Read my insights into world history and geopolitics every week at jeffrich.substack.com. Join now for the deep dive into the post-1945 world for paid subscribers.
Hi Jeff. I love your videos and books that you recommend but sometimes (often, to be honest) I feel I lack knowledge to understand it. Could you please make a video about world history books 101, what to read, some textbooks of good quality? A lot of ideology in history so maybe direct us how to choose authors, give as some names. Thank you very much and keep going! Your channel is a gem!
I think the US decline is perceived because it's measured against well-being and development in other countries. That's a natural metric, but it's based on a wrong metaphysical understanding of the world. The US is not about social well-being; it is about power. There is a reason why its military spending is practically sacred. The debt fueled spending on "socialist" programs is coming to an end. US always had ghettos, shanty towns, and mass poverty and its fight against them was a temporary tactical decision in the cold war. As social discontent increases, we will see increased use of its power apparatus to get everyone in line.
very well said, well done. USA interference with Australia in the 1970s, the overthrow of the Australian government, USA support of Indonesia in the UN, and the USA instigated friction between Australia and Indonesia. The almost 40 billion dollar trade deficit, etc. Australians are very unaware of how aggressive and manipulative USA has been to Australia.
The US won the cold war against the USSR, largely because it was more effective at enlisting and mobilizing the production and accumulation structures of other countries - specifically, their established elites. In this sense, the US was favoured by the rest of the world (not a majority of populations, but a majority of power brokers). Today, the only accumulation they can promote is extractive, not productive. Privatization and liquidation of public assets, financialization etc. If China is the one willing to invest, and not preach austerity forever, who has the advantage?
Good points. This seems similar to Emmanuel Todd's argument that the USA and its Western allies have become parasitic, not productive societies. I am going to come back to the Cold War - and how it is similar/different to the situation today in some later videos. Thanks for this insightful comment
*WW1 was the biggest US "regime change operation" in history.* "If the Allies at the peace table at Versailles had allowed a Hohenzollern, a Wittelsbach and a Habsburg to return to their thrones, there would have been no Hitler." Winston Churchill, 26th April 1946 That short statement practically has "regime change" written all over it. That short statement also makes it clear what happens if one removes the gatekeepers (monarchy) of a political system from power, which then opens the door for all kinds of ideologues. They thought they could throw out the monarchs, and morph Germany into becoming "more like us" (old Roman technique of power), and there would be no consequences. Whatever they thought, one thing is clear: US think tanks who wrote the 14 Points Speech KNEW they were far enough away from Europe not to have to face any consequences should their own suggestions combined with the invariably following top-down implementations result in blowback (causality). So what had led Churchill to make such a statement? As part of the 14-Point Plan, Wilson demanded that Germany de-throne Wilhelm II, before any peace talks could begin. The Allies also refused a German delegation as part of the peace talks in 1919. WW1 was the USA's hitherto biggest "regime change operation" (Germany). Because here is what they tell you is history in thousands and thousands of books and docs: the "German people" or "German leaders" were the ones who "forced Wilhelm II into exile, or " forced the autocrats to abdicate because they were angry" or variations of that. Here is what they (usually) don't say (lie by omission): That it was the own side which had previously coerced other German leaders like Max von Baden into forcing the German government out of office, because that was a condition for armistice negotiations to take place. Here is the timeline of events: 1) Coerce German leaders to topple the current Berlin government. 2) German leaders realizing there was no alternative to stop the war, topple the current government. 3) Omit step 1) for the "narrative of WW1", or pretend it never happened, and then "write history" that pleases the own feelings by simply pinning the flag on the timeline, saying that the history of that event started on "day x". In order to find out what really happened, an interested history fan would have to delve into very specific books that cover the entire series of events, to find out the details. But, who does that? From the primary source: "The President would deem himself lacking in candor did he not point out in the frankest possible terms the reason why extraordinary safeguards must be demanded. Significant and important as the constitutional changes seem to be which are spoken of by the German Foreign Secretary in his note of the 20th of October, it does not appear that the principle of a government responsible to the German people has yet been fully worked out or that any guarantees either exist or are in contemplation that the alterations of principle and of practice now partially agreed upon will be permanent. Moreover, it does not appear that the heart of the present difficulty has been reached. It may be that future wars have been brought under the control of the German people, but the present war has not been; and it is with the present war that we are dealing. It is evident that the German people have no means of commanding the acquiescence of the military authorities of the empire in the popular will; that the power of the King of Prussia to control the policy of the empire is unimpaired; that the determining initiative still remains with those who have hitherto been the masters of Germany. Feeling that the whole peace of the world depends now on plain speaking and straightforward action, the President deems it his duty to say, without any attempt to soften what may seem harsh words, that the nations of the world do not and cannot trust the word of those who have hitherto been the masters of German policy, and to point out once more that in concluding peace and attempting to undo the infinite injuries and injustices of this war the Government of the United States cannot deal with any but veritable representatives of the German people who have been assured of a genuine constitutional standing as the real rulers of Germany." Source: International Notes: Diplomatic Notes, Prepared By Allan Westcott, Ph. D., Instructor, U. S. Naval Academy, November 1918 Proceedings Vol. 44/11/189 *Washington DC power mongers employ old Roman techniques of power, including the "morphing" of systems which favor the own ideological expansionist goals, and one of these old Roman techniques is divide-and-rule. In the past, and as one of the Big Three at Versailles, they covertly set up Europe for failure, masked behind overt expressions of "fighting for freedom and democracy." In reality, Versailles was a covert implementation of the divide and rule technique. Not only Germany was divided, but also Europe was divided with a ruling.* This strategy is often misunderstood, in popular narratives composed mostly of "being friends" even though it only means that one can gain greatly if others are divided and fail. It is as simple as that. "Friends" or "enemies" play no role: if others fail, the own systems gain. After Europe failed, the final domino stone Washington DC actively toppled was the British Empire. After two world wars, with countless emerging struggles in the colonies, so by 1945 the already seriously weakened and overextended Great Britain was an easy pushover...
Very interesting argument. I will look at this in the context of my reading of WW1 at a later point. Generally I find Churchill highly unreliable in interpreting the history of the 20th century.
@theburningarchive Thank you for considering, and regards. The "14 Points Speech" was co-written by The Inquiry, a New York-based think tank. Exactly which percentage was penned by Wilson can never be known, only the strategy of power: "To let others do the work, and then take credit" (Robert Greene). The 14 Points were of course based on geopolitical realities of "area denial" (grand strategy). The Holy Roman Empire had to be "buried" behind a torrent of words (Treaty of Versailles, and other minor treaties). A short recap of the final stages of this 1,000-year struggle between Paris and Berlin/Vienna, with ever-changing terminoly (geopolitical reality = _Central European unity_ set up against _France,_ "the cape of Europe" per de Gaulle). Within the framework of European history, post-1800 as recent relevant past. 1806 - France "won" (alliance system) 1815 - Berlin "won" (part of an off continentally led alliance) 1815 to 1871 - comprehensive European security agreement intact (Concert of Europe) 1815 to 1871 - Berlin limited wars "balanced" the natural growth of Russia 1871 - France "lost" again (status quo) 1918/19 - France "won" (part of an off continental alliance system) 1940 - France "lost" 1944/45 - France won (part of an off continentally led alliance system) Post 1945 - Berlin finally lost (status quo today)
I feel a video on the problems of health in the USA may be a good idea. RFK has some big challenges and I doubt he has the capability to handle them. What do you think?
@@theburningarchive Well, who knows? Kennedy has written a book on the subject. I just think we are for the most part over-medicated, especially Americans. I felt that the pandemic was rather suspect and saw little need to take a novel vaccine. Reading about the mode of action of the mRNA shot, I wasn't reassured that it was 'safe and effective.' I thought to myself, there's no way my GP or the nurse administering the shot could explain much about this to me. But, in the meantime, where was the pandemic? I saw litte evidence around me other than the media hullabaloo. I advised family members to hold back on the shots. Wait to see what happens, I told them. After all, the media and the politicians were making it sound as if the Black Death had returned to our shores.
@@theburningarchive Here's a man worth listening to on American society and American health-care. Paul Craig Roberts. He served in some capacity in the Bush senior administration. He paints a very bleak picture of American society and American health care. But for Roberts, the problem lies much deeper. ua-cam.com/video/MHxIdYa8hT8/v-deo.html
![Global Capitalism: The U.S. Election and Trump 2.0 in Historical Perspective [November 2024]](/img/n.gif)
Read my insights into world history and geopolitics every week at jeffrich.substack.com. Join now for the deep dive into the post-1945 world for paid subscribers.
NEVER EVER IN HISTORY HAS A EUROPEAN COLONIAL EMPIRE BEEN CIVIL OR MORAL OR A BEACON OF FREEDOM !!!
The only problem is nobody in the world asked America for any of it.
Decline comes with a penchant for enduring denial .
Brilliant Jeff 👍
my old hat is off to you. Often, the things that break your heart, end up fixing your vision ✌️
Thank you, and that is so true.
As usual I enjoyed your insightful presentation Jeff☺👏👏Brzezinski or rather Mackinder's dream slowly withers away in a winter of imperial discontent
Thank you. Great to hear from you.
I am livestock born captive to the empire which is better than being born free on something the empire wants to take.
Hi Jeff. I love your videos and books that you recommend but sometimes (often, to be honest) I feel I lack knowledge to understand it. Could you please make a video about world history books 101, what to read, some textbooks of good quality? A lot of ideology in history so maybe direct us how to choose authors, give as some names. Thank you very much and keep going! Your channel is a gem!
Great idea. I will do. It might be a few weeks. Thanks for the idea.
Thanks
Many thanks
I think the US decline is perceived because it's measured against well-being and development in other countries. That's a natural metric, but it's based on a wrong metaphysical understanding of the world.
The US is not about social well-being; it is about power. There is a reason why its military spending is practically sacred. The debt fueled spending on "socialist" programs is coming to an end. US always had ghettos, shanty towns, and mass poverty and its fight against them was a temporary tactical decision in the cold war. As social discontent increases, we will see increased use of its power apparatus to get everyone in line.
Interesting. I will be turning to the theme in videos over the next few months
very well said, well done.
USA interference with Australia in the 1970s, the overthrow of the Australian government, USA support of Indonesia in the UN, and the USA instigated friction between Australia and Indonesia.
The almost 40 billion dollar trade deficit, etc.
Australians are very unaware of how aggressive and manipulative USA has been to Australia.
thank you
The US won the cold war against the USSR, largely because it was more effective at enlisting and mobilizing the production and accumulation structures of other countries - specifically, their established elites.
In this sense, the US was favoured by the rest of the world (not a majority of populations, but a majority of power brokers).
Today, the only accumulation they can promote is extractive, not productive. Privatization and liquidation of public assets, financialization etc. If China is the one willing to invest, and not preach austerity forever, who has the advantage?
Good points. This seems similar to Emmanuel Todd's argument that the USA and its Western allies have become parasitic, not productive societies. I am going to come back to the Cold War - and how it is similar/different to the situation today in some later videos. Thanks for this insightful comment
From all dreams you eventually awake and the world will be so much better off the sooner the better America wakes up.
AGreed. Thank you, all power to those in the USA who want to live humbly at peace with the rest of the world
*WW1 was the biggest US "regime change operation" in history.*
"If the Allies at the peace table at Versailles had allowed a Hohenzollern, a Wittelsbach and a Habsburg to return to their thrones, there would have been no Hitler."
Winston Churchill, 26th April 1946
That short statement practically has "regime change" written all over it.
That short statement also makes it clear what happens if one removes the gatekeepers (monarchy) of a political system from power, which then opens the door for all kinds of ideologues.
They thought they could throw out the monarchs, and morph Germany into becoming "more like us" (old Roman technique of power), and there would be no consequences.
Whatever they thought, one thing is clear: US think tanks who wrote the 14 Points Speech KNEW they were far enough away from Europe not to have to face any consequences should their own suggestions combined with the invariably following top-down implementations result in blowback (causality).
So what had led Churchill to make such a statement? As part of the 14-Point Plan, Wilson demanded that Germany de-throne Wilhelm II, before any peace talks could begin. The Allies also refused a German delegation as part of the peace talks in 1919. WW1 was the USA's hitherto biggest "regime change operation" (Germany). Because here is what they tell you is history in thousands and thousands of books and docs: the "German people" or "German leaders" were the ones who "forced Wilhelm II into exile, or " forced the autocrats to abdicate because they were angry" or variations of that. Here is what they (usually) don't say (lie by omission): That it was the own side which had previously coerced other German leaders like Max von Baden into forcing the German government out of office, because that was a condition for armistice negotiations to take place.
Here is the timeline of events:
1) Coerce German leaders to topple the current Berlin government.
2) German leaders realizing there was no alternative to stop the war, topple the current government.
3) Omit step 1) for the "narrative of WW1", or pretend it never happened, and then "write history" that pleases the own feelings by simply pinning the flag on the timeline, saying that the history of that event started on "day x".
In order to find out what really happened, an interested history fan would have to delve into very specific books that cover the entire series of events, to find out the details. But, who does that?
From the primary source:
"The President would deem himself lacking in candor did he not point out in the frankest possible terms the reason why extraordinary safeguards must be demanded. Significant and important as the constitutional changes seem to be which are spoken of by the German Foreign Secretary in his note of the 20th of October, it does not appear that the principle of a government responsible to the German people has yet been fully worked out or that any guarantees either exist or are in contemplation that the alterations of principle and of practice now partially agreed upon will be permanent. Moreover, it does not appear that the heart of the present difficulty has been reached. It may be that future wars have been brought under the control of the German people, but the present war has not been; and it is with the present war that we are dealing. It is evident that the German people have no means of commanding the acquiescence of the military authorities of the empire in the popular will; that the power of the King of Prussia to control the policy of the empire is unimpaired; that the determining initiative still remains with those who have hitherto been the masters of Germany. Feeling that the whole peace of the world depends now on plain speaking and straightforward action, the President deems it his duty to say, without any attempt to soften what may seem harsh words, that the nations of the world do not and cannot trust the word of those who have hitherto been the masters of German policy, and to point out once more that in concluding peace and attempting to undo the infinite injuries and injustices of this war the Government of the United States cannot deal with any but veritable representatives of the German people who have been assured of a genuine constitutional standing as the real rulers of Germany."
Source: International Notes: Diplomatic Notes, Prepared By Allan Westcott, Ph. D., Instructor, U. S. Naval Academy, November 1918 Proceedings Vol. 44/11/189
*Washington DC power mongers employ old Roman techniques of power, including the "morphing" of systems which favor the own ideological expansionist goals, and one of these old Roman techniques is divide-and-rule. In the past, and as one of the Big Three at Versailles, they covertly set up Europe for failure, masked behind overt expressions of "fighting for freedom and democracy." In reality, Versailles was a covert implementation of the divide and rule technique. Not only Germany was divided, but also Europe was divided with a ruling.*
This strategy is often misunderstood, in popular narratives composed mostly of "being friends" even though it only means that one can gain greatly if others are divided and fail. It is as simple as that. "Friends" or "enemies" play no role: if others fail, the own systems gain. After Europe failed, the final domino stone Washington DC actively toppled was the British Empire. After two world wars, with countless emerging struggles in the colonies, so by 1945 the already seriously weakened and overextended Great Britain was an easy pushover...
Very interesting argument. I will look at this in the context of my reading of WW1 at a later point. Generally I find Churchill highly unreliable in interpreting the history of the 20th century.
@theburningarchive Thank you for considering, and regards.
The "14 Points Speech" was co-written by The Inquiry, a New York-based think tank. Exactly which percentage was penned by Wilson can never be known, only the strategy of power: "To let others do the work, and then take credit" (Robert Greene).
The 14 Points were of course based on geopolitical realities of "area denial" (grand strategy).
The Holy Roman Empire had to be "buried" behind a torrent of words (Treaty of Versailles, and other minor treaties).
A short recap of the final stages of this 1,000-year struggle between Paris and Berlin/Vienna, with ever-changing terminoly (geopolitical reality = _Central European unity_ set up against _France,_ "the cape of Europe" per de Gaulle).
Within the framework of European history, post-1800 as recent relevant past.
1806 - France "won" (alliance system)
1815 - Berlin "won" (part of an off continentally led alliance)
1815 to 1871 - comprehensive European security agreement intact (Concert of Europe)
1815 to 1871 - Berlin limited wars "balanced" the natural growth of Russia
1871 - France "lost" again (status quo)
1918/19 - France "won" (part of an off continental alliance system)
1940 - France "lost"
1944/45 - France won (part of an off continentally led alliance system)
Post 1945 - Berlin finally lost (status quo today)
the concept of US primacy is what has the world teetering on the edge of oblivion
Sadly true. Fortunately the USA rivals do not seek primacy. Let us hope sense prevails.
RFK Jnr and the fall of American Pharmacies.
I feel a video on the problems of health in the USA may be a good idea. RFK has some big challenges and I doubt he has the capability to handle them. What do you think?
@@theburningarchive Well, who knows? Kennedy has written a book on the subject. I just think we are for the most part over-medicated, especially Americans. I felt that the pandemic was rather suspect and saw little need to take a novel vaccine. Reading about the mode of action of the mRNA shot, I wasn't reassured that it was 'safe and effective.' I thought to myself, there's no way my GP or the nurse administering the shot could explain much about this to me. But, in the meantime, where was the pandemic? I saw litte evidence around me other than the media hullabaloo. I advised family members to hold back on the shots. Wait to see what happens, I told them. After all, the media and the politicians were making it sound as if the Black Death had returned to our shores.
@@theburningarchive Here's a man worth listening to on American society and American health-care. Paul Craig Roberts. He served in some capacity in the Bush senior administration. He paints a very bleak picture of American society and American health care. But for Roberts, the problem lies much deeper.
ua-cam.com/video/MHxIdYa8hT8/v-deo.html
Lucid analysis; limpid prose. Thank you.
thank you
Who writes USA history books?
I am going to tak a look at a series of different perspectives on USA history in early 2025.
That’s why they had to come up with artificial intelligence as their last resort.
I guess that is the kind of geopolitical strategy you would get if you asked AI to write a world political strategy for you!
DEMURE
I should have used the whole brat/Demure meme thing I think