Back on February 12 I ran a summary of several John Helmer articles on the American Empire’s war on the world—a war to roll back history to the time after the Cold War when no regional powers had yet arisen that could challenge US global hegemony. My own post was a day too early for the confirmation of one of Helmer’s key theses: That the Middle Eastern “Axis of Resistance” is waging an economic war of attrition against Israel—a war that is also placing pressure on the relationship of the American Empire with its European vassal states. You can find my post here:
Pressure is building (Moody’s report, ICJ, UN, axis of Resistance and their economic war of attrition, November ‘24) on US unconditional support for Israel, and the situation is linked to none other than Wang Yi, the Chinese Foreign Minister, present recently in Munich, and whom, Mercouris (Duran link below) suspects, read the riot act to stony-faced Blinken. Did I just see things, or did Biden just call out Israel as being in violation of “international law?” If so, he can turn off the spigots. After months of turning a blind eye to genocide, has our own moral blindness been thrown in our face by the Chinese? And I don’t think Biden wants a stock market crash either…
Regime polling on war--Ukraine as well as Palestine--is terrible. Even if Dems pull a switcheroo, distancing the party from Zhou's policies could be extremely difficult. The Dems have identified with it all and have literally *bought in* to it. Interestingly, Trump is outpolling Zhou in NY among Jews. GOPers have a similar problem, so it's complicated.
Mark, the challenge/problem with these posts and reporting since Oct 7, is describing the war as being about geopolitics. It’s not. That’s the old Global/Television paradigm view. In the emerging DIGITAL paradigm, spirituality/religion is front and center. We in the West don’t want to go there. Too bad. It means we have no clue about what is happening around the world. China, Russia, India, Japan, Gaza, Ukraine, these are not more of the same that we have lived through. They are harbingers of the new: spiritual civilizations. New attitudes and sensibilities being wired for the entire world population all at the same time. DIGITAL retrieving the Medieval…the last time big parts of the world were thinking in terms of Final Cause regarding humans. DIGITAL is the Formal Cause of this new direction. We have been “carefully educated” to not think about this…we are now in the deep end of the pool and don’t know how to swim because of it.
See Exogenous, Inc and our DIGITAL Bomb! Substack for essays about this.
"the challenge/problem with these posts and reporting since Oct 7, is describing the war as being **about geopolitics. It’s not."**
"See Exogenous, Inc and our DIGITAL Bomb! Substack"
"The Exogenous Substack is produced by Exogenous, Inc. (EXO), **a geo-political strategic risk assessment group.** In turn, EXO is a for-profit spin-out of…"
Thanks Mark. Yes, we started EXO because Globalism is obsolete/dead, and there is no one, as far as we can tell, conducting Digital Net Assessment. DIGITAL is the driver of the global change. DIGITAL is changing geopolitics: see Kissinger in his last book on AI. Spiritual civilizations are something no one has experience evaluating from any perspective except Globalism, which means they simply don’t. This is a disaster. It’s not a geopolitical question for the direct participants, but the West has no other lenses to use yet. Thus our approach and use of the word geopolitical. A comparison is Ian Bremmer: his audience won’t allow him to talk about a “religious war,” or “spiritual civilizations.” So he keeps talking about power, politics, globalization, leadership and so on. Someone has to take a serious approach that is not grounded in Globalism: what does a Robot world full of artificial thinking and souls mean for the humans? What does a complete change and embrace of religions/spirituality mean for the West?
I have a hard time imagining the Uniparty (or whoever is running this country) persuading American kids and their parents and grandparents to support a land war involving US boots on the ground in numerous theaters in the Middle East, Ukraine and Russia and Russian allies. To date I think the elements of war we're engaged in are pretty abstract or irrelevant to a large proportion (likely a large majority) of Americans. I don't know for sure about Mark and his audience here, but the concerns about escalation and its risky consequences I read about here are not the same I read about in my local newspaper or listen to on local radio. I don't really think the concept of tens of thousands of US boys returning home in a box is front and center (yet).
But I say that to suggest that Palestinians and Russians and Iranians and Lebanese, and Syrians and many others threatened by the Israeli/American/NATO partnership may have different thoughts about a hot war with ground combat with us. It may be that from their perspectives the time has come. As Putin has suggested, he may have blundered by naively accepting our assurances of good faith over the past 2+ decades. He (and others) may, in fact, be done with appeasement.
I really don't get the impression the warmongers in DC and Brussells really understand this yet. It won't be pretty.
I don't think it is the preference of either Russia or Iran to have "hot" war with the U.S. Putin has been clear on this (including with Tucker) and Iran has not associated itself with any "hostile" kinetic acts toward Israel or the U.S. or claimed responsibility for such - even though it is likely supporting these actions by proxy. Rather, at this point, it seems to be NATO countries (for example, Poland, the Baltics, Finland, and Sweden - with the possible exception of France) and Israel who are pushing for hot wars. That does not mean Russia and Iran aren't willing to bleed Israel and the U.S. economically as an alternative to military skirmishing, as Mark so adroitly points out.
I'm not saying Russia or Iran 'want' to have a hot war with NATO or Iran. In fact I believe (contrary to the Western media narrative) that Russia and Iran are sane countries, and as sane countries the last thing they want is a 'hot' (or hotter) war with the U.S. and Israel and NATO.
The point I wanted to make is that if the U.S. (or its proxies) attack Russia, or Israel (and the U.S.) attack Iran, is that I believe the people of Russia or Israel will understand the existential import of the attack and they will support a war, including with their sons.
I don't think the American people will feel the same way about the need to send American boys 'over there' to fight (and die) in Russia or Iran.
The New York Times hired an actual genocide supporter who'd never even been a journalist to co-author atrocity propaganda about mass rapes on October 7. If the western media actually told the truth and reported the news, this revelation would be a major international story today.
Pressure is building (Moody’s report, ICJ, UN, axis of Resistance and their economic war of attrition, November ‘24) on US unconditional support for Israel, and the situation is linked to none other than Wang Yi, the Chinese Foreign Minister, present recently in Munich, and whom, Mercouris (Duran link below) suspects, read the riot act to stony-faced Blinken. Did I just see things, or did Biden just call out Israel as being in violation of “international law?” If so, he can turn off the spigots. After months of turning a blind eye to genocide, has our own moral blindness been thrown in our face by the Chinese? And I don’t think Biden wants a stock market crash either…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IcCiA5BWy_g
Regime polling on war--Ukraine as well as Palestine--is terrible. Even if Dems pull a switcheroo, distancing the party from Zhou's policies could be extremely difficult. The Dems have identified with it all and have literally *bought in* to it. Interestingly, Trump is outpolling Zhou in NY among Jews. GOPers have a similar problem, so it's complicated.
Mark, the challenge/problem with these posts and reporting since Oct 7, is describing the war as being about geopolitics. It’s not. That’s the old Global/Television paradigm view. In the emerging DIGITAL paradigm, spirituality/religion is front and center. We in the West don’t want to go there. Too bad. It means we have no clue about what is happening around the world. China, Russia, India, Japan, Gaza, Ukraine, these are not more of the same that we have lived through. They are harbingers of the new: spiritual civilizations. New attitudes and sensibilities being wired for the entire world population all at the same time. DIGITAL retrieving the Medieval…the last time big parts of the world were thinking in terms of Final Cause regarding humans. DIGITAL is the Formal Cause of this new direction. We have been “carefully educated” to not think about this…we are now in the deep end of the pool and don’t know how to swim because of it.
See Exogenous, Inc and our DIGITAL Bomb! Substack for essays about this.
I obviously don't disagree, but ...
"the challenge/problem with these posts and reporting since Oct 7, is describing the war as being **about geopolitics. It’s not."**
"See Exogenous, Inc and our DIGITAL Bomb! Substack"
"The Exogenous Substack is produced by Exogenous, Inc. (EXO), **a geo-political strategic risk assessment group.** In turn, EXO is a for-profit spin-out of…"
Thanks Mark. Yes, we started EXO because Globalism is obsolete/dead, and there is no one, as far as we can tell, conducting Digital Net Assessment. DIGITAL is the driver of the global change. DIGITAL is changing geopolitics: see Kissinger in his last book on AI. Spiritual civilizations are something no one has experience evaluating from any perspective except Globalism, which means they simply don’t. This is a disaster. It’s not a geopolitical question for the direct participants, but the West has no other lenses to use yet. Thus our approach and use of the word geopolitical. A comparison is Ian Bremmer: his audience won’t allow him to talk about a “religious war,” or “spiritual civilizations.” So he keeps talking about power, politics, globalization, leadership and so on. Someone has to take a serious approach that is not grounded in Globalism: what does a Robot world full of artificial thinking and souls mean for the humans? What does a complete change and embrace of religions/spirituality mean for the West?
Perhaps a little bit OT. Perhaps not.
I have a hard time imagining the Uniparty (or whoever is running this country) persuading American kids and their parents and grandparents to support a land war involving US boots on the ground in numerous theaters in the Middle East, Ukraine and Russia and Russian allies. To date I think the elements of war we're engaged in are pretty abstract or irrelevant to a large proportion (likely a large majority) of Americans. I don't know for sure about Mark and his audience here, but the concerns about escalation and its risky consequences I read about here are not the same I read about in my local newspaper or listen to on local radio. I don't really think the concept of tens of thousands of US boys returning home in a box is front and center (yet).
But I say that to suggest that Palestinians and Russians and Iranians and Lebanese, and Syrians and many others threatened by the Israeli/American/NATO partnership may have different thoughts about a hot war with ground combat with us. It may be that from their perspectives the time has come. As Putin has suggested, he may have blundered by naively accepting our assurances of good faith over the past 2+ decades. He (and others) may, in fact, be done with appeasement.
I really don't get the impression the warmongers in DC and Brussells really understand this yet. It won't be pretty.
I don't think it is the preference of either Russia or Iran to have "hot" war with the U.S. Putin has been clear on this (including with Tucker) and Iran has not associated itself with any "hostile" kinetic acts toward Israel or the U.S. or claimed responsibility for such - even though it is likely supporting these actions by proxy. Rather, at this point, it seems to be NATO countries (for example, Poland, the Baltics, Finland, and Sweden - with the possible exception of France) and Israel who are pushing for hot wars. That does not mean Russia and Iran aren't willing to bleed Israel and the U.S. economically as an alternative to military skirmishing, as Mark so adroitly points out.
@dissonant1
Point of clarification.
I'm not saying Russia or Iran 'want' to have a hot war with NATO or Iran. In fact I believe (contrary to the Western media narrative) that Russia and Iran are sane countries, and as sane countries the last thing they want is a 'hot' (or hotter) war with the U.S. and Israel and NATO.
The point I wanted to make is that if the U.S. (or its proxies) attack Russia, or Israel (and the U.S.) attack Iran, is that I believe the people of Russia or Israel will understand the existential import of the attack and they will support a war, including with their sons.
I don't think the American people will feel the same way about the need to send American boys 'over there' to fight (and die) in Russia or Iran.
Thanks very much for the clarification, Cassander. I agree with you.
Iran seems to be following this playbook, while the U.S. has not adopted.
Unrestricted Warfare by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui - 1999
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1946963402/
Caitlin Johnstone
@caitoz
The New York Times hired an actual genocide supporter who'd never even been a journalist to co-author atrocity propaganda about mass rapes on October 7. If the western media actually told the truth and reported the news, this revelation would be a major international story today.
Yer welcome. See the link in ML's comment above/below.