Year: 2023

The Geostrategic Initiative is Gone

The unholy alliance of the Biden administration with the Republican neocons is in a sudden state of alarm and is inexplicably attempting to stir up the US citizenry for war with Russia.

You’ll recall in the last report I emphasized how the tone was now shifting to: “Russia will invade Europe next!” But even I didn’t expect them to run with that new narrative in such a provocative and alarmist way.

Now a new raft of reports and statements from the usual suspects gives us insight into how desperate the establishment warhawks representing MIC interests have really become.

First, these two videos. Biden openly says that American troops will have to fight Russian troops if Ukraine is not shored up immediately.

Kirby and Blinken stepped up the fearmongering as well, evoking spilled “American blood”:

They’re dialing up the fearporn to a hysteric level like never before:

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin warned Congress on Tuesday during a private briefing that if they do not pass more aid to Ukraine, it would “very likely” lead to U.S. troops fighting a war in Europe.

“If [Vladimir] Putin takes over Ukraine, he’ll get Moldova, Georgia, then maybe the Baltics,” House Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX) told The Messenger, after Austin and other senior Biden administration officials briefed House lawmakers on their request for more aid for Ukraine.

“And then the idea that we’ll have to put troops on the ground in Secretary Austin’s word was very likely,” McCaul added. “That’s what we’re trying to avoid.”

Recall in the last report I cited Moldova as precisely the next vector, given the sensitivity of the PMR pressure point for Russia. Most notable is his express use of the qualifier “very likely” to describe U.S. troops fighting on the ground. In fact, the U.S. has been preparing for this grand European war for a while now.

Establishment Alarmism in Overdrive, 8 December 2023

The political situation of the Kiev regime must be crumbling rapidly in Ukraine, and the hysteric tone of the rhetoric suggests that Russia has rebuffed the various settlement overtures that have been made to it. Recall that it wasn’t long ago that Kagan and the other leading neocons were calling for an end to hostilities on the Russian front in order to make a turn to the Chinese front possible. Then, Hamas and Israel opened up the Middle Eastern front.

So, how is it possible that fighting a three-front war is suddenly deemed better than fighting one on two fronts?

The logical answer is that the US no longer has the luxury of deciding upon how many fronts it is going to fight. It has entirely lost the geostrategic initiative due to the failure of its proxy in Ukraine, the weakness of its Greatest Ally in the Middle East, and the observable reluctance of its satrapies in Europe and Asia. On every front, it is the nationalist rebels against Clown World’s global empire who now are in control of what happens next.

And that is not a state to which the self-styled masters of the world have been accustomed for a very long time.

UPDATE: It should not be surprising that the strategists and politicians of Clown World do not recognize the limitations of the US military, given that the US military itself does not yet recognize them.

“You look at what is required to support Ukraine, look at what might be required to support our partner in Israel, and then, of course, you put Taiwan on top of that—we have the construct that we do with combatant commanders and the rest that should allow us to command and control those three things all at one time.”
—Admiral Christopher Grady, Vice Chairman, the Joint Chiefs of Staff

However, notice that the admiral used the term “command and control”. That means they do not have the men, the ships, the planes, or the missiles. They think they’re going to be able to fight two more proxy wars of the kind they have already lost in Ukraine.

I also think it’s a mistake to assume that the Sino-Russian alliance is incapable of opening more than the three obvious fronts. See: Niger, Venezuela.

DISCUSS ON SG

Taleb Admits the Obvious

One of the things I admire about NN Taleb is his ability, unlike most intellectuals, to openly and unashamedly admit that he was wrong about something. That’s one of the reasons I take him seriously even on those rare occasions when I think he has gotten it wrong.

I concede that @DavidSacks is correct about the relative strength of the parties in the Ukraine war, and I was WRONG. Russia is not as weak as it seemed; it has staying power. This means a settlement is the likely outcome.

And by “likely outcome” he means “the rational outcome”. But since NATO is, by most perspectives, an intrinsically irrational party, I wouldn’t place too much confidence in that. After all, what is the point in Russia signing a third Minsk agreement with parties who have repeatedly proven to be agreement-incapable?

Still, it’s good to see the more intelligent elements of the mainstream perspective beginning to understand that Russia was always going to win its war against NATO in Ukraine.

DISCUSS ON SG

Collecting the Library

For those who are interested in following along what Castalia is doing with the Library, we’re going to make a concerted effort to keep the Castalia Library Collectors group up to date. The group is approved admission only, so feel free to sign up and then request permission to join the group. Among other things, it has official lists of what the past and present subscription books are for Library/Libraria, History, as well as the non-subscription books.

And while it’s too soon to announce any specifics, I’m very pleased to be able to say we have reached agreements with three major publishers regarding books we plan to offer as separate subscriptions. In a few special cases, one book, or at most two books, in the series will be offered as part of either the Library or the History subscription, but in such cases we will design the book(s) in such a way as to make it clear to which subscription it belongs.

On the bindery front, we still have one final issue to resolve, and two issues that we believe are resolved, but must be further tested to ensure they are, in fact, resolved, before we declare it fully operational and begin work on Heidi (Deutsch) and the two Homers.

DISCUSS ON SG

Taxing Imaginary Money

Now, money is largely an illusion anyhow, so it’s not actually the stretch it might appear to be as the US Supreme Court contemplates giving the IRS the ability to tax theoretical gains that don’t actually exist yet.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the government, and allows it to redefine income to include any unrealized appreciation in any asset, then it will grant the Federal Government a new power to nationalize the entire asset stock of the nation. In hyperinflation, the only refuge people have is the ability to hold real assets and never sell them. But if the Federal Government can claim unrealized inflationary gains as being taxable income, then almost all Americans will be forced to sell their assets just to pay their tax liabilities. But with all assets up for sale at once, the most likely buyer will be the Federal Government itself, which will pay in near worthless paper. In one decision, the Supreme Court would have rendered the Constitution meaningless, effectively illuminated private property rights, and provided the Federal Government with the legal mechanism to pull off a communist revolution without having to fire a single shot.

This would be absolutely and utterly absurd, as well as rendering all taxation perfectly subjective, but then, so much of Clown World is that one can’t simply assume that the US Supreme Court will not find some emanation or penumbra that permits it to invent a new federal power.

I mean, why not simply allow people to book theoretical profits while they’re at it? Sure, you might have held on to the stock too long, but if we simply imagine that you had sold it when it was at its peak, then you’d have made a lot more money, which, if properly recognized, will permit you to stimulate the economy with your imputed profits.

Everybody wins!

DISCUSS ON SG

The Pulse of Fandom

Now that Bounding Into Comics has collapsed into convergence, a new champion arises from the ashes: FANDOM PULSE! The editor-in-chief, Jon del Arroz, puts out a call for writers and other volunteers.

Fandom Pulse is looking for writers! We’re building a pop culture site that’s explicitly right wing to fight the culture war against the fake news of CBR, Bleeding Cool, IGN, and others. The key is going to be content, and we need writers to help us get to the point where we have enough to compete. If you can write clear, consistent work on pop culture at about 500 words an article, please let me know. We’d love to have you. Send an email to fandompulse@gmail.com

It’s certainly off to an interesting start.

Snyder told Entertainment Weekly that he got the idea for Rebel Moon as a student in the late ‘80s. Creating a one-line pitch, he settled on “a ragtag team of warriors from different backgrounds assembled to fight for a common cause — but piloting spaceships and wielding laser guns instead of World War II bombers.”

His wife Deborah Snyder further reinforces the notion that Rebel Moon is totally original when she told EW that “Mostly everything right now is based on a book or based on a game. It’s a remake, or it’s a sequel,” and added, “There are very few times you get the opportunity to do something that’s wholly original.”

Now, the overall story of Snyder’s film has little to do with the book Rebel Moon, which is essentially a 90’s military SF take on Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I haven’t given the movie a moment’s thought; I just assumed Snyder thought, correctly, that it was a cool SF title. However, based on the description, it’s pretty clear that both the title and the core conflict of the movie were, at the very least, somewhat influenced by the novel written by The Original Cyberpunk and me. Which is fine, of course. It would be bizarre and hypocritical to insist it is not fitting that a work so clearly derivative of an earlier work should subsequently serve as the source of another derivative itself.

The lady would appear to be protesting both unnecessarily and just a little too much. After all, if it’s a farming colony planet that is rebelling, why is the film named Rebel Moon?

DISCUSS ON SG

The Essence of Rhetoric

As I have repeatedly pointed out to those who speak dialectic, there is no actual information content in rhetoric. Or, if you prefer, whatever perceived information content happens to appear in rhetoric is irrelevant. Consider the following example:

I’m in a weird situation. A new colleague joined and he refuses to use my pronouns or even my name. Instead, he refers to me as “my esteemed colleague”. I confronted him politely and just said something like “you are my colleague and I hold you in esteem hence my esteemed colleague”.

It’s bs, I can tell he’s just a transphobic pos he calls others by their names. I’m the only trans woman in the office and it’s really making me uncomfortable.

I even spoke to HR about this but they said they can’t do anything because “my esteemed colleague” is apparently not discriminatory.

It’s genuinely uncomfortable working with him because of this. It really gives me the creeps and makes me feel dehumanised.

Notice the way in which even a polite and positive form of address is effectively triggering of the target’s emotions when utilized in a manner that distinguishes itself from an ordinary form of address. So, there is absolutely no need for dialectical sperging over what the rhetoric actually means, much less how the use of the term makes the deliverer feel, because those two elements are unrelated to the intended objective of emotionally manipulating the target.

DISCUSS ON SG

The USN is Now Obsolete

Vladimir Putin makes it very clear that China, and most likely Iran as well, will be getting hypersonic missile technology.

Russia’s current relationship with China allows for full-spectrum cooperation in the tech sector, including with regards to its military applications, President Vladimir Putin told a Chinese entrepreneur on Thursday during a panel discussion at VTB Bank’s ‘Russia Calling!’ forum.

The remark was part of Putin’s answer to a question about US sanctions policy, which includes a ban on export of certain technologies to some nations, which, the Chinese businessman suggested, was forcing them to “reinvent the bicycle”. The Russian leader said such restrictions were not viable in the long run even before the world became profoundly interconnected…

Washington’s current policies are meant to preserve its dominant status, the Russian president claimed, but “if we act across the board, supporting and helping each other, no restrictions by whoever tries to keep its advantage can stop us.”

As for China specifically, Russia is ready to cooperate in every area, Putin assured.

“We have no limits. This includes the military sphere,” he said. “When it comes to security, we are moving away from the traditional ‘buy-sell’ kind of relationship. We think about the future, about technologies.”

Translation: Because, unlike the US and British empires, the Russian people are not seeking to unilaterally dominate the world, there is no reason not to share its advanced weapons technology with other powers that share the Russian objective to free itself from Clown World’s economic and military dominance.

DISCUSS ON SG