I have all my life advocated for taking better care of the earth. But I find myself seeing the "greens" and the climate lobby as something of a death cult, convinced we are a plaque upon the earth.
Does the average Dutch citizen think Russia and Putin are existential threats? Because it seems to this American the far greater threat are ideological technocrats of the West.
Thanks for your comment. I too think we can and must be better stewards of the natural world, and of course we must also prepare for a future -- some decades hence -- when we no longer have access to plentiful fossil fuels. But the Greens as a political movement (at least in Europe) appear to be co-opted by certain forces with very dark agendas, with Malthusian ideas about scarcity and "useless eaters".
Many Dutch have been convinced that Putin is a villain, but very few IMO truly consider Russia an existential threat. Sanctioning the Russians and shutting down the gas pipelines is all just virtue signalling. Politicians and public here alike are (with a few exceptions) profoundly complacent and have no understanding of the material basis for our increasingly fragile prosperity.
It is so mystifying. Some writers in America think the European nation states are basically client states of America, and are doing America's bidding in this. Our military and the current Administration having tied Trump to Putin, are in my opinion maintaining growth of our weapons contractors, after 21 years of the War on Terror and the $8trillion or so that generated for them. I have long said Russia is the crown jewel in regime change doctrine, and Biden's foreign policy team are all rabid russophobes. I have no proof but I am certain America/NATO psy-oped Putin into this. Except Russia seems less harmed by this than Europe, and I can't figure out how the leadership of Europe are so servile they would risk their populations for this - except as you say, the eugenicist notion that the people harmed most by the sanctions and the war are mostly useless and meaningless anyway.
Regime in change in the Kremlin -- definitely the neocon goal.They're quite open about it too. The irony is that Putin is himself a moderate; the opposition to him in Russia is from the right and any successor would be a hardliner. The neocons have the fantasy he would be replaced by a pliable pro-Western liberal like Yeltsin, but that won't happen. The latter are nearly an extinct species in Russia.
I would say that Ukraine was less a psy/op, more a genuine military threat. After the 2014 Maidan coup, US and NATO started arming Ukraine and turning it into the biggest and best trained military in the region, second only to Turkey, as Scott Ritter keeps pointing out. The Russians saw this happening, realized Ukraine under the guidance of NATO was preparing to retake Donbass and possibly Crimea as well. As you may recall, Russia issued a fairly urgent call last December for a new security framework for Europe, but the US and NATO unceremoniously blew them off. They saw signs of an imminent attack on Donbass and decided to move first, on Feb 24.
The Malthusian mindset may prevail in the backrooms of Davos, but the problem with our leaders --Scholz, Macron, Rutte here in NL -- is rather that they're complacent and conformist careerists who identify more with their fellow cosmopolitan elites than the citizenry they purportedly serve. They are selected on the basis of their unswerving allegiance to the EU project, which rewards them by allowing them to offload difficult economic decisions to a remote, supremely undemocratic technocracy. These weak, unimaginative managers cannot respond meaningfully to the energy crisis because they have no ideas, vision, or courage; no real connection to the daily life of the plebes. This terrible system will eventually collapse, and it won't be a pretty sight. We can then undertake the arduous task of rebuilding our sovereign nation-states based on civilizational traditions and principles, much like Russia has done so successfully over the past several decades.
Great article, Colin. It lays out the realities. I get the impression, from many in-person encounters, that people don't understand the downsides of aggressive sanctimony and ideological constipation. They're caught up in performative hamster-wheeling. There are not many realists.
Nice to hear from you James. Thank you. It seems that pragmatists are a truly dying breed, that it's the hardliners who keep calling the shots and having the final word. Continental European foreign policy is driven by (ugh) Baltic paranoia and historical grievance. The latter can't be denied but, like despair, it serves as very unwise counsel. It's our great tragedy that we as a society can't think dialetically, we can't engage in that virtuous cycle of theory and praxis.
very important, also to add to the list is the fact welfare state exists as an reverse image and comparison against USSR, as well as people's and union struggles which led to people's victories in the past..... besides, well said.
Thanks. It's surely no coincidence that the high water mark of our Western social welfare states was during the Cold War. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, our overlords decided the system had served its ideological purposes and was no longer required. Since then the've been moving us steadily towards their preferred goal, what can only be described as neo-feudalism.
I would hazard to say Great Reset begun with Petrodollar, because neo-liberalism matches that too.... in addition the process was accelerated after the demise of USSR, but it began way before.... and I may hazard to say reset will end with petrodollar, fingers crossed, I dislike playing/ pretending the skill to foresee the future but here's my 2 cents.
I completely share your reluctance to make predictions, but I too think *their* Great Reset won't survive the death of the petrodollar, whose days are clearly numbered. Then, deo volente, we can have *our* Great Reset.
I have all my life advocated for taking better care of the earth. But I find myself seeing the "greens" and the climate lobby as something of a death cult, convinced we are a plaque upon the earth.
Does the average Dutch citizen think Russia and Putin are existential threats? Because it seems to this American the far greater threat are ideological technocrats of the West.
Thanks for your comment. I too think we can and must be better stewards of the natural world, and of course we must also prepare for a future -- some decades hence -- when we no longer have access to plentiful fossil fuels. But the Greens as a political movement (at least in Europe) appear to be co-opted by certain forces with very dark agendas, with Malthusian ideas about scarcity and "useless eaters".
Many Dutch have been convinced that Putin is a villain, but very few IMO truly consider Russia an existential threat. Sanctioning the Russians and shutting down the gas pipelines is all just virtue signalling. Politicians and public here alike are (with a few exceptions) profoundly complacent and have no understanding of the material basis for our increasingly fragile prosperity.
It is so mystifying. Some writers in America think the European nation states are basically client states of America, and are doing America's bidding in this. Our military and the current Administration having tied Trump to Putin, are in my opinion maintaining growth of our weapons contractors, after 21 years of the War on Terror and the $8trillion or so that generated for them. I have long said Russia is the crown jewel in regime change doctrine, and Biden's foreign policy team are all rabid russophobes. I have no proof but I am certain America/NATO psy-oped Putin into this. Except Russia seems less harmed by this than Europe, and I can't figure out how the leadership of Europe are so servile they would risk their populations for this - except as you say, the eugenicist notion that the people harmed most by the sanctions and the war are mostly useless and meaningless anyway.
Regime in change in the Kremlin -- definitely the neocon goal.They're quite open about it too. The irony is that Putin is himself a moderate; the opposition to him in Russia is from the right and any successor would be a hardliner. The neocons have the fantasy he would be replaced by a pliable pro-Western liberal like Yeltsin, but that won't happen. The latter are nearly an extinct species in Russia.
I would say that Ukraine was less a psy/op, more a genuine military threat. After the 2014 Maidan coup, US and NATO started arming Ukraine and turning it into the biggest and best trained military in the region, second only to Turkey, as Scott Ritter keeps pointing out. The Russians saw this happening, realized Ukraine under the guidance of NATO was preparing to retake Donbass and possibly Crimea as well. As you may recall, Russia issued a fairly urgent call last December for a new security framework for Europe, but the US and NATO unceremoniously blew them off. They saw signs of an imminent attack on Donbass and decided to move first, on Feb 24.
The Malthusian mindset may prevail in the backrooms of Davos, but the problem with our leaders --Scholz, Macron, Rutte here in NL -- is rather that they're complacent and conformist careerists who identify more with their fellow cosmopolitan elites than the citizenry they purportedly serve. They are selected on the basis of their unswerving allegiance to the EU project, which rewards them by allowing them to offload difficult economic decisions to a remote, supremely undemocratic technocracy. These weak, unimaginative managers cannot respond meaningfully to the energy crisis because they have no ideas, vision, or courage; no real connection to the daily life of the plebes. This terrible system will eventually collapse, and it won't be a pretty sight. We can then undertake the arduous task of rebuilding our sovereign nation-states based on civilizational traditions and principles, much like Russia has done so successfully over the past several decades.
Great article, Colin. It lays out the realities. I get the impression, from many in-person encounters, that people don't understand the downsides of aggressive sanctimony and ideological constipation. They're caught up in performative hamster-wheeling. There are not many realists.
Nice to hear from you James. Thank you. It seems that pragmatists are a truly dying breed, that it's the hardliners who keep calling the shots and having the final word. Continental European foreign policy is driven by (ugh) Baltic paranoia and historical grievance. The latter can't be denied but, like despair, it serves as very unwise counsel. It's our great tragedy that we as a society can't think dialetically, we can't engage in that virtuous cycle of theory and praxis.
very important, also to add to the list is the fact welfare state exists as an reverse image and comparison against USSR, as well as people's and union struggles which led to people's victories in the past..... besides, well said.
Thanks. It's surely no coincidence that the high water mark of our Western social welfare states was during the Cold War. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, our overlords decided the system had served its ideological purposes and was no longer required. Since then the've been moving us steadily towards their preferred goal, what can only be described as neo-feudalism.
I would hazard to say Great Reset begun with Petrodollar, because neo-liberalism matches that too.... in addition the process was accelerated after the demise of USSR, but it began way before.... and I may hazard to say reset will end with petrodollar, fingers crossed, I dislike playing/ pretending the skill to foresee the future but here's my 2 cents.
I completely share your reluctance to make predictions, but I too think *their* Great Reset won't survive the death of the petrodollar, whose days are clearly numbered. Then, deo volente, we can have *our* Great Reset.