it.  Yes, it’s a good thing. 

*****

Whenever I try to make sense of what I believe in this world, the ideas that allow me to live with myself and to perhaps create the possibility of living with others, I return to a simple question:  what kind of person does my politics require me to be?  The question forces me to consider the effect of belief beyond personal gratification.  Belief has a relationship with violence and power, be it God or karma or capital or government.  Thus it should also have a relationship with peace and cooperation.  I don’t like the idea of obliging strangers into tactics I wouldn’t carry out myself.  If one of my opinions might expose others to harm, then I have to think carefully about the consequences of speaking or even of belief itself.  While I can declare without much ambiguity that I support armed resistance to colonization, I recognize it as an abstract declaration.  Am I willing to take up a gun and get shot at?  It’s impossible to say without being forced into the decision.  That’s the thing about resistance:  people are forced into it.  In the end the choice I would make doesn’t matter, because if I ever find myself with a gun and getting shot at then it’s not necessarily something I would have chosen.  I would be reacting to material circumstances, not to distant and disembodied questions of moral propriety.  People need to remember that about Palestinian fighters:  resistance is a necessity forced onto them by settler colonization.  If a people’s survival depends upon militancy, then that people will become militant.  Both North and South are littered with examples. 

This way of thinking, I suspect, informs the (re)hardening of our sensibilities.  Palestinian life, these days indivisible from Palestinian death, is often used as raw material for careerism or electioneering.  Or else it is fed back into the hateful rhetoric of genocide.  Brutal violence is all over our screens and still the storytellers of Western democracy process the brutality into allegories of progress.  We can’t indulge these paeons to Western altruism, where death becomes abstract, subsumed by never-ending tales of noble violence.  The slaughter of Palestinians is immediate and undeniable and so goddamn real as to exist beyond our moral comprehension.  To know the Zionist genocide is to consign our souls to a darkness we spend our entire lives avoiding.  This condition is made worse by a vocal enemy whose main rhetorical devices are paranoia and narcissism, not to mention a political culture that asks us to patiently die until suburban liberals finally elect the right president.  I reckon we’ve had enough of the entire concept of patience, which only bought the oppressor more time to empower unrepentant maniacs and build deadlier technology, and have finally shaken off the latent assumption that we can expect any grace or decency from our enemies. 

We always saw it, but now we see it written onto a powerlessness that threatens our very existence.  Material circumstance has forced us into binaristic thinking:  if Zionism survives, we die.  We’ve become more pragmatic, but not in the way that U.S. thought-leaders want us to be.  They believe that pragmatism is deferring liberation for the sake of various American political fantasies, but our pragmatism is intuitive and historical.  We see what the Zionist entity does in Gaza, the extensive rubble, the mutilation, the dead children, accompanied by incessant glee and mockery.  We know too that in the aftermath of the Nazi Holocaust nobody suggested that its victims should coexist with its perpetrators.  (Indeed, the idea of Jews and Nazis sharing a country was rightly considered outlandish, one reason why the Holocaust was, and continues to be, such an effective justification for the theft of Palestine.)  Everybody without cynical intentions understood that Nazism needed to be expunged, not accommodated.  The same is true of Zionism.  So we protect ourselves from the annoyances of bourgeois pragmatism—the half-baked Orientalism, the high-handed pontification, the snitching and scabbing, the appeals to civility, the ideological discipline—each act landing squarely on death’s side of the binary. 

If you are across from us somewhere beyond that dark red trench, among the white-hot artillery, then you needn’t sermonize about the proper way to suffer a genocide.  Instead, take a moment, or a lifetime, and consider what kind of person Zionism requires you to be. 

Wednesday, January 1, 2025

"Our World of Wars, Our War of Worlds" by Patrick Lawrence

 

Click here for Exit the Cuckoo's Nest's posting standards and aims.

Source: Scheerpost

Patrick Lawrence: Our World of Wars, Our War of Worlds

A Ukrainian soldier with the 1st Airmobile Battalion, 79th Air Assault Brigade calls out to a fellow soldier, letting the other soldier know he is set and ready to cover his movement during pairs movement training at the Yavoriv Combat Training Center on the International Peacekeeping and Security Center, near Yavoriv, Ukraine, May 15, 2017. “170515-A-RH707-394” by U.S. Department of Defense Current Photos is marked with Public Domain Mark 1.0.

By Patrick Lawrence / Original to ScheerPost

It is some years now since a lot of people began imagining the specter of World War III in the near or middle distance. This kind of thinking has been especially common since the U.S., with determination and purpose, provoked Russia to intervene in Ukraine three years ago this coming February. A few weeks later President Biden defended his decision to block the transfer of fighter jets to the Kiev regime by famously remarking, “That’s called World War III.”

It is obvious now, if it wasn’t then, that the Biden White House had already begun playing a reckless game of footsie with the Russians. Kiev now has squadrons of F–16s in the air, Abrams tanks on the ground, and Patriot missiles standing guard. Same story. When, in mid-November, Biden (or whoever makes decisions in his name) gave Ukraine permission to fire long-range missiles into Russia warnings of World War III came quickly. “Joe Biden is dangerously trying to start WWIII,” Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Georgia Republican, said on “X.” You heard similar remarks from the Kremlin and the Russian Duma. 

The risk of a new global conflict could scarcely be more evident as 2024 gives way to 2025. A sound survey of our geopolitical circumstances tells us the imperium, in an increasingly desperate state as its hegemony is challenged, is effectively spoiling for decisive confrontations with any power that threatens its longstanding but crumbling primacy. As I have argued severally these past few years, the policy cliques in Washington concluded they had reached a shoot-the-moon moment when they committed the U.S. to the proxy war in Ukraine, an all-out operation to bring down the Russian Federation. We must now read this hubristic ambition as part of a larger story, a worldwide story, a story of war everywhere you look.

But we need to get beyond all thoughts that we stand at the edge of a “World War III” of the kind that scarred the previous century. The phrase obscures more than it reveals. It prompts us to search the past for an understanding of our present, and — as is the case with so much about our new century — the past is not of much use to us. At some point — I would say after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001— we entered uncharted territory. The world is at war, yes, but ours are wars of a different kind by way of the technologies and methods used to wage them — to say nothing of the objectives of those who start them. The nature of power and how it is exercised have been transformed. When taken together, the sheer magnitude of our wars is — and I am ever cautious with this term — unprecedented. 

Like it or not we are making history, to put this point another way. And when one’s age is making history there is no repeating or referencing history because the events of the age have no parallel in the past. The two world wars were waged in defense of democracy and ended with negotiations after decisive victories on battlefields. The wars we witness — let us be very clear about this — are destroying democracy, and those waging these wars make it bitterly plain they have no intention of negotiating anything with those they have turned into adversaries. This bodes very badly for the character of the transformation that is to come. 

The wars that beset us — in Europe, in West Asia, in East Asia — are many. With or without military engagement, they have already started. But to step back even a small distance, they seem to me to be one. This is a war between a power that has reigned without serious challenge for half a millennium and the powers, non–Western powers, the 21st century thrusts forth in the name of global parity. The one is fading, the other emergent. The world is at war, and it is a war of worlds. 

If I had two words to explain why the world is in so perilous a state, I would have no trouble settling on “the West.” I have made reference to history. Let us have a look around in it in this connection. 

The notion of the West is at least as old as Herodotus, chronicler of the Persian Wars, who described the line separating the West from the rest as imaginary. The term acquired many meanings over many centuries. But it was in the 19th century that the West was first understood as a modern political construct. This was in response to the modernization project Peter the Great had set in motion in the early 1700s. So “the West” was defensive from the first, formed in reaction. There was also something unconscious reflected in it. Russia was the East, given to communal forms of social organization and some dark, irrational peasant consciousness, pre–Cartesian and anti–Western to its core — and so an implicit threat, never to be any other.
Here is de Tocqueville, in the first volume of Democracy in America, which he brought out in 1835:

There are at the present time two great nations in the world, which started from different points but seem to tend towards the same end. I allude to the Russians and the Americans. Both of them have grown up unnoticed; and whilst the attention of mankind was directed elsewhere, they have suddenly placed themselves in the front rank among the nations, and the world learned their existence and their greatness at almost the same time…. Each seems called by some secret design of Providence one day to hold in its hands the destinies of half the world.

A dozen years later Sainte–Beuve, the historian and critic, made a more daring case: 

There are now but two great nations — the first is Russia, still barbarian but large, and worthy of respect…. The other nation is America, an intoxicated, immature democracy that knows no obstacles. The future of the world lies between these two great nations. One day they will collide, and then we will see struggles the like of which no one has dreamed of.

A short while later Jules Michelet, the celebrated historian, was first to call for “an Atlantic union,” meaning a trans–Atlantic union. Michelet, it is worth noting, made it plain he considered Russians to be sub-human. So it was that by the 1870s “the West” as we know it was fully ascendant, as was “the East” as the Atlantic world’s great Other.

I have no idea why it was the French who proved so prescient on this question, but it is impossible not to be impressed by their foresight. Sainte–Beuve got it right as rain when he predicted a world-enveloping struggle of which no one had yet dreamed. It is our curse that we witness this today, 177 years after he made his observations. 

At the same time we have to recognize these writers’ lapses and failures. The civilized-vs.-the-savage theme is prevalent in all these writings, unfortunately. De Tocqueville put this in terms of opposites:

The former [the young United States] combats the wilderness and savage life; the latter, civilization with all its arms. The conquests of the American are therefore gained with the ploughshare; those of the Russian by the sword.

This is nothing more than clunky, Westcentric stuff — damaging to the extent it has since marked accepted thinking all the way to Joe Biden’s White House. And the French seers of the mid–19th century failed to see — it could not be otherwise, we have to say — that the collisions of which Sainte–Beuve wrote would take many strange forms and extend far beyond Czarist Russia.

Craig Murray, formerly a British ambassador in Central Asia and now a committed critic of Western policy, published a piece in mid–December under the headline “Abolishing Democracy in Europe.” In it he described the effective disenfranchisement of a half-million Moldovan voters resident in Russia when presidential elections were held this past autumn. He goes on to consider the case of Georgia, whose president, a French citizen for most of her life, now point-blank refuses to leave office despite her defeat in elections this year. And he then takes up Romania, where courts recently disqualified the winning presidential candidate on the wholly specious grounds that he may have benefited—repeat may have, there is no evidence of this—from social media campaigns favorable to Russia. 

Murray is right to treat these events together. All three involve Western-inspired political and institutional corruptions in the cause of installing Russophobic leaders who favor ties to the European Union regardless of popular preferences. This is war by any other name, in its way as vicious if not as violent as the proxy war in Ukraine. It is a theater in the war of worlds that besets us. 

West Asia is another. There continues to be debate as to whether Israel runs U.S. policy in the region or whether the U.S. runs Israel as its client. I remain of the latter conviction, as I have made clear here and here. Israel is the great beneficiary now that Syria, a secular nation, has fallen to opportunist jihadists. All signs are that Iran is next on Zionist state’s list. But the imperative here is to understand the startling pace of events in West Asia as part of Washington’s larger quest to bring the entire globe under its imperial control.

Is war with China inevitable? I am not sure this is any longer the interesting question. If we begin counting from the U.S.–cultivated coup in Kiev in February 2014, it was eight years before a war few could see broke into open conflict. It seems to me that in the China case we are in 2014 or thereabouts. 

A year ago a prominent general predicted the U.S. would be at war with the People’s Republic by 2027. Defense News, which reliably reflects official thinking, now reports that war the year after next “is a fixation in Washington.” Just before Christmas, Military Times reported that the Biden White House authorized $570 million in new military assistance to Taiwan; the Pentagon concurrently announced $300 million in new military sales. These are big numbers in the Twain context. Beijing immediately declared its vigorous objections.  

Tell me, should we continue wondering whether war with China is inevitable? Or should we conclude that another theater in our war of worlds has already opened?

Yanis Varoufakis, that wise man of Athens, published a piece in Project Syndicate on Dec. 19 under the headline, “The West Is Not Dying, but It Is Working on It.” “Western power is as strong as ever,” Varoufakis begins. But he then argues that the U.S. and its trans–Atlantic clients are destroying themselves from within:

What has changed is that the combination of socialism for financiers, collapsing prospects for the bottom 50%, and the surrender of our minds to Big Tech has given rise to overweening Western elites with little use for the last century’s value system.

Democratic process, in other words, social or economic equality by any measure one chooses to apply, any thought of the commonweal, the rule of law—all have been foregone as no longer of use. This is not the triumph of the governing classes: It is the governing classes destroying their societies and so themselves. Such is Varoufakis’s case in sum.

I could scarcely agree more robustly. The West, just as the old French philosophers anticipated, has engaged its Other this past year and decisively demonstrated its power. But power and strength are two different things, as I have long insisted. Domestic decay, deindustrialization, rampant poverty and inequality, cultivated ignorance, addictions to self-deception, the utter absence of any kind of domestic consensus on either side of the Atlantic: These are passingly of benefit to the conduct and interests of empire. But in the middle distance nations reliant solely on power while neglecting the sources of strength enter a cycle of decline that self-accelerates.

America is losing in our world of wars and our war of worlds. I see no case otherwise if we consider history’s longue durée. But we must immediately note that America has never surrendered in war or negotiated from a position of weakness. 

We may count Vietnam an exception, but the Americans did not abandon their war against the Vietnamese until, with the dramatic rise of Saigon in April 1975, they were forced desperately to exit in helicopters from the roof of the American embassy. Maybe Afghanistan is another such case, but in my view Washington continues to wage war by other means against Kabul. 

The question remains in the large just as it is in Ukraine: What happens when a great but declining power loses a war, the very most decisive war, it cannot afford to lose? We have not been here before. History is of little use as a guide.

Disqus