> This is why they're ramping up the war rhetoric with Russia. Only if they can manufacture an external enemy can they cling on to power.
I agree with most of what you say, but this smacks too much of conspiracy theory. Are you saying Russia is not a potential enemy? Are you saying the war is not a big deal?
Now that Russia is fully geared up for a war economy, its modern equivalent of the retreat and consolidation behind the Urals of WWII, we should take Putin very seriously indeed. We did respond pretty well to his attempted blitzkrieg in Ukraine. He gambled on the post-lockdown, post-BLM, rainbow-painted West not acting at all in February 2022, and we should take heart that we did start to come together in the face of an actual real external threat as a good sign that all is not lost. Largely this was driven by a hawkish Poland, Scandinavia and Baltic states, rightfully fearing what would come next, but ultimately this is what NATO and Europe are actually *for*.
The major worry is a simple strategic one. Now we've used up all our stockpiles of weapons by throwing them at the frontline of this proxy war, we're left wide open on the flanks and rear. As you rightly point out, we've flushed our manufacturing industries down the toilet, and we're busy capping the wells in the North Sea and closing down our remaining blast furnaces, so we have nowhere but America left to turn to if things hot up. And if the yanks - whether under a senile idiot or a philandering aresehole - are suddenly too busy protecting TMSC from Xi, then we'll be royally screwed.
My worry is that comment like yours (and from others on the subject) are playing with fire. Just because we have multiple enemies, we should not start playing them off against each other and siding with Putin. Intellectual, domestic enemies are one thing. A Russo-China axis is another.
Because however much I loathe our political class right now, I'd definitely take anti-racist struggle sessions over Putin's basements any day.
< “The major worry is a simple strategic one. Now we've used up all our stockpiles of weapons by throwing them at the frontline of this proxy war, we're left wide open on the flanks and rear. As you rightly point out, we've flushed our manufacturing industries down the toilet, and we're busy capping the wells in the North Sea and closing down our remaining blast furnaces, so we have nowhere but America left to turn to if things hot up. And if the yanks - whether under a senile idiot or a philandering aresehole - are suddenly too busy protecting TMSC from Xi, then we'll be royally screwed.” >
Interesting post in toto. I’ve often wondered, but what do you consider Putin would hope to gain from invading Western Europe?
Nothing. But he definitely has ambitions to restore swathes of eastern Europe and in particular the Baltics to the Russian empire. We'd get in the way of those ambitions, unless we were degraded. So he'd be very interested in targetting subsea cables, pipelines and offshore platforms, and generally controlling the Baltic/North seas to give him room to manoeuvre. Our lack of a naval force really helps him there. And witnessing that we cannot deal with an invasion of rubber dinghies must given him great confidence.
I have found your blog very interesting and agree with much. However, I think you weaken your overall argument by characterising the third world immigrants as "low-IQ" - a cheap insult with no basis in fact (to my knowledge).
< “The consequence is a Europe of sclerotic, over-regulated economies, with national governments that no longer respond to democratic inputs, as elites flush what's left of their industries down the toilet in the name of saving the planet.” >
But the planet needs saving. The human race with all of its so-called ‘ingenuity’ in messing around with the natural order of the world is buggering it up.
To reduce the rate at which humans are destroying their life-support system, planet Earth, requires significant reductions in both the total number of humans and in average so-called ‘living standards’.
Reduced living standards would achieve reductions in energy and material requirements per head of capita; both of which are largely of finite availability.
Reduction in population reduces the number of consumers of energy and materials and can be achieved by:
a) Reduced re-productive rates
b) Disease
c) Famine
d) War
It seems to me the elites, whether by design or not, are working on all of the above; admittedly, often in insane and immoral ways.
The human race, if it is to survive in the longer term, needs putting onto a much more sustainable, with nature, trajectory.
< “OK. You go first, I'll be right behind you. Promise.” >
Yeah; this is why they are wrecking democracy and the nation state.
As I’ve posted before - the majority of the electorate is not going to vote for population reduction or for reduced living standards. That would be like turkeys voting for Xmas.
Common sense says so, yes. But the WEF is made up of people who profit from vast numbers of people buying their products and services. They are the same people who want us all to crowd into cities and eat bugs, apparently. Depopulation would be destroying their own market.
< “Depopulation would be destroying their own market.” >
Isn’t, in the words of OGH, “elites flush[ing] what's left of their industries down the toilet” reducing the quantity of their goods and services available for populations to buy an act of contributing towards, in your words, “destroying their own market”?
The sad truth is that Pete is spot on with his analysis.
Much as those in power seem to hate the Nation State, and there is much wrong with the Nation State, the Nation State is the best way to provide people with a focus and a State which they can support. Supra-nationalism always collapses, at some time and we don't want to a repeat of 1848.
Great blog. Stumbled upon it by accident. Will definitely return.
"You must learn to hate the elites as much as they hate you."
Oh, I do. With a visceral burning hatred
> This is why they're ramping up the war rhetoric with Russia. Only if they can manufacture an external enemy can they cling on to power.
I agree with most of what you say, but this smacks too much of conspiracy theory. Are you saying Russia is not a potential enemy? Are you saying the war is not a big deal?
Now that Russia is fully geared up for a war economy, its modern equivalent of the retreat and consolidation behind the Urals of WWII, we should take Putin very seriously indeed. We did respond pretty well to his attempted blitzkrieg in Ukraine. He gambled on the post-lockdown, post-BLM, rainbow-painted West not acting at all in February 2022, and we should take heart that we did start to come together in the face of an actual real external threat as a good sign that all is not lost. Largely this was driven by a hawkish Poland, Scandinavia and Baltic states, rightfully fearing what would come next, but ultimately this is what NATO and Europe are actually *for*.
The major worry is a simple strategic one. Now we've used up all our stockpiles of weapons by throwing them at the frontline of this proxy war, we're left wide open on the flanks and rear. As you rightly point out, we've flushed our manufacturing industries down the toilet, and we're busy capping the wells in the North Sea and closing down our remaining blast furnaces, so we have nowhere but America left to turn to if things hot up. And if the yanks - whether under a senile idiot or a philandering aresehole - are suddenly too busy protecting TMSC from Xi, then we'll be royally screwed.
My worry is that comment like yours (and from others on the subject) are playing with fire. Just because we have multiple enemies, we should not start playing them off against each other and siding with Putin. Intellectual, domestic enemies are one thing. A Russo-China axis is another.
Because however much I loathe our political class right now, I'd definitely take anti-racist struggle sessions over Putin's basements any day.
< “The major worry is a simple strategic one. Now we've used up all our stockpiles of weapons by throwing them at the frontline of this proxy war, we're left wide open on the flanks and rear. As you rightly point out, we've flushed our manufacturing industries down the toilet, and we're busy capping the wells in the North Sea and closing down our remaining blast furnaces, so we have nowhere but America left to turn to if things hot up. And if the yanks - whether under a senile idiot or a philandering aresehole - are suddenly too busy protecting TMSC from Xi, then we'll be royally screwed.” >
Interesting post in toto. I’ve often wondered, but what do you consider Putin would hope to gain from invading Western Europe?
Nothing. But he definitely has ambitions to restore swathes of eastern Europe and in particular the Baltics to the Russian empire. We'd get in the way of those ambitions, unless we were degraded. So he'd be very interested in targetting subsea cables, pipelines and offshore platforms, and generally controlling the Baltic/North seas to give him room to manoeuvre. Our lack of a naval force really helps him there. And witnessing that we cannot deal with an invasion of rubber dinghies must given him great confidence.
I have found your blog very interesting and agree with much. However, I think you weaken your overall argument by characterising the third world immigrants as "low-IQ" - a cheap insult with no basis in fact (to my knowledge).
< “The consequence is a Europe of sclerotic, over-regulated economies, with national governments that no longer respond to democratic inputs, as elites flush what's left of their industries down the toilet in the name of saving the planet.” >
But the planet needs saving. The human race with all of its so-called ‘ingenuity’ in messing around with the natural order of the world is buggering it up.
To reduce the rate at which humans are destroying their life-support system, planet Earth, requires significant reductions in both the total number of humans and in average so-called ‘living standards’.
Reduced living standards would achieve reductions in energy and material requirements per head of capita; both of which are largely of finite availability.
Reduction in population reduces the number of consumers of energy and materials and can be achieved by:
a) Reduced re-productive rates
b) Disease
c) Famine
d) War
It seems to me the elites, whether by design or not, are working on all of the above; admittedly, often in insane and immoral ways.
The human race, if it is to survive in the longer term, needs putting onto a much more sustainable, with nature, trajectory.
> planet Earth, requires significant reductions in both the total number of humans and in average so-called ‘living standards’.
OK. You go first, I'll be right behind you. Promise.
< “OK. You go first, I'll be right behind you. Promise.” >
Yeah; this is why they are wrecking democracy and the nation state.
As I’ve posted before - the majority of the electorate is not going to vote for population reduction or for reduced living standards. That would be like turkeys voting for Xmas.
Ah, so you're positing the WEF depopulation-by-design theory?
< “Ah, so you're positing the WEF depopulation-by-design theory?” >
Don’t you agree that at least a significant reduction in the world’s population is necessary for the longer term survival of the human race?
Common sense says so, yes. But the WEF is made up of people who profit from vast numbers of people buying their products and services. They are the same people who want us all to crowd into cities and eat bugs, apparently. Depopulation would be destroying their own market.
< “Depopulation would be destroying their own market.” >
Isn’t, in the words of OGH, “elites flush[ing] what's left of their industries down the toilet” reducing the quantity of their goods and services available for populations to buy an act of contributing towards, in your words, “destroying their own market”?
I can see you have been very busy writing away which I enjoy, but this episode demonstrates you need a glass of something and a good sleep
You could say much the same of anything I've written for the last three months.
That's being a bit unfair to yourself !
The sad truth is that Pete is spot on with his analysis.
Much as those in power seem to hate the Nation State, and there is much wrong with the Nation State, the Nation State is the best way to provide people with a focus and a State which they can support. Supra-nationalism always collapses, at some time and we don't want to a repeat of 1848.
And after that, discuss it.