Thanks for your helpful research into Military Elite's Mental Bubble.
You ask the question: "Why do highly educated European elites actively cheer for the destruction of their own sovereignty?" Allow me to draw your attention to Steven Newbury's analysis of the same question:
"When the European elite gave a standing ovation to Marco Rubio’s ‘love letter to colonial conquest’ in Munich, many observers were baffled. Why would the leaders of the EU—a project ostensibly built on peace and sovereignty—cheer for a speech that reduced them to junior partners in a US resource raid?
The answer lies in a brutal class distinction. The European elite are not confused; they are calculating. They have recognised that the European Material Base (industry, cheap energy, the welfare state) is collapsing due to the loss of Russian gas and the thermodynamic reality of the Resource Entropy Singularity [shrinking energy returns on energy investments].
Faced with a dying host, the parasite seeks a new one.
When the internal energy surplus collapses, the cost of maintaining the social contract—democracy, the welfare state, and industrial employment—becomes thermodynamically unaffordable. The elite are then faced with an existential binary choice. They can either sink with their population by attempting to maintain the welfare state on a shrinking energy budget, or they can decouple.
The applause in Munich signals that the decoupling has occurred.
By aligning with the US Empire, the European leadership has detached its personal fortunes from the European economy. They have transformed themselves into Compradors—local managers acting on behalf of an external Imperial power, charged with managing the extraction and pacification of their own territory for the benefit of the Core."
The ruling class also have learned the art of depoliticization and sherking accountability. They more the rulers become an amorphous blob, ostensibly devoid of sovereignty, the less culpable they can claim to be, the less moral responsibility they feel weighed under by, and the ever more decrepit and immoral they can go about their lives.
In today's complex world, an actual sovereign faces the severe problem of getting held accountable for "the economy" and having no clue what to do about it, even if they're a good person. That's largely because they've got macroeconomics backwards. (Forget about "security", that's superficial compared to the true horrors of the costs of unemployment and consequent social pathologies.) It need not be a crushing burden to call oneself or governemtn to account, if one has democratic backing and "sovereign" power, you just need to send tax credits to those most in need, giving them meaningful non-bullsh1t work --- which is abundantly available, since we wake up every day to severe labour shortages --- (no tax payer is involved in funding an accounting entry) and take the tax credits off the rich (not to fund anything, but just because they are way too rich, and likely "stole" their tax credits by underpaying workers or charging insane rents).
Nel, excellent and rigorous analysis. It confirms many of the structural mechanisms we have both described — from soft power and cultural dependency to hard military integration.
Understanding these layers of influence and cultural colonialism is essential, as outlined in Good Morning, Europa: A Suicide Note – and a Survival Guide. ttps://www.amazon.de/dp/B0G1LYRP1S
But analysis alone risks becoming a spectator sport. Without civic action and democratic verification, nothing changes.
Libertas Europa is an attempt to move from diagnosis to sovereignty of each of us. https://libertaseuropa.eu/
Brilliant, Nel. I think the way you outlined the cognitive structures is exceptionally valuable so thank you, and please keep doing so. If anyone in a position of power is going to dismantle the bunker they will need this kind of analysis to counter the tactics, habits of mind and orientations as you say. They will need someone to point out it is a habit or an illusion or a thinking trap to say that Europe "cannot unplug from the USA." And here too the transatlantic elites have been "living a lie"
You also mentioned Elbridge Colby and I observed two things in his interview.
First, speaking as an ex-bureaucrat, he was deeply unimpressive. It is an intuition, but his capability does not merit his reputation as "the brains of the Trump." He is a spruiker of postures and illusory cognitive frameworks, not real strategies. This also reflects something about the orientation framework of the US elite and how they arrive in power. They get into office through oligarchical money, celebrity and patronage, not the long hard boring through institutions (as I think Weber said somewhere). To me they are all bureaucratic amateurs attempting to run a world system with thoughtless 'strategies.' That seems a difference with at least some of the European elite, who have been sidelined in recent years.
But more objectively, he also explicitly disavowed the idea that the USA is pursuing 'spheres of influence'. No he said, in as many words our strategy remains global dominance. We are just asking our 'wealthy allies to put up more.' USA sees Europe as a forward base for global expansion, and is indeed dependent on all those bases, systems and technological infrastructure to project power into Eurasia.
Part of the USA's embedded and embodied assumptions is that it is responsible for running this global system that rests on a very real physical, social and cultural 'Partition of Eurasia' (not just Europe but West Asia and the West Pacific), that it is 'running the world' as Joe Biden said, and that Europe needs to 'play its role'.
And this makes threats to abandon Europe empty because the USA will never willingly leave Europe because then their global offensive military presence around the world, most crucially in the West Pacific would begin to unravel cognitively and diplomatically
This is where I think there is tension between different factions within the USA and the EU about how Europe should 'play its role' that are more than simulated performance. The dominant group at MSC did seem to be the Europe will 'step up' (and give in to extortion) to spend more on US offence. But there also seem to be some thinking Europe should defend itself, and some thinking yet Rubio, Vance and Trump are right and we should recommit to the US's reconquista for Christian conservative values.
And then there are a few who say well maybe a different kind of Europe can be neutral and unplug from the USA because the USA does not have the brains, money or tact to 'run the world'. Thanks to you there is hope that history will favour the last brave group. 🙏
Thank you so much for this thoughtful comment, Jeff! I completely agree with your assessment across the board.
Your observation about the current state of US bureaucratic and political elites is spot on. In fact, I wrote an essay a while back titled "Incompetent or Imperial?" that points directly to what you are arguing here. They often lack that "long hard boring of hard boards" (great Weber reference, by the way!) and operate more on patronage, celebrity, and illusory postures than on actual grand strategy. I will definitely need to do a bit more research on Colby specifically, but it is highly realistic to assume that he isn't some grand mastermind, either.
I also completely agree regarding the factions and the reality of the US strategy. The US absolutely needs Europe as a forward base to project power into Eurasia, which makes their threats of "abandonment" largely empty. The entire policy and research field of "burden sharing and burden shifting" exists precisely to figure out how to overcome any types of allied resistance and lock them into this role to serve US strategic goals. (A topic in the works since at least the fall of the Berlin Wall.)
As for the hope for a neutral Europe: for an effective decoupling to actually take place, it would require a profound "change of heart" (and a complete cognitive reorientation) among the functional elites across the entirety of Europe. Unfortunately, I just don’t see that happening at the moment. But whatever happens and unravels in this geopolitical scenario, it is ultimately a question of time. For better or for worse.
'USA sees Europe as a forward base for global expansion..'
I believe it sees in Europe a great deal more than that... A captive market, yes. A platform and springboard for moving against Eurasia, yes.
But a battleground too..First and foremost it will be a battleground.. Rubio's remark: 'sacred defense of a way of life'. Carefully chosen words ( I doubt by him of course..)
This is clearly to be exploited within NATO's area of influence and there are huge profits to be made in 'keeping the peace' in Europe and especially the UK. The AI and surveillance companies like Palantir etc are hoovering up massive contracts.. Civil disobedience from populations who feel abused and ignored and who are already deeply divided is only likely to increase..
About your question about the value of thought experiments I have to say that they’re very useful to me. I can see what’s going on but I need to have a deeper understanding of cause and conditions. It helps clarify the mind and also to humanise the processes which victimise us, the people at the bottom.
I particularly value the attention to historical context. It gives me some hope that the essential differences between modern Europeans and the America-transplanted variety will eventually be a factor of moderation for the runaway mega capitalist project the US is.
What I think has happened to the “white races” (I apologise) is the cultural equivalent of genetic inbreeding. The west has become a cultural monster because the anglosaxon gene, as represented by the European alpha male of post colonial history (the US), has ruled the clan without any challenge for too long and now we’re all intermarrying cultural cousins.
This is showing in places like Hollywood’s cultural products, which are the result of a past arts heritage being plundered. I present the latest Wuthering Heights as evidence. American “art” raping its continental cousin and the offspring being accepted as its own by the European side of the family.
I’m Spanish you see, Galician to boot. Living in the UK for the last 33 years. I’m aghast at the path we’ve taken. It’s like I’ve landed in Mars.
Nel, Your framework is a great help in understanding all the murderous actions the combined west is undertaking. How the whole west came together and collectively genocided Palestinians, destroyed Syria, on its way to trying to destroy Iran, Venezuela, etc.. it’s just naked white supremacy at the end of the day and it’s frightening. But the meta framework also manifests itself in friends and family, I am often stunned at the interpretation of current world events that supposedly educated people articulate.
> I am often stunned at the interpretation of current world events that supposedly educated people articulate.
The destruction of higher education and the cultural and intellectual erosion of the population, with no exception for the "highly educated" and creative classes (to the contrary), has ensured their naive imbecilic interpretations.
School, Wikipedia, Social media, streaming and mainstream TV and pop, and now AI, all helped in that.
Just to zoom into one part, it was interesting that you pointed out how the US, based on a historically deficient viewpoint, addresses it's interactions with the world (including Europe) as zero sum, while according to you Europe up until a couple of decades ago had viewed things more as a balance of power.
Here I might differ, and point out that the fascist regimes that left Europe in flames a century ago, also had this zero sum view of the world and also were rather historyless, which is partly what led to their folly in attacking Russia.
And here we are once again with the same signals: Rubio rallying Europe around a fascist belief system, to do what? To attack Russia, based on the same zero sum, colonialist, imperialist view from the 1930s and 1940s.
History may not repeat itself exactly, but this is a monumental and avoidable car crash. With utterly predictable results.
And am glad you detailed some possible tools for cleaning out people's minds so we can shift course.
I see this inability to imagine a different power structure in the community around me in Canada. As our sovereignty is actively threatened the people around me cannot compute any possible weaknesses in American or NATO dominance.
Thank you for your brilliant analysis. It resonates powerfully with my view of what is happening at present in Finland. Bunker State and it’s metaframework are pressed violently on us by our extreme rightwing government. People are starting to have doubts about the quality of security NATO is offering to our country.
Hi Nel, thank you very much for the new Wordlines essay. I'm feeling highly related to the "Closing Thoughts & Musings" part. It's always that question isn't it? I just would like to say that reading your essay bring me clarity on my jumbled view of the current geopolitics landscape. I understand that certain party wants to do this and that with a certain background through what's happening in the world. However, the historical context and scientific viewpoint is not that easy to be understood. So, here I am reading your wordlines series, and I hope that you find pride and joy in your craft.
Nevertheless,100% agree that we must create counter-milieus, a counter space. It can be done, but it requires hard work, especially from the party who are aware of it. One statement that is prominently being abused in my country, to shift responsibility from ourselves, the normal citizen, to keep us apart from each other, is this : why me? Why not someone else? Why not the government? This question is the manifestation of the whole propaganda and brainwash of the elites, which is, ironically, further enhanced by ignorance. This lullaby hypnotize neutral but struggling people into believing that it is alright to leave your fate in the hand of some handful of "responsible people" and focus on survival because it is hard enough just to survive. Of course it is hard when the survival condition is by design. The narrative is always either you resist (and suffer even more) and die, keep quite and hope that you survive, or worse, be part of the "winner." While in fact, the only way to survive IS by resisting.
This bring me to my final point about the whole echo camber of MSC. Pardon me of my simplification but it is ironic to see that some party in MSC feels like they are still part of the "cool kids." To me this is just desperation, or might even be a coping mechanism. It seems like it is so devastating and impossible to acknowledge that they are now not so different with the countries they have colonized before. This denial then manifest into subservience to the US, all just to feed their "belief" and "ego" that they are different, that they are "chosen."
So the resistance must go on. Because in the end, it's not the elites that suffers, it's the normal citizens. I am always grateful for your essay and I believe this is part of that counter space that we desperately need right now.
González Laya actually tried to operate against US directives, moderately supporting West Sahara and linking to Algeria (what is arguably best regional policy for Spain, more so if suppossedly progressive, that's what I would pursue in any case). The crisis that got her fired and replaced by much more standard NATOist Albares happened because she allowed Polisario Front leader to be medically treated in Spain. Her replacement meant cutting economic (gas supply mainly) with Algeria and folding to US-led program of Moroccan annexation of West Sahara (which has like 90% of phosphate production on Earth in a single mine). So she knows for a fact that "we cannot unplug", she did try.
Note: the Morocco-US ties are at least as old as the failed decolonization of West Sahara in the 1970s; it was the USA which imposed to Spain (or rather to its fascist elites arrayed around the monarchic restoration) that illegitimate and anti-democratic cesion of the colony to Morocco. It's surely much older but I'd say that Morocco, like many other Arab tyrannies, has aligned with Great Britain for centuries: even as early as the Moroccan conquest of Songhai in the 1590s, which totally mimicked the Spanish and Portuguese destructive conquests overseas, just that in this case the "sea" was the "sea of sand", the desert or in Arabic: the Sahara, and the "ships" were "the ships of the desert": camels). In those days England provided the cannons that Morocco's infamous Pasha Judar used to ravage the Songhai Empire and leave a power vacuum behind once the colonial looting was over.
Thank you, Luis. That's a highly relevant comment, because it does show that some, even if they would like to, cannot escape. And also it goes to show, that once the processes of integration (into infrasturctures and institutions) is in place, it is not as easy to break within the existing political system itself currently available in Europe.
Yes. West Sahara is barely discussed but it's extremely symptomatic. Here in "Spain" (I'm actually Basque but whatever), it's a more important issue, comparable to Palestine in many ways but felt more intensely most of the time because, well, when I was born 57 years ago Sahrawis were nominally as fully Spanish citizens as myself or anyone else. Most Sahrawis still speak Spanish as L2 and there's been big programs of aid to their refugee city in Tindouf (Algeria) and lots of vacation programs for Sahrawi children, etc. In the Spanish wider left, West Sahara is a big thing, a big injustice and a huge neglect, more so as the US considers Spain to be the actual colonial administrator until decolonization (from Morocco now) actually happens.
It's unclear if Morocco blackmailed Pedro Sánchez using the Israeli Pegasus spyware or if Uncle Sam directly forced him to shift position but what seems clear is that, some time later, when Algeria was about to declare war on Morocco (allegedly for Morocco backing terrorists in Algeria but definitely with West Sahara in the background), Israel threatened Algeria and they stopped the warmongering (Algeria is much more powerful than Morocco in terms military, also much more progressive and about the only country in our region that genuinely stands with the good causes like Sahara or Palestine, they're like a mini-Russia if Putin would be a social-democrat and would be angry at China selling drones to Morocco).
Everybody and their mum are a CIA asset, more or less. Including Santiago Armesilla who is a "rojipardo" (red-brown = fascist pretending to be communist).
I'll continue the bit of discussion we started yesterday. But to start with, I invite you to read this analysis of Rubio's speech which I produced on Sunday:
I make a point in it, about a point Rubio made as to why when Trump is harsh on Europeans, saying it's because he loves them so much. I paraphrased it as
"Dear child, if mummy and daddy insult you and hit you, it's because they love you so much!"
And I described this, in French, as pervert discourse. In American English, one would be using the phrase "toxic parentality"
This is excatly the point you make about conditionality: conditional love is a classic manipulation technic by toxic, pervert parents who abuse their children. And it is indeed the technic being used right now by the Trumpists on European elites.
.
I also very much share your idea of the US building security cushions on the borders of their Empire. This relates to several conclusions I drew from the recently published US National Defense Strategy, a very short yet interesting document.
The main information in the NDS was contained in the plan to protect US interests in the Indo-Pacific by placing military assets strong enough to deter Chinese expansionism, but with these assets located outside the First Chain of Island. This was a notable shift in US posture, from describing direct war with China as "unavoidable" and moving US weapons ever closer to the CHinese mainland, to now retreating behind the First Chain, while asserting that the USA's ambition is merely to find a way to coexist with China and to establish profitable trade relations, as long as this guarantees US freedom of action in the Indo-Pacific, which US prosperity depends on.
This signalled acceptance by the US of the principles and lines of "coexistence" that Beijing has been offering for several years now. It was directly adressed to China's leaders and was meant to set the conditions for a recognition of China's sphere of influence, provided US freedom of seeking resources and trade in the Indo-Pacific was not diminished. Hence the retreat of US military assets on a line far enough from China as not to threan it; yet constituting strong enough a line of defense to prevent CHinese military expansion and control of sea lanes and resources.
The other major point of the NDS was the repeated demands adressed to Europeans on the one hand and East Asian allies on the other hand (Japan and South Korea) to become strong enough to insure their own security, while the US would keep providing support and detterence (nuclear detterence was never mentioned, but it was still in the background, with no signs that it could be withdrawn). I analysed this bit as the Empire ordering its vassals to guard the limes from barbarians. That is precisely the role you see being assigned to Europeans regarding Russia.
.
Nevertheless, I have this divergence we previously discussed.
To start with, I do not think the US want to be a threat to Russia, and I do not think they want Europe to remain at war with Russia. Trumpists are willing to recognize the Russian sphere of influence and to guarantee it. This includes ending the Ukrainian war, and making significant concessions to Russia to end it. The larger point is that Trumpists want a world with several empires, which would be both a guarantee of freedom for the powerful, and a much easier way to insure balance and stability for each of these empires, than a multilateral world. This is strictly what the announced in the months between Trump's election and his inauguration. Maps circulated, in which basically only Europe and Africa were zones of free hunting that did not belong to a sphere of influence.
Secondly, I am not convinced the US is seeking to maintain European unity, either under the EU or under NATO. I believe they are quite disposed to see those blocs crumble, as to rely only on those countries who ardently demand submission to their protectors. Those countries who may find enough "autonomy", or simply a sense of sovereignty, to say "no", will not be much of a problem, because they may still be involved in collective security. Rememeber, as a point of reference, that contrary to widespread belief, France never left NATO. After De Gaulle ordered US forces out of France in 1966 and withdrew from NATO's integrated military command, France still remained in the alliance, still commited its military and nuclear power to collective defense (but under strict French command), and in fact, France was the first country to offer the US support in 2001...
The issue for the Trump administration is that they'd be better off with easily compliant subordinates. Those who can pull themselves to the level of (more or less) autonomous partners are more easily adressed by allowing them to reach that status than by keeping them in a nursery with the others, where they might voice disagreement and slow down plans from the boss.
In the event that some of those countries may seek to extract from the US sphere of influence, there will still be a large set of means to pressure them or to overthrow governments seeking to move too far away from US interests.
.
As I see it, Trumpists are moving the way you've demonstrated with the example of the Munich Conference, because they cannot yet cause shock among European elites by laying down the full plan to withdraw threats to Russia, as to make Russia an occasional partner among the few great empires that Trumpists envision. A shock of this nature may cause rebellion and may drive Europe to seeking autonomous power status.
I believe you are right to conclude that the US want to retain the strategic control they need in Europe. But this does not equal complete control over the whole of Europe.At least, not yet. Trumpists are aware that not all European countries are as ripe, and some cannot be pick up for now. The best assets for the US strategy are in Central and Northern Europe, with germany as the best platform to serve as a base of operation.
But countries like France or Spain are much more uncertain. Both may experience some form of uprising if they are not treated carefully, due to widespread anti-americanism and desire for sovereign foreign policies among their populations. The elites their do not have a guaranteed hold on their nations. It will be safer to give them a looser leash and to try and shorten it later.
This would bring the added benefit of dismantling the EU, whose legal framework is a major obstacle, even though in terms of elite control it's proven to be a great tool for US strategy. That is because if you attempt to reverse the EU's legal upholding of post-WW2 principles, you will again produce popular uprisings against it and therefore, against pro-US elites. Break the EU first, and see most of Europe run under Auntie Sam's petticoat...
I found myself utterly speechless listening to Rubio. And appalled. But surprised? No.
I would add another dimension to your analysis of the episteme. This phrase from Rubio:
“How do we do our part in the sacred defense of our way of life?”
It will not have gone unremarked by all the various populations within the NATO area (as well as the MSC audience) that everywhere their 'way of life' is being challenged and is in need of 'sacred defense'...
I refuse to believe that this was delivered without fully understanding the cultural and religious divides that have been created by the influx of immigrants fleeing from the wars these same NATO elites have pursued for decades.
It was not delivered unknowingly, but to my mind deliberately and provocatively. It was made to appeal to the growing nationalist movements. Movements superficially criticized by most European governments but nevertheless relentlessly activated by their own divisive policies.
I do not believe that Rubio's speechwriters will not have known this.
In other words there is not only warmongering against rival external powers, but against rival cultures and religions within the NATO nations themselves. All against a backdrop of crumbling economies...Rearmament will suck away vital funds that could help improve the economic situation. Divisions and resentments are only bound to worsen.
Chaos at home will be met with by IDF-trained militarised police and security services, supported by technological surveillance and crackdowns against 'disinformation and misinformation'.
We are witnessing the beginning of another deliberately manufactured authoritarian crackdown. But this time it is set to usher in a neo-feudal biosecure technocratic panopticon.. In practical terms, it is already in place.
I believe European elites are unwilling to un-plug (de-plug is a horrible neologism that doesn't exist this side of the pond) because without US technology and help they are terrified that there could be major revolutions to depose them once and for all...
NATO is not a defensive alliance. It's a mafioso style protection racket..
Thanks for this. An uncommon, much needed analysis. The observations around orientation frameworks and the meta-framework, are particularly useful, I think.
I very much liked this part of your concluding remarks: "We must create counter-milieus. We must create spaces in which people have different experiences, go through different biographies, develop different dependencies. We must build alternative conjunctive spaces where new orientation frameworks can grow, because they are lived into being." The spaces needed are both physical and shared conversations, your posts a fine example.
Thanks for your helpful research into Military Elite's Mental Bubble.
You ask the question: "Why do highly educated European elites actively cheer for the destruction of their own sovereignty?" Allow me to draw your attention to Steven Newbury's analysis of the same question:
"When the European elite gave a standing ovation to Marco Rubio’s ‘love letter to colonial conquest’ in Munich, many observers were baffled. Why would the leaders of the EU—a project ostensibly built on peace and sovereignty—cheer for a speech that reduced them to junior partners in a US resource raid?
The answer lies in a brutal class distinction. The European elite are not confused; they are calculating. They have recognised that the European Material Base (industry, cheap energy, the welfare state) is collapsing due to the loss of Russian gas and the thermodynamic reality of the Resource Entropy Singularity [shrinking energy returns on energy investments].
Faced with a dying host, the parasite seeks a new one.
When the internal energy surplus collapses, the cost of maintaining the social contract—democracy, the welfare state, and industrial employment—becomes thermodynamically unaffordable. The elite are then faced with an existential binary choice. They can either sink with their population by attempting to maintain the welfare state on a shrinking energy budget, or they can decouple.
The applause in Munich signals that the decoupling has occurred.
By aligning with the US Empire, the European leadership has detached its personal fortunes from the European economy. They have transformed themselves into Compradors—local managers acting on behalf of an external Imperial power, charged with managing the extraction and pacification of their own territory for the benefit of the Core."
https://theuaob.substack.com/p/the-comprador-calculus-why-europes
The ruling class also have learned the art of depoliticization and sherking accountability. They more the rulers become an amorphous blob, ostensibly devoid of sovereignty, the less culpable they can claim to be, the less moral responsibility they feel weighed under by, and the ever more decrepit and immoral they can go about their lives.
In today's complex world, an actual sovereign faces the severe problem of getting held accountable for "the economy" and having no clue what to do about it, even if they're a good person. That's largely because they've got macroeconomics backwards. (Forget about "security", that's superficial compared to the true horrors of the costs of unemployment and consequent social pathologies.) It need not be a crushing burden to call oneself or governemtn to account, if one has democratic backing and "sovereign" power, you just need to send tax credits to those most in need, giving them meaningful non-bullsh1t work --- which is abundantly available, since we wake up every day to severe labour shortages --- (no tax payer is involved in funding an accounting entry) and take the tax credits off the rich (not to fund anything, but just because they are way too rich, and likely "stole" their tax credits by underpaying workers or charging insane rents).
Nel, excellent and rigorous analysis. It confirms many of the structural mechanisms we have both described — from soft power and cultural dependency to hard military integration.
Understanding these layers of influence and cultural colonialism is essential, as outlined in Good Morning, Europa: A Suicide Note – and a Survival Guide. ttps://www.amazon.de/dp/B0G1LYRP1S
But analysis alone risks becoming a spectator sport. Without civic action and democratic verification, nothing changes.
Libertas Europa is an attempt to move from diagnosis to sovereignty of each of us. https://libertaseuropa.eu/
Brilliant, Nel. I think the way you outlined the cognitive structures is exceptionally valuable so thank you, and please keep doing so. If anyone in a position of power is going to dismantle the bunker they will need this kind of analysis to counter the tactics, habits of mind and orientations as you say. They will need someone to point out it is a habit or an illusion or a thinking trap to say that Europe "cannot unplug from the USA." And here too the transatlantic elites have been "living a lie"
You also mentioned Elbridge Colby and I observed two things in his interview.
First, speaking as an ex-bureaucrat, he was deeply unimpressive. It is an intuition, but his capability does not merit his reputation as "the brains of the Trump." He is a spruiker of postures and illusory cognitive frameworks, not real strategies. This also reflects something about the orientation framework of the US elite and how they arrive in power. They get into office through oligarchical money, celebrity and patronage, not the long hard boring through institutions (as I think Weber said somewhere). To me they are all bureaucratic amateurs attempting to run a world system with thoughtless 'strategies.' That seems a difference with at least some of the European elite, who have been sidelined in recent years.
But more objectively, he also explicitly disavowed the idea that the USA is pursuing 'spheres of influence'. No he said, in as many words our strategy remains global dominance. We are just asking our 'wealthy allies to put up more.' USA sees Europe as a forward base for global expansion, and is indeed dependent on all those bases, systems and technological infrastructure to project power into Eurasia.
Part of the USA's embedded and embodied assumptions is that it is responsible for running this global system that rests on a very real physical, social and cultural 'Partition of Eurasia' (not just Europe but West Asia and the West Pacific), that it is 'running the world' as Joe Biden said, and that Europe needs to 'play its role'.
And this makes threats to abandon Europe empty because the USA will never willingly leave Europe because then their global offensive military presence around the world, most crucially in the West Pacific would begin to unravel cognitively and diplomatically
This is where I think there is tension between different factions within the USA and the EU about how Europe should 'play its role' that are more than simulated performance. The dominant group at MSC did seem to be the Europe will 'step up' (and give in to extortion) to spend more on US offence. But there also seem to be some thinking Europe should defend itself, and some thinking yet Rubio, Vance and Trump are right and we should recommit to the US's reconquista for Christian conservative values.
And then there are a few who say well maybe a different kind of Europe can be neutral and unplug from the USA because the USA does not have the brains, money or tact to 'run the world'. Thanks to you there is hope that history will favour the last brave group. 🙏
If Europe
Thank you so much for this thoughtful comment, Jeff! I completely agree with your assessment across the board.
Your observation about the current state of US bureaucratic and political elites is spot on. In fact, I wrote an essay a while back titled "Incompetent or Imperial?" that points directly to what you are arguing here. They often lack that "long hard boring of hard boards" (great Weber reference, by the way!) and operate more on patronage, celebrity, and illusory postures than on actual grand strategy. I will definitely need to do a bit more research on Colby specifically, but it is highly realistic to assume that he isn't some grand mastermind, either.
I also completely agree regarding the factions and the reality of the US strategy. The US absolutely needs Europe as a forward base to project power into Eurasia, which makes their threats of "abandonment" largely empty. The entire policy and research field of "burden sharing and burden shifting" exists precisely to figure out how to overcome any types of allied resistance and lock them into this role to serve US strategic goals. (A topic in the works since at least the fall of the Berlin Wall.)
As for the hope for a neutral Europe: for an effective decoupling to actually take place, it would require a profound "change of heart" (and a complete cognitive reorientation) among the functional elites across the entirety of Europe. Unfortunately, I just don’t see that happening at the moment. But whatever happens and unravels in this geopolitical scenario, it is ultimately a question of time. For better or for worse.
'USA sees Europe as a forward base for global expansion..'
I believe it sees in Europe a great deal more than that... A captive market, yes. A platform and springboard for moving against Eurasia, yes.
But a battleground too..First and foremost it will be a battleground.. Rubio's remark: 'sacred defense of a way of life'. Carefully chosen words ( I doubt by him of course..)
This is clearly to be exploited within NATO's area of influence and there are huge profits to be made in 'keeping the peace' in Europe and especially the UK. The AI and surveillance companies like Palantir etc are hoovering up massive contracts.. Civil disobedience from populations who feel abused and ignored and who are already deeply divided is only likely to increase..
Wow. What to say. Masterly.
About your question about the value of thought experiments I have to say that they’re very useful to me. I can see what’s going on but I need to have a deeper understanding of cause and conditions. It helps clarify the mind and also to humanise the processes which victimise us, the people at the bottom.
I particularly value the attention to historical context. It gives me some hope that the essential differences between modern Europeans and the America-transplanted variety will eventually be a factor of moderation for the runaway mega capitalist project the US is.
What I think has happened to the “white races” (I apologise) is the cultural equivalent of genetic inbreeding. The west has become a cultural monster because the anglosaxon gene, as represented by the European alpha male of post colonial history (the US), has ruled the clan without any challenge for too long and now we’re all intermarrying cultural cousins.
This is showing in places like Hollywood’s cultural products, which are the result of a past arts heritage being plundered. I present the latest Wuthering Heights as evidence. American “art” raping its continental cousin and the offspring being accepted as its own by the European side of the family.
I’m Spanish you see, Galician to boot. Living in the UK for the last 33 years. I’m aghast at the path we’ve taken. It’s like I’ve landed in Mars.
Nel, Your framework is a great help in understanding all the murderous actions the combined west is undertaking. How the whole west came together and collectively genocided Palestinians, destroyed Syria, on its way to trying to destroy Iran, Venezuela, etc.. it’s just naked white supremacy at the end of the day and it’s frightening. But the meta framework also manifests itself in friends and family, I am often stunned at the interpretation of current world events that supposedly educated people articulate.
> I am often stunned at the interpretation of current world events that supposedly educated people articulate.
The destruction of higher education and the cultural and intellectual erosion of the population, with no exception for the "highly educated" and creative classes (to the contrary), has ensured their naive imbecilic interpretations.
School, Wikipedia, Social media, streaming and mainstream TV and pop, and now AI, all helped in that.
Good points overall.
Just to zoom into one part, it was interesting that you pointed out how the US, based on a historically deficient viewpoint, addresses it's interactions with the world (including Europe) as zero sum, while according to you Europe up until a couple of decades ago had viewed things more as a balance of power.
Here I might differ, and point out that the fascist regimes that left Europe in flames a century ago, also had this zero sum view of the world and also were rather historyless, which is partly what led to their folly in attacking Russia.
And here we are once again with the same signals: Rubio rallying Europe around a fascist belief system, to do what? To attack Russia, based on the same zero sum, colonialist, imperialist view from the 1930s and 1940s.
History may not repeat itself exactly, but this is a monumental and avoidable car crash. With utterly predictable results.
And am glad you detailed some possible tools for cleaning out people's minds so we can shift course.
I see this inability to imagine a different power structure in the community around me in Canada. As our sovereignty is actively threatened the people around me cannot compute any possible weaknesses in American or NATO dominance.
You are such a brilliant writer! Thanks for this overview. It unveils the reality behind it all.
Once more, thank you for this brilliant piece, translated in French here : https://zanzibar.substack.com/p/munich-dans-le-bunker-la-simulation
Great piece!
Thank you for your brilliant analysis. It resonates powerfully with my view of what is happening at present in Finland. Bunker State and it’s metaframework are pressed violently on us by our extreme rightwing government. People are starting to have doubts about the quality of security NATO is offering to our country.
Hi Nel, thank you very much for the new Wordlines essay. I'm feeling highly related to the "Closing Thoughts & Musings" part. It's always that question isn't it? I just would like to say that reading your essay bring me clarity on my jumbled view of the current geopolitics landscape. I understand that certain party wants to do this and that with a certain background through what's happening in the world. However, the historical context and scientific viewpoint is not that easy to be understood. So, here I am reading your wordlines series, and I hope that you find pride and joy in your craft.
Nevertheless,100% agree that we must create counter-milieus, a counter space. It can be done, but it requires hard work, especially from the party who are aware of it. One statement that is prominently being abused in my country, to shift responsibility from ourselves, the normal citizen, to keep us apart from each other, is this : why me? Why not someone else? Why not the government? This question is the manifestation of the whole propaganda and brainwash of the elites, which is, ironically, further enhanced by ignorance. This lullaby hypnotize neutral but struggling people into believing that it is alright to leave your fate in the hand of some handful of "responsible people" and focus on survival because it is hard enough just to survive. Of course it is hard when the survival condition is by design. The narrative is always either you resist (and suffer even more) and die, keep quite and hope that you survive, or worse, be part of the "winner." While in fact, the only way to survive IS by resisting.
This bring me to my final point about the whole echo camber of MSC. Pardon me of my simplification but it is ironic to see that some party in MSC feels like they are still part of the "cool kids." To me this is just desperation, or might even be a coping mechanism. It seems like it is so devastating and impossible to acknowledge that they are now not so different with the countries they have colonized before. This denial then manifest into subservience to the US, all just to feed their "belief" and "ego" that they are different, that they are "chosen."
So the resistance must go on. Because in the end, it's not the elites that suffers, it's the normal citizens. I am always grateful for your essay and I believe this is part of that counter space that we desperately need right now.
González Laya actually tried to operate against US directives, moderately supporting West Sahara and linking to Algeria (what is arguably best regional policy for Spain, more so if suppossedly progressive, that's what I would pursue in any case). The crisis that got her fired and replaced by much more standard NATOist Albares happened because she allowed Polisario Front leader to be medically treated in Spain. Her replacement meant cutting economic (gas supply mainly) with Algeria and folding to US-led program of Moroccan annexation of West Sahara (which has like 90% of phosphate production on Earth in a single mine). So she knows for a fact that "we cannot unplug", she did try.
Note: the Morocco-US ties are at least as old as the failed decolonization of West Sahara in the 1970s; it was the USA which imposed to Spain (or rather to its fascist elites arrayed around the monarchic restoration) that illegitimate and anti-democratic cesion of the colony to Morocco. It's surely much older but I'd say that Morocco, like many other Arab tyrannies, has aligned with Great Britain for centuries: even as early as the Moroccan conquest of Songhai in the 1590s, which totally mimicked the Spanish and Portuguese destructive conquests overseas, just that in this case the "sea" was the "sea of sand", the desert or in Arabic: the Sahara, and the "ships" were "the ships of the desert": camels). In those days England provided the cannons that Morocco's infamous Pasha Judar used to ravage the Songhai Empire and leave a power vacuum behind once the colonial looting was over.
Thank you, Luis. That's a highly relevant comment, because it does show that some, even if they would like to, cannot escape. And also it goes to show, that once the processes of integration (into infrasturctures and institutions) is in place, it is not as easy to break within the existing political system itself currently available in Europe.
Yes. West Sahara is barely discussed but it's extremely symptomatic. Here in "Spain" (I'm actually Basque but whatever), it's a more important issue, comparable to Palestine in many ways but felt more intensely most of the time because, well, when I was born 57 years ago Sahrawis were nominally as fully Spanish citizens as myself or anyone else. Most Sahrawis still speak Spanish as L2 and there's been big programs of aid to their refugee city in Tindouf (Algeria) and lots of vacation programs for Sahrawi children, etc. In the Spanish wider left, West Sahara is a big thing, a big injustice and a huge neglect, more so as the US considers Spain to be the actual colonial administrator until decolonization (from Morocco now) actually happens.
It's unclear if Morocco blackmailed Pedro Sánchez using the Israeli Pegasus spyware or if Uncle Sam directly forced him to shift position but what seems clear is that, some time later, when Algeria was about to declare war on Morocco (allegedly for Morocco backing terrorists in Algeria but definitely with West Sahara in the background), Israel threatened Algeria and they stopped the warmongering (Algeria is much more powerful than Morocco in terms military, also much more progressive and about the only country in our region that genuinely stands with the good causes like Sahara or Palestine, they're like a mini-Russia if Putin would be a social-democrat and would be angry at China selling drones to Morocco).
Erratum: UN, not "US".
https://youtu.be/SQ_Sk8jHEYo
Everybody and their mum are a CIA asset, more or less. Including Santiago Armesilla who is a "rojipardo" (red-brown = fascist pretending to be communist).
Childish response but expected of a Basque
Racist, as expected from a follower of Arfmesilla. I have no choice but to block you.
Thanks Nel, that was a very enjoyable reading.
.
I'll continue the bit of discussion we started yesterday. But to start with, I invite you to read this analysis of Rubio's speech which I produced on Sunday:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/pierre-aycard-48954b53_mon-analyse-du-discours-de-marco-rubio-%C3%A0-activity-7428565357365334016-X445?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAtK_OkBkrYnTq4tLc-TxDE14iRB8s_JmWs
.
I make a point in it, about a point Rubio made as to why when Trump is harsh on Europeans, saying it's because he loves them so much. I paraphrased it as
"Dear child, if mummy and daddy insult you and hit you, it's because they love you so much!"
And I described this, in French, as pervert discourse. In American English, one would be using the phrase "toxic parentality"
This is excatly the point you make about conditionality: conditional love is a classic manipulation technic by toxic, pervert parents who abuse their children. And it is indeed the technic being used right now by the Trumpists on European elites.
.
I also very much share your idea of the US building security cushions on the borders of their Empire. This relates to several conclusions I drew from the recently published US National Defense Strategy, a very short yet interesting document.
The main information in the NDS was contained in the plan to protect US interests in the Indo-Pacific by placing military assets strong enough to deter Chinese expansionism, but with these assets located outside the First Chain of Island. This was a notable shift in US posture, from describing direct war with China as "unavoidable" and moving US weapons ever closer to the CHinese mainland, to now retreating behind the First Chain, while asserting that the USA's ambition is merely to find a way to coexist with China and to establish profitable trade relations, as long as this guarantees US freedom of action in the Indo-Pacific, which US prosperity depends on.
This signalled acceptance by the US of the principles and lines of "coexistence" that Beijing has been offering for several years now. It was directly adressed to China's leaders and was meant to set the conditions for a recognition of China's sphere of influence, provided US freedom of seeking resources and trade in the Indo-Pacific was not diminished. Hence the retreat of US military assets on a line far enough from China as not to threan it; yet constituting strong enough a line of defense to prevent CHinese military expansion and control of sea lanes and resources.
The other major point of the NDS was the repeated demands adressed to Europeans on the one hand and East Asian allies on the other hand (Japan and South Korea) to become strong enough to insure their own security, while the US would keep providing support and detterence (nuclear detterence was never mentioned, but it was still in the background, with no signs that it could be withdrawn). I analysed this bit as the Empire ordering its vassals to guard the limes from barbarians. That is precisely the role you see being assigned to Europeans regarding Russia.
.
Nevertheless, I have this divergence we previously discussed.
To start with, I do not think the US want to be a threat to Russia, and I do not think they want Europe to remain at war with Russia. Trumpists are willing to recognize the Russian sphere of influence and to guarantee it. This includes ending the Ukrainian war, and making significant concessions to Russia to end it. The larger point is that Trumpists want a world with several empires, which would be both a guarantee of freedom for the powerful, and a much easier way to insure balance and stability for each of these empires, than a multilateral world. This is strictly what the announced in the months between Trump's election and his inauguration. Maps circulated, in which basically only Europe and Africa were zones of free hunting that did not belong to a sphere of influence.
Secondly, I am not convinced the US is seeking to maintain European unity, either under the EU or under NATO. I believe they are quite disposed to see those blocs crumble, as to rely only on those countries who ardently demand submission to their protectors. Those countries who may find enough "autonomy", or simply a sense of sovereignty, to say "no", will not be much of a problem, because they may still be involved in collective security. Rememeber, as a point of reference, that contrary to widespread belief, France never left NATO. After De Gaulle ordered US forces out of France in 1966 and withdrew from NATO's integrated military command, France still remained in the alliance, still commited its military and nuclear power to collective defense (but under strict French command), and in fact, France was the first country to offer the US support in 2001...
The issue for the Trump administration is that they'd be better off with easily compliant subordinates. Those who can pull themselves to the level of (more or less) autonomous partners are more easily adressed by allowing them to reach that status than by keeping them in a nursery with the others, where they might voice disagreement and slow down plans from the boss.
In the event that some of those countries may seek to extract from the US sphere of influence, there will still be a large set of means to pressure them or to overthrow governments seeking to move too far away from US interests.
.
As I see it, Trumpists are moving the way you've demonstrated with the example of the Munich Conference, because they cannot yet cause shock among European elites by laying down the full plan to withdraw threats to Russia, as to make Russia an occasional partner among the few great empires that Trumpists envision. A shock of this nature may cause rebellion and may drive Europe to seeking autonomous power status.
I believe you are right to conclude that the US want to retain the strategic control they need in Europe. But this does not equal complete control over the whole of Europe.At least, not yet. Trumpists are aware that not all European countries are as ripe, and some cannot be pick up for now. The best assets for the US strategy are in Central and Northern Europe, with germany as the best platform to serve as a base of operation.
But countries like France or Spain are much more uncertain. Both may experience some form of uprising if they are not treated carefully, due to widespread anti-americanism and desire for sovereign foreign policies among their populations. The elites their do not have a guaranteed hold on their nations. It will be safer to give them a looser leash and to try and shorten it later.
This would bring the added benefit of dismantling the EU, whose legal framework is a major obstacle, even though in terms of elite control it's proven to be a great tool for US strategy. That is because if you attempt to reverse the EU's legal upholding of post-WW2 principles, you will again produce popular uprisings against it and therefore, against pro-US elites. Break the EU first, and see most of Europe run under Auntie Sam's petticoat...
Nicely constructed, Nel..
I found myself utterly speechless listening to Rubio. And appalled. But surprised? No.
I would add another dimension to your analysis of the episteme. This phrase from Rubio:
“How do we do our part in the sacred defense of our way of life?”
It will not have gone unremarked by all the various populations within the NATO area (as well as the MSC audience) that everywhere their 'way of life' is being challenged and is in need of 'sacred defense'...
I refuse to believe that this was delivered without fully understanding the cultural and religious divides that have been created by the influx of immigrants fleeing from the wars these same NATO elites have pursued for decades.
It was not delivered unknowingly, but to my mind deliberately and provocatively. It was made to appeal to the growing nationalist movements. Movements superficially criticized by most European governments but nevertheless relentlessly activated by their own divisive policies.
I do not believe that Rubio's speechwriters will not have known this.
In other words there is not only warmongering against rival external powers, but against rival cultures and religions within the NATO nations themselves. All against a backdrop of crumbling economies...Rearmament will suck away vital funds that could help improve the economic situation. Divisions and resentments are only bound to worsen.
Chaos at home will be met with by IDF-trained militarised police and security services, supported by technological surveillance and crackdowns against 'disinformation and misinformation'.
We are witnessing the beginning of another deliberately manufactured authoritarian crackdown. But this time it is set to usher in a neo-feudal biosecure technocratic panopticon.. In practical terms, it is already in place.
I believe European elites are unwilling to un-plug (de-plug is a horrible neologism that doesn't exist this side of the pond) because without US technology and help they are terrified that there could be major revolutions to depose them once and for all...
NATO is not a defensive alliance. It's a mafioso style protection racket..
Thanks for this. An uncommon, much needed analysis. The observations around orientation frameworks and the meta-framework, are particularly useful, I think.
I very much liked this part of your concluding remarks: "We must create counter-milieus. We must create spaces in which people have different experiences, go through different biographies, develop different dependencies. We must build alternative conjunctive spaces where new orientation frameworks can grow, because they are lived into being." The spaces needed are both physical and shared conversations, your posts a fine example.