RUSSOPHOBIA AND THE MONROE DOCTRINE

4 October 2024

Two items to discuss today: russophobia and the Monroe Doctrine

It is a mystery to many level-headed people as to why there is so much russophobia amongst Western elites, why the West persists in a war which it has so little chance of winning and why the political West, led by America, would risk escalation as far as the use of nuclear weapons and humanity's obliteration, rather than get real, reconsider and negotiate.

In a previous article we concluded that there isn't enough debate in the mainstream Media on whether this war might in actual fact be unwinnable and on the counter arguments and alternative strategies to war. The alternative to an open and honest debate is the veil of propaganda that is thrown over us by the mainstream Media. 

The irony is that politicians responsible for decisions on War and Peace, get most of their information from the MSM itself, ie by reading the newspapers they are believed to dictate to. In a recent article in The London Times, it was even alleged that British Prime Minister Starmer had "faced down" (sic) his own foreign office who recommend against firing missiles into Russia proper. 

It seems that we are condemned to a doom loop where the MSM continues the propaganda in favour of war, the politicians read this and escalate further, and the mainstream Media comes in to support these political decisions... supporting Einstein's definition of madness.

We must not allow this deadly embrace between politicians and MSM to consign us to oblivion. Who is responsible for handicapping debate and preventing a peaceful resolution: is it the Mainstream Media or is it the politicians?

Conclusion

Take the Monroe Doctrine.

The Monroe Doctrine exemplifies America's long-standing ambition for global dominance, while its involvement in these endless wars highlights the persistent drive for control.

However, the rigid stance of Western politicians, or their so-called "resilience", in the face of harsh battlefield realities, reveals a stubborn inability to adjust to facts. 

Perhaps this is a manifestation of russophobia: that fear acquired in the 19th century when Britain was at the height of its power and felt threatened by Russia blocking their route to India, then in 1917 the Bolshevik revolution and a profound clash of ideologies, and more recently the Cold War and the West's push to get Russia out of Central Europe.

Rational leaders would surely recognise the growing opposition to their policies from the global South and the forces that are now building against them. Surely they see the need for a European security architecture ? Can European leaders not recognise the opportunities and benefits from commercial contracts with Russia? Of course they can, but politics first: must control, must dominate. Instead of clinging to failing policies and risking World War 3, politicians looking for success and recognition would surely seek compromise and negotiation.

Achieving a global consensus may be a more pragmatic approach to preserving influence in an increasingly multipolar world and may assure the politician of their page in history. What are the advisors telling them? Why are politicians ignoring the advisors?

Read More

WHAT'S WRONG WITH MACRON

1 Ocrober 2024

Macron completed a philosophy degree and for his Masters wrote a thesis on Machievelli and Hegel. In evaluating Macron, you have to start somewhere, so let's start with this fact.

As though the French aren't analytic enough, this will have made him even more academic and analytical when he examines problems. Doing Machiavelli will make him more pragmatic or we might say opportunistic or expedient. He flip-flops around like this, thinking he's being pragmatic and adaptable, but actually he comes across as weak, uncertain, uncommitted. 

And Hegel will have given him as the French call it "action-reaction" or dialectical thinking, where conflicting ideas lead to progress through synthesis. Hegel focused on history’s unfolding and the state’s role in actualising freedom, so this too may explain his pragmatic approach, balancing competing forces in society, such as globalisation versus national identity or reform and tradition. His belief in progress through dialogue and reform reflects Hegelian thought, as does his focus on long-term societal evolution. Macron’s appreciation for complexity and the interdependence of opposites, likely shapes his centrist policies, striving for unity in the centre ground, amidst political polarisation.

You can see this scheming mind at work when he made a deal with the Left grouping At the National Assembly elections to keep Le Pen out, even though he called the election in response to lapend's popularity in the previous European elections and despite the pen winning the popular vote. 

And once the Left had got the most seats, he then installed the tiny Centre-Right (his own party called Ensemble and a traditional though shrunken party called Les Republicans LR) into government, with Michel Barnier, highly competent manager, but puppet of the EU, as PM. The French currently appreciate barnier At the time of writing but you wonder whether this will last past his first mistake.

Maceon thinks he has the support of Le Pen's nationalists on account of the new governments anti-immigration policies. There's some truth in this as a third of the French voted mainly to keep immigrants out and even repatriate dual passport holders.

Anyway to continue the theme of evaluating Macron from rhe effect a philosophy Masters has had on his politics.. . 

You could say that these highly analytical and pragramatic stances, coming from his studies, have made him into a technocorat, which is something that people who are interested in politics don't like at all because it cleanses politics of ideological content and just puts economics, the interests of the elite and the status quo above truly "political" objectives, with the result that he come across as an insincere somewhat haughty propagandist ( I choose my words carefully, I did not say purveyor of snake oil).

Also from my own experience, if you see all sides of a question then you tend to develop pretty complicated solutions, to include risk mitigation, and this will definitely alienate you from the public who are drawn to simple goal-oriented, emotionally argues, headline answers and don't want all the intricacies of "project management" to do their heads in.

In addition, pragmatic usually means short term and yet France's problems are so profound they need real long-term commitment in the face of relentless opposition from all sides. Well he tried it with the pension reforms, didn't have enough grit, and backed away.

Like most western democracies, the publics are turning populist which means national sovereignty is a lot more appealing than joining international bodies like the EU. Yet Macron is a strong advocate of EU integration and a federalist Europe, for all the complicated reasons we can imagine.

Furthermore - and here it's a bit hard to express the argument - Macron is an internationalist and doesn't really seem to value the traditional side of French life. He may be with its culture but he's not with its history and traditions. When people think of the great presidents of France, those who led France through pivotal moments In its history and introduced lasting reforms and took a big place on the national and international stage, they think of two: de Gaulle and Mitterand. These people rang the national bell if you like and tapped into national feelings.

Macron is not really able to run France effectively it seems that his machinations have brought France to chaos. A true French president wouldn't spend all that time faking listening to the public and vacillating - a true French president would with clarion sonority identify the key issues the nation needs to tackle and would lead the people, as one, to the promised land, restore national pride (at the same time as the balance of payments) and tap into national narratives and sentiments to get there.

Read More