I have reached the conclusion that the Anglo-American-Zionist Empire, now engaged in genocide against its own citizens while it wages war against the rest of the world, is the New Communism.


Expand full comment

Are we all Neo-Cowboys here?

Let's say Arnaud Bertrand and Clinton Fernandes are right, that "the key characteristic of the 'rules-based international order' relates to the actual structure of the American...social and economic system, which seeks to enforce an order where the whole world is open to the penetration and control of their ...national moneyed class..,Which is why the order is about hegemony, and not about security, and why the former so often comes at the expense of the latter."

Well then, who is this 'national moneyed class' that is committed to global hegemony? Today its political representative is the Uniparty, of course. The same Uniparty that brings together Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham and Joe Biden. And Liz Cheney and Barack Obama. And Hillary Clinton. They may differ on exactly how to spend the printing press dollars both sides authorize, but they are absolutely joined at the hip in preserving the global 'rules based order' which they must believe insures their continuing wealth and power.

So where does this leave Donald Trump and his MAGA supporters...and implicitly most of us readers here...clearly not part of the Uniparty?

Interestingly, a fairly obscure writer named Carl Ogelsby described the rise of the Uniparty in terms of a merger across political parties of two opposing American elites which he called the 'Yankees' and the 'Cowboys' who came together under Ronald Reagan. There has been some to-ing and fro-ing since Reagan, but Ogelsby's theory seems to still hold water.

Here's a link to a recent article by Pam Ho (about whom I know nothing) explaining the split between the Uniparty and Trump in terms of the Cowboy and Yankee factions of the American moneyed classes. I suspect Arnaud Bertrand would agree.


Expand full comment

I didn't know about Mearsheimer and Realism. The statement "...all states - regardless of culture, religion, social hierarchy or political system - will act in the same way because they all prioritize survival and security above all else" is in fact a gross denial of reality. No. #1, all states and cultures are different from one another and are always changing; No. #2, the situations which face each state are complex and dynamic, and the state's actions will be conditioned by a subjective view of those situations and of the potential impact of the responsive actions to them; #3, the motivations of the states are dependent on who has power within them and that can change drastically at any time - as an example, a Trump admin vs. a Biden admin. Is the Biden admin really interested in survival and security of the U.S.? Could have fooled me.

Expand full comment

Love reading this stuff about things I just have zero knowledge about. Thanks for this outstanding perspective.

I tend to think China is as motivated as anyone by money. Accumulating wealth is an integral part of their genes. It's just that China currently lacks the ability to project force like the US. So instead, they flood immigrants into strategic locations and then invest to slowly, patiently accumulate power. See Philippines and Brazil for examples. The Chinese have invaded Viet Nam previously and are still well-hated and distrusted by the Vietnamese because of it. They feel similarly about Kissinger.

Would love to hear Bertrand's views of his own country's behavior toward its own citizens during covid. To me, it was appalling and disgusting. They seemed acting more a vassal of the UK tham the US then. I cant get over it and will NEVER visit that place.

Expand full comment

History certainly supports this modified realist view of what and why western powers vs other civilisations do what they do. China seeks soft power and influence globally by building infrastructure under the Belt & Road initiative. The US, UK and their vassal states like Australia prefer to launch wars, threaten sanctions, foment dissent, initiate coups, and destroy competing infrastructure (e.g. Obama bombing Gaddafi’s Great Man Made River project which would have brought fresh water to much of Africa, supercharged their farming industry and thus threatened US agriculture).

Expand full comment

Interesting read and assessment by Bertrand. I don't always favor his analysis of things but seems he provides a critique (as well as Fernandez's book) that should be required reading in some circles shared by Neocons. I think it makes sense and can understand how J.M.'s "macro / one size fits all" views need to be sliced and filtered more. Appreciate the post.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment