Share this comment
"the West had control of vastly more global resources"
The operative word there is "had".
The West trashed its industrial capacity which underpins military industrial capacity. It has trashed not just the factories but the scientific and technical education and experience which is even more important than physical factories and cannot be r…
"the West had control of vastly more global resources"
The operative word there is "had".
The West trashed its industrial capacity which underpins military industrial capacity. It has trashed not just the factories but the scientific and technical education and experience which is even more important than physical factories and cannot be restored in less than decades.
Russia was able to rise again, in a few decades, to a high level economic and industrial output because it never dissed scientific and technical education -- unlike the West, which supplanted it with "gender and race studies", and supposed STEM disciplines like "climate studies" which are just unreal money-making frauds.
The de-industrialized West is now in a far, far worse position than Russia was to reindustrialize because it has liquidated the whole cadre of people with the personal knowledge required.
I remember decades ago, when the West was offshoring its industrial capacity hearing know-nothing morons in the West claiming their countries would be "knowledge economies". Supposedly, they would invent and design things which would then be produced for them by the "dirty economies" in Asia.
Except the reality is and was that sustainment and creation of knowledge is intimately connected with using that knowledge, ie with "doing".
At the time of those fatuous claims, the West had a short time window in which it could do what the theory trumpeted, solely because they had engineers and managers with detailed knowledge gained from personal, "hands on" experience, and who were yet to retire. And Western financiers reaped a huge profit, at the expense of their countries, by offshoring manufacturing.
The people who had the relevant knowledge at the time have now long ago retired and/or died and we are living in the inevitable result of that stupid fantasy promoted by ignorant people and politicians.
In terms of societal impact, it is entirely irrelevant whether "the amoral Western elites genuinely care about gay rights, or Transrights" -- promoting those views has destroyed morality and societal cohesion and economic capacity (by devoting resources to those destructive philosophies instead of to productive activities).
Offshoring was intended to destroy the left anti-war unions, which it did. What we see now is blowback.
It was far more than that.
It was to make immediate large profits for the globalists, AND
Allow the globalists, who already controlled the US and other Western countries, to gain control of China and the manufacturing capacity they were implanting there.
Unfortunately for the globalists, the CCP entirely understood the intent. They gladly took the support in industrializing but have been very active in preventing the rise of oligarchs (domestic or international) of the strength of those in the West and those that emerged in Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. That is a permanent aspect of CCP policy.
To the great anguish of the globalists, this has left them in control of hollowed-out and failing economies in the West, while China (and now Russia) outstrip their power, and they can only see the situation getting worse (for them) -- all as a consequence of their own strategies.
This is why the globalists like Soros are so angry with China and want war (which the globalists will lose).
It's a chicken and egg scenario. Does the power come from the profits or do the profits accrue due to one's power? I think they are 2 sides of a coin. Anyway the 70s and 80s were the heyday for progressive union activism.
That is part of it, for sure. Mostly just capitalism
You are correct, but the Jews want you dead. So they will kill Europeans and Americans like they killed Ukrainians.
They have certainly drastically undermined the societies and economies of Europe and the US, flooding them with unassimilable imports.
Their problem is that this has also destroyed the power of Europe and the US and the existence of genocidal, apartheid Israel has depended on that power to subjugate its neighbors.
Now the "chickens are coming home to roost" and soon the balance of power in the ME will have totally and irretrievably turned against Israel and its Western vassals.
Within a decade, Zionist Israel will be history. That was not in their plans.
It's a replay of the story of the scorpion, mid stream, stinging to death the frog it had induced to carry the scorpion across the stream.
The chickens coming home to roost are a Chicken Caesar Wrap-It-Up when Russia starts cooking
That is the whole idea , kill them all off , and replace them with Africans . They are not trouble makers , they just want to play basketball .
2hrs ago I literally finished watching this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxDTE2fjT-Q
And shared it on several places, although little was new to me. But to some it would be.
But the idea that the entire West is now "Just pronoun-confused ill-educated morons" is a rightwing victimhood trope that is simply not true. There is a higher % of that, yes, but it is not EVERYONE.
In a move to total, long-term war, you'd be surprised at what the West could achieve. Putin and the Russians know this, which is why they are not blase, and why she also added that to the possible calculations.
Underestimating your opponents doesn't just apply to the Russians & Chinese, it also applies to believing all the rightwing victimhood NONSENSE. And it IS nonsense.
What has actually happened is corporate bureaucratisation, turning Education as well as healthcare, and military production, and military logistics, into mere money-making scams for gluttonously-wealthy scumbags. https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/07/28/academentia-the-organization-insanity-of-the-modern-university/
Western 'elites' - or the more intelligent ones - are quite well aware of the cause of our true problems, and in a total-war scenario - assuming the WMDs don't fly - you would be surprised at how realism suddenly becomes important.
At the beginning of WW1 & 2, the UK & Soviet forces were like they are today - top heavy, corrupt, and incapable due to too many sinecures for elite-spawned losers.
But when the chips are down the Hunter Biden types are kicked out and replaced, "profit" becomes less important, and serious people get promoted.
We are 5-10 years behind Russia, at a MINIMUM (And that ignores the colossus China behind them), but in a frozen-conflict Korea style, a lot COULD happen.
Is it likely to? Fortunately not. To that extent I agree with your points.
But also UNFORTUNATELY not, as that is going to make the fuckwit pychos in charge of the West more likely to decide to just blow the planet up instead. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQDaMxPAZ2c
First, I don't assume that the West can do no harm to Russia or China. The US still has legacy systems and troops which have some lethality. They also have 6,000 or so nuclear weapons. I doubt they are all duds and some would almost certainly get through in the event of all-out war.
That is why I admire Putin's prudence, he is working for an outcome while trying to minimize the harm his country and his troops suffer in achieving it.
It is ironic you mention corrupt and top-heavy military institutions without citing the US which is without doubt the pinnacle in this regard. You are surely aware of Colonel Douglas Macgregor's observation that at the end of WWII, the US with 12 million men under arms had around 7 four star officers. Now, when about 10% of that size, it has 42 four star officers -- and each has headquarters staffs with a multitude of lesser generals and colonels, etc.
If the US removed all the corrupt members of its senior officer corps it might find itself with 7 four star officers and similarly downsized staffs.
I agree that "when the chips are down" countries SOMETIMES shape up and make serious appointments. Unfortunately that depends on having serious people in positions of authority to do the appointing. The US and most Western countries lack that. History shows many occasions when in difficult circumstances countries are either governed by fools (the West today) and/or, irrespective of the abilities of those in power, their countries is simply outmatched by its foes (the West today, where the number of engineers produced each year is minute compared to China and Russia (and many of the STEM graduates in the West are actually Chinese, who, in a conflict, won't be working for the West).
At the start of WWII, the US was industrially the China of the time. It is now the equivalent of Britain at the start of WWII, ie with some industrial strength but far behind the largest and incapable of catching up -- and over-extended with an empire which consumed more resources than it contributed to Britain's defense.
Hypersonics are here now. If total war breaks out the west won't be able to build the factories, or train the staff, or transport the raw materials. They will be obliterated. The window of opportunity for the west is closed...for decades.
Supply chain issues will throttle-back production, whether there's total war or not. It's not as if the material or the materiel is just lying around close at hand
As you say, a lot COULD happen, but the will to do it is not there, and, absent actual, direct impacts on the majority of the population in the West, that will can never be there.
The nature of employment necessary to re-industrialise to a full on war machine has been carefully characterised by modern Western education as a DOWN-grade to the idealised "service industry" jobs (which, ironically, are the most at risk in the "AI" tsunami certain companies are trying to bring) so the manpower to make that war machine will be very reluctant to participate, at best.
This is why Tesla is pursuing "humanoid" robotics so hard, to create the "manpower" at a lower dollar cost than actual humans are willing to accept to participate in "dirty" manufacturing..
Note that China is charging harder and faster down the robotics route than any other country, and once you have that, your limits on production are raw resources input, of which Russia is the largest single country source.... After that you have Africa, which is steadily moving toward a Russian/Chinese political orbit.
The Western oligarchs have made their bed, now they're having a pre-bedtime tantrum...
Cheezits & juice-boxes on the way--!
Permanent Washington has declared/insisted that China is an adversarial competitor: in order to out-compete China & maintain hegemony we have to create semiconductor fabs & go hyperdrive into chip production.
Millennials & Gen Zs are not motivated by Permanent Washington's mind-set, however. They're not making "out-competing" China a life-altering goal. Deloitte & McKinsey see the U.S. semiconductor industry facing a shortage of 70,000-90,000 workers by 2028. McKinsey projects a shortfall of 300,000 engineers & 90,000 skilled technicians by 2030
Well, the DEI riders built into the CHiPs Act should help with those critical personnel shortages..🤣
Now, if you want FUNCTIONING chips, perhaps not so much....
After all, bunny suits are white, and that's some special sort of privilege right there! Never mind having to work a 12 hour shift in one (Sorry, snowflake, next toilet break is in 3 hours..) AND you can't take your phone inside to Insta your friends, or TikTok your latest bunny dance.
I serious doubt that the Western elites could psy-op their populations into a war against Eurasia. The willpower is not there. The last 2 generations of hedonic individualism cannot be quickly flipped into stoic patriotism.
Do you HAVE to sound like this is a Bad Thing(tm)?
One of the few things the Earth has got going for it is that the psycho Western elites like L Graham, Nuland, Clintons, Bolton, Haley etc, are facing that reality.
Is there anything to be admired in "stoic patriotism"? ... considering LIFE!
Right now, the entire West is completely crazy and under the control of special interests. But that entire "leadership:" is being discredited and the powers behind them will make an attempt to treat this "leadership[" like an ablative layer. Scrap them and try to get a new layer. Right now, that doesn't look possible, but magicians can pull rabbits of of a hat.
History might offer two example of empires which pulled back from the brink of decline. So it's possible, but rather unlikely. Right now, the people in opposition (that's us and fellow spirits) are pretty pure in our motivation. But we are vulnerable to a popular mass stampede towards "solutions" which look viable and offer the (((false))) promise of a way out of the wilderness. It would not be the first time. Take a look at what happened to the German Greens in the late 1970's. They were tired of losing, not getting voted into office. It only took one party convention for them to throw away their principles and to go with the "media star" Joschka Fischer who promised victories in the elections. The Greens were deceived, not bribed. Today, no German party is more aligned with Washington than the Greens. History does offer a great many examples where movements were turned into their opposite.
The moral of the story is that we need to plan for the time after the current politicians. We need to be the ones replacing them, and not waiting for the powers behind them to do that "for us". We can only ask "What is to be done?"
The generic answer dates back to Lenin in 1903. It's always, "We need a political party to seize state power." Anything else is unicorn poop.
Thanks - for once it's said out loud
Correct.
I'm old enough to remember when the Thatcher-Reagan types said that the West would retain "The Commanding Heights" of the global economy.
Basically, lawyers and bankers in New York and London could write the contract and raise the funds while the Chinese made sneakers and T-shirts and the Russians dug potatoes and coal. But they also never gave up making guns and ammo, did they?
>"the West had control of vastly more global resources"
>The operative word there is "had".
Still does. Russia alone has 2/3 of the USSR territory and half the population.
Meanwhile the US empire grew since 1991.
And it was in fact already larger than the USSR even in the Cold War. The USSR had 22.4M km2, territory. The Anglo-Saxon empire spanned (and still does) 27.8M km2 just across the five countries, plus it controlled Western Europe and most of Latin America, plus Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Population-wise it was 2-3X larger than the USSR. It's why the USSR couldn't keep up.
Sure, Russia + China (plus Iran and NK and others) absolutely crushes them. And would have crushed them back in the Cold War too, but they were successfully divided back then, and the alliance isn't quite real now either.
Always remember that the frontlines are a stalemate because of drones and that those drones Ukraine uses to impose that stalemate are Chinese. Could China perhaps have shut down exports altogether and sent all those drones to Russia until Russia finishes the job (which would be less than a year in such a case)? They could have. But what did they actually do?
Western industrialization doesn't matter as long as the Chinese are willing to accept printed pieces of paper in exchange for their industrial goods. They still are.
Russia could win this war easy just shut down remaining power plants. Or Disable all US ISR. They have the means but Putin terrified of West unlike IRAN or HOUTHIES who have zero issue downing USA's shit.
If Russia Kesslerised the whole of Earth orbital space, which is what you are talking about, this would prevent any space activity for several generations.
While "Moon colonies", or "Mars colonies", or "Asteroid mining" are boondoogles, near Earth orbits are extraordinarily valuable, and barring existential danger, China is going to be REALLY REALLY PISSED if Russia does that over a war they are winning easily conventionally.
Russia doesnt need to do that they could target each individual sat. It's not complicated for space powers and Russia has shot down it's own before.
Each destruction of a satellite creates a debris field that continues whizzing aound the planet until it hits something - such as other satellites.
Sure, with enough careful long-term planning, that effect can be minimised. In a war situation, or taking out hundreds of satellites (like a starlink network) in a single go, kesslerisation would be hard to avoid, imo.
I think the story around the campfire is that the anti-satellite weapons will be electromagnetic to avoid the Kessler scenario. Simplicius wrote about the buzz a few months ago.
Kessler effect is widely overblown issue (screw you Hollywood). Almost all satellites are at LEO, which means debris is destined to reentry into atmosphere and die. All the talk about closed space for generations is just hogwash
"They could have. But what did they actually do?"
Have you ever asked yourself why the didn't ... REALITY is much more complicated than Brandon makes you believe.
"They" are all - always were, but made you believe otherwise and spread their gospel - in uncharted territory. Only difference to previous times is that the interconnectedness has destabilised the structure and THE HOUSE OF LIES is about to crumble completely.
Remember Armageddon ... ANYONE?
"Western industrialization doesn't matter as long as the Chinese are willing to accept printed pieces of paper in exchange for their industrial goods"
You apparently have not noted that China is rapidly shrinking its stock of US bonds (those worthless pieces of paper). And what do you and FJB imagine is going to happen when the US starts its war with China. All those ships ferrying goods from China to the US and Europe are suddenly going to stop. Huge amounts of goods that the West depends on will suddenly be lost to it and it has no capacity to replace them for years.
Your fuzzy maths about the "Anglo-Saxon empire" (a total misnomer in any case, it has always been the camouflaged Zio empire -- Anglo Saxon's haven't been in charge since 1066) supports fuzzy thinking.
Take Australia as an instance. Huge amount of natural resources and currently exporting massive amounts of iron ore, coal, and other minerals to China, India, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan -- but virtually no industrial capacity, threw it away decades ago. If a conflict starts with Russia and China, most of those exports will cease, since they all depend on maritime transport, and nor will they then end up in Europe or the US. And Australia has no industrial capacity to do anything with them itself. So, the resources become useless to the West.
China will make up some of the lost minerals imports from Russia (and from defensive stockpiles it has been building up). Japan, Taiwan and South Korea have no alternative defensible sources of supply. Any alternatives they have to Australia are equally dependent on maritime transport and thus will be disrupted.
Australia also exports large volumes of natural gas, including to Europe. Again, that critical energy supply will disappear for a Europe engaged in a war with Russia and China.
Finally. your bizarre notion that the "frontlines are a stalemate" is clear indication that you either don't actually read the extensive description of reality presented by Simplicius over many months or comprehension is not your strong suit.
The 'Normans' were Zionazis? I thought they were an Imperialised branch of the Norsemen?
As you say, the Normans themselves weren't Zionazis. They did, however, end the rule of Anglo-Saxons in England in 1066.
Again, as you note, they originated in Scandinavia, invaded and established themselves in what became Normandy (for North Men) in France, adopted the technology of continental warfare, ie horses, armor, castles and then invaded England, just across the channel and took control, subjugating the Anglo-Saxons.
The Zionazis came later, lending to English kings, and others, for wars, getting control of the currency and the City of London (a small physical area within London as a whole, but the heart of banking and financialization), from which they participated in the foundation of the US Fed (by Woodrow Wilson and US Congress) with most of the banks who actually own the Fed, from its foundation, being Zionazi British, European, and American banks.
Thus, Britain passed from control of the Anglo-Saxons to the Normans (who then subjugated Ireland and Scotland) and then to the Zionazis, who left the Norman aristocracy apparently in control as convenient sock puppets for the Zionazis who control finance.
"...the camouflaged Zio empire -- Anglo Saxon's haven't been in charge since 1066"
William the Conqueror was an adopted orphan. No one knows who his real parents were.
All of the royal houses of Europe are descendents of William. The crowned heads were one extended family. For example, Queen Victoria was a blood relative of Tsar Alexander.
(Jacob married his first cousins, Leah and Rachel, daughters to Jacob's uncle Laban. They too were extended family. The word "nation" comes from Latin 'natio'-- translation, "family".)
Edit, for Gnuneo and Bazza: The Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, and French Houses were also part of that family (along with German, Dutch, Austrian, Spanish, etc.) In other words, the Normans were brought into the fold through royal marriage alliances.