Parkeer PM febr. 2026

 

Tot ongeveer  >>> 48:15 gaat de video over Iran en het nepnieuws dat we daarover volgens Crooke in het Westen krijgen opgedist, maar ná >>> 48:15 (ná een zoveelste NAVO-pr-optreden van Mark Rutte) gaat het over voor ons in Nederland echt interessante dingen. Voor de goede orde: Crooke is een Britse oud-ambassadeur en ex-MI6-inlichtingenofficier, die tegenwoordig in Italië woont. Overste Daniel Davis is een Amerikaanse oorlogsveteraan die nog onder kolonel Douglas Macgregor heeft gediend in de Irak-oorlog.
Davis beweert dat hij Ruttes betoog leest als een oproep aan de EU-landen om in vredesnaam te berusten in een vazallenstatus jegens de VS (wat zouden Rutte en de EU-bureaucraten zónder de VS kunnen uitrichten, nietwaar?) en desnoods moet Denemarken Groenland dan maar aan Trump afstaan. Alles om de Oekraïne-oorlog zo lang mogelijk te rekken en te laten voortduren, omdat die het bestaansrecht van de EU- en Nederlandse politici legitimeert en borgt.

• Zet het optreden, de speech, van Mark Carney in Davos hier ook bij, want daar gaat Crooke lekker op los: “Wrong!”
  Zullen we AI ChatGPT aan de leiding laten, want daar hebben we dit vooral mee gedaan? Oké. Daar gaat ie.
  Does Carney explicitly claim the West still sets the rules?
  Not directly. Carney’s speeches tend to be polished, technocratic, and framed in neutral language. He talks about:
  • “defending the rules‑based order”
  • “mobilizing democracies”
  • “coordinating with partners”
  • “rebuilding global resilience”

  None of these phrases state Western primacy outright. But they presume it.

  Carney speaks from the classic Davos worldview: Crooke hears this as the same old Western leadership script, just updated with new vocabulary.

  2. So why does Crooke react so sharply? (“WRONG!”)

  Because Crooke believes Carney is repeating a failed formula:
  “Let’s rebuild the Western-led global order — but this time with new partners, new coalitions, new tools.”
  Crooke’s paraphrase — “Let’s do it again… with other partners” — is his way of saying:
  “Carney wants to reboot the same Western-centric system that already collapsed.”
  To Crooke, this is not just mistaken — it’s delusiona. What exactly is Crooke rejecting?

  3. The assumption that the West can still lead

  Crooke believes:

  • The West no longer has the industrial base
  • The West no longer has the financial leverage
  • The West no longer has the global legitimacy

  So when Carney talks about “renewing leadership,” Crooke hears:

  “We can still run the world if we just try harder.”And Crooke’s response is: No, that era is over.

  1. The idea that the “rules‑based order” can be revived

  Carney frames the world as needing:

  • more coordination
  • more shared rules
  • more Western-aligned governance

  Crooke believes:

  • the rules‑based order is already dead
  • the world is moving to multipolar blocs
  • Eurasia is no longer listening to Western institutions

  So Carney’s message sounds to him like:

  “Let’s rebuild the old order with a fresh coat of paint.”

  1. The belief that new partners will fix the old system

  Carney often talks about:

  • “new coalitions of democracies”
  • “new partnerships”
  • “new frameworks”

  Crooke interprets this as:

  “We’ll do the same thing, but with different branding.”

  Hence his paraphrase: “Let’s do it again… with other partners.”

  4. Why is Crooke so adamant?

  Because for Crooke, Carney’s worldview is not just wrong — it’s dangerous.

  Crooke thinks:

  • The West is misreading the global shift
  • This misreading leads to escalation (military, economic, ideological)
  • The West is doubling down on a strategy that cannot succeed

  So his “WRONG!” is not about Carney personally. It’s about rejecting the entire Davos mindset.

Carney’s posture is:

• managerial
• confident
• technocratic
• assuming Western leadership is natural and legitimate

Crooke’s worldview is:

• the West is no longer in charge
• the world has already moved on
• Davos elites haven’t noticed

So Crooke’s “WRONG!” is aimed at the assumptions beneath the speech, not the literal sentences.

When Crooke hears Carney’s Davos‑style language — “renew,” “rebuild,” “lead again,” “new partnerships,” “rules‑based order,” “build back better” — he interprets it as a continuation of the same elite project that has dominated Western policy for decades.

And Crooke’s core critique is this: “Build back better… for whom? Certainly not for the majority of people.”

1. In the Davos worldview, “better” means:

• More global integration
• More technocratic governance
• More financialization
• More Western‑led rule‑making

• More alignment with elite institutions (IMF, World Bank, NATO, EU, WEF, etc.)

This is “better” for the people who already run the system:

• multinational corporations
• global finance
• Western political elites
• transnational institutions
• the professional managerial class

Crooke sees Carney as speaking for this group.

2. In Crooke’s view, “better” is not for:

• working‑class Westerners
• the Global South
• countries resisting Western dominance
• people harmed by deindustrialization
• populations exhausted by endless wars
  societies suffering from austerity or inequality

Crooke believes these groups have been paying the price for the Davos model for decades.

So when Carney says “build back better,” Crooke hears: “Rebuild the system that benefits us — and ask everyone else to sacrifice again.”

3. Why Crooke thinks Carney is being conscious about it

Carney is:

• a former central banker
• a Davos regular
• a champion of global governance frameworks
• a spokesperson for the “rules‑based order”
• deeply embedded in elite networks

Crooke sees him as someone who knows exactly what the old system was, and is now trying to repackage it as renewal.

How Carney’s economic worldview differs from Crooke’s
Carney and Crooke are almost perfect opposites in how they understand the global economy. They’re not just disagreeing on policy — they’re living in different conceptual universes.

• Carney = Globalized, financialized, technocratic capitalism
• Crooke = Multipolar, civilizational, post-globalization economics

Where Carney sees a technical problem, Crooke sees a civilizational shift.

What Crooke means by repeating “Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine”

Crooke is arguing that, in elite Western political discourse, “Ukraine” has become shorthand for a strategic project, not a nation of real people with real suffering.

In his interpretation: “Ukraine” = a geopolitical instrument

Some analysts argue that Western leaders use “Ukraine” to mean:

• a proxy front against Russia
• a test of Western credibility
• a symbol of the rules‑based order
• a tool to justify military spending
• a rallying cry for unity

Crooke’s frustration is that, in his view, the actual Ukrainians — their losses, their destroyed cities, their displacement — disappear behind this symbolic use of the word.
He’s criticizing the rhetoric, not the people.

Does Crooke believe Western elites want the war to continue?

Crooke’s argument (again, describing his view, not endorsing it) is that:

Some Western policymakers see continued conflict as strategically useful.

He believes they think:

• Russia must be weakened
• NATO unity must be maintained
• defense industries must be revitalized
• Western leadership must be reasserted
• the “rules‑based order” must be defended

In that worldview, “Ukraine” becomes a means to an end, not an end in itself.

That’s why he repeats it almost mockingly: “Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine…” as if to say:

“You’re not talking about the country — you’re talking about your project.”

Why Crooke gets emotional about this

Because he believes:

• the war is devastating Ukraine
• escalation risks are enormous
• Western leaders are not being honest about their motives
• the conflict is being framed in moral terms rather than strategic ones
• the Ukrainian people are paying the price for a geopolitical contest

So when he says “Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine,” he’s accusing elites of using the word as a slogan, not as a reference to a real nation suffering a real war.

Crooke’s worldview is civilizational, structural, and long‑term. He sees the Ukraine war not as an isolated conflict, but as a symptom of a global transformation.

Here’s how it fits into his framework.

🧩 A. The war is a trigger for the collapse of Western hegemony

Crooke believes the post‑Cold‑War order — Western‑led, financialized, globalized — was already weakening. Ukraine, in his view, is the moment when:

• Russia openly rejected Western dominance
• China backed Russia strategically
• the Global South refused to align with the West
• Western sanctions failed to isolate Russia

So for Crooke, Ukraine is the moment the world stopped obeying the old rules.

🏭 B. The war exposes the West’s industrial decline

Crooke repeatedly argues that:

• Russia can out‑produce NATO in artillery, shells, and basic military hardware
• the West outsourced its industrial base
• financial power cannot substitute for manufacturing power

So Ukraine becomes a stress test of Western capacity — and Crooke thinks the West is failing it.

🌏 C. The war accelerates the formation of blocs

Crooke sees the world reorganizing into:

• a Eurasian bloc (Russia–China–Iran + Global South partners)
• a Western bloc (US–EU–NATO)
• a non‑aligned bloc (India, Gulf states, Africa, Latin America)

Ukraine, in his view, is the first major conflict of this new multipolar era.

This is why he keeps repeating “Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine…”

He believes Western elites use “Ukraine” as a symbol for:

• defending the rules‑based order
• preserving Western leadership
• preventing multipolarity

In his interpretation, the war is fundamentally about the West trying to stop the emergence of a multipolar world.

………………  ………………  ……………..  …………………….

* * *  Zullen we het hier even bij laten? Anders loopt dit blog volledig uit de rails * * *

………………  ………………  ……………..  …………………….