Stopping Abruptly,
Big Serge, NATO at the Crossroads Incoherent Security Architecture and the Problem of Grand Strategy [Whose interests does NATO actually serve?]
NATO, in its original conception, was designed to resolve a very particular security dilemma in Western Europe. In the immediate wake of World War Two, Western Europe - specifically Britain and France - had to consider how it might be possible to mount a defense against the colossal Soviet forces that were now conveniently forward deployed in Central Germany...
..The popular formulation, coined by the first General Secretary of NATO, Lord Hastings Ismay, that NATO existed to “keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down.” This statement, however, has frequently been misinterpreted. The idea of “keeping the Americans in” was not a plot by Washington to dominate the continent, but a contrivance by the Europeans to keep America engaged in their defense. As for “keeping the Germans down”, this is pithily stated but not entirely accurate - the entire point of adding West Germany to NATO was to allow it to rebuild and rearm in the interests of collective western defense. For the United States, NATO made sense as a way to mobilize European resources and calcify the “front” in Europe, in the context of a broader geopolitical struggle with the USSR.
This is what NATO was for. It was a mechanism for formalizing an American security commitment in Europe and mobilizing German resources to deter the USSR, and it worked - the frontline of the Cold War in Europe remained static up until the collapse of the Soviet Union due to the naïve and self-destructive political visions of one Mikhail Gorbachev...
..The popular formulation, coined by the first General Secretary of NATO, Lord Hastings Ismay, that NATO existed to “keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down.” This statement, however, has frequently been misinterpreted. The idea of “keeping the Americans in” was not a plot by Washington to dominate the continent, but a contrivance by the Europeans to keep America engaged in their defense. As for “keeping the Germans down”, this is pithily stated but not entirely accurate - the entire point of adding West Germany to NATO was to allow it to rebuild and rearm in the interests of collective western defense. For the United States, NATO made sense as a way to mobilize European resources and calcify the “front” in Europe, in the context of a broader geopolitical struggle with the USSR.
This is what NATO was for. It was a mechanism for formalizing an American security commitment in Europe and mobilizing German resources to deter the USSR, and it worked - the frontline of the Cold War in Europe remained static up until the collapse of the Soviet Union due to the naïve and self-destructive political visions of one Mikhail Gorbachev...
..American grand strategy centers on the policy of area denial, or what we might call hegemonic denial. This is an old strategy, favored by great powers blessed with strategic standoff, and inherited from America’s British geostrategic predecessor. The “grand strategy” of the British, for many centuries, was predicated on simply denying any continental European power the opportunity to dominate the continent. The rationale was simple and sublime: Britain’s status as an island power afforded it strategic insulation via standoff from continental wars. The channel freed Britain from the burden of having to maintain a large standing army, like the powers on the continent, and invest heavily in its naval power projection. Relieved of the great expense that dangerous land borders bring, British naval power made them the grand winners of the colonial arms race. However, Britain always lived in the fearful shadow of European consolidation. If any one continental power managed to consolidate power over the European core, that power would have the resources to mount a naval challenge to the Royal Navy.
This is why, for centuries, Britain simply backed the rivals of whoever the most powerful continental state happened to be at the time. They backed the Hapsburgs and then the Prussians in wars against France, played an active and central role in the wars to prevent Napoleon from establishing hegemony in Europe, then pivoted to an alliance with France to contain Russia in the Crimean War. Finally, when Germany consolidated and became the most powerful state in Europe, Britain fought in two catastrophic World Wars to prevent German domination of the continent. The presence of Britain loitering offshore and a powerful Russian state in the east served as a natural hedge on continental hegemony, because both Russia and Britain were always guaranteed to be adversarial against any would-be European imperium. France and Germany both gave a mighty effort in their turn, but the challenge of mobilizing sufficient naval-expeditionary power to defeat Britain and the requisite land-logistical power to defeat Russia was enough to undo Napoleon, the Kaiser, and Hitler alike.
The guiding animus of British “grand strategy” was therefore very simple: maintain a cost-effective colonial footprint, and do not let anybody consolidate hegemony on the continent - the latter to be achieved through prudent intervention and the backing of anti-hegemonic coalitions. American grand strategy is much the same, except that it has a more globe-spanning scope. While Britain played hegemonic area denial in Europe, America pursues a similar containment and balancing act in Eastern Europe, the Persian Gulf, and East Asia simultaneously. This means, more practically, strategic area denial and a prevention of regional consolidation by China, Russia, and Iran - each the most powerful states within their prospective regions.
It has become a standard line, of course, to condemn this American defense strategy as fundamentally cynical and sinister, replete with language about American imperialism, its meddling in foreign governments, and complaints about the spread of a vapid American consumeristic culture which atomizes societies. America is frequently abhorred as an eternally expanding blob which is gray and featureless, yet simultaneously emblazoned with the gaudy colors of the rainbow.
Such opposition is understandable and highly sympathetic, but we must acknowledge that the core of America’s global defense strategy is not irrational, but aligned with critical American interests, at least in its highest order objectives. East Asia, in particular, is home to nearly 40% of global GDP and is by far the most populous and industrialized region in the world. While America is fundamentally secure from direct physical attack, safely sequestered behind its twin oceans, consolidated Chinese hegemony in East Asia could force American-aligned states to disaffiliate from the United States and either exclude or disfavor America in their enormous markets...
This is why, for centuries, Britain simply backed the rivals of whoever the most powerful continental state happened to be at the time. They backed the Hapsburgs and then the Prussians in wars against France, played an active and central role in the wars to prevent Napoleon from establishing hegemony in Europe, then pivoted to an alliance with France to contain Russia in the Crimean War. Finally, when Germany consolidated and became the most powerful state in Europe, Britain fought in two catastrophic World Wars to prevent German domination of the continent. The presence of Britain loitering offshore and a powerful Russian state in the east served as a natural hedge on continental hegemony, because both Russia and Britain were always guaranteed to be adversarial against any would-be European imperium. France and Germany both gave a mighty effort in their turn, but the challenge of mobilizing sufficient naval-expeditionary power to defeat Britain and the requisite land-logistical power to defeat Russia was enough to undo Napoleon, the Kaiser, and Hitler alike.
The guiding animus of British “grand strategy” was therefore very simple: maintain a cost-effective colonial footprint, and do not let anybody consolidate hegemony on the continent - the latter to be achieved through prudent intervention and the backing of anti-hegemonic coalitions. American grand strategy is much the same, except that it has a more globe-spanning scope. While Britain played hegemonic area denial in Europe, America pursues a similar containment and balancing act in Eastern Europe, the Persian Gulf, and East Asia simultaneously. This means, more practically, strategic area denial and a prevention of regional consolidation by China, Russia, and Iran - each the most powerful states within their prospective regions.
It has become a standard line, of course, to condemn this American defense strategy as fundamentally cynical and sinister, replete with language about American imperialism, its meddling in foreign governments, and complaints about the spread of a vapid American consumeristic culture which atomizes societies. America is frequently abhorred as an eternally expanding blob which is gray and featureless, yet simultaneously emblazoned with the gaudy colors of the rainbow.
Such opposition is understandable and highly sympathetic, but we must acknowledge that the core of America’s global defense strategy is not irrational, but aligned with critical American interests, at least in its highest order objectives. East Asia, in particular, is home to nearly 40% of global GDP and is by far the most populous and industrialized region in the world. While America is fundamentally secure from direct physical attack, safely sequestered behind its twin oceans, consolidated Chinese hegemony in East Asia could force American-aligned states to disaffiliate from the United States and either exclude or disfavor America in their enormous markets...
..With the Red Army suddenly removed from the board, it was not clear what the strategic rationale for NATO now was...
..There were two potential paths forward for NATO, which I will call the Expand and Entrench path and the Hold and Engage model, respectively. The choice between these two models ultimately reduces to whether or not Russia was seen as an intrinsically hostile state, destined to animus with the American bloc, or whether the Russians were to be viewed as a prospective partner to be rehabilitated and engaged with on favorable terms.
If Russia was indeed a primordial adversary and a predestined hostis loitering on the perimeter of Europe, then the expansion of NATO to the east into the old Warsaw Pact countries at least made some sense, as a way to expand the west’s defensive perimeter cheaply and grow America’s footprint. Paradoxically, however, NATO expansion was facilitated by the perception that Russia did not actually pose a serious military threat. Offering defense guarantees to Russia’s neighbors appeared to be a trivial matter of extending promises that would never need to be kept, and a nearly cost free way to fence the non-threatening Russians in...
If Russia was indeed a primordial adversary and a predestined hostis loitering on the perimeter of Europe, then the expansion of NATO to the east into the old Warsaw Pact countries at least made some sense, as a way to expand the west’s defensive perimeter cheaply and grow America’s footprint. Paradoxically, however, NATO expansion was facilitated by the perception that Russia did not actually pose a serious military threat. Offering defense guarantees to Russia’s neighbors appeared to be a trivial matter of extending promises that would never need to be kept, and a nearly cost free way to fence the non-threatening Russians in...
..This was the paradox: as NATO expanded its footprint geographically, both its existing and new members radically downsized their military readiness. In many of the keystone existing members, military spending as a share of GDP plummeted beginning in the 1990’s. In Britain, it declined from 4.3% in 1991 to 2.3% by 2020; the corresponding drop in Germany was a decrease from 2.5% to only 1.4%. Meanwhile, the new members that it added on its eastern flank were both geographically indefensible and abject military noncontributors...
..The essence of the problem is that NATO chose to both expand and disarm at the same time, to the effect that the post-Cold War expansion has raised the probability of a conflict with Russia, increasing America’s geopolitical exposure while simultaneously degrading the American bloc’s preparedness for such a contingency. Washington saw NATO expansion as a cheap way to expand its strategic footprint deep into the old Soviet strategic space - penetrating into former Union Republics, even. Unfortunately, most of those new members viewed NATO membership as a substitute for their own military readiness - trusting in the differentiated deterrent credibility of American security guarantees as a panacea for their defense...
..Ultimately, this reflects internal incoherence as to the nature and scope of the threat posed by Russia. If Russia is indeed deemed to be an existential threat to NATO’s flank, expansion might have made sense in the context of a clearly defined plan to defend that flank. It does not make sense in the context of systemic disarmament across Europe at the same time that America faces the prospect of escalating military commitments in East Asia...
..The other strange aspect of the mounting Russia scare is the apparent lethargy and scattered stance of Europe’s response. The military leadership of Europe’s three most powerful nations - France, Germany, and the United Kingdom - are all open about their unreadiness to fight a high intensity continental war...
..All of this is to say, there are roiling contradictions at the heart of NATO. The alliance chose to expand rapidly at the same time that it systematically disarmed, striking a provocative and adversarial stance vis a vis Russia while it simultaneously downgraded its military readiness, making itself both hostile and unprepared. Now there is increasing alarm that a confrontation between NATO and Russia may be on the horizon, but the alliance’s European members are dragging their feet on rearmament. Ultimately, NATO transformed itself into a bloc that is geopolitically stanced against Russia, but unwilling to materially prepare itself for the potential consequences - projecting its footprint directly up to Russia’s border without considering what might come next...
..The war in Ukraine is now nearly two and a half years old. That is more than enough time to mull over the broader strategic logic of the conflict. Nonetheless, western leadership continues to give contradictory responses to a very elementary question: is the outcome of the Russo-Ukrainian War existential for NATO? ... [It may be existential for overleveraged western financiers at this point.] ...
..But the confusion when it comes down to actually characterizing NATO’s interests in Ukraine (are they trying to save the world, or simply degrade an adversary’s military?) speaks to a larger contradictory pattern when it comes to Ukraine’s role vis a vis the alliance. Two elements in particular stand out - namely, the continued promises of a Ukrainian path to membership in NATO, and the unwillingness to negotiate a settlement which cedes territory to the Russians...
..The one red line that Washington has consistently hewed to, however, is direct and formal American involvement on the ground (various undeclared American trainers, advisers, and contractors notwithstanding). Biden has been particularly clearsighted about the fact that America cannot justify “fighting the Third World War” in Ukraine. The problem here is a contradictory and undefined sense of the stakes at play. NATO has communicated, in fairly unequivocal terms, that it is not willing to fight an open war with Russia and risk annihilatory nuclear exchange over Ukraine. But by pledging eventual NATO membership for Kiev, they are signaling that they would be willing to do so in the future. It’s not clear how to reconcile these positions...
..And so, we arrive at the current Ukrainian crisis. NATO frivolously spread to the east, handing out cheap security assurances and pushing right up to the Russian border - intaking the Baltics and making promises to Ukraine at the same time that it systematically disarmed itself. Now, in the face of a counterstroke by the Russians, the west - but America more particularly - cannot seem to decide if these places are actually worth fighting for. NATO expansion as a low cost mechanism to push the American footprint deep into the old Soviet space made sense; NATO expansion as a burden which requires America and Western Europe to prepare for a land war in Ukraine and the Baltics makes no sense at all.
Washington is caught in a bind of its own making, created by decades of writing checks that it would prefer not to cash It has pledged to fight the “Third World War” for Tallinn and Riga, should the need arise, and has promised in no uncertain terms to extend that guarantee to Kiev as well at some point in the future...
Washington is caught in a bind of its own making, created by decades of writing checks that it would prefer not to cash It has pledged to fight the “Third World War” for Tallinn and Riga, should the need arise, and has promised in no uncertain terms to extend that guarantee to Kiev as well at some point in the future...
..In the end, Ukraine becomes the poster child and archetype for the mismatch between NATO’s promises and its material basis of power. It has now been 16 years since Kiev was first enticed with the prospect of NATO membership. But what did they actually get? A wrecked power grid, the loss of 20% of their territory (so far), and hundreds of thousands dead, wounded, or missing. The 45 million strong Ukraine that received those lofty promises so long ago is now a shattered and battered husk with perhaps 25 million citizens left. From NATO, they receive too many words and far too few shells, vehicles, and air defense interceptors.
NATO is, after all, a military alliance. When it was originally created, the hard calculus of divisions, manpower, and operational minutia were a foundational element of its construction. West Germany was brought into the alliance not due to lofty rhetoric about democracy and friendship, but due to the need to mobilize West German manpower and industrial capacity, and the desire to defend forward of the Rhine - a far cry from the induction of the Baltics, which brought no strategic advantage whatsoever. What NATO needs now is not another member, another noncontributing security commitment deep in the Russian strategic space, but a hearty dose of realism. https://bigserge.substack.
NATO is, after all, a military alliance. When it was originally created, the hard calculus of divisions, manpower, and operational minutia were a foundational element of its construction. West Germany was brought into the alliance not due to lofty rhetoric about democracy and friendship, but due to the need to mobilize West German manpower and industrial capacity, and the desire to defend forward of the Rhine - a far cry from the induction of the Baltics, which brought no strategic advantage whatsoever. What NATO needs now is not another member, another noncontributing security commitment deep in the Russian strategic space, but a hearty dose of realism. https://bigserge.substack.
Simplicius, West Searches for New Deflection in Russian "Barrel Crisis"
At the end of the day, all the above panic-stoking about Russian equipment losses is meant to mask the fact that Ukraine itself is coming closer and closer to capitulation. The situation has gotten so bad that even Zelensky is now openly saying the “hot phase” of the war will be over by year’s end, as in his latest interview during the UK trip. https://simplicius76.
And the truth is probably stranger-still... Classified Details of Trump Assassination Attempt Reportedly More Alarming Than Public Info
Johnson said that he called the White House on Thursday morning to ask US President Joe Biden to fire US Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle. However, Johnson said that the White House would not connect him with Biden.
Speaking to the current state of the former US president, Johnson noted that Trump appears to be acting deep and contemplative following the assassination attempt. https://sputnikglobe.com/
According to data from the drone, Crooks -- who's said to have been highly intelligent and tech-savvy -- flew it on a pre-programmed path, an official who'd been briefed on the investigation told the New York Times. The Secret Service typically bans drone flights at secured sites; NBC News reports it's unclear if such a prohibition was imposed at the rally. Conversely, the Secret Service usually requests FAA permission to deploy drones in restricted airspace such as the Trump rally, but did not on this occasion, according to the Times. https://www.
Who Was On That Water Tower? Redacted, Clayton Morris Witnesses and blurry video. Thanks Oroboros. https://youtu.be/
Larry Johnson, ANOTHER PROFESSIONAL UPDATE ON THE FAILED TRUMP ASSASSINATION — WAS IT A SANCTIONED PLOT?
Here is the list of major red flags
First, Trump’s regular Secret Service detail was put on vacation or reassigned. Someone from the Secret Service Field Office in Pittsburgh was the agent in charge. The head of that office is Kevin P. Rojek... In other words, ZERO experience running protective details. Maybe he had some that is not noted in his bio, but I think that is unlikely. A Secret Service agent with experience running details normally is proud about listing his or her experience.Second, the Secret Service failed to conduct a full advance inspection of the site.
Third, the Secret Service failed to lockdown the buildings that were used by the shooter to attack Donald Trump.
Fourth, the Secret Service failed to have a “color-of-the-day” to distinguish friend from foe.
Fifth, the Secret Service failed to deploy a drone to provide overwatch of the event site. Such a drone could have provided live video feed and would have showed an unauthorized person on the roof.
Sixth, Crooks was identified as a person of concern at least 45 minutes before Donald Trump took the stage. Secret Service failed to keep Trump in a secure location until the nature of the threat posed by Crooks was sorted out and neutralized. https://sonar21.com/another-
Al Jazeera does the best timeline yet, but with just one assassin: 'He’s got a gun’: The 60 minutes leading up to Trump assassination attempt
Gilbert Doctorow, Is Trump/JD Vance Going to Transform the US Foreign Policy? Interview with Nima Alkhorshid on ‘Dialogue Works
..Vance then points out the very same politicians who led us into the war in Iraq on false pretenses of defending democracy are doing that today in calling to arm Ukraine
And war, says Vance, has unintended consequences. That is how America, the biggest Christain country on earth, by its interventions in Syria wiped out one of the oldest Christian communities in the world dating from the time of the Apostles, 1.5 million strong at the start of hostilities and nil today. This is how the same is playing out in Ukraine where the government is striking hard against the Christian community that it says is aligned with Moscow. The result is an assault on freedom of religion...
..In my interview, I explained at length something else I have been ruminating over these past several day, namely how the appointment of Vance and the speeches delivered in the Republican National Convention by several powerful representatives of civil society, most particularly the president of the Teamsters union, show that Donald Trump now appears to have the support he needs to do what he was unable to do in his first term: to attract a high quality team to his cabinet and to other high federal positions consisting of people who are dedicated to implementing his policies.. It is likely that he will gain control of both houses of Congress so that the Senate approval of his nominees may be foreseen. Moreover, this time around, a divided Democratic party, such as we now see before us, will be unable to frustrate Trump’s plans, foreign as well as domestic. https://gilbertdoctorow.com/And war, says Vance, has unintended consequences. That is how America, the biggest Christain country on earth, by its interventions in Syria wiped out one of the oldest Christian communities in the world dating from the time of the Apostles, 1.5 million strong at the start of hostilities and nil today. This is how the same is playing out in Ukraine where the government is striking hard against the Christian community that it says is aligned with Moscow. The result is an assault on freedom of religion...
Trump Tells Zelensky He'll "Bring Peace" In "Very Good Call"
Former President Trump has again declared he will "bring peace" following a rare phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Friday, which comes as world leaders prepare for a likely second Trump administration.
Trump in a readout hailed it as a "very good phone call" wherein Zelensky congratulated him on a "very successful" Republican National Convention and becoming the Republican nominee for US President.
Zelensky during the call condemned the "heinous" assassination attempt which targeted Trump, slightly wounding his ear, and praised American unity in the aftermath.
Trump apparently pushed a theme of the urgency of negotiations to end the war with Russia in the call.
Trump in a readout hailed it as a "very good phone call" wherein Zelensky congratulated him on a "very successful" Republican National Convention and becoming the Republican nominee for US President.
Zelensky during the call condemned the "heinous" assassination attempt which targeted Trump, slightly wounding his ear, and praised American unity in the aftermath.
Trump apparently pushed a theme of the urgency of negotiations to end the war with Russia in the call.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/trump-tells-zelensky-hell-bring-peace-very-good-call
The truth though is that Trump is paving the way for a successor who’ll carry on what MAGA has always been about on the foreign policy front, and that’s being tough on the US’ top rivals in order to decelerate its declining unipolar hegemony.
To be sure, the way in which Trump and Vance envisage doing this is by first alleviating the risk of World War III with Russia, which is a net positive for peace and would bring humanity back from the brink if it’s successful. The global systemic transition to multipolarity has also unprecedentedly accelerated so much since the start of Russia’s special operation that restoring the 1990s-era unipolar system is now impossible, thus meaning that MAGA’s foreign policy is really about responsibly managing this moment. The best that the US can now hope to achieve is to preserve its privileged position as long as possible through creative – and ideally peaceful – means. It’ll never enjoy the unparalleled dominance from the post-Old Cold War period, but it also won’t become a so-called “normal country” anytime soon either, let alone collapse in the near future like many in the AMC have predicted. A Trump-Vance presidency would be all about slowing the pace of its decline and regaining some ground wherever possible.
The difference between them and Biden-Harris is that MAGA wants to improve socio-economic living standards at home while keeping World War III at bay abroad while the Democrats care less about Americans and more about their fellow liberal–globalist elite even at the expense of risking World War III. https://www.
Vance spoke to the Republican National Convention, attacking Wall Street barons, the war in Iraq, multi-national corporations, and trade deals like NAFTA. What he said was shocking for a Republican. "We're done catering to Wall Street,” he said. “We'll commit to the working man."
But what he *didn’t* say was equally shocking. There was no talk of tax cuts, deregulation, or attacks on government, and while he levied plenty of fire at Democrats over immigration, environmentalism and overall weakness, he did not go after the substantially populist pro-labor and competition focused elements of the Biden administration. Vance’s fight is not just with Democrats, it’s within the Republican Party...
While a venture capitalist, in the mid-2010s, Vance began to rethink his priors, ultimately transitioning into a populist with aggressive stances on economics, immigration, and foreign policy. While there’s a temptation to see this change as purely opportunistic, Vance has taken political risks inconsistent with mere careerism. Indeed, four months ago, Vance told a crowd that “Lina Khan is one of the few people in the Biden administration that is doing a pretty good job.” In the GOP, those are fighting words...
To make this point, Vance told a series of stories about his intellectual evolution. He had been a believer that America had a competitive economy until 2015. At the time, he was a venture capitalist, and saw a bunch of advertising technology companies growing very quickly, some with up to $60 million of revenue. But they were ‘un-investable,’ and were going to die quickly, not because there was anything wrong with their business, but because they were in a space dominated by Google...
We all should sort of know intuitively, at least I know now, with that refrigerator example, that that just doesn't make a ton of sense. There's something fundamentally missing from that analysis, there are questions of consumer choice, there are questions of consumer quality...
President Donald J Trump makes it very well known, and constantly reminds people for 3 years, that if JD Vance sucks, flinches, is inept or doesn’t follow orders, then JD Vance doesn’t get the 2028 endorsement. Thankfully, I saw the first indications of this last night during President Trump’s acceptance speech at the RNC Convention.
For Trump supporters and all supporters of the goal to deconstruct the worst and most toxic elements of the Deep State, we must support that tenuous 2028 endorsement message. After all, we are expecting Vance to uphold actionable policies against the interests of his benefactors.
Those benefactors and the aligned Vance influence network includes Charlie Kirk, Tucker Carlson, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Bill Ackman, David Sacks, Chamath Palihapitiya, Jacob Helberg, Vivek Ramaswamy and of course, many more.
I don’t care about anything that happened prior to that 2013 inflection point, the tap on the shoulder at Yale. James Donald Bowman, aka JD Vance’s background construct as lived or as sold is irrelevant to me. We do not have the time to be emotionally attached to any individual. We need actionable results. https://
Investment Firm That Shorted Trump Media Stock Day before Assassination Attempt Claims It Was a ‘Clerical Error’ {Poof!}
Secret Service Whistleblowers Are Stepping Up “in Tears”
Andrew Korybko, In Defense Of JD Vance As Trump’s VP
To be sure, the way in which Trump and Vance envisage doing this is by first alleviating the risk of World War III with Russia, which is a net positive for peace and would bring humanity back from the brink if it’s successful. The global systemic transition to multipolarity has also unprecedentedly accelerated so much since the start of Russia’s special operation that restoring the 1990s-era unipolar system is now impossible, thus meaning that MAGA’s foreign policy is really about responsibly managing this moment. The best that the US can now hope to achieve is to preserve its privileged position as long as possible through creative – and ideally peaceful – means. It’ll never enjoy the unparalleled dominance from the post-Old Cold War period, but it also won’t become a so-called “normal country” anytime soon either, let alone collapse in the near future like many in the AMC have predicted. A Trump-Vance presidency would be all about slowing the pace of its decline and regaining some ground wherever possible.
The difference between them and Biden-Harris is that MAGA wants to improve socio-economic living standards at home while keeping World War III at bay abroad while the Democrats care less about Americans and more about their fellow liberal–globalist elite even at the expense of risking World War III. https://www.
Matt Stoller, Can J.D. Vance's Populist Crusade Succeed?
Wall Street is freaking out that Donald Trump picked populist JD Vance as his running mate. But parts of Silicon Valley and crypto venture capitalists are elated. What gives?But what he *didn’t* say was equally shocking. There was no talk of tax cuts, deregulation, or attacks on government, and while he levied plenty of fire at Democrats over immigration, environmentalism and overall weakness, he did not go after the substantially populist pro-labor and competition focused elements of the Biden administration. Vance’s fight is not just with Democrats, it’s within the Republican Party...
..So why did Trump pick this guy? It turns out, it was Don Trump Jr., and populist advisors like Tucker Carlson, who persuaded Trump to bet on Vance years ago. In 2022, Trump rescued Vance’s Senate primary campaign in a crowded field with an endorsement; a year or so later, Vance arranged Trump’s visit to East Palestine in Ohio, where a derailment of a toxic chemical-laden train caused a crisis. That visit helped resurrect Trump’s campaign. Politico reported that Trump said to his son and aides on the plane about Vance, “This guy is turning out to be fucking incredible.” ...
..Economic populists on the right, and they exist, are elated, because they think the Republican Party is shifting its underlying philosophical orientation.....But is that true? And what does J.D. Vance’s selection mean? Moreover, how did this guy rocket to such a role in a party that is so historically friendly to big banks, big business, and war? ...
..At first, Vance bought into standard libertarian ideas, consistent with Thiel’s thinking. Thiel was a co-founder of PayPal with Elon Musk, and the alums from PayPal, the so-called “PayPal mafia,” are hugely influential in Silicon Valley today, though they are not entirely aligned with big tech. Thiel, for instance, hates Google, and this group is one of Vance’s core influences.While a venture capitalist, in the mid-2010s, Vance began to rethink his priors, ultimately transitioning into a populist with aggressive stances on economics, immigration, and foreign policy. While there’s a temptation to see this change as purely opportunistic, Vance has taken political risks inconsistent with mere careerism. Indeed, four months ago, Vance told a crowd that “Lina Khan is one of the few people in the Biden administration that is doing a pretty good job.” In the GOP, those are fighting words...
..So what does Vance think? He is in agreement with the views of a rising set of younger conservatives, populists like Sohrab Ahmari and Oren Cass, who assert that libertarianism is a cover for private rule, most explicitly in Ahmari’s book Tyranny, Inc. It is flourishing of the family that animates this new group, not worship of the market...
..More than disagreeing with some abstract notion, Vance deconstructed the very idea of a ‘free market,’ pointing out every market is structured by rules. He even attacked the idea of economics as a science, and praised Khan’s approach to moving beyond the consumer welfare standard in antitrust.To make this point, Vance told a series of stories about his intellectual evolution. He had been a believer that America had a competitive economy until 2015. At the time, he was a venture capitalist, and saw a bunch of advertising technology companies growing very quickly, some with up to $60 million of revenue. But they were ‘un-investable,’ and were going to die quickly, not because there was anything wrong with their business, but because they were in a space dominated by Google...
..And then Vance realized this dynamic wasn’t just about big tech, but extended throughout the economy, leading him to agree with Lina Khan’s analysis of antitrust. And that happened when he bought an old house with an old fridge.
"We have a 40 year old refrigerator. And my takeaway from this whole purchase is that economics is fake. Because the refrigerator that we had, you would put lettuce in the icebox, and it would be good a month later. I've never seen anything like it to this day because the single old refrigerator that we had was a technological marvel. You cannot at any price point buy a refrigerator today that can do that"... [Vance recognizes the difference between "maximizing shareholder extractive-value, "rent collection" and maximizing end-consumer value in a competitive marketplace.] ...
..The fundamental question is that we ask a forward looking economic question. Does this increase prices? And if it doesn't, then we would let mergers or market activities go forward."We have a 40 year old refrigerator. And my takeaway from this whole purchase is that economics is fake. Because the refrigerator that we had, you would put lettuce in the icebox, and it would be good a month later. I've never seen anything like it to this day because the single old refrigerator that we had was a technological marvel. You cannot at any price point buy a refrigerator today that can do that"... [Vance recognizes the difference between "maximizing shareholder extractive-value, "rent collection" and maximizing end-consumer value in a competitive marketplace.] ...
We all should sort of know intuitively, at least I know now, with that refrigerator example, that that just doesn't make a ton of sense. There's something fundamentally missing from that analysis, there are questions of consumer choice, there are questions of consumer quality...
..Vance offered a very Elizabeth Warren-like observation that “personnel is policy.” And there’s a particularly interesting nugget.
“A lot of what will determine Trump administration and interest policy is who ultimately takes the reins and the senior roles in the Trump administration, because they're going to be the ones who are executing on this stuff… So when I think about how to solve how to put those instincts into policy, a lot of it's going to be getting the right people in some of these roles and making sure we don't get rid of some of the good people from the previous administration who are doing the right thing. So I think that's the question, how do we get proper personnel rights so that we can get policy right the next Trump administration?” ...
..Vance, to put it plainly, is THE leader of the post-financial crisis Republican generation, someone who has thought carefully about how to blow up our existing institutional governing arrangements. He’s scared the left by praising alt-right writer Curtis Yarvin and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. He’s scared the right by, among other things, walking picket lines with striking auto workers and being open about his work with Elizabeth Warren, his respect for how Bernie Sanders supporters think, and his disdain for the old libertarian establishment...“A lot of what will determine Trump administration and interest policy is who ultimately takes the reins and the senior roles in the Trump administration, because they're going to be the ones who are executing on this stuff… So when I think about how to solve how to put those instincts into policy, a lot of it's going to be getting the right people in some of these roles and making sure we don't get rid of some of the good people from the previous administration who are doing the right thing. So I think that's the question, how do we get proper personnel rights so that we can get policy right the next Trump administration?” ...
..Vance is seeking to eject the libertarians from the Republican Party and build a durable governing majority. In general, such a dynamic only starts in elections, it finishes through governance...
..And that gets to a seeming contradiction. Because this same week, a whole set of tech oligarchs, including the world’s wealthiest man Elon Musk, as well as venture capitalists Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz and bitcoin billionaire twins Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, made it clear they are donors to a giant campaign fund on behalf of Trump. Musk alone is giving $45 million a month. And these donors are big fans of Vance, with Musk calling the pick a “great choice.” .....Andreessen and Horowitz laid them out in a recent 90 minute podcast describing why they are supporting Donald Trump with vast financial resources. It comes down to the basic thesis that they believe that Joe Biden, far from a do-nothing President, is an existential threat to the status quo...
..I’ve followed Marc Andreessen’s career since the 1990s, when he was one of the early engineers working on browsers, for a company called Netscape, and he has been a wealthy venture capitalist and futurist pundit since then. He has strong anti-monopoly bona fides, since Netscape was crushed by Microsoft, and his work became an important part of the government’s antitrust case against the software giant... Andreessen is, more than anything, a genius at framing. In 2011, he wrote an essay, “Why Software is Eating the World,” in which he argued that America was “in the middle of a dramatic and broad technological and economic shift in which software companies are poised to take over large swathes of the economy.” That paved the way for the firm’s investments. In 2020, another essay, “It’s Time to Build,” characterized the inability of the West’s to make things during the Covid pandemic...
..The framing these two offer is that they are on the side of ‘Little Tech.’ And they both make anti-monopoly arguments, noting that companies like Apple, Google, and defense contractors thwart new entrants, and are lazy as a result.....Andreessen and Horowitz have a view of America in which our might, and thus the world’s peace and prosperity, rests on three pillars: a strong economy, world-leading technology, and a powerful military. American culture is, as they put it, “depraved” and full of drug addiction, but our strength is that talented people can build things.....Biden is threatening this very foundation in two ways. First, he is attacking the basis of technological innovation. ... Finally, both were apoplectic about Biden’s proposal to tax unrealized gains, the so-called ‘billionaires tax,’ which they claim would destroy the venture capital industry and California itself. This proposal would destroy the economic basis of American strength... Andreessen’s essay in 2020 about needing to physically build happened as his investments in crypto - the opposite of building - took off in value. Even their thesis - that no one can predict which technologies will be useful and which won’t - wasn’t consistent with their insistence that they know how important crypto and AI will be...
..Andreessen and Horowitz are not partisan Republicans, at all, their goal is as much to change the Democratic Party as get Trump elected. They see Biden as an anomaly... In other words, these New Democrat billionaires view Trump, with whom they met, as a return to neoliberal normalcy, and closer in fact to Clinton and Obama than Biden...
..To have this particular funder group behind Vance is on one level very odd. His breadcrumb trail of policy choices and actions would seem to be inconsistent with their views. Vance wants to raise tariffs, tighten antitrust, slash immigration, cut environmental rules, and roll back the U.S. involvement in Ukraine, all of which he thinks will help the working class. He helped block the foreign acquisition of U.S. Steel. Rare for a Republican, he has gone after the credit card duopoly and the CEOs of failing banks, sought to reduce the taxable benefits of mergers, and proposed a new rail safety law. He has attacked the role of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, and is a foe of big tech... These guys have a cultural affinity for Vance, a fellow venture capitalist. And these are not standard corporate CEOs, this group, along with Vance, believe they are entrepreneurs up against a powerful liberal establishment bent on war and control. Still, there is not total alignment. There is a small but important age split, with these venture capitalists coming of age in the prosperous 1990s, and Vance in the disastrous 2000s. Because of this difference, Vance has much less trust in U.S. institutions, and wants to see Republicans realign the country around a working class coalition, which is something Andreessen and Horowitz don’t care about as long as the government gets out of their way in crypto and fintech.....So what happens if the Trump/Vance ticket becomes President Trump and Vice President Vance? There are huge swaths of policy where there is no conflict within this coalition, such as war and peace, and crypto. There’s even working class alignment with crypto venture capitalists and the PayPal mafia crew on some areas, like the CFPB’s rule to let consumers port their own data, monopolization cases against Google, Amazon, Facebook, Ticketmaster, and Apple, attacking pharmacy benefit managers, certain social questions, and limiting the power of the big prime defense contractors.
But in plenty of areas, like prohibition of acquisitions by big tech firms, labor standards, de-globalization, immigration, and preventing financial scams against working people, well, it gets dicey. It is in these places where there will likely be internal warfare, with Vance balancing his Silicon Valley experience, his youth, and his intuitive sense of how voters understand governance. I suspect Vance and the populists on the right will try to find institutions that can organize a nascent working class coalition, whether that’s labor unions, new advocacy groups, smaller and medium size corporations, and/or different ways of structuring government or working with allies in the trade space or within Congress. They may also try policies to elide such conflicts, like subsidizing venture capitalists to invest in corporations that help working people. But ultimately, this fight is youth vs experience, the bracing experience of the war in Iraq vs the belief it’s the endless decade of the 1990s.
All that said, Vance has a boss. Trump is the guy setting policy and defining the role that Vance will play, and Trump has made it clear that, while he agrees that big tech is a problem and seeks higher tariffs and lower interest rates, he is otherwise focused on an orthodox set of GOP policies...But in plenty of areas, like prohibition of acquisitions by big tech firms, labor standards, de-globalization, immigration, and preventing financial scams against working people, well, it gets dicey. It is in these places where there will likely be internal warfare, with Vance balancing his Silicon Valley experience, his youth, and his intuitive sense of how voters understand governance. I suspect Vance and the populists on the right will try to find institutions that can organize a nascent working class coalition, whether that’s labor unions, new advocacy groups, smaller and medium size corporations, and/or different ways of structuring government or working with allies in the trade space or within Congress. They may also try policies to elide such conflicts, like subsidizing venture capitalists to invest in corporations that help working people. But ultimately, this fight is youth vs experience, the bracing experience of the war in Iraq vs the belief it’s the endless decade of the 1990s.
..If Trump wins, Vance will be a close policy advisor. Regardless, it’s going to take a lot of work to break through the institutional obstacles against populism on the right. And campaigns are not where realignments happen, they are only where promises are made. It’s in governance when the voters decide whether they like the current order... https://www.thebignewsletter.
Eleni sends this. Sundance poses the image of JD Vance as a mirror of Barack Obama, and does it well, but I'll point out that Vance's history is well known. Vance has no "Manchurian Candidate" questions about his birth-certificate, CIA childhood, or paternity. The Mirror
The problem of Peter Thiel, his network and the potential problem JD Vance represents can be dealt with.President Donald J Trump makes it very well known, and constantly reminds people for 3 years, that if JD Vance sucks, flinches, is inept or doesn’t follow orders, then JD Vance doesn’t get the 2028 endorsement. Thankfully, I saw the first indications of this last night during President Trump’s acceptance speech at the RNC Convention.
For Trump supporters and all supporters of the goal to deconstruct the worst and most toxic elements of the Deep State, we must support that tenuous 2028 endorsement message. After all, we are expecting Vance to uphold actionable policies against the interests of his benefactors.
Those benefactors and the aligned Vance influence network includes Charlie Kirk, Tucker Carlson, Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Bill Ackman, David Sacks, Chamath Palihapitiya, Jacob Helberg, Vivek Ramaswamy and of course, many more.
I don’t care about anything that happened prior to that 2013 inflection point, the tap on the shoulder at Yale. James Donald Bowman, aka JD Vance’s background construct as lived or as sold is irrelevant to me. We do not have the time to be emotionally attached to any individual. We need actionable results. https://
Investment firm Austin Private Wealth LLC allegedly bet on the price falling, which would have definitely happened if Donald Trump had been killed.
Writer and researcher Josh Walkos said it appeared as though the firm had “shorted 12,000,000 shares of $DJT via a put option. The filing date is July 12, the day before the assassination attempt.”
“They have around $1 Billion in assets under management and this is by far the largest put placed,” wrote Walkos.
However, the Bloomberg terminal screenshot showed the contract mysteriously disappeared from the record.
The company amended its filing records on July 16, and the option was removed. https://www.dailyfetched.com/
Writer and researcher Josh Walkos said it appeared as though the firm had “shorted 12,000,000 shares of $DJT via a put option. The filing date is July 12, the day before the assassination attempt.”
“They have around $1 Billion in assets under management and this is by far the largest put placed,” wrote Walkos.
However, the Bloomberg terminal screenshot showed the contract mysteriously disappeared from the record.
The company amended its filing records on July 16, and the option was removed. https://www.dailyfetched.com/
Senator Josh Hawley reported that whistleblowers told him that most of Trump’s security details last Saturday were not even Secret Service. They were allegedly “unprepared and inexperienced personnel” assigned by DHS. https://www.independentsentinel.com/secret-service-whistleblowers-are-stepping-up-in-tears/
Secret Service Denies FOIA on Trump Shooting Due to Lack of Urgency’ https://headlineusa.com/secret-service-denies-foia-on-trump-shooting-due-to-lack-of-urgency/
Dems Plot 'Loophole' Of Rebellion If Biden Won't Step Down
Israel’s parliament—the Knesset—voted overwhelmingly Thursday to reject the notion of establishing a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River. The vote was 68 in support of a statement nixing the idea, and nine against. https://defconnews.com/2024/07/19/israels-parliament-rejects-establishment-of-palestinian-state/
California Family Appeals Ruling Which Punished 1st Grader For 'All Lives Matter' Drawing
Ultra Processed Foods Make Up 2/3rds Of Diet For Kids In Britain, New Study Reveals
Ultra-processed foods include ice cream, processed meats, chips, mass-produced bread, breakfast cereals, biscuits and sodas. They make up a "significant proportion" of the diet of kids 11 to 18, according to the Independent. Seventy percent of Americans believe that US President Joe Biden should end his election campaign and allow the Democratic Party to nominate another candidate to compete for president, according to a public opinion poll conducted by the NORC research center for the Associated Press (AP). https://tass.com/world/
During a Friday morning Zoom call with 50 delegates, DNC delegate Elaine Kamarck said the apparent "loophole" allowing for such rebellion if convention-goers say they can no longer vote for their pledged candidate in "good conscience" despite picking them in primaries and caucuses. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/dems-plot-loophole-rebellion-if-biden-wont-step-down
Speaker Johnson Threatens To Arrest Lawmakers Who Disrupt Netanyahu's Congress Speech [It looks like a walk-out would be fine.]
House Speaker Mike Johnson has put the body on notice, threatening to arrest anyone who is protesting or displaying unruly behavior.
The International Court of Justice declared Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem is unlawful, the settlements must be evacuated, and Palestinians must be compensated and allowed to return to their lands. https://mondoweiss.net/2024/07/in-a-historic-ruling-icj-declares-israeli-occupation-unlawful-calls-for-settlements-to-be-evacuated-and-for-palestinian-reparations/
UN court orders Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian territories
International court of justice says it should leave ‘as rapidly as possible’ and make full reparations for ‘wrongful acts’
International court of justice says it should leave ‘as rapidly as possible’ and make full reparations for ‘wrongful acts’
In a historic, albeit non-binding, opinion, the court found multiple breaches of international law by Israel including activities that amounted to apartheid. https://www.
Jonathan Cook , Israeli Soldiers Tell Story of Savage Cruelty in Gaza – One Hidden from Western Publics
Women and children are being targeted intentionally, say Israeli whistleblowers. From ground troops to commanders, the rules of war have been shredded. https://www.unz.com/jcook/israeli-soldiers-tell-story-of-savage-cruelty-in-gaza-one-hidden-from-western-publics/ B.B., who has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), uses art “as her primary therapeutic outlet for this disorder,” according to the legal complaint that was filed in federal district court on Nov. 6, 2023.
To support her black friend and classmate who is identified in court papers as M.C., B.B. drew a picture of the two of them, along with two other friends, writing “Black Lives Mater [sic]” at the top. She added the phrase, “any life,” PLF said.
“B.B.’s intent was to show children of various races getting along,” according to the legal complaint.
It was the “any life” qualification that seems to have angered school officials. https://www.zerohedge.com/
To support her black friend and classmate who is identified in court papers as M.C., B.B. drew a picture of the two of them, along with two other friends, writing “Black Lives Mater [sic]” at the top. She added the phrase, “any life,” PLF said.
“B.B.’s intent was to show children of various races getting along,” according to the legal complaint.
It was the “any life” qualification that seems to have angered school officials. https://www.zerohedge.com/
These foods have been linked to increase risk of obesity and heart disease, the report notes, due to their high levels of saturated far, salt and sugar additives.
The Independent reported that ultra-processed foods often contain additives like preservatives, emulsifiers, and artificial colors and flavors that are not commonly used in home cooking. https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/ultra-processed-foods-make-23rds-diet-kids-britain-new-study-reveals
Unprocessed (pictured with black eyed pea vines)
No comments:
Post a Comment