Both Brezezinski and Kissinger were foreigners employed by the Crown to manage its US empire and its foreign policy. The current situation of hard talking extremely ideological empty suits in secretary/ministerial positions in EuroAmerica from Analena Blabbercok to Kajsa Kallas to Maro Rubio and the unbelievably unqualified Pete Hegseth is for the domestic audience to satiate the tribal urges of the extremely polarised woke-antiwoke national populations with fire and brimstone speech - it is inwardly oriented theatrics much like barely high school educated Indian PM Narendra Modis (his actual education is a state secret) hug and embrace and my phrand Dolund like talk is deliberately staged to satiate the below 70IQ uneducated illiterate sectarian rabble in Hindi-speaking/culturally aligned India that whole global leadership is fawning around their superman demigod Muslim vanquishing leader and he is their personal friend. It affects the just functionally intelligent middle/upper middle classes also. I ḥad a senior partner a Punjabi with family in the US working with us in Singapore tell me that Modi and Donald Trump are such pals that they chat with each other on WhatsApp every night. Just imagine the critical intelligence of a 45 something old adult man with two teenage children. There has been a remarkable lowering of global IQ and critical thinking ability worldwide especially in the democratic world outside China after the social media revolution. One important reason why most of the content on China's domestic version of TikTok Douying is brain stimulating educational content. Theatrics targeted at polarised audiences spread through WhatsAPP and Facebook video clips is what this all about. Another point is that the post-Thatcher post Reagan western world the CIA has captured the bureaucracies of all political parties in EuroAmerica (where the actual "selection" takes place to replace development oriented patriots which arch neoliberals. Beyond policy and laws they used to influence through lobbying, corporations have virtually taken over not only local administration but even foreign policy and defense policy of most EuroAmerican countries. With peak neoliberalism making the state redundant except for social engineering and international subterfuge -- that too for corporate interests.
a fascinating indictment of "liberal democracy" from Euro/USA to India:) kind of like Voltaire's quip about the Holy Roman Empire being "neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire". what's practiced is in reality neither "liberal" nor "democracy".
As empires decay, even the imperial managers are turning into clowns.
I can almost understand modi's theatrics - like you said, his main audience is mostly composed of people with below 80 IQs (for reference, read the Bell Curve by Charles Murray). it's no wonder modi spends more time blessing newly opened hindu temples than on affairs of the state according to indian media. But for the descendants of europeans to degenerate into the same coginitive class is both surprising and saddening.
For convergence you have acatual bankers with no political credibility seamlessly elected presidents and prime ministers in EuroAmerica - Emmanuel Macron in France, Merz in Germany and Mark Carney in Canada. This means the Crown has decided that history has ended and humanity in the democratic world has to adjust with rule by banks and corporations as fait accompli. Meanwhile the strident woke - anti-woke message by politicians is just theatrics and aesthetics, once in power the woke repudiate their promises openly and continue doing exactly what the anti-woke were doing and vice versa.
perfectly summed. the election process is a distraction and a fig leaf to create the illusion of choice for the general public. it's important to keep them entertained while serious people make serious decisions behind closed doors.
Luckily for France and Germany, Micron & Merde are corporate, cardboard cutouts. Now adrift from their moorings. Unluckily for Canada, Carney is not. His Globalist CV rolls out like the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Following fellow Canadian Maurice Strong, he did much to create & develop the Davos agenda Micron & Merde are doing their best to follow. Neither has the intellectual or political skills to ultimately overcome the political forces that are rising against them. If Carney lacks political experience now he has the intellectual firepower to learn faster than normally imaginable.
In sum, I expect Carney's lack of political experience will be no more impediment to his dystopian success than his lack of central banking experience was an impediment to his unprecedented, and successful stints as head of the Bank of Canada and then the Bank of England.
I am always curious about the talk shops set up by financiers from the time when the Rockerfellers set up the Trilateral commission, then there was the Bilderberg group (interesting Thiel founded the Tech Bilderberg) and the WEF. What have they accomplished?
the financiers can scheme all they want for a Machiavellian world domination plan but as long as others have more hard power, their cleverness will come to nothing. the financiers are the least useful and highest paid people in the world but they are just food for a man with a gun.
I think you are right it's almost a natural progression as productive forces cede ground to parasitic rentier forces (aka the owner class) and such characters - people who don't add value but owns the most - start to take center stage. Maybe it's fate, maybe it's just history's way to tell us it is time to reset the system
The debasement of the currency feeds the rentier class. Rentiers are leaches, not contributors. Finally the debased society collapses. Is that not the point to redesign the system so that the same cycle does not repeat?
Sound money should be the start. And it was last time at Bretton Woods, until the rentiers dumped the gold standard in August 1971!
Absent an exogenous event, the failure of civilizations/empires/states is ultimately and almost invariably a failure of its governing elites.
Entropy eventually overcomes any system, including socio-political constructs. Historically, entropy works on every level. Ideally, the elites are responsible in maintaining the subseems to have limited them to about 10 generations.
If you check Wikipedia he is written up as Catholic. But if you read up on his background he seems to have ingratiated himself to Jewish politicians and influential state actors at the time during his life time. One can assume he had to kiss a lot of the "Chosen One's" a$$ to stay in their exclusive Chosen club.
Brezezinksi actually belonged to the hundreds of thousands Frankists integrated seamlessly into the Polish catholic elite through conversion and intermarriage in a magical process. The local Catholic church acknowledges that. Like the forced conversion of Iberian Sepharadis into Catholicism this was opposed by the church but enforced by local rulers for purely political reasons. Because they are unconscionable the Crown deputises Frankists for jobs like revolution and war mongering, controlling critical sectors like Banking and Finance, Media and Entertainment, Higher Education, Social Media and other critical social engineering tools and to maintain plausible deniability for the Crown while keeping a convenient scapegoat for the Crown in case plebs come with pitchforks or guns - which is the mortal fear of the Crown since its establishment in 1185.
The Templar Crown is the defacto world govt imposed on the world by the banker Medici family in 1185. It hides behind the Holy See and the Holy See behind the Roman Catholic church. It distributed its operations later with spiritual/cultural power in Vatican, Banking/Finance in the City of London and military power in Washington DC. Since the Medicis descend directly from the founder of the First Reich and Templar orders Charlemagne and he from King Solomon, it is supposedly a divine organisation with claim to the whole world's wealth and its people as the slaves of the "elect" Templar families - a transEuroAmerican royal blood mafia that controls all banking/corporations and politics. So it claims all the worlds solid wealth silver gold uranium petroleum platinum or any valuable as its own and not belonging to the people of those countries above the soil where those deposits are. This is why Condoleezza Rice said - "There is $100 TN worth of resources under Russia's soil and it is not ok that they use it" - by divine right it does not belong to the Slavs there but the Templar families. As Alex Krainer had exposed in his substack the oligarchs in Russia who swooped on these resources under Yelstin had quietly handed it over to Lord Rothschilds - the Crown's House Banker and blood relative. Putin one by one restoring them to Russian state control is why he should go and a puppet should take over. This is also why native South Africans get barely 5% value of the gold and diamonds under their soil and it is all laundered away by Rothschilds proxy Oppenheimer companies. Again this is also why by restoring to partial state control and imposing fair market value on the minerals of Burkina Faso Mali and Niger, the military rulers there who restored them to state control are facing death sentences coup threats and Islamist terrorist attacks. Due to the Crown most countries have autonomy however limited it may be but have no real sovereignty - if they attempt for sovereignty Nato will declare war with 360 degree vilification making you 'fit to be killed' by the war propaganda racket of AP AFP Reuters Bloomberg NYT WSJ BBC and so on.
thanks for the history. In this context, it's easy to see why the US and israel deep state cooked up the 911 false flag and the fake R2P wars waged against Saddam and Kaddafi. To take down Russia, they will lose a hundred million europeans so better to let the slavs in ukraine and poland be the cannon fodder first. the battle for the future of the planet is coming soon.
Remember that immediately after the Gaddaffi and Saddams assassinations not only the oil resources were taken over by the western/allied corporations but both countries gold reserves worth hundreds of tonnes were carted away to the west - this is what the Crown does.
Is there any proof that his ancestors were converts from Judaism? It's a good faith question - I'm happy to consider it if there's evidence. Additionally, I think we should be rigorous about whether they became crypto-jews after conversion or if the practice died out.
There are some examples, such as Nicholas Maduro, who is genetically descended from Jews but clearly seems to have stopped practicing judaism at some point, and in my opinion, basically became a gentile bloodline.
Spanish have approx 5% contribution from Jewish DNA, Germans approx 8%. Both simply reflect high levels of local Jewish populations in very early middle ages. Which were followed by violent conversion campaigns, that either wiped out religiously-defined Jewish population more or less completely (Spain) or reduced it to less than 0.3% (Germany). In Poland violent conversion campaigns were rare, so despite a 10% population pre 1939, my guesstimate would be 1% in ethnic Poles. Both Zbig's parents came from Catholic Polish aristocracy, so there. One can see it also from their surnames Brzezinski, Roman, Woroniecka -Catholic Poles.
Afghanistan had very little to do with the fall of the Soviet Union. It was Gorbachev's undermining of the Party-state that had been in place for 70 years and the unleashing of the corrupt elements that did that. The funding of the religious fundamentalists in Afghanistan against the progressive socialist state delivered the extremist terrorists of today and the Taliban.
Zbig may have been better than the current clowns within the US State Department, but that is not saying much.
the fall of the USSR is a complex affair. Gorbachev's naivety and undermining of the state was the final push. Afghanistan may not be the immediate cause but was a heavy blow both militarily and financially. Soviet Union never recovered from that.
No doubt the blowback from what the US unleashed in Afghanistan was ironic. But this is typical of an empire who believes in its own invulnerability and there are too many examples to list here.
Indeed you are right the bar set by Zbig may not be too high but even with a modest standard as this, the recent crop of washington national security types for past few decades is wanting. that says a lot about the reality of the country and its likely future.
Have you ever heard Edward Luttwak's rant about how the CIA is ran by low quality provincial people that keep anyone with culture and brains?
The oligarchy that runs the West has been dumbing down the population relentlessly since the end of WWII and is only now dimly starting to notice (not understand) that it stupified its own instruments of power.
A Berzinski or a Kissinger would not be allowed in sight of anyone in policy making position today, and I also a lower opinion of both than you. They'd never get past the flunkies depending their master from unorthodox opinions!
cannot agree more. the start of the CIA was a bit like a college frat house - even if the college is Yale. there was some smart guys and lots of gunslingers but over time it just became another bureaucracy with careerists. they haven't been caughts with their pants down on so many important things including the fall of the Soviet Union.
now one stops hearing anything intelligent coming out the DCI. they are just political flunkies.
Kissinger and Zbig, in my view, still stood a shoulder above the current crop of mandarins. maybe because they were both foreigners and went through europeans wars. both were a lot of realists than the mindless ideologues today. Again, no doubt you are right the bar isn't that high.
Interesting and well done, but if the US didin't have to be always be doing something the world would be a better place.
If Carter had said to Zbig, "Look, I'm okay with the Soviets embroiled in the "Graveyard of Empires," but why do we need to help the rebels? Russia might lose on their own, or they might win and that could be worse for them.
The results would not be bad for us, including probably no 911.
If there had been no opening to China, China's rise would have been slower and maybe we might still be making stuff here.
Overthinking is a disease, but why one goes to Harvard.
that's a great philosophical question - would we accomplish more by NOT doing than doing? of course, presidents want to be remembered for their "legacies" and "not doing" is not a legacy.
history is full of "what ifs".
the only thing I would challenge is 911. I am as positive as anyone is, without a smoking gun, that 911 is a false flag, conducted by Israel and US deep states. If interested, there may be 20 or 30 books on the subject that I think are quite credible. It was a minor obssesion for me for a couple years. Coming back to your point, the biggest "what if" of the 21st century is indeed what if they didn't do the 911 false flag. I think the US would be in a very different place now.
Yevgeny Primakov proposed that Eurasia's security architecture would/should be underpinned by what he viewed as a wholly natural alliance between Russia, China and India. Brzezinski’s analysis reflects the idea that India's elites, enthralled by the notion that they could aspire to a seat at the table of Western power would balk and that Iran was a more likely, and equally dangerous candidate.
He was right, but when Iran stepped into its spot and so placed India squarely between the emerging power poles on the continent, India's elites became ambivalent. They spent a couple of decades trying to play both sides against the middle, much to India's detriment.
We'll see if Modi's warm, wet words in China indicate that a consensus has emerged amongst them to face their Either/Or squarely. FWIW, I think we'll be looking at Indian flip-flopping until the decision is made for them.
Primakov was very astute though I think he overestimated India. This seems always a bit of soft spot for most Russian nationalists.
The Russians keep hoping India could have sovereignty and strength as a partner but my personal view is they failed to understand that deep down India still has an innate slave mentality of the colonized. It never went through a trial of blood and fire to get its independence and therefore fully decolonize.
As a national trait, India is also very opportunistic, trying to play both sides and maximize their gain, which makes it an untrustworthy partner if not downright despised. You find this in everyday indian behavior - this is just how they are wired.
Xi will not fall for the superficially warm and "wet" words from modi. the indians act like a dejected school girl - cozying up with another big boy after the last big boy ditches her. as you pointed out, they would flip flop the minute the US waves a little finger. modi's maneuvers is pure amateur hour.
by the way, I think Primakov was too trusting when he was Foreign Minister. He should have taken a harder line on NATO expansion. maybe he wasn't in a position of strength but still Russia has to deal with the reality that NATO is literally at its doorstep by now.
India cannot be trusted because of its Hindu Nationalist compulsions that to with no technology finance or resource sovereignty. Just because they got some executive and administrative positions in the west they started foolishly projecting power as if the moment had come for a Hindu world takeover. And the government to strengthen its power on the electorate is on an obsessive compulsive mode to project adversarial power against all countries simply to satisfy the urges of huge illiterate unwashed unfed sick bigoted and filthy population who has no sense of geopolitics and is completely deluded by comically insane TV propaganda around the almighty leader and how the whole world is cowering at fear or awe when they see this man Modi on the world stage anywhere. The insanity and stupidity of the TV propaganda using AI created and photoshoped fake videos and images is laughably ridiculous and the crowd impacted by this propaganda demands even more projection of adversarial power on the global stage by the barely high school educated prime minister and his cabinet of incompetents when they have barely any real power. This compulsive adversarial projection in geopolitics makes India and extremely unreliable ally for any country. Remarkably after the recent Indo-Pak war the Indians found that Afghanistan - the only other country run by illiterate religious idiots - was the only country to spring to their support - this surprised the whole nation that despite their leaders and groups global power they were so isolated. But bigots are beyond learning so they will keep making these mistakes even if they become laughing stock before the world. Here is a Chinese intellectual on why the domestic situation makes India utterly untrustworthy. https://www.sinification.com/p/liu-zongyi-indias-disruptive-role
I have always said if there is only one thing to know about india, it is this - the average IQ of the indians is 76.2 (Richard Lynn, David Becker studies). Charles Murray, in his 1994 book Bell Curve, categorized the indian intelligence level as one standard deviation from east Asians.
not to mention all the other uniquely indian feats - gang rapes, army of beggars, open defecation on public beaches (in canada), bathing and drinking in "holy" river with dead dogs and dead corpses flowing by, eating with bare hands that double as toilet paper. no wonder their tourism board came up with the marketing slogan - "incredible india".
Lavrov was once asked what Russia's foreign policy objectives were.
He answered:
"To turn enemies into neutrals, neutrals into friends, and friends into allies".
If he ultimately succeeds, he'll have broken a historical trendline that probably predates the Great Schism. The West's elites drooled like a St. Bernard whenever they looked at Russia's vast expanse of natural wealth, but every time they went after it in earnest they learned the meaning of "catastrophic failure".
I think the Russians have learned a lesson. Some enemies have to neutralize (neuterize?) themselves, and Russia's best strategy is to help them as much, and as quietly as they can.
he understood the limits of power, even at the peak of US hegemony. That is a sign of intellect and a strategic mind. today, it's all brute force - when the US relative strength is declining rapidly. There is no strategy no thinking, just the bounce of a dead cat.
At the time of Nixon's downfall (possibly aa the result of a deep-state coup), I celebrated. In retrospect, the Nixon/Kissinger team were the last real statesmen leaders the USA had. The USA Moon landing in 1969 marked the top-dead-center peak for the USA; the impeachment of Nixon a few years later could be said to mark its accelerating decline.
Kissinger made no secret of his Zionism, but was a great statesman of Talleyrand/Metternich/Lavrov quality and so was a trusted mediator between Israel and its intended victims. He always and in all things pursued stability, the avoidance of warfare, and the preservation of the Peace of Westphalia, of international law, spheres of influence and so forth. Like most statesmen of great powers, he was probably a war criminal by modern standards: great statesman are politically amoral, relentlessly pursuing national interest.
Nixon and Kissinger both had massive shortcomings and criminalities but it would be foolhardy to challenge their intellect and strategic acumen. Kissinger was quite a skilled diplomat and was balanced in his approach dealing with the various middle eastern players. He was a student of history and understood the big picture. Note while he was ruthless against weak opponents, he was very cautious when dealing with major powers to avoid large scale global conflicts. Nothing like the hotheads and functional morons in washington today - just imagine putting him next to John Bolton:)
The Watergate was almost certainly a deep state operation - I have read a lot on the subject and things just didn't add up to the official narrative. If interested, I recommend Lamar Waldron's Watergate the Hidden History and Anthony Summers's The Arrogance of Power.
Lastly, I am drafting a piece on the Apollo moon landing. I think you might be intrigued about the many interesting facts about the event. Keep an open mind about it - the official story may not be the last word.
My question for all Moon Landing deniers is: why would Russia play along? They would certainly have been monitoring the telemetry, and tracking Apollos both visually and by radar. It's impossible to deny that Apllo missions went to the Moon, and hard to explain why they would fake a landing once there, knowing at least Russia, and probably many international observatories, could track the missions,possibly even track the LEM's landing. Even amateurs with large home telescopes might track it. Pretty much impossible that if it was fake, it wouldn't be exposed.
I don't have all the answers, especially the technical aspects of the mission. What I have found interesting is basic stuff like how come NASA cannot return to the moon after 50 plus years with today's technology and how come they seem to have lost any the important documentations about the mission from the design for Saturn V rocket to the original film and audio footages shot by the astronauts.
there is a bunch of amazing and counter-intuitive stuff around the moon mission that if one applies first principles theory, one finds it hard to believe they actually did what they alleged. either you believe in conspiracies or in coincidences. I find it intellectually dishonest if we assign every strange facts to coincidence.
anyway, I don't have a smoking gun or propose a definitive explanation. Frankly I don't know what to believe but would love to see intelligent explanations of the strange events around the mission.
All the NASA stuff is pretty easy: they're Woke fuckups, not like the geeks with white shirts, pocket-protectors and slide-rules who got it done.
I suspect China will land something near the USA flag and lower part of the LEM, and certainly publicise it if there's nothing there.
But the unanswerable question is: why on Earth would at least Russia, possibly China, all the observatories in the world, have gone along with a Moon landing that wasn't, instead of (in the Communist countries at least) scoring a HUGE propaganda win and massive loss of Western prestige?
same here. It was one of the most brain-wrecking "conspiracies". so many angles and factoids. I want to separate the speculations and overly technical stuff (like how to get through Van Allen belt) from the easy-to-understand and easy-to-challenges problems with the official narrative (like how could NASA lose all original film footage). It is slow work since I keep finding stuff to read and watch.
Although most of the material there is probably more technical than you're looking for, a couple of the papers may be of interest to you.
In particular, some papers examine a rather plausible geopolitical theory for the real agenda that drove the Apollo program and why it was stopped so abruptly.
I actually was on aulis.com many times before. I was particularly impressed with its analysis of the Stanley Kubrick angle:) I thought it was very clever but overly complicated. First principles seem to be the best way to challenge the official Apollo narrative - like how could technology regress and NASA cannot do what it did, nearly perfectly, more than 50 years ago despite the technological progress we have made? it's always the Occam's Razor that offers the best explanation of such seemingly impossible paradox.
McCowan also explored the geopolitical aspects of the alleged Apollo missions - somehow every single mission seemed to happen right after a major Vietnam war scandal or setback like My Lai massacre or bombing of Cambodia. Also it's telling every single Apollo moon landing happened during the presidency of "tricky dick".
In a nutshell, it states that after the attempt to land on the moon was abandoned, the Apollo program served as cover for developing the foundations for weaponizing space. As the American public wouldn't have allowed such an enterprise, the money flowed using Apollo's idealistic fantasies.
Ockham was an interesting fellow whose arguments and percepts were much more nuanced and powerful than what he's popularly credited for.
Be that all as it may, my scepticism lies on 3 principles:
- NASA didn't have the lift capacity. The F1 engine was a dud, and the Saturn 5 could never have made it past LEO.
(BTW, 5 (iirc) complete examples of the Saturn 5 still exist. One wonders why Space X doesn't just copy one of them instead of spending $Bs developing something almost as powerful.)
- Cosmic radiation then and now is a deal breaker. Only now are we learning something about what's going on beyond the Van Allen belts. The issue is that the sensors we can lift into HEO and beyond are able to detect only relatively low energy radiation. Computer models based on their data indicate MUCH higher levels of high energy radiation (Ms of eV) than previously assumed. The sensors used to detect the higher energy radiation, unfortunately, weigh some 60T so we're some distance away from getting actual data.
- Re-entry from deep space remains a deal breaker. There's lots of talk about "skip re-entry" but the only documented case back then was accomplished by the Soviets with Zond 6. Direct, ballistic re-entry from deep space as claimed for Apollo was and remains impossible. The G-forces would kill the astronauts and the heat would melt the spacecraft if it it didn't fall apart first.
In short:
- They didn't have the horsepower to get there.
- Even if they did, they likely couldn't have survived the journey.
- Even if they somehow got past the 1st two, they couldn't have returned in one piece.
Nixon most certainly was ejected by deep state forces, the press being their visible hand and a fake moral panic a usual MO. He was also the one that closed the gold window, which is the point the USA's slide starts. Looks up at a site called What Happened in 1971. It hits hard.
Nixon's life story is truly mind boggling. He was both a representative of the deep state and its victim. Lots of history changing events happened on his watch. He was the gold standard of doing whatever necessary to get power - except maybe for LBJ, whom Nixon said he and Johnson both wanted to be president just as bad as the other, "the only difference is, I wasn't willing to murder for it".
1971 was a pivotal year - removal of gold standard, Powell Memo, etc. Definitely will check out the site. I was born that year:)
There are reasons to believe Nixon was in the know of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy. Through "Dryhole" Byrd. He certainly dropped heavy hints on his CIA chief during Watergate!
it is almost certain he knew what happened. there were numerous references he made to imply what happened to JFK and he used the cover name - the "cuban business". he was certainly bitter about losing to JFK but probably won't go so far to plot his assassination but no way he didn't know what went on ex post.
When we conduct postmortems on empires the focus on individuals is secondary as empires are based on ruinous ideologies that have a momentum of their own, corporatism, militarism, neoconservatism the deep state, the MICC et al. Politicians, their advisors and officials come to act as a catering service to the empire.
Every president and top official since Kennedy has served the empire at the expense of the Republic. We can discuss endlessly the degrees of culpability and with whom does it lie most.
Officials who presided during the rise of the empire are not excused as each left a legacy of unintended consequences their successors had to deal with, precipitating the incremental collapse we see now.
As the empire declines all the wrong players are attracted as decline is the breeding ground for demagogues and fraudsters.
Biden and Trump have marked the final dissolution of the presidency as both have been willing to cannibalize the Republic to save the empire. Trump has betrayed his MAGA base for the sake of the empire just as so many previous presidents have done to theirs.
Frank Zappa, a rock star of the seventies, showed great insight when he stated.... "Politics is the entertainment committee for the Military Industrial Congressional Complex."
But of course Western Civilization digs shallow graves for its true prophets and patriots.
It’s not just the US, the quality of leadership across the West seems to have imploded. I am very disappointed with the Australian Labour Party, which once had independent thinking, sought a nuclear free world. The Australian government once went against US and UK to call for the end of apartheid. But look at how pathetic the Australian government is now, can’t even straightforwardly recognise Palestine as an independent state, without throwing an antic of expelling Iran for alleged antisemitism in Australia, and what happened to standing up to US bullying? Pathetic.
But what I wonder is if there is something fundamentally defective about the Western political system that prioritises rivalry over cooperation. Eventually the competitive pressure drives out quality individuals and leaves political power to self-seeking politicians.
I think electoral politics have reached the point it is a race to the bottom exercise. Few people who are not hard core narcissist or want a dignified life want to pursue politics as a career, especially since you can influence politics from behind the scene through proxies and paid agents.
Also I think the deep state system is so entrenched that only candidates that are acceptable will have any chance of high office.
So both self-selection and structural forces play a role - you can see that throughout the west from europe to australia to canada. The so called leaders are interchangable and speak from the same script. No Paul Keatings are tolerated any more.
Thanks so much for explicating this, it's so very sad the American people can't see something that is just so incredibly and blindingly obvious. The day Marco Rubio has his own thoughts, he'll be a deaf mute.
exactly. Rubio as secretary of state and NSA and head of USAID is more like someone's bad joke and worse than a low quality reality show. this guy is a robot repeating party lines, with malice for all and charity for none, and I doubt an original idea has ever found its way to his head.
see what an imitator and wanna be he is - he ran drugs for his brother and then when he was teaching - slept with all his students - the guys so low they'll have to dig up to bury him.
I feel such a sense of loss. The US has suffered a kind of degradation since the fall of the Soviet empire. It’s like losing a nemesis can also mean losing your reason to be at your best.
Nice analysis...I didn't know that about Mearsheimer, who's otherwise been one of the few sane voices on America's Ukraine policy debacle...
But these problems are in a certain sense inevitable, given the ongoing decline of both intelligence and the quality of schooling in the US..and most of the West..Test scores attest to the former, while widespread complaints about the quality of current graduates, which is indeed woeful in comparison to the WW2 and Boomer generations....
I wrote a piece on Mearsheimer on my Substack a few months ago. If interested, you can check out why I call him a crackpot realist - realist-sounding from the outside but shares the core belief of US superiority and exceptionalism inside.
His views on the US China relationship are most telling - both his hostility towards China and his inability to understand containing China is beyond US power - hardly the hallmark of a true "realist" who should base their strategies on reality rather than delusion.
no debate on the decline of both cognitive abilities and quality of schooling in the US. I think the dumbing down of the population in the interests of the ruling class is nearly complete and is ricocheting back into the ruling class itself. Mediocrity and mindless talking head are the standard issue in washington these days. I wrote another Substack piece on demeritocracy that prevails in the US.
you are right. several other readers also pointed out. I made a mistake. Zbig was pro-Israel as all US national security establishment must be to be accepted but he was fairly balanced - therefore considered not sufficiently pro-israel by the zionists
Mistake in the article: Zbig wasn't a Jew (he was a Pole) and wasn't pro-Israel, which is why Israel hated him and tried to prevent Obama from picking him.
thanks for catching the mistake. Zbig was Polish Catholic. I wouldn't go so far to say he is not pro-Israel. He was insufficiently pro-israel in the eyes of the jewish controllers. the policy recommendations he gave to Jimmy Carter was to support israel despite his many reservations. the political climate is what it is when it comes to israel and jewish interest since LBJ and he couldn't do his job without at leasting superficially pro-israel. Chas Freeman was turned down by the jewish lobby for obama's director of national intelligence for his objectivity and lack of sufficient obedience to jewish interests.
Both Brezezinski and Kissinger were foreigners employed by the Crown to manage its US empire and its foreign policy. The current situation of hard talking extremely ideological empty suits in secretary/ministerial positions in EuroAmerica from Analena Blabbercok to Kajsa Kallas to Maro Rubio and the unbelievably unqualified Pete Hegseth is for the domestic audience to satiate the tribal urges of the extremely polarised woke-antiwoke national populations with fire and brimstone speech - it is inwardly oriented theatrics much like barely high school educated Indian PM Narendra Modis (his actual education is a state secret) hug and embrace and my phrand Dolund like talk is deliberately staged to satiate the below 70IQ uneducated illiterate sectarian rabble in Hindi-speaking/culturally aligned India that whole global leadership is fawning around their superman demigod Muslim vanquishing leader and he is their personal friend. It affects the just functionally intelligent middle/upper middle classes also. I ḥad a senior partner a Punjabi with family in the US working with us in Singapore tell me that Modi and Donald Trump are such pals that they chat with each other on WhatsApp every night. Just imagine the critical intelligence of a 45 something old adult man with two teenage children. There has been a remarkable lowering of global IQ and critical thinking ability worldwide especially in the democratic world outside China after the social media revolution. One important reason why most of the content on China's domestic version of TikTok Douying is brain stimulating educational content. Theatrics targeted at polarised audiences spread through WhatsAPP and Facebook video clips is what this all about. Another point is that the post-Thatcher post Reagan western world the CIA has captured the bureaucracies of all political parties in EuroAmerica (where the actual "selection" takes place to replace development oriented patriots which arch neoliberals. Beyond policy and laws they used to influence through lobbying, corporations have virtually taken over not only local administration but even foreign policy and defense policy of most EuroAmerican countries. With peak neoliberalism making the state redundant except for social engineering and international subterfuge -- that too for corporate interests.
a fascinating indictment of "liberal democracy" from Euro/USA to India:) kind of like Voltaire's quip about the Holy Roman Empire being "neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire". what's practiced is in reality neither "liberal" nor "democracy".
As empires decay, even the imperial managers are turning into clowns.
I can almost understand modi's theatrics - like you said, his main audience is mostly composed of people with below 80 IQs (for reference, read the Bell Curve by Charles Murray). it's no wonder modi spends more time blessing newly opened hindu temples than on affairs of the state according to indian media. But for the descendants of europeans to degenerate into the same coginitive class is both surprising and saddening.
For convergence you have acatual bankers with no political credibility seamlessly elected presidents and prime ministers in EuroAmerica - Emmanuel Macron in France, Merz in Germany and Mark Carney in Canada. This means the Crown has decided that history has ended and humanity in the democratic world has to adjust with rule by banks and corporations as fait accompli. Meanwhile the strident woke - anti-woke message by politicians is just theatrics and aesthetics, once in power the woke repudiate their promises openly and continue doing exactly what the anti-woke were doing and vice versa.
perfectly summed. the election process is a distraction and a fig leaf to create the illusion of choice for the general public. it's important to keep them entertained while serious people make serious decisions behind closed doors.
Luckily for France and Germany, Micron & Merde are corporate, cardboard cutouts. Now adrift from their moorings. Unluckily for Canada, Carney is not. His Globalist CV rolls out like the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Following fellow Canadian Maurice Strong, he did much to create & develop the Davos agenda Micron & Merde are doing their best to follow. Neither has the intellectual or political skills to ultimately overcome the political forces that are rising against them. If Carney lacks political experience now he has the intellectual firepower to learn faster than normally imaginable.
In sum, I expect Carney's lack of political experience will be no more impediment to his dystopian success than his lack of central banking experience was an impediment to his unprecedented, and successful stints as head of the Bank of Canada and then the Bank of England.
I am always curious about the talk shops set up by financiers from the time when the Rockerfellers set up the Trilateral commission, then there was the Bilderberg group (interesting Thiel founded the Tech Bilderberg) and the WEF. What have they accomplished?
the financiers can scheme all they want for a Machiavellian world domination plan but as long as others have more hard power, their cleverness will come to nothing. the financiers are the least useful and highest paid people in the world but they are just food for a man with a gun.
Is it not true that these types of characters always arrive on the stage at this point in the decline of an Empire?
The Greeks believed in fate. Is this not our fate?
I think you are right it's almost a natural progression as productive forces cede ground to parasitic rentier forces (aka the owner class) and such characters - people who don't add value but owns the most - start to take center stage. Maybe it's fate, maybe it's just history's way to tell us it is time to reset the system
The debasement of the currency feeds the rentier class. Rentiers are leaches, not contributors. Finally the debased society collapses. Is that not the point to redesign the system so that the same cycle does not repeat?
Sound money should be the start. And it was last time at Bretton Woods, until the rentiers dumped the gold standard in August 1971!
absolutely true from Rome to today. when money is just an IOU, there is no control over the people who get to print it.
Absent an exogenous event, the failure of civilizations/empires/states is ultimately and almost invariably a failure of its governing elites.
Entropy eventually overcomes any system, including socio-political constructs. Historically, entropy works on every level. Ideally, the elites are responsible in maintaining the subseems to have limited them to about 10 generations.
the cycle is shortening as technology becomes expotentially more powerful.
Good write-up. A small note: Brzezinski was not Jewish. He was from a family of Catholic Polish aristocrats.
thanks for pointing out. I made a mistake. Indeed Zbig was Catholic.
If you check Wikipedia he is written up as Catholic. But if you read up on his background he seems to have ingratiated himself to Jewish politicians and influential state actors at the time during his life time. One can assume he had to kiss a lot of the "Chosen One's" a$$ to stay in their exclusive Chosen club.
It was traditional Polish policy pre-20th century to be friendly to Jews. Nothing more than that.
Brezezinksi actually belonged to the hundreds of thousands Frankists integrated seamlessly into the Polish catholic elite through conversion and intermarriage in a magical process. The local Catholic church acknowledges that. Like the forced conversion of Iberian Sepharadis into Catholicism this was opposed by the church but enforced by local rulers for purely political reasons. Because they are unconscionable the Crown deputises Frankists for jobs like revolution and war mongering, controlling critical sectors like Banking and Finance, Media and Entertainment, Higher Education, Social Media and other critical social engineering tools and to maintain plausible deniability for the Crown while keeping a convenient scapegoat for the Crown in case plebs come with pitchforks or guns - which is the mortal fear of the Crown since its establishment in 1185.
fascinating history. which Crown are you referring to?
The Templar Crown is the defacto world govt imposed on the world by the banker Medici family in 1185. It hides behind the Holy See and the Holy See behind the Roman Catholic church. It distributed its operations later with spiritual/cultural power in Vatican, Banking/Finance in the City of London and military power in Washington DC. Since the Medicis descend directly from the founder of the First Reich and Templar orders Charlemagne and he from King Solomon, it is supposedly a divine organisation with claim to the whole world's wealth and its people as the slaves of the "elect" Templar families - a transEuroAmerican royal blood mafia that controls all banking/corporations and politics. So it claims all the worlds solid wealth silver gold uranium petroleum platinum or any valuable as its own and not belonging to the people of those countries above the soil where those deposits are. This is why Condoleezza Rice said - "There is $100 TN worth of resources under Russia's soil and it is not ok that they use it" - by divine right it does not belong to the Slavs there but the Templar families. As Alex Krainer had exposed in his substack the oligarchs in Russia who swooped on these resources under Yelstin had quietly handed it over to Lord Rothschilds - the Crown's House Banker and blood relative. Putin one by one restoring them to Russian state control is why he should go and a puppet should take over. This is also why native South Africans get barely 5% value of the gold and diamonds under their soil and it is all laundered away by Rothschilds proxy Oppenheimer companies. Again this is also why by restoring to partial state control and imposing fair market value on the minerals of Burkina Faso Mali and Niger, the military rulers there who restored them to state control are facing death sentences coup threats and Islamist terrorist attacks. Due to the Crown most countries have autonomy however limited it may be but have no real sovereignty - if they attempt for sovereignty Nato will declare war with 360 degree vilification making you 'fit to be killed' by the war propaganda racket of AP AFP Reuters Bloomberg NYT WSJ BBC and so on.
thanks for the history. In this context, it's easy to see why the US and israel deep state cooked up the 911 false flag and the fake R2P wars waged against Saddam and Kaddafi. To take down Russia, they will lose a hundred million europeans so better to let the slavs in ukraine and poland be the cannon fodder first. the battle for the future of the planet is coming soon.
Remember that immediately after the Gaddaffi and Saddams assassinations not only the oil resources were taken over by the western/allied corporations but both countries gold reserves worth hundreds of tonnes were carted away to the west - this is what the Crown does.
Is there any proof that his ancestors were converts from Judaism? It's a good faith question - I'm happy to consider it if there's evidence. Additionally, I think we should be rigorous about whether they became crypto-jews after conversion or if the practice died out.
There are some examples, such as Nicholas Maduro, who is genetically descended from Jews but clearly seems to have stopped practicing judaism at some point, and in my opinion, basically became a gentile bloodline.
Spanish have approx 5% contribution from Jewish DNA, Germans approx 8%. Both simply reflect high levels of local Jewish populations in very early middle ages. Which were followed by violent conversion campaigns, that either wiped out religiously-defined Jewish population more or less completely (Spain) or reduced it to less than 0.3% (Germany). In Poland violent conversion campaigns were rare, so despite a 10% population pre 1939, my guesstimate would be 1% in ethnic Poles. Both Zbig's parents came from Catholic Polish aristocracy, so there. One can see it also from their surnames Brzezinski, Roman, Woroniecka -Catholic Poles.
Afghanistan had very little to do with the fall of the Soviet Union. It was Gorbachev's undermining of the Party-state that had been in place for 70 years and the unleashing of the corrupt elements that did that. The funding of the religious fundamentalists in Afghanistan against the progressive socialist state delivered the extremist terrorists of today and the Taliban.
Zbig may have been better than the current clowns within the US State Department, but that is not saying much.
the fall of the USSR is a complex affair. Gorbachev's naivety and undermining of the state was the final push. Afghanistan may not be the immediate cause but was a heavy blow both militarily and financially. Soviet Union never recovered from that.
No doubt the blowback from what the US unleashed in Afghanistan was ironic. But this is typical of an empire who believes in its own invulnerability and there are too many examples to list here.
Indeed you are right the bar set by Zbig may not be too high but even with a modest standard as this, the recent crop of washington national security types for past few decades is wanting. that says a lot about the reality of the country and its likely future.
Have you ever heard Edward Luttwak's rant about how the CIA is ran by low quality provincial people that keep anyone with culture and brains?
The oligarchy that runs the West has been dumbing down the population relentlessly since the end of WWII and is only now dimly starting to notice (not understand) that it stupified its own instruments of power.
A Berzinski or a Kissinger would not be allowed in sight of anyone in policy making position today, and I also a lower opinion of both than you. They'd never get past the flunkies depending their master from unorthodox opinions!
cannot agree more. the start of the CIA was a bit like a college frat house - even if the college is Yale. there was some smart guys and lots of gunslingers but over time it just became another bureaucracy with careerists. they haven't been caughts with their pants down on so many important things including the fall of the Soviet Union.
now one stops hearing anything intelligent coming out the DCI. they are just political flunkies.
Kissinger and Zbig, in my view, still stood a shoulder above the current crop of mandarins. maybe because they were both foreigners and went through europeans wars. both were a lot of realists than the mindless ideologues today. Again, no doubt you are right the bar isn't that high.
Interesting and well done, but if the US didin't have to be always be doing something the world would be a better place.
If Carter had said to Zbig, "Look, I'm okay with the Soviets embroiled in the "Graveyard of Empires," but why do we need to help the rebels? Russia might lose on their own, or they might win and that could be worse for them.
The results would not be bad for us, including probably no 911.
If there had been no opening to China, China's rise would have been slower and maybe we might still be making stuff here.
Overthinking is a disease, but why one goes to Harvard.
that's a great philosophical question - would we accomplish more by NOT doing than doing? of course, presidents want to be remembered for their "legacies" and "not doing" is not a legacy.
history is full of "what ifs".
the only thing I would challenge is 911. I am as positive as anyone is, without a smoking gun, that 911 is a false flag, conducted by Israel and US deep states. If interested, there may be 20 or 30 books on the subject that I think are quite credible. It was a minor obssesion for me for a couple years. Coming back to your point, the biggest "what if" of the 21st century is indeed what if they didn't do the 911 false flag. I think the US would be in a very different place now.
I grant you that 911 may have been a false flag, but it would not have been done without all that came after our involvement in Afghanistan.
Yevgeny Primakov proposed that Eurasia's security architecture would/should be underpinned by what he viewed as a wholly natural alliance between Russia, China and India. Brzezinski’s analysis reflects the idea that India's elites, enthralled by the notion that they could aspire to a seat at the table of Western power would balk and that Iran was a more likely, and equally dangerous candidate.
He was right, but when Iran stepped into its spot and so placed India squarely between the emerging power poles on the continent, India's elites became ambivalent. They spent a couple of decades trying to play both sides against the middle, much to India's detriment.
We'll see if Modi's warm, wet words in China indicate that a consensus has emerged amongst them to face their Either/Or squarely. FWIW, I think we'll be looking at Indian flip-flopping until the decision is made for them.
Primakov was very astute though I think he overestimated India. This seems always a bit of soft spot for most Russian nationalists.
The Russians keep hoping India could have sovereignty and strength as a partner but my personal view is they failed to understand that deep down India still has an innate slave mentality of the colonized. It never went through a trial of blood and fire to get its independence and therefore fully decolonize.
As a national trait, India is also very opportunistic, trying to play both sides and maximize their gain, which makes it an untrustworthy partner if not downright despised. You find this in everyday indian behavior - this is just how they are wired.
Xi will not fall for the superficially warm and "wet" words from modi. the indians act like a dejected school girl - cozying up with another big boy after the last big boy ditches her. as you pointed out, they would flip flop the minute the US waves a little finger. modi's maneuvers is pure amateur hour.
by the way, I think Primakov was too trusting when he was Foreign Minister. He should have taken a harder line on NATO expansion. maybe he wasn't in a position of strength but still Russia has to deal with the reality that NATO is literally at its doorstep by now.
India cannot be trusted because of its Hindu Nationalist compulsions that to with no technology finance or resource sovereignty. Just because they got some executive and administrative positions in the west they started foolishly projecting power as if the moment had come for a Hindu world takeover. And the government to strengthen its power on the electorate is on an obsessive compulsive mode to project adversarial power against all countries simply to satisfy the urges of huge illiterate unwashed unfed sick bigoted and filthy population who has no sense of geopolitics and is completely deluded by comically insane TV propaganda around the almighty leader and how the whole world is cowering at fear or awe when they see this man Modi on the world stage anywhere. The insanity and stupidity of the TV propaganda using AI created and photoshoped fake videos and images is laughably ridiculous and the crowd impacted by this propaganda demands even more projection of adversarial power on the global stage by the barely high school educated prime minister and his cabinet of incompetents when they have barely any real power. This compulsive adversarial projection in geopolitics makes India and extremely unreliable ally for any country. Remarkably after the recent Indo-Pak war the Indians found that Afghanistan - the only other country run by illiterate religious idiots - was the only country to spring to their support - this surprised the whole nation that despite their leaders and groups global power they were so isolated. But bigots are beyond learning so they will keep making these mistakes even if they become laughing stock before the world. Here is a Chinese intellectual on why the domestic situation makes India utterly untrustworthy. https://www.sinification.com/p/liu-zongyi-indias-disruptive-role
I have always said if there is only one thing to know about india, it is this - the average IQ of the indians is 76.2 (Richard Lynn, David Becker studies). Charles Murray, in his 1994 book Bell Curve, categorized the indian intelligence level as one standard deviation from east Asians.
not to mention all the other uniquely indian feats - gang rapes, army of beggars, open defecation on public beaches (in canada), bathing and drinking in "holy" river with dead dogs and dead corpses flowing by, eating with bare hands that double as toilet paper. no wonder their tourism board came up with the marketing slogan - "incredible india".
Lavrov was once asked what Russia's foreign policy objectives were.
He answered:
"To turn enemies into neutrals, neutrals into friends, and friends into allies".
If he ultimately succeeds, he'll have broken a historical trendline that probably predates the Great Schism. The West's elites drooled like a St. Bernard whenever they looked at Russia's vast expanse of natural wealth, but every time they went after it in earnest they learned the meaning of "catastrophic failure".
I think the Russians have learned a lesson. Some enemies have to neutralize (neuterize?) themselves, and Russia's best strategy is to help them as much, and as quietly as they can.
Lavrov is a class act and his partnership with Putin sets a very high bar. much of the west will implode with or without Russia's help.
Brzezinski was a strategist. To be a strategist concludes to now sth about the nations you want to control.
There are no more strategists.
„If you don’t bow I kill you“ is no strategy.
It’s a recipe of failure.
he understood the limits of power, even at the peak of US hegemony. That is a sign of intellect and a strategic mind. today, it's all brute force - when the US relative strength is declining rapidly. There is no strategy no thinking, just the bounce of a dead cat.
At the time of Nixon's downfall (possibly aa the result of a deep-state coup), I celebrated. In retrospect, the Nixon/Kissinger team were the last real statesmen leaders the USA had. The USA Moon landing in 1969 marked the top-dead-center peak for the USA; the impeachment of Nixon a few years later could be said to mark its accelerating decline.
Kissinger made no secret of his Zionism, but was a great statesman of Talleyrand/Metternich/Lavrov quality and so was a trusted mediator between Israel and its intended victims. He always and in all things pursued stability, the avoidance of warfare, and the preservation of the Peace of Westphalia, of international law, spheres of influence and so forth. Like most statesmen of great powers, he was probably a war criminal by modern standards: great statesman are politically amoral, relentlessly pursuing national interest.
Nixon and Kissinger both had massive shortcomings and criminalities but it would be foolhardy to challenge their intellect and strategic acumen. Kissinger was quite a skilled diplomat and was balanced in his approach dealing with the various middle eastern players. He was a student of history and understood the big picture. Note while he was ruthless against weak opponents, he was very cautious when dealing with major powers to avoid large scale global conflicts. Nothing like the hotheads and functional morons in washington today - just imagine putting him next to John Bolton:)
The Watergate was almost certainly a deep state operation - I have read a lot on the subject and things just didn't add up to the official narrative. If interested, I recommend Lamar Waldron's Watergate the Hidden History and Anthony Summers's The Arrogance of Power.
Lastly, I am drafting a piece on the Apollo moon landing. I think you might be intrigued about the many interesting facts about the event. Keep an open mind about it - the official story may not be the last word.
My question for all Moon Landing deniers is: why would Russia play along? They would certainly have been monitoring the telemetry, and tracking Apollos both visually and by radar. It's impossible to deny that Apllo missions went to the Moon, and hard to explain why they would fake a landing once there, knowing at least Russia, and probably many international observatories, could track the missions,possibly even track the LEM's landing. Even amateurs with large home telescopes might track it. Pretty much impossible that if it was fake, it wouldn't be exposed.
I don't have all the answers, especially the technical aspects of the mission. What I have found interesting is basic stuff like how come NASA cannot return to the moon after 50 plus years with today's technology and how come they seem to have lost any the important documentations about the mission from the design for Saturn V rocket to the original film and audio footages shot by the astronauts.
there is a bunch of amazing and counter-intuitive stuff around the moon mission that if one applies first principles theory, one finds it hard to believe they actually did what they alleged. either you believe in conspiracies or in coincidences. I find it intellectually dishonest if we assign every strange facts to coincidence.
anyway, I don't have a smoking gun or propose a definitive explanation. Frankly I don't know what to believe but would love to see intelligent explanations of the strange events around the mission.
All the NASA stuff is pretty easy: they're Woke fuckups, not like the geeks with white shirts, pocket-protectors and slide-rules who got it done.
I suspect China will land something near the USA flag and lower part of the LEM, and certainly publicise it if there's nothing there.
But the unanswerable question is: why on Earth would at least Russia, possibly China, all the observatories in the world, have gone along with a Moon landing that wasn't, instead of (in the Communist countries at least) scoring a HUGE propaganda win and massive loss of Western prestige?
The "moon landing(s)" were a minor obsession of mine a few years ago (I'm a serial obsessor, and not only regarding "conspiracies").
Looking forward to your write-up.
same here. It was one of the most brain-wrecking "conspiracies". so many angles and factoids. I want to separate the speculations and overly technical stuff (like how to get through Van Allen belt) from the easy-to-understand and easy-to-challenges problems with the official narrative (like how could NASA lose all original film footage). It is slow work since I keep finding stuff to read and watch.
If interested, check out Dave McGowan's long article Moon Doggle. https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/
I'm familiar with McGowan's tongue-in-cheek review of the anomalies. Great stuff.
My go-to site was aulis.com.
Although most of the material there is probably more technical than you're looking for, a couple of the papers may be of interest to you.
In particular, some papers examine a rather plausible geopolitical theory for the real agenda that drove the Apollo program and why it was stopped so abruptly.
I actually was on aulis.com many times before. I was particularly impressed with its analysis of the Stanley Kubrick angle:) I thought it was very clever but overly complicated. First principles seem to be the best way to challenge the official Apollo narrative - like how could technology regress and NASA cannot do what it did, nearly perfectly, more than 50 years ago despite the technological progress we have made? it's always the Occam's Razor that offers the best explanation of such seemingly impossible paradox.
McCowan also explored the geopolitical aspects of the alleged Apollo missions - somehow every single mission seemed to happen right after a major Vietnam war scandal or setback like My Lai massacre or bombing of Cambodia. Also it's telling every single Apollo moon landing happened during the presidency of "tricky dick".
Aulis' geopolitical "theory" is to be found here:
In a nutshell, it states that after the attempt to land on the moon was abandoned, the Apollo program served as cover for developing the foundations for weaponizing space. As the American public wouldn't have allowed such an enterprise, the money flowed using Apollo's idealistic fantasies.
Ockham was an interesting fellow whose arguments and percepts were much more nuanced and powerful than what he's popularly credited for.
Be that all as it may, my scepticism lies on 3 principles:
- NASA didn't have the lift capacity. The F1 engine was a dud, and the Saturn 5 could never have made it past LEO.
(BTW, 5 (iirc) complete examples of the Saturn 5 still exist. One wonders why Space X doesn't just copy one of them instead of spending $Bs developing something almost as powerful.)
- Cosmic radiation then and now is a deal breaker. Only now are we learning something about what's going on beyond the Van Allen belts. The issue is that the sensors we can lift into HEO and beyond are able to detect only relatively low energy radiation. Computer models based on their data indicate MUCH higher levels of high energy radiation (Ms of eV) than previously assumed. The sensors used to detect the higher energy radiation, unfortunately, weigh some 60T so we're some distance away from getting actual data.
- Re-entry from deep space remains a deal breaker. There's lots of talk about "skip re-entry" but the only documented case back then was accomplished by the Soviets with Zond 6. Direct, ballistic re-entry from deep space as claimed for Apollo was and remains impossible. The G-forces would kill the astronauts and the heat would melt the spacecraft if it it didn't fall apart first.
In short:
- They didn't have the horsepower to get there.
- Even if they did, they likely couldn't have survived the journey.
- Even if they somehow got past the 1st two, they couldn't have returned in one piece.
Nixon most certainly was ejected by deep state forces, the press being their visible hand and a fake moral panic a usual MO. He was also the one that closed the gold window, which is the point the USA's slide starts. Looks up at a site called What Happened in 1971. It hits hard.
Nixon's life story is truly mind boggling. He was both a representative of the deep state and its victim. Lots of history changing events happened on his watch. He was the gold standard of doing whatever necessary to get power - except maybe for LBJ, whom Nixon said he and Johnson both wanted to be president just as bad as the other, "the only difference is, I wasn't willing to murder for it".
1971 was a pivotal year - removal of gold standard, Powell Memo, etc. Definitely will check out the site. I was born that year:)
There are reasons to believe Nixon was in the know of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy. Through "Dryhole" Byrd. He certainly dropped heavy hints on his CIA chief during Watergate!
it is almost certain he knew what happened. there were numerous references he made to imply what happened to JFK and he used the cover name - the "cuban business". he was certainly bitter about losing to JFK but probably won't go so far to plot his assassination but no way he didn't know what went on ex post.
When we conduct postmortems on empires the focus on individuals is secondary as empires are based on ruinous ideologies that have a momentum of their own, corporatism, militarism, neoconservatism the deep state, the MICC et al. Politicians, their advisors and officials come to act as a catering service to the empire.
Every president and top official since Kennedy has served the empire at the expense of the Republic. We can discuss endlessly the degrees of culpability and with whom does it lie most.
Officials who presided during the rise of the empire are not excused as each left a legacy of unintended consequences their successors had to deal with, precipitating the incremental collapse we see now.
As the empire declines all the wrong players are attracted as decline is the breeding ground for demagogues and fraudsters.
Biden and Trump have marked the final dissolution of the presidency as both have been willing to cannibalize the Republic to save the empire. Trump has betrayed his MAGA base for the sake of the empire just as so many previous presidents have done to theirs.
Frank Zappa, a rock star of the seventies, showed great insight when he stated.... "Politics is the entertainment committee for the Military Industrial Congressional Complex."
But of course Western Civilization digs shallow graves for its true prophets and patriots.
lovely prose. cannot agree more. Empires fail slowly and then implode as the failings accumulate.
It’s not just the US, the quality of leadership across the West seems to have imploded. I am very disappointed with the Australian Labour Party, which once had independent thinking, sought a nuclear free world. The Australian government once went against US and UK to call for the end of apartheid. But look at how pathetic the Australian government is now, can’t even straightforwardly recognise Palestine as an independent state, without throwing an antic of expelling Iran for alleged antisemitism in Australia, and what happened to standing up to US bullying? Pathetic.
But what I wonder is if there is something fundamentally defective about the Western political system that prioritises rivalry over cooperation. Eventually the competitive pressure drives out quality individuals and leaves political power to self-seeking politicians.
I think electoral politics have reached the point it is a race to the bottom exercise. Few people who are not hard core narcissist or want a dignified life want to pursue politics as a career, especially since you can influence politics from behind the scene through proxies and paid agents.
Also I think the deep state system is so entrenched that only candidates that are acceptable will have any chance of high office.
So both self-selection and structural forces play a role - you can see that throughout the west from europe to australia to canada. The so called leaders are interchangable and speak from the same script. No Paul Keatings are tolerated any more.
Thanks so much for explicating this, it's so very sad the American people can't see something that is just so incredibly and blindingly obvious. The day Marco Rubio has his own thoughts, he'll be a deaf mute.
exactly. Rubio as secretary of state and NSA and head of USAID is more like someone's bad joke and worse than a low quality reality show. this guy is a robot repeating party lines, with malice for all and charity for none, and I doubt an original idea has ever found its way to his head.
He probably would have a heart attack if an original idea violated the space between his ears 😉🤭🤭
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/us/politics/marco-rubio-finances-debt-loans-credit.html
fascinating. somehow I am not surprised. not every congressional investor is as astute as nancy pelosi:)
see what an imitator and wanna be he is - he ran drugs for his brother and then when he was teaching - slept with all his students - the guys so low they'll have to dig up to bury him.
hahaha...
same can be said about many in power these days - where are the JFKs or FDRs or even the Reagans?
I feel such a sense of loss. The US has suffered a kind of degradation since the fall of the Soviet empire. It’s like losing a nemesis can also mean losing your reason to be at your best.
The US foreign policy establishment is infected with one of the worst afflictions that can infect the human race: overthinking.
Nice analysis...I didn't know that about Mearsheimer, who's otherwise been one of the few sane voices on America's Ukraine policy debacle...
But these problems are in a certain sense inevitable, given the ongoing decline of both intelligence and the quality of schooling in the US..and most of the West..Test scores attest to the former, while widespread complaints about the quality of current graduates, which is indeed woeful in comparison to the WW2 and Boomer generations....
I wrote a piece on Mearsheimer on my Substack a few months ago. If interested, you can check out why I call him a crackpot realist - realist-sounding from the outside but shares the core belief of US superiority and exceptionalism inside.
His views on the US China relationship are most telling - both his hostility towards China and his inability to understand containing China is beyond US power - hardly the hallmark of a true "realist" who should base their strategies on reality rather than delusion.
no debate on the decline of both cognitive abilities and quality of schooling in the US. I think the dumbing down of the population in the interests of the ruling class is nearly complete and is ricocheting back into the ruling class itself. Mediocrity and mindless talking head are the standard issue in washington these days. I wrote another Substack piece on demeritocracy that prevails in the US.
Brzezinski was not Jewish. He was raised and identified as Catholic. He was not Jewish by religion or self-identification.
you are right. several other readers also pointed out. I made a mistake. Zbig was pro-Israel as all US national security establishment must be to be accepted but he was fairly balanced - therefore considered not sufficiently pro-israel by the zionists
Excellent!!
https://nowarnonato.blogspot.com/2025/09/hua-bin-zbigniew-brzezinskis-take-on.html
https://gffreepages.blogspot.com/2025/09/hua-bin-zbigniew-brzezinskis-take-on.html
https://paulcraigrobertstranslations.blogspot.com/2025/09/hua-bin-zbigniew-brzezinskis-take-on.html
https://newfreepages.blogspot.com/2025/09/hua-bin-zbigniew-brzezinskis-take-on.html
https://perunmondosenzaguerre.blogspot.com/2025/09/hua-bin-zbigniew-brzezinskis-take-on.html
Mistake in the article: Zbig wasn't a Jew (he was a Pole) and wasn't pro-Israel, which is why Israel hated him and tried to prevent Obama from picking him.
thanks for catching the mistake. Zbig was Polish Catholic. I wouldn't go so far to say he is not pro-Israel. He was insufficiently pro-israel in the eyes of the jewish controllers. the policy recommendations he gave to Jimmy Carter was to support israel despite his many reservations. the political climate is what it is when it comes to israel and jewish interest since LBJ and he couldn't do his job without at leasting superficially pro-israel. Chas Freeman was turned down by the jewish lobby for obama's director of national intelligence for his objectivity and lack of sufficient obedience to jewish interests.