Thought I’d add my two cents (two more cents) to the conversation about UK and US elites, domestic politics and Canada’s place in all that. Really excellent discussion as per usual for MoA threads! Having witnessed the appointment of John Bolton as National Security Advisor… which led to Peter Donolo pleading in a BNN interview to advise Trump (offer declined?)… which resulted in the forcing of the Canadian government to kidnap Meng Wanzhou causing a crisis with China… which resulted in several outcomes one of which being London’s man (I speculate), Dominic Barton, replacing the Canadian government’s man (more speculation), John McCallum as Canadian Ambassador to China… here is what I conclude. London/the UK is effectively steering North America to utter chaos. Then they will call Russia and China. And offer to provide some desperately needed humanitarian assistance to get things back in order across the pond. Steady hand at the wheel. And so the big Canadian dogs run! They bark! But can they do anything about the caravan??

Posted by: Bruised Northerner | Oct 25 2021 23:53 utc | 104

Alastair Crooke’s latest is stunning in its clarity. I haven’t seen it linked here yet (and it amazes me that I could be in front of karlof1 in my reading list), so here goes.
Crooke draws largely from an article by Jeffrey Tucker of the Brownstone Institute (which is a wonderful site with great analysis), and surveys the damage of the last two years, in both the US and much of the world. Tucker’s source piece is an indictment of all the errors, and a situation report on specifically where the US is now – I recommend you click Crooke’s link to review that piece, which is actually quite short, as disaster reports often are.
Crooke takes this and adds his own things, and into his essay injects a continual refrain: “Was this all intended as an end in itself?”
His other refrain throughout his reprise of the several hapless initiatives is that none of it has worked, none of it is working, and none of it can work.
Anyone outside of the damage zone – in China and Russia, for example – is simply watching and doing nothing, holding breath if anything, while the structures of the US and the West and Davos all crack.
Waiting Upon Structures to Crack – Alastair Crooke

Looked at in this way, we can perceive not just ‘one failure’ – that a V-shaped recovery on re-start, was presented as gospel – but rather, a series of related judgmental ‘failures’. These may give the appearance of being a troupe of wandering errors of well intentioned, yet flawed analysis, though in fact, they were always connected by being conceived at the outset as ends in, and of themselves.
The commonality to these ‘errors’ lies with their being of ‘one project’ – being of one ‘genus’ – and not simply being a string of accidents of error.

It’s not a happy story for those of us in the US. But I must be happy for the world. We always said we would accept the end of America if it meant the saving of the world.

Posted by: Grieved | Oct 26 2021 2:50 utc | 106

Vaccination as a proxy for political loyalty
Above quote is from your link, Grieved (Posted by: Grieved | Oct 26 2021 2:50 utc | 106)
And if vaccination didn’t filter and separate out the ‘unclean’ from the ‘clean’
booster shots certainly will (or would that be booster1, booster2, booster3…).
The context for the above was this:

No vax, no job? The unvaxed have become ‘the enemy’, in exactly the way that philosopher Carl Schmitt said that casting an ‘enemy’ is supposed to work: the assignment of a label so black and so unremittingly ‘other’ that mediation with such ‘monsters’ ‘who put the lives of others at risk’ becomes inconceivable. Such black and white Manicheanism is the essence of politics, Schmitt wrote approvingly. In Italy, for example, representatives of the political, medical and media establishment have openly accused the unvaccinated of being “rats”, “subhumans” and “criminals”, who deserve to be “excluded from public life” and “from the national health service” and even deserve to “die like flies”.
Is this another failure of thinking clearly? The inability of leaders to comprehend how such language tears society apart; that a society will not return to normal social and functioning, directly on the Green Pass ‘switch’ being turned off (if it ever is)?
Or, is it an end in itself? – Vaccination as a proxy for political loyalty – the majority defining itself in polar opposition to a demonized minority: ‘Holding the wrong political ideology makes you unclean’. You should be purged. Perhaps that is why the Biden administration is also not concerned about mass firings (and its economic disruptions) – because It helps purify the country of Trump-supporting recalcitrants?

Posted by: librul | Oct 26 2021 4:08 utc | 108

Below is a short Xinhuanet posting….wonder what was said?
”
BEIJING, Oct. 26 (Xinhua) — Chinese Vice Premier Liu He, a member of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee and chief of the Chinese side of the China-U.S. comprehensive economic dialogue, held a video conversation with U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen on Tuesday morning.
The two sides conducted practical, candid, and constructive exchanges on macroeconomic situation and bilateral and multilateral cooperation.
The two sides agreed that as the world economic recovery is at a critical juncture, it is important for China and the United States to strengthen macro policy communication and coordination.
The Chinese side expressed concern over issues including the lifting of additional tariffs and sanctions by the U.S. side and fair treatment of Chinese enterprises.
The two sides also agreed to maintain communication.
”

Posted by: psychohistorian | Oct 26 2021 4:45 utc | 110

Below is a Xinhuanet posting about China and the new Afghanistan government
”
DOHA, Oct. 25 (Xinhua) — Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi on Monday met with Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the acting deputy prime minister of the Afghan Taliban’s interim government, in the Qatari capital of Doha.
During the meeting, Wang said that Afghanistan, now standing at a critical stage of transforming from chaos to governance, is currently facing a historic opportunity to truly master its own destiny, achieve reconciliation and tolerance, and advance national reconstruction.
At the same time, Afghanistan is facing quadruple challenges, namely the humanitarian crisis, economic chaos, terrorist threats and governance difficulties, said Wang, adding that overcoming these challenges requires more understanding and support from the international community.
Wang expressed his hope that the Afghan Taliban will further demonstrate openness and tolerance, unite all ethnic groups and factions in Afghanistan to work together for peaceful reconstruction, and effectively protect the rights and interests of women and children.
The Chinese official also urged the Taliban to adopt a friendly policy toward its neighboring countries, and build a modern country that conforms to the wishes of the people as well as the trend of the times.
China always respects Afghanistan’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, and supports the Afghan people to independently determine their own destiny and choose the development path, said Wang.
China, which has never interfered in the internal affairs of Afghanistan and never sought selfish gains or a sphere of influence, firmly pursues a friendly policy toward all the people of Afghanistan, and supports the efforts to restore stability and rebuild the country, the Chinese diplomat said.
Attaching importance to the humanitarian difficulties facing Afghanistan at present, China urges the United States and the West as a whole to lift sanctions, and calls on all parties to engage with the Afghan Taliban in a rational and pragmatic manner to help Afghanistan embark on a path of healthy development, Wang noted.
He expressed China’s willingness to continue to provide humanitarian aid to Afghanistan within its capacity and work with the international community to help Afghanistan alleviate temporary difficulties and realize economic reconstruction as well as independent development.
Wang emphasized that the “East Turkestan Islamic Movement” (ETIM), an international terrorist organization listed by the UN Security Council, not only poses a real threat to China’s national security and territorial integrity, but also jeopardizes the domestic stability and long-term stability in Afghanistan.
He said that he hopes and believes that the Afghan Taliban will make a clean break with the ETIM and other terrorist organizations, and take effective measures to resolutely crack down on them.
For his part, Baradar briefed Wang on the current situation in Afghanistan, which he said is under control and improving, with the governments at all levels being gradually established and government decrees being carried out effectively.
The Afghan interim government is working hard to meet the needs of the people, and will learn from its historical experience to take a development path in line with its national conditions, said Baradar.
It has taken and will continue to take inclusive measures to expand the representation of the regime, he said, citing that most officials and technocrats of the former government have stayed in office, and more talents of all ethnic groups will be recruited to participate in the state governance in the future.
Meanwhile, Baradar said that the Afghan Taliban is willing to strengthen the efforts to protect the rights and interests of women and children, and will not deprive them of the rights to education and work.
For now, women in medical institutions, airports and other places have resumed their work, and girls in primary and secondary schools in many provinces have returned to school, but they still face difficulties such as lack of facilities and funds, the Taliban official said.
Baradar expressed the hope that China and the international community will increase assistance to Afghanistan to help it overcome the humanitarian crisis and return to the right track of development.
He also expressed thanks to China, an important neighbor of Afghanistan, for its respect and friendliness shown to Afghanistan during the difficult times.
Pursuing a friendly policy toward China is the firm choice by the Afghan Taliban, which hopes to strengthen cooperation with China in various fields, he said.
The Afghan Taliban, which attaches great importance to China’s security concerns, will resolutely honor its promise and never allow anyone or any force to use the Afghan territory to harm China, Baradar added.
During his stay in Doha, Wang will also meet with Afghanistan’s acting Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi.
”

Posted by: psychohistorian | Oct 26 2021 5:04 utc | 112

I’m a long time reader and fan of MoA and the ‘bar’ but this is my first comment. I’m very appreciative of what
b brings and what the barflies contribute. It’s a great place to get the mind in gear while the ol’ bod responds to
a morning cuppa. So, thanks, all around!
Posted by: John Cleary | Oct 24 2021 19:42 utc | 19, and 93, 95, 96.
John Cleary, you have an interesting view and while I’m not an expert on the subject pf the British elite I like that you present a large picture. A few years ago I ran across a bio of Ho Chi Minh by one William Warbey, a former MP. Here’s a description (Ch. 5) he gives of your Foreign Office that I think pertains to what you’ve been saying:
“In order to explain the part played by the Foreign Office in Asian-Pacific affairs, we must briefly review the course of British foreign policy. The basic principles of the F.O. have been evolved during the three centuries which have elapsed since the free landowners of the English Parliament first invited a continental prince of Germanic origin to become Head of State. Unlike the native British princes and dukes and their continental equivalents, William of Orange did not possess any territory in the British Isles, and the English landed gentry rightly presumed that he would leave them to manage the internal affairs of England and Wales while he represented the nation in its dealings with foreign powers, defended it against foreign invasion and acquired some territory for himself at the expense of the Irish and of the Scottish Jacobins.
This mutually convenient arrangement, perpetuated in 1720 when the Hanoverian Georges took the place of the Dutch princes, laid the basis both for the division of powers within the State and for the guiding principles of British foreign, and later, imperial policy. As the Monarch acquired more overseas possessions, including the North American colonies, so his power grew again, and the King’s principal (or prime) minister, the First Lord of the Treasury, found himself involved in a constant battle with the titular Head of State over the conduct of the nation’s external affairs. By a strange irony of history, the Revolt of the American colonies and the subsequent Declaration of Independence so diminished the power of George III that the Prime Minister’s Cabinet was able to assume complete control of British home and foreign policy until the vast overseas possessions acquired for and on behalf of Her Imperial Majesty, Queen Victoria, again brought the Monarchy into a central position of power, only to be broken with the break-up of the British Empire itself. [My emphasis]
During this century-long heyday of British Cabinet Government (c. 1780-1880) the three main departments of state were created: the Home Department and the Foreign Department, each commanded by Secretaries of State directly responsible to the Monarch, and the Treasury with the First Lord (and Prime Minister) in supreme charge and effectively controlling all the other departments of state through his control of the nation’s (and the Monarch’s) purse-strings, and of parliamentary legislation.
From the first, however, the Foreign Office fought for, and established, an autonomous position within the whole apparatus of government. Its functions were those associated with the supreme national duty of preserving the state from foreign attack and of extending its boundaries, power, wealth and influence in a world composed of rival sovereign states. Traditionally in all sovereign states and empires created since the break-up of the Roman Empire, this duty has devolved upon the Supreme Head of State, whether known as King, Emperor or President. In England, it remains to this day a Royal Prerogative, exercised, on the advice of the Foreign Secretary, through Orders in Council and Ratifications of Treaties and Agreements with foreign powers and international organisations. All attempts made by the Liberal and Labour Parties to secure some degree of parliamentary control, or even of enlarged Cabinet control, over foreign, imperial and defence policy, have been still-born. It is for this reason that the traditional Tory or Conservative Party has been able to boast that whatever brand of government is in office at Westminster, its own men and its own policies continue to dominate the Foreign Office. [My emphasis]
This is the doctrine of “the continuity of foreign policy”. Denis Healey, who was to become Defence Minister in the 1964 Wilson Labour Government, reached similar conclusions during his post-war service at Transport House as head of the Labour Party’s International Department. In this position he established a close liaison with senior F.O. officials, exchanging confidential information with them and help¬ing to steer Ernest Bevin and the Labour Party away from their cherished notions of a new kind of foreign policy based on a peaceful alliance of socialist nations within a world federation founded on the San Francisco Charter into the safe harbour of N.A.T.O.”
Your comments on this, especially the parts I put in bold, would be welcomed. Thanks
waynorinorway

Posted by: Wayne Gilchrist | Oct 26 2021 6:02 utc | 114

Posted by: Grieved | Oct 26 2021 2:50 utc | 106
Thank you for the Crooke. I have always considered it quite obvious that the Bush-Cheney-Neocon plans were dumb as a brick in the sense that they never had any chance of succeeding, they made a lot of people consumer kings, but they have permanently and continually dissipated our national power and cohesion and influence. And they always double-down, as Crooke notes, when they fail.
And they NEVER learn from it. So that is how we got here. And they will not stop being more and more ridiculous until they are unable to any more. If we send Nuland to Moscow again, she will try to bully them again, and they will kick her out again.
And meantime the people who we have designated our enemies have been busy doing more productive things, as one might expect, if one was really all that smart.

Posted by: Bemildred | Oct 26 2021 8:09 utc | 116

@Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 25 2021 0:15 utc | 39
Hello Karl.
Just seen it this morning.
I’m not a historian, and I’ve been learning a great deal about how little I know about the past. So please bear that in mind when reading this.
The same names keep on appearing. I’ve seen stuff like this before. Balfour, Milner, Rhodes, Lloyd George, Bonar Law (more about him later).
Round Table, Mount Perelin, Pilgrim Society. All conspiracy theories (hah!).
But one important name does not appear!
I’ve come to realize that British Sovereigns are exactly like Black Holes.
You cannot see them directly. You can only identify them from their effects on other bodies. Other bodies that can be seen directly. As is the case here.
It is 1916. The War is going badly. The man who declared this war in 1914 is nowhere to be seen, busy changing his name so he can slough off his responsibility.
What you are seeing here is known as the “Charmed Circle”. It is from this circle that unknowns emerge to become Prime Minister. The most recent being Alec Douglas-Home in 1963 (following the Keeler/Rice-Davies scandals). But an earlier version, mentioned in the piece you link, was Andrew Bonar Law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonar_Law
His name has come up recently as the man most responsible for the partition of Ireland in 1921.
Here is Steve Bell’s take on a mini scandal where the President of Ireland refused to partake of a “celebration” of 100 years go Northern Ireland.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2021/oct/21/steve-bell-on-the-missing-guests-at-northern-irelands-centenary-cartoon
The Liberal Party had been seeking Home Rule for Ireland since Gladstone in the 1880’s. The third and final effort was this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Ireland_Act_1914
The name of Bonar Law came up as the man who did the most to block the legislation. The story is worth study – for example the British Army in the Curragh refused to implement the instructions of Parliament, and suffered no penalty. The Tories and the Orange Order waged guerrilla warfare against this bill UNTIL THE KING DECLARED WAR ON GERMANY.
Then, after the War, it was repealed and substituted by the Government of Ireland Act 1920, which instead of full home rule, partitioned the island of Ireland.
Thus the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northyern Ireland.
And the Treason Felony Act of 1848 was still extant! Which was all King George VI cared about.
And the Magic Circle reappeared, and gave this unknown his payoff.

He resigned on grounds of ill health early in 1921. In October 1922, with Lloyd George’s Coalition having become unpopular with the Conservatives, he wrote a letter to the press giving only lukewarm support to the Government’s actions over Chanak. After Conservative MPs voted to end the Coalition, he again became party leader and, this time, prime minister. Bonar Law won a clear majority at the 1922 general election, and his brief premiership saw negotiation with the United States over Britain’s war loans. Seriously ill with throat cancer, Law resigned in May 1923, and died later that year.

Posted by: John Cleary | Oct 26 2021 14:12 utc | 118