AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT

COLIN LIDDELL'S SHORTPODS (1~71)

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 18 Dec 2022 12:08:00 +0000

I started the Shortpod because most podcasts at the time were overlong and time-consuming (both to listen to and upload). The concept was to be both spontaneous and concise, with unscripted, lightly-edited takes on the events and issues of the day. Inevitably many of the takes turned out to be "off" or became dated, but on many issues I was right. Also I was able, unlike many others commentators, to pursue a remarkably coherent and evolving line of thought through radically changing times. The podcasts collected here cover the period from 2017 to 2022 at Alternative Right and Affirmative Right.

Shortpod (71) Britain's Built to Fail Regional Parliaments
Originally published: 8th May, 2022. The recent elections in the UK and how the British system of "devolved" power is designed to reinforce central power.

Shortpod (70) The Tall Poppy Syndrome (Multicultural Version)
Originally published: 16th January, 2022. How Boris Johnson uses "racism" to firewall his position as Prime Minister from possible leadership challenges.

Shortpod (69) Kyle Rittenhouse and the Footsoldiers of the "ChiRus" Bot Army
Originally published: 21st November, 2021. Is the Rittenhouse trial just another chance for Chinese and Russian bots to stir up the divisions in America? Yes, obviosuly!

Shortpod (68) The Taliban and the Klan
Originally published: 19th September, 2021. Comparing the attempts at "nation building" that followed the US Civil War with Western attempts in Afghanistan.

Shortpod (67) The Afghanic Panic
Originally published: 27th August, 2021. The retreat from Afghanistan and the complex geopolitical and financial reasons for US overreach and "woke imperialism."

Shortpod (66) The Final Boss of What Actually Happened to the Alt-Right
Originally published: 21st July, 2021. The Alt-Right as part of a "macro-empirical" geopolitical "shadow war" targeting the divisions in American society and exploiting the "open door" provided by the Internet?

Shortpod (65) The Bellweather of British Politics
Originally published: 2nd July, 2021. Commentary on the recent UK by-election in the usually safe Labour seat of Batley and Spen (formerly held by assassinated MP Jo Cox).

Shortpod (64) The Palestinian "Victim Class"
Originally published: 16th May, 2021. Does the convenience of Palestinians being seen as perpetual victims feed into the unending nature of the Israel/Palestine conflict?

Shortpod (63) Is Fuentes Lying About His Travel Ban?
Originally published: 7th May, 2021. What is the true story behind Nick Fuentes' flying ban?

Shortpod (62) The Great Covid Cooldown

Originally published: 19th April, 2021. The winter of 2020-21 has been one of the coldest on record and spring has been late in many parts of the World. Is Global Cooling on the cards?

Shortpod (61) Disconnected Dissidence
Originally published: 4th March, 2021. The political and social entropy of dissident movements and their stagnation.

Shortpod (60) The Bipolar Breakdown of America
Originally published: 30th November, 2020. A macro-view of the 2020 Presidential Election, which reveals the increasing polarisation of America and the political alienation of half the nation.

Shortpod (59) Pimping WWII to Sell Multiculturalism
Originally published: 22nd October, 2020. October is "Black History Month" in the UK, where the history of WWII is being rewritten to promote multiculturalism, and not just by radical Leftists and Cultural Marxists.

Shortpod (58) Standing Proud (unavailable)

Originally published: 1st Oct 2020. Are the Proud Boys a bunch of "dicks" and what are they really trying to say with that name?

Shortpod (57) England Takes the Knee
Originally published: 10th Sep 2020. A comparison of two England teams, one from 1938 that "sieg heiled" Nazi Germany and one from 2020 that slavishly took the knee for BLM.

Shortpod (56) Why is Richard Spencer Simping for Kamala Harris?
Originally published: 26th Aug 2020. Are Spencer's frequently changing political positions the outcome of unresolved psychological issues from his childhood?

Shortpod (55) Was George Floyd Putting on an Act?

Originally published: 5th Aug 2020. The police body-cam footage of George Floyd's arrest raises some interesting questions.

Shortpod (54) Is the Covid-19 Crisis a Chinese Psy-Op?
Originally published: 18th Jul 2020. A "macro empirical" view of the latest Chinese-connected disease outbreak and the spin put on it.

Shortpod (53) Giving the Left Space to Destroy Itself
Originally published: 8th Jun 2020. Who stands to gain from the BLM riots? Is it a case of the Left being given "space to destroy" itself in time for the November election?

Shortpod (52) Why is Britain Leading the World in Coronavirus Deaths?
Originally published: 29th May 2020. Why is a nation, where the NHS is an object of worship, so prone to this flu-like virus?

Shortpod (51) We Did Not Declare War on Germany in 1939 to "Fight Fascism"
Originally published: 11th May 2020. Hot take: Britain went to war to stop a German "Socialist" state crushing a Polish "Fascist" one.

Shortpod (50) Is Coronavirus a "Punishment" for AIDS?
Originally published: 11th May 2020. Is the theory of Nobel Prize-winning scientist Luc Montagnier correct, namely that the virus was created by research to find a vaccine for AIDS?

Shortpod (49) Coronavirus in Context: History or Hysteria
Originally published: 27th Mar 2020. Is the panic generated by the medical, media, and political classes over Covid justified, or will it end up fading into the background to become a historical footnote?

Shortpod (48) Bad History and the Nazification of Nationalism
Originally published: 29th Feb 2020. How fake nationalists (e.g. Mark Collett) tie healthy nationalism to toxic Naziism, often with blatantly fake historical narratives.

Shortpod (47) Cultural Marxism Didn't Win, Cultural Anarchism Did
Originally published: 23rd Feb 2020. Modern degeneracy is caused by too much freedom, not a stack of unreadable books by the Frankfurt School, a group of 1930s intellectuals largely ignored in their day.

Shortpod (46) Brexit Day
Originally published: 31st Jan 2020. The opportunities of Brexit and the dangers for a country that was using mass immigration from Europe to hide the severity of its long-running demographic crisis.

Shortpod (45) The Virgin Trump and the Chad Lindsey Graham

Originally published: 11th Jan 2020. The murder of Qasem Soleimani and the unexpectedly servile relationship it reveals between the "hyper masculine" Trump and the effete Senator from South Carolina.

Shortpod (44) The Exo-State as a Solution to the Problem of Nationalism
Originally published: 16th December 2019. Can identitarian urges be outsourced to an "exo-state" in the same way that international Jewry did with the creation of Israel?

Shortpod (43) Towards a Post-Brexit Britain
Originally published: 10th December 2019. How will politics evolve in a post-Brexit world? The Conservative Party's final ad of the 2019 General Election provides some intriguing clues.

Shortpod (42) Pedophiliac Echoes in Spielberg's "E.T."
Originally published: 11th November 2019. A response to Morgoth's idiotic claim that ET was pro-immigration propaganda.

Shortpod (41) Richard Spencer Revealed as a Rabid Nazi
Originally published: 4th November 2019. On the release of a recording of Richard Spencer ranting against Jews and other groups in the aftermath of the Charlottesville debacle.

Shortpod (40) Brexit: The Real Deal Comes After No Deal
Originally published: 28th August 2019. The latest developments in the push for Brexit and why the post-exit deal is more important than the pre-exit deal.

Shortpod (39) Incellism Outweighs Ideology in Recent Shootings
Originally published: 5th August 2019. The real driving force in so-called "political" shootings is often the sexual disenfranchisement of young men.

Shortpod (38) Sargon's Suicide Squad and the Triumph of UKIP
Originally published: 29th May 2019. The vital role played by UKIP (& Sargon) in taking the pressure off Farage's Brexit Party.

Shortpod (37) America Does Not Fight Wars to Defend Allies
Originally published: 8th May 2019. The Trump administration's recent warlike behaviour evaluated in the historical context of 1982, a year when the U.S. had an excellent opportunity to help a very close ally but didn't.

Shortpod (36) Trump's State of the Division Speech
Originally published: 7th Feb 2019. President Trump's State of the Union Speech as a doomed attempt to move away from his polarising past and reach a moral consensus with the Democrats.

Shortpod (35) A Dog's Brexit

Originally published: 16th January 2019. Britain's increasingly confused Brexit arrangements.

Shortpod (34) Rampant Identitarianism is the Cancer or Civilisations
Originally published 20th Dec 2018. A much needed look at the term "identity." Does the term have any validity and does it mean what people think it means.

Shortpod (33) Brexit is a Lot Simpler Than You Think
Originally published: 13th Dec 2018. The Brexit negotiations are a standoff between British financial interests and European manufacturing interests.

Shortpod (32) The Fields Trial: A Tale of Two Shams
Originally published: 8th Dec 2018. The railroading of Alex Fields, who clearly acted in a panic at Charlottesville, and the ineffective efforts of the Alt-Right to support him.

Shortpod (31) The Meaninglessness of Saints
Originally published: 30th Nov 2018. Happy St. Andrew's Day! Why did the Scots and English pick saints who never even visited their countries?

Shortpod (30) The Growing Irrelevance of Richard Spencer
Originally published: 21st Nov 2018. Richard Spencer's ludicrous attempts to remain the centre of attention by parading, or being paraded by, his liberal girlfriend.

Shortpod (29) The End of Austerity (until after the next election)
Originally published: 1st Nov 2018. The US midterms and the fake "austerity" budget of UK Chancellor Philip Hammond.

Shortpod (28) The Khasshogi Case and Erdogan's "Neo-Ottomanism"
Originally published: 24th Oct 2018. The Khasshogi Affair and how it fits into the wider struggle between the Neo-Ottomanism of Turkey and the Archeofuturism of Saudi Arabia.

Shortpod (27) Polarisation and Hysteria as Expressions of Civilisational Decay
Originally published: 7th Oct 2018. Is the growing hysteria and division in the West driven by a desperate attempt to regain meaning in the midst of civilisational decline?

Shortpod (26) Alex Jones and the Coming "Cold Civil War"
Originally published: 7th October 2018. The de-platforming of Alex Jones and other non-Leftists by Big Tech and the often inverse relationship between political and cultural power.

Shortpod (25) The Great Brexit Bust-Up
Originally published: 9th July, 2018. Commentary on the latest Brexit squabble in the Tory Party, which has seen the resignations of several government ministers.

Shortpod (24) The World Cup and the Denationalisation of English Football

Originally published: 5th July, 2018. How football is changing from a tribalistic expression of White working-class identity to something more consumerist, atomised, and rootless.

Shortpod (23) Trump Burnishes His "Madman" Credentials at G7
Originally published: 11th June, 2018. The "stormy" G7 meeting in Canada and Trump's forthcoming meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

Shortpod (22) What's Really Going on in Gaza
Originally published: 16th May, 2018. The publication of "Interviews & Obituaries" followed by commentary on the situation in Gaza.

Shortpod (21) AltRight.com Gets the Daily Stormer Treatment

Originally published: 6th May, 2018. Why is a mild-mannered White identitarian site like AltRight.com being censored on the internet as if it were The Daily Stormer?

Shortpod (20) War Drums and False Flags
Originally published: 11th April, 2018. The beating of war drums over an apparent "gas attack" in the Syrian civil war.

Shortpod (19) The Palinthanatos of the American Empire
Originally published: 23rd March, 2018. Is Trump's true revolutionary role to be a Gorbachev-like figure and to trigger the death of the American Empire?

Shortpod (18) "Nazi Pug" Shock
Originally published: 21st March, 2018. Comparing Richard Spencer's "Heil Trump" moment to Count Dankula's "Nazi Pug" stunt.

Shortpod (17) International Women's Day - The Demographic Disaster of Feminism
Originally published: 8th March, 2018. The meaninglessness of Feminism when it doesn't try to address the demographic disaster it creates.

Shortpod (16) "Racist" BBC Forces Blacks into White Roles
Originally published: 5th February, 2018. Why does the BBC constantly put Blacks in White roles? Is this proof of "Cultural Marxism" or a bias against Black culture?

Shortpod (15) Robert Capa's Blind Spot
Originally published: 28th January, 2018. One of the odd things about the Holocaust is that nobody who directly encountered it thought it was nearly as important as it has since become. Example: Robert Capa.

Shortpod (14) Alt Right YouTube Drama Factory

Originally published: 25th January, 2018. A review of the 8-year span of the Alt-Right and its evolution into a parasocial cult typified by minor "celebs" and various "spats."

Shortpod (13) The Thottening of the Alt-Right
Originally published: 10th Dec 2017. On the here-today-gone-tomorrow "tradthot" controversy, and why movement drama in the Alt-Right is inevitable and may possibly be a good thing.

Shortpod (12) So Goolag to See You Again
Originally published: 5th Nov 2017. The unexpected return of our site from the Google Gulag. What was the reason for our dramatic unbanning and can we ever trust Big Tech again?

Shortpod (11) Death in Vegas and the Japanese Elections
Originally published: 4th Oct 2017. The Las Vegas Massacre, the Catalonian Crisis, and the Japanese general election.

Shortpod (10) The Revolution will Eat its Children

Originally published: 9th Sep 2017. The aftermath of Charlottesville and how the Alt-Right is a metapolitical revolution following the trajectory of real revolutions.

Shortpod (9) Alt-Right Kerfuffles (unavailable)

Originally published: 24th Jun 2017. On the infighting in the Alt-Right between the Spencer-Friberg vs. Johnson camps.

Shortpod (8) The Lost Landslide of Theresa May
Originally published: 5th Jun 2017. How Theresa May's weak campaign threw away a 20-point lead over the Labour Party.

Shortpod (7) Marine Le Pen's Attempt to be President of France (unavailable)

Originally published: 21st Apr 2017. The French Presidential election and how Marine Le Pen has resisted the attempts to toxify her.

Shortpod (6) Trump, You Cannot be Syriaous (unavailable)

Originally published: 9th Apr 2017. Commentary 0n Trump's decision to bomb Syria.

Shortpod (5) Masood Murder
Originally published: 27th March, 2017. On the recent terrorist attack in London by Khalid Masood.

Shortpod (4) Gavin McInnes, Gert Wilders, and the Turks

Originally published: 15th March, 2017. "Alt-Liter" Gavin McInnes goes "full 1488," the Dutch election, and talking Turkey.

Shortpod (3) The Displacement of the Left

Originally published: 3rd February, 2017. The hysteria and violence of the Left following the election of Donald Trump.

Shortpod (2) The Dox of War
Originally published: 16th January, 2017. On the doxxings of Millennial Woes and Mike Enoch, and the stupidity of anti-Semitism.

Shortpod (1) Anti-White Racism as a Form of Identity
Originally published: 16th January, 2017. Commentary on two acts of "anti-White" violence that appear to be driven by identity issues.

MILLENNIYULE: THE LIES THAT BIND

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 17 Dec 2022 09:41:00 +0000

by Colin Liddell

I had a quick look at one or two or the recorded livestreams from this year's Millenniyules, and something struck me almost at once. It was the way that it's all about nodding along and not challenging each other, and sympathetically listening to each other's moans about the big bad world.

Woes's role is just to be the vaguely comprehending but not quite understanding host, allowing whatever sense or nonsense his guests spout to pass by unchallenged. If there was any actual intellectual honesty on the Millenniyules, there would be a LOT more argument than there is. But there isn't any, of course.

It's a totally cosy space, and the degree of cosiness directly correlates with the lack of intellectual honesty. Ideas don't really matter. People are just there to "bask" in the supposed accolade of being "chosen" for that year.

You believe Biden is controlled by the Chinese? Fine, no problem. The last thing anyone here will ask you to do is provide any evidence.

You think Putin was perfectly reasonable in invading and raping a neighbouring country? "Ha ha, yeh, me too," chortles Woes. Unless you don't.

Don't worry, you won't be asked for any moral justifications either. This goes for the ideas/conspiracy theories you espouse, as well as any degeneracy you may practice in your personal life. Woes is understandably generous in his attitude to the latter.

You think the Covid vax was a Soros power grab, but can't be arsed to dig up any evidence that would convince a normal sceptic? Just say it anyway; we're all friends here. Woes won't ask you to back it up in any meaningful way.

It's like that all the way down. Any dumb conspiracy theory or thinly veiled piece of anti-Semitic bullshit -- "muh globalists," "the usual suspects," etc. -- will be warmly embraced and offered a mug of sticky cocoa or some puke-inducing eggnog. In fact, with regard to the anti-Semitism, you can frontload it and even garnish it with an oven joke or two.

No one's going to rock the boat, and there's Good Old Woesy, himself, with his oily, emollient, sleep-deprived personality, ready to smooth over any rippled waters and ensure that the whole thing continues on its tepid way.

The Alt-Right (or Diss-Right if it wants to call itself that) is revealed in its truest nature in the Millenniyules, as a social club for misfits who use lies, conspiracy theories, and a vague sense of being bullied and victimized to bond together.

This social dynamic -- as opposed to intellectual dynamic, of which there is none -- explains Woes's petty success in this little niche that he has carved out for himself. He has succeeded at failure!

But it's not all sweetness and poor lighting. Behind the bonhomie is the bitchiness, the in-group agreement about who's in and who's out.

I know about this, as I was almost a regular on Millenniyule myself, until my tendency to call out bullshit (actually blatant Naziism) got me put on Woes's blacklist, which even then was being curated by Greg Johnson. Since then Johnson's hold on Woes has tightened, and Woes himself has drifted into ever more vigorous agreement with Johnson's Naziism.

I could give many other examples of other people who are no longer in Woes's good books, the most obvious example, being Richard Spencer, who clearly went through his own Nazi phase a few short years ago, but has always been on Johnson's catty little list of enemies.

So, is everybody on Millenniyule Woes a card-carrying Counter-Currents Neo-Nazi?

The answer is no. The Johnson strategy is to hide his dirty inner circle with a few "normie friendly" dissidents -- dumb conspiracy types, old duffers like Godfrey Bloom, a civ-nat or two, a sprinkling of Christian nationalists, or just a few oddballs and colourful perverts. This year, Woes even had my good friend Richard Wolstencroft on. I won't say to which category or categories he belongs, but Richard's a good guy.

He even told me that Woes would "like to be pals again." I don't think that's going to happen, as anyone who pushes back against the intellectually dishonest cosiness of the Millenniyules, or is in Greg Johnson's hate list, is not going to be allowed on, and then again, why would anyone who wasn't a Nazi want to be involved with a project that is clearly Nazi (just listen to Johnson ranting on about the Jews again as usual)?

While many former guests, like myself, have been "disinvited" from the Millenniyules, a possibly even larger number have sensibly disinvited themselves, after realising what kind of Nazi bathhouse they were in. James Delingpole appears to be the latest. They made the right decision.

The wider New Right or Dissident Right is essentially dead, and a big tent with Nazis in it soon becomes a collapsed rag in a muddy field, flapping in the wind.

If Woes was serious about the Millenniyules being in any way meaningful, he would do at least three things.

First, he would try to deprogram himself of the growing Naziism and tolerance of Naziism that he has allowed himself to slide into.

Secondly, he would kick Johnson and the Counter-Currents ghey Nazi club into the long grass.

And, thirdly, he would get rid of the whole cosy one-on-one vibe of the Millenniyules by making it more about discussing and arguing ideas (in a civilised way obviously), possibly by having two, three, or four guests on at the same time.

A simple Marxist critique -- i.e. understanding which side Woes's bread is buttered on -- tells me this is not going to happen. Johnson's financial hold on the man in the bathrobe is too tight.

THE ALTERNATIVE RIGHT PODCAST

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 09 Nov 2022 14:49:00 +0000

Following their break with Richard Spencer at the end of 2013, Colin Liddell & Andy Nowicki decided to keep on podcasting. Thus was born the Alternative Right Podcast, which ran from 2014 to 2018 (after which it transmuted into the Affirmative Right Podcast in 2017).

The Empire (and Deep State) Strikes Back

(31st Dec 2017) Alt-Right Podcast (54)

Liddell and Nowicki look back at 2017, a remarkable year in which the establishment lashed out at the Alt-Right with doxxings and deplatformings.

C'Ville War Part One & Part Two

(1st Nov 2017) Alt-Right Podcast (53)

Liddell and Nowicki discuss Nowicki's recent trip to the controversial "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.

ADL Senpai Notices Us

(21st Jul 2017) Alt-Right Podcast (52)

Following their inclusion on the ADL's list of the top 36 movers and shakers in the Dissident Right, Liddell and Nowicki reflect on the ADL's sinister mission.

Electile Dysfunction

(11th Jun 2017) Alt-Right Podcast (51)

Joined by Richard Wolstencroft, Liddell and Nowicki discuss the recent UK general election that forced the Conservative Party to beg Ulster Unionists for support.

Cold Pizza Planet of the Oscars

(9th Mar 2017) Alt-Right Podcast (50)

Joined by Richard Wolstencroft, Liddell and Nowicki discuss the latest Oscars and the classic era of 1970s cinema, including the original Planet of the Apes series.

The Year of the Frog

(31st Dec 2016) Alt-Right Podcast (49)

Liddell and Nowicki are joined by Richard Wolstencroft and Alex Fontana to take a long look back at 2016.

Making Elections Great Again

(13th Nov 2016) Alt-Right Podcast (48)

David Cole and Richard Wolstencroft join Liddell and Nowicki to discuss the Presidential election.

The Alt-Right Fucks You in the Pussy

(10th Oct 2016) Alt-Right Podcast (47)

Richard Wolstencroft and Ann Sterzinger join Liddell to discuss the Second Presidential Debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton Shines a Light on the Alt-Right

(28th Aug 2016) Alt-Right Podcast (46)

Andy Nowicki and Colin Liddell discuss Hillary Clinton's recent speech attacking the Alt-Right and attempting to link us to Donald Trump.

The Alt-Right Conquers the World

(21st Jul 2016) Alt-Right Podcast (45)

Joined by Richard Wolstenscroft and Andy Nowicki to consider the "full-spectrum" rise of the Alt-Right across the World.

A Moon-Shaped Pool of Blood

(19th Jun 2016) Alt-Right Podcast (44)

Novelist Ann Sterzinger joins Andy Nowicki and Colin Liddell to discuss a variety of topics, including BREXIT, the murder of Jo Cox, the Orlando gay-club massacre, etc.

E. Michael Jones and the Slaughter of Cities

(14th May 2016) Alt-Right Podcast (43)

Alternative Right's regular contributor Alex Fontana interviews E. Michael Jones, about his book The Slaughter of Cities. Jones believes that WASP and Jewish elites had a deliberate policy of rehousing Whites in suburbs to break down their ethnic identity. Really? Listen on...

Defacing the Currency

(29th Apr 2016) Alt-Right Podcast (42)

Andy Nowicki and Colin Liddell discuss proposed changes to the US currency, and the symbolism and iconography of a range of other currencies, including the English and Scottish pounds, the Euro, and the hyperinflationary Zimbabwean dollar.

A Most Interesting Election

(4th Apr 2016) Alt-Right Podcast (41)

Colin Liddell and Andy Nowicki are joined by self-confessed "Bernie Bro," Bay Area Guy, to discuss the most interesting US Presidential election in living memory.

Trumpophobia

(12th Mar 2016) Alt-Right Podcast (40)

Andy Nowicki and Colin Liddell are joined by Keith Preston to talk about the Trump phenomenon and why a man who makes sensible statements about many issues "triggers" the media, the establishment, and the Left.

Roosh and the Alt-Right

(14th Feb 2016) Alt-Right Podcast (39)

Matt Forney & Matt Parrott join Andy Nowicki & Colin Liddell to discuss the recent allegations of "rapey-ness" directed at manosphere blogger Roosh V. Is this related to Europe's migrant rape crisis?

The Life and Death of David Bowie

(16th Jan 2016) Alt-Right Podcast (38)

Andy Nowicki & Colin Liddell are joined by novelist Ann Sterzinger to commemorate the life and death of the "chameleon of rock" David Bowie.

Outdoor New Year's Message (unavailable)

(6th Jan 2016) Alt-Right Podcast (37)

Colin Liddell meditates on the Alt-Right while walking around a park in his hometown.

2015 — Year of the Uncucked with Kevin MacDonald

(17th Dec 2015) Alt-Right Podcast (36)

Kevin MacDonald joins Andy Nowicki and Colin Liddell to take a look back at the events of 2015, a year which saw Syria fall deeper into chaos, the migrant "invasion" of Europe, and the rise of nationalist movements.

Paris and the Abyss of Western Identity

(15th Nov 2015) Alt-Right Podcast (35)

Joined by Andy Nowicki and Ann Sterzinger to discuss the Islamic terrorist attack on Paris, and whether the West's negative idea of "freedom" will ultimately submit to Islam's crude positivity.

TPP - Globalism's Last Grasp?

(4th Nov 2015) Alt-Right Podcast (34)

Joined by Andy Nowicki, Siryako Akda, and Daniel Spaulding to look at the latest push for globalism, the Trans Pacific Partnership deal. Also discussed is China's "One Road, One Band" strategy.

Pork Politics: Cameron and Clinton

(28th Sep 2015) Alt-Right Podcast (33)

Andy Nowicki and Colin Liddell discuss a wide range of political subjects, including the attempt to "put lipstick on a pig" in the case of Hillary Clinton.

Dreams of Dystopia

(8th Sep 2015) Alt-Right Podcast (32)

Andy Nowicki chats with author Ann Sterzinger about her experiences as editrix of Takimag and Trigger Warning, and her soon-to-be-completed magnum opus LYFE, a futuristic comedy.

The Greek Crisis and the Chinese Bubble

(12th Jul 2015) Alt-Right Podcast (31)

Colin Liddell is joined by Siryako Akda to discuss the turbulent state of the global economy.

The Lady From the New York Times

(5th Jul 2015) Alt-Right Podcast (3o)

A discussion with Pulitzer-prize-winning reporter Stephanie Saul on the Alternative Right.

Rainbows Over Dixie

(29th Jun 2015) Alt-Right Podcast (29)

Andy Nowicki and Colin Liddell discuss the sudden escalation in the culture wars due to the Supreme Court imposing gay marriage and the assault on Confederate symbolism.

The Political Pervecast

(4th Jun 2015) Alt-Right Podcast (28)

Andy Nowicki and Colin Liddell discuss the synergy between politics and sexual perversion.

Cameron's Second Coming

(10th May 2015) Alt-Right Podcast (27)

Andy Nowicki and Colin Liddell discuss the unexpected victory of David Cameron in the UK General Election.

Hanging the Parliament

(5th May 2015) Alt-Right Podcast (26)

With the UK general election just days away, Andy Nowicki and Colin Liddell discuss what is sure to be one of the most interesting elections in British political history.

Baltimore as Internal Decolonization

(29th Apr 2015) Alt-Right Podcast (25)

Andy Nowicki and Colin Liddell talk about the Baltimore Riots and the broader significance of endemic Black rioting fuelled by false narratives of "police brutality."

Theorizing on Conspiracies

(28th Mar 2015) Alt-Right Podcast (24)

Andy Nowicki & Colin Liddell discuss why conspiracy theories are suddenly so popular.

Lee Kuan Yew R.I.P.

(24th Mar 2015) Alt-Right Podcast (23)

Colin Liddell & Siryako Akda discuss the life and legacy of Singapore's founding father.

Seriously, Syriza? (unavailable)

(2nd Feb 2015) Alt-Right Podcast (22)

Joined by Andy Nowicki, Mike Enoch, and Dimitrios Papageorgiou to discuss modern Greek politics and the hard-left Syriza party that has formed a government.

2014 Year of the Dindu

(29th Dec 2014) Alt-Right Podcast (21)

Joined by Andy Nowicki, Richard Spencer, Mike Enoch to look back on 2014, the year of the non-story posing as the real story and the real story posing as the non-story.

Hacking Hollywood

(21st Dec 2014) Alt-Right Podcast (20)

Matt Parrott joins Andy Nowicki and Colin Liddell to talk about the Sony Pictures hack that has temporarily lifted the lid on a major Hollywood studio.

Interview with the Editrix

(6th Dec 2014) Alt-Right Podcast (19)

Andy converses with Ann Sterzinger, the "editrix" of Takimag, about her newfound quest to help worthy writers.

The Asian Century?

(2nd Dec 2014) Alt-Right Podcast (18)

Joined by Matt Forney and Daniel Spaulding to discuss "The Asian Question." Will the 21st century be the Asian century?

Rape Culture

(24th Nov 2014) Alt-Right Podcast (17)

Matt Forney joins Andy Nowicki and Colin Liddell to discuss intolerance, "rape culture," the victim hierarchy, Bill Cosby, and the divisions among SJWs.

The Arrest of Richard Spencer

(22nd Oct 2014) Alt-Right Podcast (16)

Richard Spencer joins Colin Liddell and Andy Nowicki to talk about Spencer's recent attempt to hold a conference in Budapest against the opposition of the Hungarian state.

South Africa - Hope in Diversity

(9th Oct 2014) Alt-Right Podcast (15)

Attie Schutte joins Andy Nowicki and Colin Liddell to talk about the difficult situation of Whites in the "multi-cultural paradise" of South Africa.

Post-Summer Catch Up

(24th of Sep 2014) Alt-Right Podcast (14)

Andy Nowicki and Colin Liddell discuss the Scottish Referendum, Rotherham, Putin's war in the Ukraine, and Obama's meddling in the Middle East.

Hopeless Books (unavailable)

(11th of Jul 2014) Alt-Right Podcast (13)

Andy Nowicki talks to Ann Sterzinger about her indie publishing company Hopeless Books.

David Cole - Dying for the Holocaust

(25th of Jun 2014) Alt-Right Podcast (12)

Joined by David Cole and Andy Nowicki to talk about Cole's new book Republican Party Animal and his life in Hollywood and Republican Party circles.

Elliot Rodger, EU Elections, & the New Right

(1st of Jun 2014) Alt-Right Podcast (11)

Greg Johnson joins Andy Nowicki and Colin Liddell to talk about spree shooter Elliot Rodger and the recent EU elections.

Perverted Elites

(25th Apr 2014) Alt-Right Podcast (10)

Andy Nowicki & Colin Liddell tackle the latest Hollywood scandal, involving "X-Men" director Bryan Singer and a number of other Hollywood insiders.

Podcast into Nowhere

(28th of Mar 2014) Alt-Right Podcast (9)

Andy Nowicki & Colin Liddell discuss the mystery of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370.

Truth in the Shadows, Shadows in the Truth

(8th of Mar 2014) Alt-Right Podcast (8)

Matt Parrott joins Andy Nowicki & Colin Liddell to discuss the "The Dark Enlightenment" and the "fractal pornography of ideologies" made possible by the internet.

Ukrainian Games

(27th of Feb 2014) Alt-Right Podcast (7)

Matt Parrott joins Andy Nowicki & Colin Liddell to trawl through the choppy waters of global geopolitics in the wake of Ukraine's remarkable revolution.

Sochi Stuff as Dreams are Made of

(21st of Feb 2014) Alt-Right Podcast (6)

Andy Nowicki & Colin Liddell take a long look back at the history of the Olympic movement and sport in general.

Dugin Looks East

(15th Feb 2014) Alt-Right Podcast (5)

Colin Liddell talks to Alexander Dugin about the Sochi Olympics' opening ceremony, Japan, North East Asia, and American "interference" in this region.

Rebel Swell!

(3rd Feb 2014) Alt-Right Podcast (4)

Andy Nowicki & Colin Liddell welcome Michael Cushman (aka the "Palmetto Patriot") to discuss Southern issues.

2013 in Review

(23rd of Dec 2013) Alt-Right Podcast (3)

Joined by Andy Nowicki and Charles to take a look back at the "Year of the Snake" as it starts to slither out of sight.

The Knockout Game

(18th of Dec 2013) Alt-Right Podcast (2)

Andy Nowicki & Colin Liddell are joined by Charles to discuss the "The Knockout Game" a spate of random attacks by Blacks against non-Blacks that seems to be motivated by racial hatred.

Lost Violent Souls

(9th Dec 2013) Alt-Right Podcast (1)

Joined by Andy Nowicki, John Morgan, and Charles to talk about the passing of two men who died on the same day, Nelson Mandela and Colin Wilson.

THE DERADICALISATION WARS

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 15 May 2022 22:13:00 +0000

Justification is the trigger.

by Colin Liddell

When shootings like the recent massacre in Buffalo, New York, happen, we need to distinguish between causes and justification. The cause can be anything -- rage, loneliness, mental instability, flu jabs, etc. But, without a justification, the cause is much less likely to have an effect. The oddly named Payton Gendron, the 18-year-old kid responsible for taking 10 lives at a supermarket in a Black neighbourhood, definitely had a justification for his action -- at least one that made plenty of sense to him. Without that, his action may never have got very far; with it, the pieces fell into place and butchery ensued. Yes, the atrocity in Buffalo flew in on its own special pair of wings.

But what were the feathers in those "wings" that carried Gendron to his shocking act of violence? Look no further than his own manifesto. Already the internet, with its NPC hive mind of conspiritards, is doing its work and saying that the Buffalo massacre is "glowy" and a "Fed operation." Heck, who knows, they may even be right! But the fact is that what happened in that supermarket did not need to have a Fed hand behind it. Gendron's explosion of violence had its own relentless logic, one that has its roots firmly embedded in the worldview of the Alt-Right.

Gendron, to be clear, believed -- and said so explicitly in his manifesto -- that his race, civilisation, and society was being wiped out by the machinations of "demonic Jews." In what is a work of an above-average-intelligence young man, he explained his position with crystal clarity:

“The elite”, “The 1%”, “The bankers”, “The capitalists”, (((them))), “The marxist’s” they all refer to the same group: THE JEWS!! When referring to “the Jews” I don’t mean all ethnic or religious Jews. Some can be actually decent, and make significant progress to humanity. However many of them are not. Many are born to exploit the goyim and exploit the Earth for capital gain. They control the mainstream media, many government positions, and international and global banking. They advocate for leftist ideology, and spread propaganda among the right. They spread their lies through all forms of media. They want us to divide ourselves by race, instead of goy and non-goy, like they already do. “Remember the 6 million goyim!” The real war I’m advocating for is the gentiles vs the Jews. We outnumber them 100x, and they are not strong by themselves. But by their Jewish ways, they turn us against each other. When you realize this you will know that the Jews are the biggest problem the Western world has ever had. They must be called out and killed, if they are lucky they will be exiled. We can not show any sympathy towards them again (p24)

This is not a worldview unique to one lone nutcase. The ideas and attitude presented here lie at the core of every single organ of the Alt-Right. Of course, some of them may try to be optical, and not call for actual massacres, but, yes, they all believe the same old thing as Gendron. In fact, Gendron got his views from them, not the other way round.

In his manifesto he namechecks the Daily Stormer, which readers here should know all about. He also included links to Unz and VDare, and cartoons from the Stormer and Stone Toss.

Unz is basically the Stormer 2.0 at this moment, while VDare is simply a race realist and immigration restrictionist website, at least in its avowed positions. As for Stone Toss, he is just one guy, but in my Dikipedia, a notebook of who's who in the Dissident Right, I say this about him:

He also frequently dog whistles Alt-Right/Neo-Nazi JQ positions, i.e. promoting the idea of "ZOG," namely the notion that the Jews control America's politics and its media, and have an agenda of promoting mass immigration and degeneracy, implying that none of these things would be happening without Jewish influence. His content is thus rather blackpilling, which is, of course, a means of subtly depressing and demoralising nationalists and dissident righters, or else pushing them into self-defeating extremism.

But it's not just the Stormer and Stone Toss. Patriotic Alternative in the UK, TRS, Counter Currents, Scandza, Tim Kelly, Morgoth, Millennial Woes, and many less prominent groups and individuals push exactly the same analysis and ideology that Gendron expressed in his manifesto, namely that it's all down to the Jews.

Greg Johnson who has spent a lifetime pushing just this narrative over at Counter-Currents believes exactly the same premises as Gendron, but comes to, ahem, more "optical" conclusions:

Gendron’s decision to go on a shooting spree was motivated by a false sense of urgency. On the one hand, he knew that the solution to our problems requires a “civilizational paradigm shift”: “We must inevitably correct the disaster of hedonistic, nihilistic individualism. But it will take some time, time we do not have due to the crisis of mass immigration”... There are two problems with this reasoning. First, we have decades to get this right. Payton Gendron could have spent his entire life working to raise consciousness about white replacement. He didn’t have to waste his life this way. Second, as I make clear below, mass shootings are counter-productive anyway. As I never tire of repeating: We’ve got time to do this right, and if we don’t have time, doing something stupid won’t help us anyway.

Yes, the "Demonic Jews" can apparently be defeated by taking out a lifetime's subscription of Counter Currents and buying Greg's books!

The chilling reality is that Gendron's act of "terrorism/ asymmetrical warfare" has its own logic IF you accept his premises and believe as he does -- as practically the entire Alt-Right does -- that the Jews exert undue power and have the destruction of Whites and the West at heart.

In fact, I would say it has a clearer logic than Johnson's "do nothing" attitude. Indeed, if I were convinced that a "demonic" group was really behind the demographic decline of the West and the coming extinction of my people, I would find Gendron's actions entirely understandable and even laudable. I might even find myself planning similar or worse scenarios. But, as it happens, I do NOT believe that the Jews are behind most of the evils in the World, or even a great many of them. So the Jews can sleep secure in their beds tonight, at least on my account.

The trouble, however, is that a great many people believe exactly what Gendron believes. I have seen this again and again (and again and again) almost everywhere on the internet where people feel free enough to say what they feel. The truth is there is a vast army of Gendrons out there waiting in the wings -- the Buffalo Wings.

Greenblatt and the ADL: the face of total deradicalization failure

As for those well-funded organisations, like the ADL, the SPLC, and others, seeking to hold back this anti-Semitic tsunami, their strategy of "counter radicalism" has clearly failed. When the Alt-Right was taken over by the Stormer and TRS types in 2015 and '16, the anti-radicalisation forces felt they had the magic bullet: they would simply demonetize and deplatform the Alt-Right. Effectively, force would be used, people doxxed, careers and livelihoods ruined, and the social media space napalmed with censorship. That would win the war, they thought.

It was tried and tried again, but did it work? Just ask the ten bodies lying in the morgue in Buffalo; just ask all the edgy kids on the Chans and message boards. The reason this anti-Semitic subculture, or ideology, fails to die is because it is supported by outside actors like Russia, but also because, when it is attacked, it is attacked in a way that suggests those attacking it are afraid of it, and are terrified of its ideas and data.

In his manifesto Gendron included plenty of data -- "hate facts" linked to serious studies that point to important scientific differences of race. These cannot be disproved or easily dismissed, as race is real. But the core of his ideology, the notion of the "demonic all-powerful Jew" is much easier to debunk, deconstruct, and discredit. We have done much of that here at this site.

But for groups like the ADL and SPLC to do this, would involve them getting their hands dirty and their knees scuffed, deep in the jungles and trenches of the meme war; instead of just dropping deplatforming bombs from 30,000 feet. They would have to know their stuff, and be able to defuse persistent memes believed in with an almost religious fervour. They simply don't have the guts for that. This, in a nutshell, is why they are losing the deradicalization wars.

Another reason is that they don't even recognize that there is a problem. Even though the Alt-Right's analysis is shit and simplistic, they at least recognize that there is an existential problem of advanced Western societies losing core population and gradually becoming extinct.

They spin this as "The Great Replacement" and say it is because of the Jews, who are apparently doing it because they want to live in something resembling Somalia rather than Sweden or Switzerland. Yes, more crap Alt-Right analysis, but the mainstream simply denies that rapid demographic change is or even should be an issue. The fact is that for any sane person it is an issue and should be one.

Until the deradicalizers recognize that and talk about it, they will always be outgunned by the Alt-Right and their dangerous ideas in the heads of people like Gendron. In fact they will probably be massacred.

Meme keeping the radicalization drive on schedule

BOLSHEVISM AND (NOT) THE JEWS

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 10 May 2022 09:43:00 +0000

A data-driven deconstruction of the Alt-Right and Neo-Nazi lie that the Bolshevik Revolution was overwhelmingly a Jewish project.

Connected content:
Alt-Right Lies: Russian Revolution Not Actually Dominated by Jews
How Jewish Bolsheviks Tried to Oppose the Russian Revolution

MARINE WINS THE COLONIAL VOTE!!!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 26 Apr 2022 07:56:00 +0000

Some surprising data points about the recent French Presidential Election. Would a win for Marine Le Pen have changed anything of importance?

THE FIRST LEFTIST GENOCIDE OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 24 Apr 2022 10:50:00 +0000

by Colin Liddell

Today in the anniversary of the start of the Armenian Genocide.

Contrary to the myth that the Right is genocidal, an accurate appraisal of history reveals that most mass methodical killing in modern times are the works of Liberals and Leftists. So it was with the first major holocaust of the twentieth century, the massacre of the Armenians and other Christian minorities in the Ottoman Empire from 1915 onwards.

This prolonged atrocity, which included countless acts of rape, torture, and even crucifixion, and which saw tens of thousands taken out into the Black Sea and drowned, while many more were marched out into the deserts to die of starvation and disease, was carried out by the Ottoman Empire.

This superficial fact conjures up an image of Oriental despotism of the sort we normally associate with the likes of Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, or even Ivan the Terrible.

In other words, the implicit image of these massacres that exists in the popular mind is of dark deeds carried out at the behest of an absolute monarch, embodying the forces of traditionalism and conservatism. But nothing could be further from the truth.

By the time of the genocide, the Ottoman Empire of popular imagination had ceased to exist. The Sultan of the Ottoman Empire at the time of the genocide was Mehmed V, a gentle and ineffectual man, who has been described as follows:

“The very appearance of Mehmed V suggests nonentity. Small and bent, with sunken eyes and deeply lined face, an obesity savoring of disease, and a yellow, oily complexion, it certainly is not prepossessing. There is little or no intelligence in his countenance, and he never lost a haunted, frightening look, as if dreading to find an assassin lurking in some dark corner ready to strike and kill him ...” The Near East from Within

By 1913, he had been reduced to a mere figurehead and pawn by a series of coup d'états, which had placed the leaders of the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) in absolute power.

The CUP is the organization that became better known by its nickname, “The Young Turks,” because of the youthfulness of it three leaders, Enver Pasha, Talaat Pasha, and Djemal Pasha, who were also known as “The Three Pashas.” Enver Pasha , the youngest, was only 32 years old, in 1913. This was the ruling triumvirate that oversaw Turkey’s disastrous alliance with Germany, the genocide of the Armenians, and the country’s final defeat.

Dominated by Enver, the Three Pashas were thoroughly modern types, inimical to traditional Islam, until they realized its military and political utility as a trans-nationalist force that could strengthen the state.

Those on the Left, keen to distance themselves from the brutality and failure of the CUP, prefer to describe it as “nationalist” and even “proto-fascist,” but, within the context of Turkish politics, it was clearly a left-leaning anti-nationalist organization whose slogan – “Hürriyet, Müsavaat, Adalet” (Liberty, Equality, Justice) – would do justice to any liberal PAC in the modern West.

The Young Turks favoured a constitutional monarchy and the modernization of the country in ways that would eradicate the ethnic divisions that had always formed the texture of the ethnic patchwork that was the Ottoman Empire. They defined themselves politically against reactionary conservative, monarchist, and Islamist elements that wished to restore the power of the Sultan.

Due to its progressivism, the CUP had the support of most of the Empire’s minorities, including ironically and tragically the Armenians themselves, many of whom celebrated its seizure of power. Also important in the movement were the Dönme crypto-Jews, especially those from the town of Salonika, which passed into Greek hands following the Balkan War of 1912.

The most significant Dönme was Mehmet Cavit Bey, editor of the CUP’s newspaper and later finance minister in the government. Other important Dönme figures were the feminist Sabiha Sertel, Doctor Nâzım Bey, one of the chief architects of the genocidal policy, and Munis Tekinalp, also known as Moiz Cohen, one of the main intellectuals behind Turanism and Pan-Turkism, the form that Turkish “nationalism” later took.

All of four of these figures had close links to the town of Salonika, as did Kemal Atatürk, the later founder of the Turkish Republic. It is often rumoured that Atatürk was also a member of this crypto-Jewish community, although his Albanian forbearers are better documented and more evident in his physical appearance.

But the most interesting thing about the supposed Turkish nationalism of both the Young Turks and later the Kemalists, is how un-Turkish it actually was.

This was the effect of IQ differences between the European, Crypto-Jewish, and Asiatic elements in the Ottoman Empire, with the former naturally rising to the top of any movement or organization. It was also the result of the need to literally create the idea of “the Turk” in order to unify what was in effect an ethnically diverse area.

While, generally speaking, society is more often a racial construct, the Turk is one of the few instances where race can be said to be a social construct.

The Turk was certainly not a clearly defined racial entity with unique features. The Turanian blood of the original Turkish nomads from central Asia had long ago been lost in an ethnic mix with Byzantine Greeks, Armenians, and the various ethnicities of Anatolia. Atatürk later proclaimed the ancient Hittites to have been his people's true ancestors, but the Hittites were not Turanians, and none of the Turkish people could claim anything greater than 25 percent Turanian blood, least of all Atatürk himself with his strong Albanian heritage.

A cultural picture. The racial picture would be even more complex.

Not only was Atatürk (literally “Father of the Turks”) a very un-Turkish Turk, so were at least two of the Three Pashas. Enver was also of Albanian origin on his mother’s side, while Talaat was a member of the Pomak ethnicity – a group of Bulgarian-speaking Muslims.

Even if you accept the mongrelized Turk as a distinct hybrid race that originated after the conquest of Anatolia by the original Turanian people in the 11th century, the main leaders of Turkish nationalism were a separate racial cadre with greatly disproportionate Albanian, Pomak, and Crypto-Jewish elements.

The Young Turks and later the Kemalite state did not therefore represent an authentic nationalism, expressing the true character of the Turkish people. Instead, like the later Baathist regimes in Syria and Iraq, they represented a kind or ersatz statist nationalism, imposed by tightly networked hidden minorities on the wider population, a “nationalism” that served the generic statist interests of the modernizing and centralizing civic entity.

As with Assyrian Christians in Baathist Syria and Iraq, the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire initially stood to gain from the new order. But their specific ethno-religious character as Christians and ethno-political character as an ancient kingdom with a long history that predated the Ottoman Empire – and even its predecessor, the Byzantine – made them an awkward fit in the new ersatz nationalist civic state that the progressivist CUP were working towards. This inherent conflict was additionally exacerbated by their concentration near the front line with the Russian Empire, which offered a competing pole of loyalty, especially as many Armenians also lived on the Russian side of the border.

Another factor in the genocide was the characteristic mix of totalitarianism and incompetence that typifies Leftist regimes.

Although technically in favour of constitutional government and democracy, the leaders of the CUP, faced strong resistance and an unsympathetic populace, predisposing them to a “temporary” suspension of their progressivist principles.

This pattern is often repeated among Liberal and Leftist ruling elites: the pursuit of idealistic policies that don’t conform to realities invariably leads to problems, which, in turn, unleashes dictatorial and totalitarian tendencies. Liberals and Leftists have an in-built tendency to veer towards a “dictatorship of the proletariat” mentality – the desire to take power on behalf on the “less fortunate” and “less enlightened,” in order to make the radical changes they feel are necessary.

By 1912, the CUP had completely rigged the electoral system in the Election of the Clubs, and were in the process of sweeping away the past. Part of this included turning its back on the Ottoman Empire’s traditional ally, Great Britain, and its pragmatic and moderating influence, and aligning instead with the strident modernism and assertive militarism of Wilhelmite Germany. This strengthened the tendency towards radical solutions and political ruthlessness within Turkey, something that was intensified by the war situation that arose following Turkey’s entry into WWI in October 1914.

German approved

Added to these pressures and tendencies, we have the psychological aspect of the leaders, especially Enver Pasha, who like many Liberals and Leftists, was a vainglorious and emotionally brittle individual. In the winter of 1914, he had led an ambitious offensive against the Russians in Eastern Anatolia, which aimed to crush the Russian armies. Faced by General Yudenich, later a hero of the White Russian forces in the Russian Civil War, his army was disastrously defeated at the Battle of Sarikamish. This was another example of the Liberal tendency to get swept away by big ideas and visions, then come crashing into realities.

Rather than admit his own incompetence, Enver shifted the blame to the Armenian communities living in the region, and started to see them – and portray them – as traitors and a fifth column for the Russians. This demonization of the Armenians as a people that did not fit into the exigencies of the state at war expressed the Liberal dynamic of centralization and standardization, intensified by the pressures of war. The prelude to the actual genocide was Enver’s order to disarm all Armenian soldiers in the Ottoman armies and transfer them to the labour battalions, and a sketchy plan relocate the Armenian population.

The Armenian genocide has two aspects, both of them deadly. On the one hand there were direct attempts at simple extirpation of the Armenians. Many of these efforts were driven by a mixture of human passions, including greed, cruelty, envy, lust, religious hatred, and a displaced desire for revenge. Many of the most violent agents of the genocide were people like the Dönme crypto-Jew Doctor Nâzım Bey, whose family had suffered when the Greeks had seized Salonika.

But there was also a more cold and callous aspect that involved badly thought-out and ill-prepared attempts to relocate the Armenians to less militarily sensitive areas, just as there was in the USA with regard to Japanese Americans following Pearl Harbour. But unlike America, where the camps that held the Japanese were commodious and well-provisioned, little was prepared in the way of provisions, accommodation, or protection for the Armenians, with the result that many of the deaths simply occurred through neglect and the unsupervised abuse of guards. A large part of the loss of life can be attributed to the inefficiency of the process of relocation and a lack of proper organization. This again is a trademark of the Liberal Left, namely the implementation of big plans that haven’t been properly thought through, and in which glaring flaws, weaknesses, and horrific consequences are callously ignored.

But the final proof that the perpetrators of this horrific act of genocide were on the Left rather than on the Right can be found in the aftermath. With military defeat and the collapse of the Ottoman state, no attempt was made, as in 1945, to arrest and try the perpetrators of genocide. The Three Pashas were allowed to escape and go into exile. Luckily two of them fell at the hands of Armenian assassins. But the worst of the three, Enver Pasha, escaped this fate. Instead he fled to Germany, where he made contact with German communists. He then moved on to Soviet Russia, where he managed to win the trust of Lenin, before his Pan-Turkist tendencies led to a falling out and his death at the hands of a detachment of Soviet cavalry.

Young Turks: Leftists then, Leftists now.

MONGOL-LAG AND THE ANTI-RUSSIANNESS OF THE PUTINIST STATE

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 05 Apr 2022 09:38:00 +0000

Khan Putin "de-Nazifying" the Ukraine one skull at a time.

by Colin Liddell

Russia is suffering from a bad case of what can only be described as "Mongol-lag." What exactly do I mean by this term? Well, it's simple. It's just like jet lag but it effects a country—Russia—rather than a jet passenger, and the cause is not airline travel but medieval Mongol invasion. The time difference thing is completely the same.

You see, one of the main problems of history is the intrinsic natural characters of countries, cultures, and civilizations versus the extrinsic attitudes they are forced to adopt—or moulded into—in competition with their historical rivals or invaders. Often it's a case of fighting the next war with the weapons of the last one, or, in Russia's case, existing in a form that was spurred by past historical conditions, but is completely unsuited to its present day conditions.

If you go far back, Russia had a fleeting existence as a unitary state soon after it was founded by the Viking Russ in the 9th century. It was then known as the "Principality of Russia." By the 11th century, however, it had started to break up into several entities, including the Principality of Polotsk, the Principality of Vladimir, the Republic of Novgorod, the Principality of Chernigov-Tmutorokan, etc. Occasional efforts were made to reunite some of these, but by the early 13th century Russia had devolved into at least ten reasonably large-sized states in what is now Belarus, Ukraine, and North Western Russia.

Russia, naturally multipolar

So, after several hundreds of years of development, it could be said that Russian civilisation had assumed its natural intrinsic form, that of a multi-state rather than a mono-state. If it had been left alone, that is probably how it might have stayed. But it was definitely not left alone.

The Mongols happened!

This changed everything. Russia was obliterated, its cities destroyed, its people massacred and enslaved. Pyramids of skulls appeared on the Steppes. Those states that survived outright annihilation remained little more than shadows of their former selves, mere vassals and tribute gathering zones for the Khanate of the Golden Horde.

Out of this darkness, after more than two centuries, Russia gradually re-emerged. But now, rather than its natural intrinsic form of a multi-state entity, it was pushed and passively moulded into an over-centralised, Tsarist entity, with everything controlled from Moscow. This was the time of Ivan the Terrible.

The true, beautiful, multipolar character of Russia had been crushed. Or had it?

Cossacks, true Russians

In the wild steppe lands of the South, open to the constant inroads and depredations of nomadic Tartars, the spirit of multipolar Russia lived on in the guise of the freedom-loving Cossacks, who were in a sense the founding fathers of the modern Ukrainian state.

In many ways Putin is correct when he claims that Ukrainians are just Russians. All large countries have regional variations. The Cantonese Chinese are different from the Mandarin Chinese, but both are Chinese. Likewise America too has great diversity between its regions and states but there is a common Americanness somewhere.

But where Putin is wrong is in assuming that this common Russianness can only be expressed in a heavily centralised unipolar state, one where all Russians must live under the heel of the Muscovite state.

This is not the essence of Russia, and it never was. No, this is much more the historical essence of Genghis Khan and the Mongol horde. That is exactly what Vladimir Putin is seeking to impose on the Ukraine and his fellow Russians.

Putin's theory of Mongolism, for all Russians, was set out recently in a lengthy article published at RIA Novosti, a state-owned domestic news agency that is the mouthpiece of the Kremlin's darkest thoughts. Written by Kremlin hack Timofey Sergeytsev, it was titled "What should Russia do with Ukraine.” Under the guise of "denazification," Putin wishes to crush Russian multipolarity once and forever in the person of the Ukrainian state.

Translated from Russian the article includes the following outlandish and deeply troubling statements:

The special operation revealed that not only the political leadership in Ukraine is Nazi, but also the majority of the population. All Ukrainians who have taken up arms must be eliminated - because they are responsible for the genocide of the Russian people.

Ukrainians disguise their Nazism by calling it a "desire for independence" and a "European way of development". Ukraine doesn't have a Nazi party, a Führer or racial laws, but because of its flexibility, Ukrainian Nazism is far more dangerous to the world than Hitler's Nazism.

Denazification means de-Ukrainianisation. Ukrainians are an artificial anti-Russian construct. They should no longer have a national identity. Denazification of Ukraine also means its inevitable de-Europeanisation.

Ukraine's political elite must be eliminated as it cannot be re-educated. Ordinary Ukrainians must experience all the horrors of war and absorb the experience as a historical lesson and atonement for their guilt.

The liberated and denazified territory of the Ukrainian state should no longer be called Ukraine. Denazification should last at least one generation - 25 years.

So what does all this denazification involve? The article sheds its lurid light with a list of bullet points (no pun intended):

—liquidation of armed Nazi formations (which are understood as any armed formations of Ukraine, including the Armed Forces of Ukraine), as well as the military, information, educational infrastructure that ensures their activity;
—the formation of people's self-government bodies and militia (defense and law and order) of the liberated territories, protecting the population from the terror of underground nazi groups;
—installation of the Russian information space;
—the confiscation of educational materials and the prohibition of educational programmes at all levels containing Nazi ideologies;
—mass investigative actions to establish personal responsibility for war crimes, crimes against humanity, the dissemination of Nazi ideology and support for the Nazi regime;
—lustration, publication of the names of accomplices of the Nazi regime, their involvement in forced labor to restore the destroyed infrastructure as a punishment for Nazi activities (from among those who will not be subject to the death penalty or imprisonment);
—the adoption at the local level, under the supervision of Russia, of primary normative acts of denazification "from below", the prohibition of all types and forms of revival of Nazi ideology;
—establishment of memorials, memorial signs, monuments to the victims of Ukrainian Nazism, perpetuation of the memory of the heroes of the struggle against it;
—the inclusion of a set of anti-fascist and denazification norms in the constitutions of the new people's republics;
—establishment of permanent denazification bodies for a period of 25 years.

In view of the massacres recently exposed in the town of Bucha, this language strikes a chilling note. The formula is that the Kremlin decides who is a "Nazi" and then executes them.

Sergeytsev adds:

Russia will have no allies in the denazification of Ukraine. Since this is a purely Russian business. And also because not just the Bandera version of Nazi Ukraine will be eradicated, but including, and above all, Western totalitarianism, the imposed programs of civilizational degradation and disintegration, the mechanisms of subjugation to the superpower of the West and the United States.

Are they really being serious, you can't help but ask, as it all sounds so absurd. But these are the cold unlaughing words of lunatics.

Yes, Putin has created a strange amalgam of anachronistic Mongolian-inspired terror, oddly justified to the wider world by recently imported Western liberal hysteria against "Naziism." With one eye on Russia's distant Mongolian past, Putin has another one on the shrill pointing-and-sputtering of Western SJWs and antifa. Putinism is Mongolism with much of the cruelty of the original, and none of its coolness.

What Putin is trying to create is an out-of-time historical reaction to stimuli that no longer exist.

Russia is no longer threatened by invasion. NATO expansion was never a military threat. Putin lied when he claimed it was. Can you imagine NATO, a purely defensive alliance made up of dozens of mild-mannered democracies, getting its ducks in a row long enough to launch an aggressive invasion of Russia? Of course not. They can't even agree on a "No Fly Zone" over part of the Ukraine.

Putin: fake Russian, shadow Mongolian, LARPy Byzantine

Rather than pretending to fear Operation Barbarossa 2.0, Russia should be counting its blessings on having such benign and peaceful neighbours.

Instead of the Mongols, the expansionary Ottoman Empire of yesteryear, the Sweden of Charles XII, the insurgent Poles, and the 2nd and 3rd Reichs, Russia is now bordered by the EU, the geopolitical equivalent of a large fluffy bunny. Even without its nuclear deterrent, European Russia would be totally safe. China, too, seems disinclined to ever invade its remote Siberian territories. Why would it, when it can get all the logs, gas, oil, and ores it wants peacefully?

Russia, since the time of Ivan the Terrible, has been an intense, overcentralised aggressive empire, haunted by a distant past of Mongol brutalization and driven by LARPy notions of becoming Byzantine or a "Third Rome." Russia has to spend a lot more time on being who it really is and being here now.

You could say that the Putinist version of Russia has been conquered and humiliated by ancient extrinsic forces that have crushed its natural intrinsic multipolar character and imposed an ill-fitting external character.

This is what the present war really is: Ukraine (an intrinsic modern Russia and an aspect of Russian multipolarity at ease with Europe), against the Putinist state (an enslaved, extrinsically defined Russia, a glaring anachronism, several centuries out of date, still trembling at the shadow of the Great Khan, constantly acting up). This is the "Russia" of Vladimir Putin, an historical monstrosity and a horrific denial of Russia's true multipolarity and great potential. Putin's Russia is nothing less than an evil anti-Russia and must be destroyed so that the real Russia may live.

___________________________________

Colin Liddell was the Chief Editor of Affirmative Right and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying it here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia).

THE MYTH OF RUSSIAN MILITARY GREATNESS

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 28 Mar 2022 20:06:00 +0000

Empires & Revolution looks at one of the great myths of the 20th century, namely the supposed mightiness of the Russian military. Recent events in the Ukraine have greatly tarnished that image, but what does the actual historical record, stretching back over a hundred years, reveal?

BOOK REVIEW! INTERVIEWS AND OBITUARIES BY COLIN LIDDELL

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 27 Mar 2022 18:14:00 +0000

Buy it!

by Christopher Stigliano

Along with Andy Nowicki, Colin Liddell put a pretty hefty pounce into the old Alternative Right site. Two different kooks you couldn't find, but the two worked yin/yang magic with their site which, during the mid-teens, was a beautifully wicked one. So wicked that I actually hadda take the site offa my blog roll call due to a particularly scathing cartoon that was drawn by Liddell himself! I won't tell you what the comic entailed but boy was it a rather over-the-top single-panel effort that woulda gotten someone like me banished to non-existence (even more than I am non-existing in this world of "rock fandom" as we speak!) with nil hope of any sorta sniff-sniff boo-hoo redemption on my part! Lemme tell you, a precious petunia like you would be just poppin' the rage outta your flesh just like you do blackheads had ya seen that 'un.

Gotta admit that Liddell seemed like the more stuck up of the two. Maybe that's due to their somewhat polar opposites even with their shared sociopolitical outlook --- Nowicki the ethnic Catholic who's a good novelist in his own right as UNDER THE NIHIL will attest to and Liddell, the skeptical Scot [...] Still, in order to enjoy a book I thought would satisfy me to somewhat of an extent, I decided to put any preconceived notions regarding Liddell's apparent snobbery behind me. And with that firmly in mind I snatched up this home-produced book collecting a variety of, as the title says, interviews 'n obits under one cover if to get a good snuggle up 'n read experience into my ever-decaying system. And hey, thankfully it worked well enough to the point where I was inspired to re-arrange my reading parameters even more in order to expand my reading preferences beyond the same old, something I would have found rather strange even this far down that pothole-laden road of life I've had the displeasure of experiencing.

In this 'un Liddell, now a perhaps permanent resident of Japan where he writes for such local publications as THE JAPAN TIMES and THE ASAHI SHIMBUM ('n if that ain't Japanese...), presents a smattering of work both retread and previously unpublished featuring various interviews with names fairly big (Iron Maiden's Bruce Dickinson) and local (Communist Party of Japan leader Kazui Shii) doing an admittingly good job of getting his subject matter to kick back and let it all hang out. And, given the second portion of the title, Liddell also gets to act like the obit man writing about the dearly departed. Some of 'em 're recently gone while others who have been dispatched quite a long while ago such as John Lennon get the crepe-hanging honors (the occasion for this memento morbid being the then-recent opening of one of those John Lennon museums, this 'un in Tokyo where starry-eyed fans get to see not only a few bits of Lennon ephemera along the lines of his old specs but can buy items in the gift shops that would cost 'em way less at any flea market in the immediate area).

I dunno if his subject matter pretty much writes itself or not, but Liddell really does get his interviewees to kick up their feet 'n bring out their best. Longtime British rabble-rouser John Bean actually comes off like a straight-thinking and open-minded sort who had to bear the brunt of the usually rabid English uber-left who never could think outside their own stunted squats wallowing in a self-pity that would make me look stoic. Dirty guy photographer Nobuyoshi Araki might come off a rad unbalanced, but otherwise seems to have a down-home howdy do sincerity about him that would rival Mr. Rogers. Even Jim Morrison's widow gets to spew off a few good bits of gossip in a previously unpublished writeup, but ultimately she comes off as detached and as frozen in a time and place I would never want to be. In other words the same place that a good portion of Doors fans seem to have been these past fiftysome years.

Liddell does manage to strike oil with his John Lydon encounter (which doesn't touch upon his subject matter's ethnicity lest this 'un end up a modern-day equivalent to the ol' Lou Reed/Lester Bangs showdowns) and with that guy from Tool, who are a band I never heard and don't intend to but, as in the case of those seventies fanzine articles it's fun enough readin' about 'em even if in no way could you cozy up to the sounds that were bein' made.

And in typical Cosby Kids fashion I have learned a few things along the way, at least to the point where I ordered a book created by South African cartoonist Anton Kannemeyer which undoubtedly will be reviewed in these "pages" as time progresses. Can't wait considering what a cutting and perhaps beyond the walls of not only good taste but blaring honesty this man's work seems to be.

The obits seem a bit more cool daddy for some strange reason, and Liddell's farewells to everyone from Hugh Hefner to Nelson Mandela (where Liddell gets to do some rheumy reminiscing regarding his own South African youth) seem like the perfect sendoffs for people either noble or despicable. Especially enlightening was his toodle-oo to Margaret Thatcher, a nice 'n scathing for the right reasons screed regarding her massive failures with a viewpoint that is dramatically opposite of the usual govt. system sucker who cried on about "the milk snatcher" to the point of one wonderin' why said sniveler just didn't go out and get some job so the brats could have their libation. Nice ending to that 'un..."Rust in peace (just like British industry)"! No wonder this book hadda be self-published --- I mean, if even Counter-Currents wouldn't handle it it just has to be that caustic!

I have the sneakin' suspicion that a good 99.999...% of you reg'lar readers would steer clear from a collection like this let along read it. If so don't expect the classic gonz style so appreciated by one such as myself but some entertaining, daring and perhaps "controversial' (at least to the pious prigs who control every aspect of our being) material that is needed now more than ever. And as far as the reams of writers hacking away in the hopes of climbing up that ladder to success with felch and pedication firmly in mind Colin Liddell has each and every one of them beat all hollow. Not that you would care to find out, of course.

Originally published at Blog2Com

___________________________________

You can purchase Interviews & Obituaries here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia).

THE GREAT GAY GLEICHSCHALTUNG

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:36:00 +0000

Audio version

The ethics of Empire

by Duns Scotus

One of the wonders of the modern world is the great oxymoron of “gay marriage,” and the fact that it has become such a major cultural and social phenomenon, despite being part of the lives of so few.

Wherever it has been introduced, there have typically been a flurry of media items focusing on it and invariably celebrating it; while in every major city in the West, gay and LGBTQ+ events incessantly enshrine its presence amongst us. Right now, wars even seem to be being waged over it, if recent Russian propaganda is anything to go by.

To be against it, we are told, is to be "on the wrong side of history" and to be a "hater." However, a simple look at the numbers will show that it is of little actual importance in the lives of the vast majority of the homosexual population.

Based on Gallup's comprehensive 2017 estimate, 4.5% of Americans are LGBT. This means that America has around 15 million gays. But, with gay marriage available for around seven years now, only around half a million gays have actually bothered to tie the knot. That’s around 3.3%. This is considerably lower than the number of the general population that is married (around 53%).

The great trouble that has been gone to by the media and the cultural, political and economic establishments to turn the public around on this issue, and overhaul the legal system, hardly seems to have been worth the effort put in. Imagine Lincoln liberating the slaves only to have over 95%+ opt to remain as unpaid workers on the plantations, or the Allies liberating Belsen concentration camp only for a tiny minority of the inmates to walk beyond the wire, while the rest say, "Thanks for the offer, but we're fine here, bro."

This is essentially the situation wrought by this so called “historic victory.” It has clearly been a victory that few homosexuals personally wanted, whatever they may have claimed collectively. From this, we can deduce that what has been done has not been done for gays. They are merely a detail, or a pawn in a much bigger game.

So, what’s really going on here? What is this much bigger game I allude to?

Some have made the case that homosexuality is promoted to undermine patriarchy as a means of promoting a wider egalitarianism:

Homosexual love is a symbol of equality in that, in the act, it connects two entities that are closer to being the same. Sex between men and women is a conjugation of two inherently unequal beings. Attempting to portray men and women as ‘equals’ requires a lot of continual rhetorical bluster to obscure the obvious reality. Holding up homosexual love as moral paragon comes naturally to egalitarians, because it matches with their political conceptions (which prizes the mental unreality of ideal forms over nature).

Since the convulsions of 1968, the West has flung itself into a Platonist concept of love (in a vulgar form), which is seen as the highest value, even among heterosexuals.

The Aristotelian view is that patriarchy leads to the private property hierarchical social order. There are thousands of years of evidence behind the proposition that patriarchy is the critical cultural bulwark that promotes a politics of private property. Plato agreed on this point. The Communists agree on this point, and as such, advance social orders that undermine patriarchy, because it’s known that it’s the atom of the private property social order.

Homosexualism is also acidic and equalising in that it works as a radical parody that cheapens and desacralizes all difference and pre-existing norms.

The symbolism of Empire

The main function of gay marriage is not the happiness of gays, but instead is merely part of the latest wave of a democratising or levelling process that has been with us for some time, following in the wake of Western vulgarization, deculturization, sexual permissiveness, racial deconstruction, feminism, etc.

But what is behind this multifarious but unidirectional process? Is this simply proof of the power and freedom of the lower orders, as Liberals like to claim? I think not. All ideological changes, unless explicitly and blatantly from the grassroots, are almost always impositions by the ruling elites, and are essentially rationalizations of their collective power interests.

Why, then, have our elites been imposing homosexualism on the rest of us?

The Alt-Righter is naturally drawn to “villain narratives” of elite pedophile networks, or a certain ethnic group striving to undermine Western demographics. Such ideas are mistaken. The real answer is geopolitics. Yes, America’s support for gay rights is tied to its nature as an imperialistic entity.

Imperialism typically involves one group conquering, colonizing, or controlling others. Implicit in this is a sense of “us-vs-them.” For example, the Roman Republic and early Roman Empire conquered and, in many cases, enslaved the weaker civilizations of the Mediterranean, along with many of the barbarian tribes bordering that area. It united many different races, cultures, religions, and lifestyles within one state. To be a Roman citizen at that time was a mark of distinction and superiority, in a sea of cultural, racial, and religious differences.

But Imperialism has another side. It also has a tendency to homogenize its populations in order to reinforce its unity. Homogenization is of course implicitly egalitarian.

The economics of Empire

In the case of the Roman Empire, as time passed, the state became weaker and more defensive. There was a switch from positive, outward-directed expansionary power – the kind that accommodates differences and inequalities – to negative, inward-looking power that focuses on regimenting the population and eradicating all essential differences, except those between mercenary soldier and citizen tax drudge.

A key moment in this process was the extension of Roman citizenship to all non-slaves by the Emperor Caracalla. This essentially devalued the institution of Roman citizenship and, according to the historian Dio Cassius, was essentially done to expand the tax base. This, along with the totalitarianisation of religion (by the emperors from Constantine onwards) and draconian law codes, meant that all Roman citizens were effectively transformed into semi-slaves of the state, rather than all non-citizens being elevated to the "freedoms" of Roman citizenship.

Through this process, indigenous identities and pagan religions that could serve as the basis for political fragmentation and renewal were weakened and subsumed. This ultimately meant that the successor states to Rome had to come from outside, imported and imposed at the point of barbarian spears.

It is also telling that the one major difference that the Empire was unable to eradicate – the cultural difference between the Greek East and the Latin West – was also the one line on which the Empire did in fact split, in an attempt at political regeneration in the form of the successor state of the Byzantine Empire.

This switch from a positive, outward-looking empire to a negative, inward-looking one, can be dated to the period leading up to the reign of the Emperor Caracalla. By that time, the Roman Empire had become an unimperial Empire in that the military and political strength of its people had atrophied. This was the engine that drove the process of standardization towards the norm of a heavily-taxed, Christianized, semi-slave citizenery supporting an increasingly narrow and fragile military crust.

This pattern exemplified by the Roman Empire, is the way that weak empires work – a levelling and subordination of everything to a central weakness.

Now, no state has ever had a vaster Empire or a weaker imperial spirit than the present-day American Empire. The power of this empire in recent decades has been based on the idea of unipolarity, the concept that there is one power greater than all the others, no matter how low or weak that central power is itself.

Unipolarity was created by the historical accident of the Great Wars of the 20th century, which allowed America to undeservedly assume the position of the World hegemon and exert economic, political, and cultural power well beyond its actual economic, political, and cultural worth.

The aesthetics of Empire

This mismatch between the base of its power (low merit) and the superstructure (unjustified reward) means that the American Empire is deeply unstable and must always strive to enlarge its power and, at all costs, maintain the global credibility of the unipolar system. The rise of China and the continued existence of a state like Russia that refuses to accept American unipolarity are major threats to this.

The American Empire can only respond to this threat by insisting on its imperium on the global scale, and working on the assumption that the world is already within its empire, with only the processes of digestion remaining.

This effectively means that countries like China and Russia are treated like recalcitrant or rebellious provinces that only need to be better incorporated into the great global empire in a process of economic and cultural gleichschaltung. This is the true meaning of globalization, “global standards,” and transnational organizations and trade agreements like GATT, WEF, and the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership.

Just like the latter Roman Empire, the American Empire is not spiritually strong enough to allow real differences within the orbit of its presumed power. These must therefore be broken down and brought into line. In short, unipolarity requires the “Uni-man”: the single, interchangeable, and atomised human being – the man without tribe, race, religion, or even gender. He may have all of these aspects but only in trace elements.

This takes us back to the Western power-structure’s otherwise inexplicable embrace of homosexualism and gay marriage: these are not so much attempts at degendering individuals (although they do that also) but rightly attempts to degender cultures. As such, they are just the latest in several waves of radical egalitarianism (vulgarization, deculturization, sexual permissiveness, racial integration, feminism, etc., etc.), all phenomena that the West has generated as it has become increasingly dependent on the idea of unipolarity.

By seeking to create a world in which gay marriage – no matter how rare – is allowed, and in which homosexualism is culturally dominant, the American empire is effectively creating a world where its unipolarity will prevail.

The transvaluation of Empire

Whether consciously or unconsciously, the elites in the West have instinctively known this, and this is why they have supported one form of radical egalitarianism after another, and why, without any significant benefit for homosexuals, they now support this parody of the married state.

Gay marriage is to the modern American Empire what the radically egalitarian religion of Christianity was to the fading Roman Empire -- a levelling of healthy organic difference and a centralisation around a weak centre.

THE RUSSO-UKRAINIAN WAR AND CHINA'S OPTIONS

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 13 Mar 2022 13:52:00 +0000

Audio Version

"Cool it, bro. You're making me look bad."

by Hu Wei

The Russo-Ukrainian war is the most serious geopolitical conflict since World War II and will have greater global consequences than 9/11. At present, China needs to accurately judge the trend of this war and its impact on the international pattern, respond flexibly, make strategic choices that conform to the long-term interests of the Chinese nation, and strive for a relatively favourable external environment for China.

Russia's "special military operations" against Ukraine have caused great differences at home, and supporters and opponents are inseparable. This article does not represent any party, but in the name of a scholar, I would like to objectively analyse the possible consequences of war and propose countermeasures on this basis for the judgment and reference of the highest decision-making level in China.

i. Prediction of the direction of the Russo-Ukrainian war

(1) Putin is struggling to achieve his intended goals, and Russia is in trouble. The purpose of Putin's operation is to crush Ukraine through blitzkrieg, change the Ukrainian leadership, cultivate a pro-Russian government, completely solve the Ukrainian problem, and thus divert a domestic crisis. However, the blitzkrieg failed, Russia is unable to support a protracted war, the cost of expanding the war is high, the launching of a nuclear war would completely stand against the world and has no chance of winning, and the situation at home and abroad is becoming increasingly unfavourable. Even if the Russians pay a heavy price and occupy Kiev and establish a puppet government, it would not mean final victory. At present, Putin's best option is to end the war decently through peace talks, which requires Ukraine to make substantial concessions, but what is not available on the battlefield is also difficult to get at the negotiating table. In any case, this military operation made irreparable mistakes.

(2) War or further escalation does not preclude the West from eventually becoming involved in the war. Although the cost of expanding the war is high, with Putin's character and power, it is likely that he will not give up, and the Russo-Ukrainian war may escalate beyond Ukraine, even including the option of a nuclear strike. Once this happens, the United States and Europe will not be able to stay out of it, triggering a world war or even a nuclear war. If so, it will cause a great catastrophe for mankind, and the United States and Russia will also have a final showdown, and Russia's military strength cannot match NATO's, and Putin will lose even worse.
(3) Even if Russia throws its national strength into desperate efforts, and finally reluctantly occupies Ukraine, it is still a hot potato, and Russia will be saddled with heavy burdens and overwhelmed from then on. In this case, whether Zelenskyy is alive or not, Ukraine will most likely set up a government-in-exile to challenge Russia for a long time, Russia will suffer from both western sanctions and rebellion in Ukraine, the front line will be stretched for a long time, the domestic economic situation will be unsustainable, and in the long run it will be dragged down, and this cycle will not exceed several years.
(4) The political situation in Russia may change or be overthrown by the West. Putin's blitzkrieg failed, Russia's hope of victory was slim, Western sanctions have reached an unprecedented level, the domestic economy and people's livelihoods have been seriously affected, anti-war and anti-Putin forces have increased, and the possibility of mutiny in Russia's political situation cannot be ruled out. With Russia's economy on the brink of collapse, even without the defeat in the Russo-Ukrainian war, Putin will have a hard time sustaining it. If Putin falls because of civil strife, coups, or other reasons, Russia will be even less likely to confront the West, will succumb to the West, or even be further dismembered, and Russia's great power status will end.

ii. The impact of the Russo-Ukrainian war on the international order

(1) The United States will regain leadership in the western world, and the West will be more united and unified. At present, public opinion believes that the Ukrainian war means the complete collapse of U.S. hegemony, but in fact, the Russo-Ukrainian war will pull France and Germany back to the NATO defence framework that they intended to get rid off, and Europe's dream of realizing independent diplomacy and independent defence will be shattered. Germany has significantly increased its military budget, and Switzerland, Sweden and other countries have abandoned neutrality. Nord Stream 2 was also shelved indefinitely, and Europe's dependence on U.S. natural gas is bound to increase. The United States and Europe will more closely form a community of common destiny, and the leadership of the United States in the Western world will be reinforced.
(2) The "Iron Curtain" will fall again, not only from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea, but also to form a final showdown between the Western-dominated camp and its competitors. The West will draw a line between democracies and dictatorships, and define differences with Russia as a struggle between democracy and dictatorship. The new Iron Curtain no longer draws a line between the two camps of socialism and capitalism, nor is it limited to the Cold War, but is a life-and-death battle between Western democracy and anti-western democracy. The iron plate of the Western world under the iron curtain will have a siphon effect on other countries, the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy will be consolidated, and Japan and other countries will further closely follow the United States. The United States will build an unprecedentedly broad democratic united front.
(3) Western power will grow significantly, NATO will continue to expand, and the influence of the United States in the non-western world will also increase. After the Russo-Ukrainian War, Russia's political transformation in any way will greatly weaken the anti-western forces in the world. The scene after the upheavals of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in 1991 may repeat itself, the ideological finale may reappear, the resurgence of the Third Wave of democratization will lose momentum, and more third world countries will embrace the West. The West will have more "hegemony" in both military and values systems, and hard and soft power will reach new heights.
(4) China will be more isolated under the established framework. For these reasons, if China does not take measures to actively respond, it will encounter further containment by the United States and the West. After Putin's fall, the United States will change from facing two strategic competitors, China and Russia, to locking in China for strategic containment. Europe will further cut off China, Japan will become the vanguard of anti-China, South Korea will further swing to the United States, the rest of the World will have to choose sides and produce a herd effect, and Taiwan will also join the anti-China chorus. China faces not only military encirclement by the United States and NATO, the Quad Alliance (US, Japan, India, and Australia), and AUKUS, but also faces challenges from Western values and institutions.

iii. China's strategic choices

(1) China cannot be tied to Putin and needs to distance itself as soon as possible. The escalation of the conflict between Russia and the West has helped divert the attention of the United States from China, and in this sense China should be happy to see it succeed and even support Putin, but only if Russia does not fail. If Putin loses power, China is in the same boat as Putin and will be affected by it. Unless Putin is able to win with China's support, the outlook is bleak at the moment, and China doesn't have enough strength to hold up Russia. The basic law of international politics is that "there are no eternal friends, no eternal enemies, only eternal interests". Faced with the current international situation, China can only proceed from safeguarding its own best interests, choose the lesser of two evils, and unload the burden of Russia as soon as possible. At present, it is estimated that there is still a window of one or two weeks, and no matter how late, China may lose room for manoeuvre. It must be decided immediately.

(2) Avoid falling behind at both ends, by abandoning neutrality and choosing the mainstream position of the World. At present, China's position and choice in the international arena is formally trying to take the middle way, and to give no offense at both ends, including abstaining from votes at the UN security council and the UN general assembly, and supporting Russia while also trying to appease Ukraine. However, this position does not actually meet Russia's needs, while it also angers Ukraine and its supporters and sympathizers, including most of the world's countries. In some cases, ostensibly neutrality is a wise choice, but it does not apply to this war, and China has nothing to gain this time. Given that China has always advocated respect for national sovereignty and territorial integrity, it can only side with most countries in the world so as not to be further isolated. This position is also beneficial to the settlement of the Taiwan issue
(3) Achieve a strategic breakthrough as much as possible to avoid being further isolated by the West. By cutting ties with Putin and abandoning its neutral stance, it helps to build China's international image and take the opportunity to ease relations with the United States and the west through various efforts. Although this is difficult and requires great wisdom, it is the best choice for the future. Some people believe that the geopolitical dispute in Europe triggered by the war in Ukraine will greatly delay the strategic shift of the United States from Europe to the Indo-Pacific region, but they should not be overly optimistic. There is already a consensus in the United States that Europe is important, but China is more important, and that the primary goal of the United States is to contain China as the dominant force in the Indo-Pacific region. Under such circumstances, the Russo-Ukrainian War should be used to make appropriate strategic adjustments that change the hostile attitude of the United States toward China, and then get rid of China's isolation. This is the top priority facing China. The bottom line is to prevent the United States and the West from imposing joint sanctions on China.
(4) Stop the outbreak of world wars and nuclear wars, and make irreplaceable contributions to world peace. Since Putin has explicitly called for Russia's strategic deterrent to enter a special state of readiness, the Russo-Ukrainian War may spiral out of control. If Russia provokes a world war or even a nuclear war, it will certainly risk the world. In the face of this crisis, and in order to reflect China's positive role as a responsible major country, China must not only stand with Putin, but should also take clear action to try to prevent dangerous acts by Putin. China is the only country in the world with this capability, and it must play to this unique advantage. The threat to withdraw vital support from Putin is likely to end the war, or at least prevent Putin escalating it. The result if this is that China would surely win international praise. Not only would this help to overcome China's situation of isolation, but it would also make a top contribution to maintaining world peace, and lead to opportunities to improve relations with the United States and the West.

Hu Wei is the Vice Chairman of the Public Policy Research Center of the Counsellor's Office of the Chinese State Council and the President of the Shanghai Public Policy Research Association. Article translated from original Chinese.

Connected content:
The Failure of Putin

AMERICA'S TRADE DEFICIT: AN ENORMOUS CONCERN

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 09 Mar 2022 18:33:00 +0000

Audio version

No one is protecting this border either.

by Antonius Aquinas

Another milestone (or more accurately millstone) was recently passed by the U.S. economy as the January trade deficit surged to an all-time record high of $107.6 billion, up some $26 billion from December’s $80.7 billion imbalance.

Like the gigantic federal budget deficit, the trade imbalance is no longer talked about by the financial press. There has been little criticism of President Biden on either matter, nor are Administration officials questioned about how things can be reversed. In fact, some commentators bizarrely contend that trade deficits show how robust an economy actually is!

The trade deficit was supposed to be alleviated by former President Trump who vowed throughout the 2016 campaign that he would rectify the situation and repeatedly ridiculed U.S. trade negotiators for their lack of financial acumen. He touted that his “friendship” with world leaders, most notably Chinese President Xi Jinping, would result in favorable trade deals for the country.

Trade hawks got on board with Trump’s economic nationalism believing that he would not only fix imbalances, but create an American industrial renaissance. Optimism ran high after his unexpected win in 2016.

As president, after a couple of contentious years of on-again, off-again negotiations a first phase of an agreement with China was signed in early 2018. During the negotiations, he boasted:

When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good and easy to win.

In actuality, nothing significant was agreed upon with China despite the Trump Administration bragging that it was the first phase of a more comprehensive deal to come. Despite all of the hoopla, the trade imbalance continued to grow and no deal was ever finalized.

Besides the initial agreement with China, the next biggest trade policy act was the scrapping of NAFTA and its replacement with a new treaty, “The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement” (USMCA). The new agreement was little different than the original treaty.

Thus, by the time he left office in 2020, the U.S.’s trade gap ($68.2 billion) was greater than during his predecessor, Barrack Obama’s term, someone who Trump lambasted for his ruinous trade policy.

Trump wisely spoke little about trade during his unsuccessful 2020 re-election bid and, surprisingly, his opponents, despite the president’s miserable failure, steered clear of the issue. Of course, the Democrats were limited in what they could do with an obvious feeble, senile, and vile candidate at the top of their ticket.

Like the Democrats, Trump’s trade-hawk cheerleaders have remained reticent about the escalating trade numbers and like the former president they too, are now discredited when it comes to trade. If America could not overcome its trade gap with an economic nationalist as president for four years, then there must be a problem with their thinking.

The reason why Trump failed – as will Biden – is that he, his negotiators, and the trade hawks who supported him are ignorant of basic economics. The burgeoning trade deficits are not the result of bad trade deals or that of ineffective tariff policies, but are the result of a deteriorating U.S. economy which is no longer one of production, but of consumption and debt. A growing economy creates trade surpluses not deficits; it produces more than it consumes.

Because of decades of anti-capitalistic economic legislation – confiscatory taxation, regulatory burdens, inflationary monetary policy, “crowding out” budget deficits, unemployment subsidies, minimum wage laws, and an overemphasis by the Establishment on higher education – the U.S. is no longer an industrial power and not a conducive environment for economic growth.

Because it possesses the world’s reserve currency, the U.S. has been able to offset its trade imbalances by importing goods in exchange for dollars. Even with this advantage, however, trade deficits have continued to grow. It appears that even its status as the possessor of the world’s reserve currency may be coming to an end as the dollar’s preeminence will fall with the surge in price inflation. This will have a devastating effect not only for the domestic economy but its foreign trade as well, as the country will not be able to export dollars for goods in the future.

The burgeoning trade deficit is a far more accurate indicator of the health of an economy than GDP, unemployment figures, or the government’s “official” rate of price inflation. All these statistics are so manipulated that they do not come close to showing what is actually happening in the real world. The trade deficit is a more reflective gauge of an economy’s productive capacity.

That Trump posted the largest trade deficit in history also explodes his claim that under his watch, the U.S. had the greatest economy ever! How he calculated and supported such nonsense (which was not challenged by the financial press) is hard to maintain with trade deficits in the stratosphere.

When America’s economy was at its zenith, it was a creditor nation with trade surpluses and producing goods which were sold the world over. It had a high savings rate, a low inflationary environment, little public debt, and respect for private property, particularly the right for entrepreneurs to hire and fire whom they pleased. All socio-economic groups prospered from the free market and free trade, not just the 1%.

The trade deficit can be turned around, but not through bureaucratic state orchestrated deals which favor big business and multi-national corporations at the expense of American consumers. The proper trade policy is no policy at all, except the freeing of the economy from government intervention.

PUTIN'S MAIN WEAKNESS IS IDEOLOGICAL

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 06 Mar 2022 14:51:00 +0000

Audio Version

Putin: wasted his political capital on memes,
Russia Today, and wonky pipelines.

by Colin Liddell

The present war between Putin and the Ukraine (and the Ukraine's backers) is a rich source of misunderstanding and a mass generator of false positions. Yes, people are sincerely trying hard to understand things and come to sensible, consistent, and moral positions. But few, if any, have succeeded.

What we are seeing can only be properly understood by taking the most macro view possible and then zooming in on the detail. Almost nobody has the necessary detachment from irrelevant minutiae and distorting emotion to achieve this.

The correct macro frame to view all this is as an ideological struggle between what the West is and what Russia only partly is. Putin offers an ideological alternative to the West, but it is a half-borrowed, much distorted, and not fully formed alternative.

Before explaining what Putinism is and is not, first we must consider the West and its ruling ideology.

Here the analysis of the Dissident Right has been piss poor as usual, and almost all of it can be cheerfully disregarded.

The West exists under an ideological system called Liberal Democracy. This is not some mere euphemism or ironic meme not meant seriously. The West truly is liberal, and it truly is democratic. The Dissident Right, however, believes that this is just "window dressing" for oligarchic power. We are then told by the Diss Right that the ones pulling the strings are "Jews" or "globalist pedophiles," etc. Usually we are told this by people who are themselves Jews and quite possibly pedophiles, and almost certainly "sub-White" and "sub-masculine."

No, the West definitely does have an ideology of Liberal Democracy, and it is in fact both liberal and democratic. The Diss Right can only launch cheap shots against this truth. For example, Diss-Righters will say things like:

The West is not democratic because most people support immigration restriction but "the System" merely delivers more mass immigration.

This is just the intellectual shell-and-pea game, and it sounds convincing to the intellectually challenged who have a tendency to micro-focus on single issues. But governments and societies are not one-issue entities.

Yes, even with constant cultural indoctrination, most people do not want mass immigration and racial replacement -- but only if you ask them a disembodied question on the matter. The fact is that if you look at what else they want and the choices they make then they clearly do want mass immigration and racial replacement.

The immigration-hating population of the West is also the same population that is made up of people who want to screw around till well into their thirties, and then live in a growing economy with a burgeoning population, driving up incomes, shares, property prices, and economic activity. The job of the democratic side of Liberal Democracy is merely to manage the contradictions of the sovereign voters and "kind of, sort of" give them what they want, which in this case is a slowly "browning" society that doesn't crash the economy and which doesn't make too many demands on their individual freedoms.

That is exactly what our elites have been giving us since the franchise was extended to the mass of the adult population.

The real problem in the West is that we are not ruled by elites and oligarchs, but sadly by our own liberated, democratic, logically incoherent selves, all mediated through our obedient political servants who do their level best to get our lame ducks in a line.

In the Russo-Ukrainian context this is exactly what President Zelenksyy and Russian opposition leaders like the murdered Boris Nemetsov and the imprisoned Alexei Navalny stand or stood for.

But does Vladimir Putin stand for anything different? Is there such a thing as Putinism?

Watch out West, here comes one of Putin's top ideological "bottle rockets"

Putinism, if it really exists, differs from Liberal Democracy in that it is anti-democratic. Putin has perfected a number of manipulative tools that subvert and control democracy to make it much more of a top-down than a bottom-up process. This is not the place to go into what these are and how they work, but the Putinist state has developed a largely effective apparatus of control from above.

The real question here is whether Putinism is an ideological alternative to Liberal Democracy or just a temporary kink or distortion in Russia's own inherently Liberal-Democratic "idea space."

On the plus side there is occasionally a sense that Putinism understands the toxic nature of Liberal Democracy and fights back against the rampant personal freedom that people naturally want. It does this by critiquing homosexualism (i.e. the spearpoint of radical Western individualism) and by supporting old, moribund religious codes like Orthodox Christianity and even Islam. There has also been a modest push for mildly pro-natalist policies, but nothing too radical or that would upset a college of Russian air stewardesses keen to focus on their exciting careers.

"Mosque-cow": Putin opening a giant mosque in the "Third Rome."

On the negative side Putinism shares the West's obsession with materialism, consumerism, and the individualism of choices as a metric of its justification. This means that under Putin the Russian population has continued to fall with similar "racial replacement" policies to those in the West being implemented.

Also, Putinism, while having several technical fixes or "hacks" that reverse the power dynamic of democracy (bottom-up to top-down), appears to have few true ideological counters to Western Liberal Democracy. The Soviet Union, frankly, was a lot better at this, with its concepts of "Socialist Democracy" and "the Dictatorship of the Proletariat," even though, here too, it did not make a real case for a true guiding elite.

As opposed to the West, where our elites try to give the masses more or less what they want with the awkward contradictions ironed out, the Soviet elites, in theory, tried to give the masses what they felt they needed, even if it had to kill, imprison, and crush the tender sensibilities of many of them in order to do so.

Compared to this, Putinism has no real ideological counter to Western Democracy. In fact, Putin's whole schtick is to con the voters into believing they have freely chosen him, when in fact most Russians, deep down, are probably sick to death of him by now. However, Putin owns or controls all the media and the only prominent "opposition" figures are clowns like Vladimir Zhirinovsky and whichever lump of rock is leading the remnants of the once mighty Communist party.

Dugin: "Something, something, something
about the Satanic liberal globalist Sea Dragon..."

Putinism, to be a real ideology, has to put aside its petty tools of propaganda, democratic manipulation, and revanchist pseudo-traditionalism, and instead develop a modern, ideologically consistent critique and counter ideology to Western Liberal Democracy. Some, like Alexander Dugin have at least tried, but Dugin was clearly unequal to the task.

But really, it should not have been too difficult to create an ideological alternative: Western Liberal Democracy by efficiently giving the masses more or less what they want, when they want, and even how they want, is totally toxic as a means of demographic continuity and civilisational health. This is undeniable. This is the point of attack and also the basis on which to build an alternative ideology to Western Liberal Democracy, and, by effectively opposing it, to force the West to reject it as well.

But it is probably too late for Putin to pull that off. He is nearly 70 years old and may have cancer. He has wasted his 23 years of political capital in creating a ridiculous "Potemkin village" version of Western Democracy and Western consumerism.

Right now he is engaged in a war where his moral and ideological ammunition is stolen from the West: he is "stopping genocide" in the Donbass and "de-Nazifying" the Ukraine! Yes, instead of fighting his true enemy, the ideological weapons of the West, he is partly embracing them in an attempt to use then against the West. The likelihood that they will simply blow up in his face in the weeks and months ahead is extremely high. China, we note, has not been playing this game, and is in a much better and more ideologically consistent position with regard to the West.

NATO VS RUSSIA: AN ARMCHAIR WARRIOR’S PERSPECTIVE

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 04 Mar 2022 21:07:00 +0000

by Keith Preston

Putin has taken an extremely big gamble. If he remains committed to limited objectives, he might just get away with it. Limited objectives would be claiming the disputed territories, accessing the Black Sea, pipeline interests, keeping Ukraine out of NATO, and intimidating Russia’s neighbors to the south away from getting too close to the West.

But if Putin opts for a full-blown occupation/annexation of Ukraine, he has an Iraq War Two situation on his hands. And if he ventures into NATO countries or countries outside Russia’s immediate border, he’s in deep shit.

The worst thing NATO could do is overreach and back Putin into a corner where he becomes desperate. If Putin tries to occupy all of Ukraine, it is strategically advantageous to let him get bogged down with a guerrilla insurgency (like the USA in Vietnam and Iraq, or both Russia and the USA in Afghanistan). An effort toward the “liberation” of Ukraine would mean directly engaging with Russian forces, which should be avoided as long as Russia only remains in Ukraine.

However, it is obviously possible to deter expanded Russian adventurism by placing a defensive ring of NATO forces in the border states to Ukraine and Russia other than Belarus and Moldova (all of these are NATO members except the two mentioned) similar to the Iron Curtain standoff during the Cold War (with the borders of Russia and/or Ukraine amounting to the new Berlin Wall).

It would also be possible for NATO to arm the Ukrainian insurgency against the Russian occupation (like Western backing for the mujahideen in the Soviet-Afghan War). A consequence of this would be large numbers of civilian casualties in Ukraine itself, and if/when Russia leaves a far-right fascist-like regime will probably emerge, because that is what usually happens with these things.

If Putin remains limited in his objectives, it could “only” be another Chechen War or Russian-Georgian War. If Putin actually tries to fully occupy and annex Ukraine, it will be the Russian version of America’s Iraq War Two, particularly, if NATO arms the resistance, which they probably will. The main danger is if there is direct conflict between NATO and Russian forces because who knows how far that could spread, and both sides are nuclear-armed.

But the main thing both sides need to do is not give the other side a reason to launch a nuclear first strike.

And in the interests of full disclosure, I am writing this from a desk chair, not an armchair.

PUTIN HAS LOST

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 24 Feb 2022 23:14:00 +0000

by Colin Liddell

Long story short: Putin has lost.

He had already lost even before he ordered a full scale invasion of the Ukraine, or recognized the two fake breakaway "republics" in the Eastern Ukraine. In fact, he lost even earlier than that.

Putin lost when he parked the bulk of the Russian army along Ukraine's border in a flagrant attempt to bully concessions out of Ukraine and the West. This was a move straight out of Hitler and Stalin's playbooks. At that point, the subtle chemistry that had ensured Vladimir Putin's success was destroyed, and with that he became powerless.

For over 20 years, Putin has been a powerful presence on the global geopolitical stage. But this power has always been based upon an unresolved contradiction, that between the ruthless dictator and the pseudo-democratic politician.

The ruthless dictator could impose his will upon the Russian people, while the pseudo-democratic politician could pretend to them that they had "chosen" him in "free and fair" elections, helped along by a clown "opposition" made up of the Communist Party and Vladimir Zhirinovsky.

The "ruthless dictator could also impress Westerners with his brutal glamour and dark charisma, while the pseudo-democratic politician could mollify them and reassure them that he wasn't really a monster, and was well on his way to being just like them.

This dual nature of Putin was the key to his success. However, in the weeks leading up to the present crisis, the ruthless dictator ripped off the mask of the pseudo-democratic politician and completely discarded it. But this did not make him a stronger dictator. Without his pseudo-democratic support he just became a brittle, weakling dictator, lashing out in a futile attempt to bolster and assert his vanishing power.

Putin: From this...

This is exactly what the attack on the Ukraine is.

Sure, the Russian military is strong, at least stronger than the Ukrainian one; and the Russian people are strong. But they now have a President who is no longer seen as a careful and calculating leader, or as someone you can even do a deal with. In fact, there is now a suspicion that he is clinically insane.

With the brinkmanship game that Putin was playing during the Winter Olympics, it was clear that he had deteriorated into someone you could not enter into an agreement with. Any agreement with someone like him would be worthless. This is exactly the same mistake that Hitler made, something that became his biggest weakness.

But it's not just international diplomacy that was affected by Putin's unravelling. This eclipse of the pseudo-democratic leader by the ruthless dictator also poisons lesser relationships, like the ones that tie governments and societies together. Putin's actions have not only made the lives of ordinary Russians much more difficult, they have also toxified his relationships with his own elites.

This all happened before the recognition of the fake breakaway republics. Everything since then has merely been a doubling down on ultimate catastrophic failure.

to this...

We are now in an ongoing military situation that is demonstrating the qualities of the Russian and the Ukrainian armies. What we are seeing is a tactical situation unfolding. The strategic decision, however, has already been decided -- namely that Putin's days are ended.

Even enormous tactical success won't change the larger facts. Putin, in his stupidity, still thinks it will. He hopes that Russian "shock and awe" and blitzkrieg attacks will defeat the Ukrainian army before it realises it's been attacked. He expects it to melt away, or wake up one day thinking it's "Russian." He also thinks that if he's fast enough, he can pull off a fake coup and put someone in power in Kiev whom he can control like his stooge in Belarus.

But none of this is about to happen. While impressive in parts, the early indications are that the Putin blitzkrieg is heading for the "shitzkrieg." The Ukrainian army is putting up much stiffer resistance than Putin expected. Also, there have already been numerous peace demonstrations in Russia itself, with Putin's goon squads arresting hundreds and possibly thousands of people.

But these are mere details in the bigger picture. Even if the Ukrainian army collapses and Putin pulls off his lightning war, the real problem he has is that there is no finishing line. He has started a race that doesn't have a termination point except for his own fall from power and death. If he gets to Kiev and puts in some Ukrainian version of his Belarussian puppet Aleksandr Lukashenko what then? Is the war over? Of course not.

Putin will not be accepted and nor will his Quisling stooge. The war of tanks and bombs may die down a little, but what about the diplomatic and economic war? What about the new war between Putin and his people, between Putin and the relatives of dead Russian soldiers, between Putin and his own oligarchs who have seen their wealth annihilated in its Western bolt holes?

By casting off his pseudo-democratic pretentions, Putin does not emerge as the 100% strongman that his idiot followers in the West believe. Instead, he emerges as a feeble, fragile, and brittle dictator, ready, like Ceaușescu in 1989, to be hunted from his palaces and suspended from a meat hook.

...to this?

The pseudo-democratic politician was always a big component of Putin's poisonous but potent alchemy. It was the pseudo-democratic politician who kept the disgust of the West at bay while they continued to buy Russia's gas and oil. It was also the pseudo-democratic politician who used his charm to persuade Angela Merkel of Germany to veto Ukraine and Georgia's applications to join NATO.

The pseudo-democratic politician was, in fact, the harder working part of Putin's overall image. But now that image has dissolved into a poor parody of 1938 Hitler, a creature that the rest of the World knows it can never trust or do a deal with again.

MARK FELTON: THE MYTH OF THE "CLEAN WEHRMACHT"

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 20 Feb 2022 22:54:00 +0000

Rommel adept at turning a blind eye

Hitler and the SS have served as convenient scapegoats for the crimes committed by the entire German military in WWII. This notion that the normal army behaved with honour and humanity has helped to exonerate many German soldiers, whether they deserved it or not. But it has also served a more nefarious purpose, namely to associate an image of general decency with the wider project of the Third Reich, something that Neo-Nazis today continue to use to sell their ideology. historian Mark Felton takes a closer look at this "clean Wehrmacht" myth, focusing on its most illustrious "hero" Field Marshal Erwin Rommel and his supposed "war without hate" in North Africa.

IS ZEMMOUR PUSHING THE OVERTON WINDOW SO THAT LE PEN CAN WIN?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 18 Feb 2022 23:05:00 +0000

Zemmour: saying "the bad things"

by Daniel Barge

There are two main theories about the candidacy of Éric Zemmour.

The first is that he is a spoiler candidate, designed to suck up nationalist enthusiasm and lead it in a more radical direction. This would depress the vote of the more moderate and electable Marine Le Pen enough to ensure that she doesn't get to the second round of the Presidential vote; while Zemmour would be seen as too "extreme" to have any chance of being elected himself. The result would be that we would get Macron again or else the centre-right Valérie Pécresse as President.

The second theory is that Zemmour is part of some great nationalist awakening in France, and is in with a real chance of breaking the glass ceiling for identitarians and nationalist candidates that has so far frustrated the Le Pens.

But I have another theory. It is that Zemmour is an "Overton window pusher," that is someone who uses his more extreme identitarian rhetoric to push the parameters of what is acceptable in French political debate so that someone else more moderate than himself, i.e. Marine Le Pen, gets the benefit.

Last month Breitbart reported:

Populist National Rally (RN) leader and French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen has achieved a record level of popularity in a new poll, while French President Emmanuel Macron has seen a decline.

The popularity of Ms Le Pen has risen to 40 per cent among the French public, according to a poll released by the firm Ifop this week. The poll is the best result ever for the populist French presidential candidate who is one of the main contenders in the presidential race.

The result for Le Pen also places her far above her main populist rival, the conservative writer and television pundit Eric Zemmour, who scored 27 per cent in the poll and placed Le Pen on the same level as conservative Les Republicains candidate Valérie Pécresse, who saw a decline of 5 per cent, Paris Match reports.

Interpreted correctly, this suggests that Zemmour is creating much of the energy in the French Presidential campaign by effectively raising issues like the “Great Replacement” and the “third-worldisation” of France, issues which the mainstream has ignored and suppressed for too long. But Zemmour is also picking up the heat for bringing these "controversial" and "socially divisive" issues into the public forum. Le Pen, meanwhile, by taking a gentler and more conciliatory tack, benefits from Zemmour's work because she doesn't have to pay the costs -- namely the emotional backlash at the person driving these "awkward" issues and narratives.

Right-wingers in Western politics often need someone like this in order to succeed; someone to soak up the reactionary energy of the Leftist and Establishmentarian backlash. A recent example that springs to mind is the 2019 EU elections in the UK. In this, the final European Parliament election in British history, Nigel Farage's Brexit Party swept the board, winning 29 out of 73 seats, and threatening the disintegration of the Conservative Party, which only won 4 seats. This disastrous result for Theresa May's Conservative Party finally forced it to dump her and unite behind Boris Johnson and his Brexit agenda, which then won a landslide at the Westminster election some months later.

One reason that Farage's party did so well was because his new Brexit Party could not easily be demonised as a "far-right" party of "haters" and "racists." This role was assumed by his former party, UKIP. Under the leadership of Gerard Batten, it had swung further to the right, becoming more anti-Islamist (and therefore borderline "racist" as far as the British mainstream was concerned), while also taking on board e-celeb figures who were controversial for normies, like Count Dankula, Paul Joseph Watson, and Sargon of Akkad. With UKIP serving as the main target for the hysteria and vitriol of the Establishment and the Left, Farage's Brexit Party was allowed a fairly clean run at the voters.

Will Zemmour end up serving a similar function for Marine Le Pen, allowing her softer identitarian populism, like Farage's, to be seen as squeaky clean by the mass of the voters, because someone else is there to soak up the Left's usual tactics of smearing, dirtying, demonising, and carpet bombing with the R-word anyone remotely right of centre? Will Zemmour, in fact, end up carrying the so-called "sins" of the Right off into the wilderness, like the proverbial scapegoat, so that others may be redeemed?

The Scapegoat (1854–1856) by William Holman Hunt

MY INFALLIBLE AND IRREFUTABLE POSITION ON THE UKRAINE

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 13 Feb 2022 12:14:00 +0000

Audio Version

Europe, yummy!

by Colin Liddell

My position on the Ukraine is based on my understanding of political geography, the dynamics of history, and the peculiar problems of Europe.

One hundred and eight years ago, Europe was supreme, and, if old photographs are anything to go by, the World was largely heading in the right direction.

Of course, there were many problems in the pipeline -- growing national egoism, the challenges of greater social equality between the classes and sexes, how to replace our moribund Christian morality, without becoming total degenerates, etc., etc. -- but things were generally proceeding nicely. Then we decided to have a 40-year-long civil war followed by another 40 years of Cold War.

The effect of all that was the almost complete downfall of Europe.

Why did that happen? This question is something of a bottomless pit, but taking a macro-empirical view, in order to save time, it was because the balance of power became too unbalanced. There were two aspects to this -- Germany and Russia: Germany became too powerful too soon (thanks, Napoleon III!) and lacked the nuanced and sensible leadership to manage this unsettling change; while Russia was already too big, and, with the advent of modern technology, was only going to become even more powerful.

This unbalancing of power led to Germany grasping at even more power and then other powers lunging to prevent Germany getting even stronger. The result was an 80 year period of European degradation.

Europe off balance, 1940

But the 40-year European Civil War and the 40-year Cold War did achieve two positives. The first one clipped Germany's imperialistic wings -- almost off at the base -- while the second one did something similar, but not as extreme, for Russia.

After this 80-year period of suffering, Europe had assumed a shape that was essentially much more balanced. In 1991 the possibility of either Germany or Russia becoming dominant and thus provoking counter movements that could lead to war (and the further reduction of European power and status) was far removed.

Germany, without Austria and the Eastern 20-25% of its territory that it lost in 1945, but with a potent guilt complex, became a manageable and stable geopolitical factor (although with severe toxic effects on its culture and society). Likewise Russia without Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and the Central Asian states and its weak economy, was no threat to the European balance of power.

Both WWII and the Cold War, despite their enormous costs, contributed to the creation of a geopolitically stable framework that has the potential to allow Europe to avoid further serious infighting, and thus allow it to focus more on the real challenges of being embedded in the toxic, materialistic, atomised, liberalist culture and civilisation of the wider West.

An important part of this stability was the avoidance of revanchism in the two main destabilising entities of the European order -- Germany and Russia.

Germany, for the foreseeable future, despite its potent economic power, seems to have little possibility of becoming an active destabilising factor, even to the point that its timidity has even made it a slightly passive destabilising factor. In fact, Germany has become the hole in the European donut.

But such is not the case with Russia.

To his credit (sort of) Vladimir Putin has contributed to the stability of Europe by preventing Russia from achieving its economic potential through his system of short-sighted oligarchical corruption and resource extraction at the cost of true economic development. This has kept Russia weaker than it otherwise would have been, and added to the security of its Western neighbours.

But, unfortunately, this is only half of the picture.

Most ex-Soviet and ex-Eastern bloc states in Eastern Europe, blighted by 40 years of Cold War communism, have been making enormous economic gains through real economic development, in contrast to Russia, which has only been able to boost living standards and its military through natural resource extraction. But some of them are still economically very weak, most notably the ones that failed to shrug off the bear paw of Russia early on. These include Belarus and the Ukraine itself, which has only been outside Russia's domineering sphere of influence since the Ukrainian Revolution of 2014.

Europe off balance 2022?

Right now Putin is trying to use this weakness to build up Russian revanchism. He seeks nothing less than Russian domination of Belarus, which he already has, and the Ukraine, which he does not yet have. His attempt to actually get that, and the West's dialled-in attempts to prevent it is the cause of the present instability. But if Putin were to achieve his goals and then be succeeded by a leader who actually knew how to develop Russia's enormous economic potential, then Europe would be heading once more into a "balance of power" crisis on a par with 1914. Russia, with Belarus and the Ukraine under its belt, would not only be too big again, but it would also be too powerful for the small, perpetually squabbling states of Europe to resist. This would create the conditions for long-term, radical geopolitical instability.

My own personal "minority view" is that such a prolonged threat might have a useful detoxifying effect on LGBTQ+ uber-feminist Europe, but the more likely effect is that Europe would come to depend more and more on the toxifying superpower of the "Great Gay Satan on the Potomac."

If, however, real geopolitical stability could be achieved in Europe, then NATO and the unhealthy dependence on American power could be discarded.

But this would require a few things -- namely, a strong, independent and economically developing Ukraine, the same for Belarus, a strong Poland, the resolution of certain "territorial issues" (Crimea, Transdniestria, Kaliningrad, etc.), and, most of all, a Germany that was not revanchist in any way, but no longer buried under mountains of guilt to the point of geopolitical impotence, effectively serving as the hole in the European donut.

FLIPPING THE REPUBLIC: WHAT IF WE TOOK "STARSHIP TROOPERS" MORE SERIOUSLY?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 07 Feb 2022 09:53:00 +0000

The novel, not the film.

by Michael Gladius

Modern Right-wingers feel stuck in a conundrum. Many of them disavow the supposed “far right”/“alt-right,” which they see as collectivist left-wing faction with no self-awareness. But they feel like their only other choice is the moderate right-wing, which merely preserves the status quo, rather than improving it. However, most attempts to merely preserve the status quo are inherently reactive strategies that cede the initiative to the enemy, no matter how aggressively they are pursued.

Robert Heinlein’s theories in the sci-fi novel Starship Troopers provide a third choice. Everybody knows of the 1995 B-rated satire by Paul Verhoeven, but this was a satire, not a faithful adaptation of Heinlein’s ideas. The book on which the movie was based describes a meritocratic-aristocratic republic that provides a guide for proactive change, rather than the Laotian-style neutralism of the moderates.

So what are Heinlein’s actual theories? In his society citizenship is not given at birth; instead, it is earned by two years of public service. Everyone has a right to apply, and can’t be rejected except in extreme circumstances. The right to vote or hold office is reserved exclusively for the citizenry; non-citizen civilians are not permitted.

The first reason why Heinlein’s thesis is so brilliant is that it flips the logic of a republic on its head. The logic is simple: voting and public service/fighting go hand-in-hand. The traditional model of a republic is a system in which voters are conscripted en masse when war is declared. Their right to vote kicks in automatically when they are old enough to fight. Heinlein reverses this order, however, by having both the army and the republic be volunteer-only.

Voting is not automatic or systematic, but has to be earned through difficult service. Rather than a republic built on passive systems, it requires willpower and sacrifice from men.

For modern right-wingers, the 20th Century should be seen as the failure of systematic solutions. Humans are not machines or livestock, and a society is only as good as its people. Morality, rather than rationalism, is the way forward.

Heinlein’s book repeatedly admits that most people volunteering aren’t the greatest individuals in society, but what sets them apart is their morality: they volunteer because they believe in the system and are willing to put themselves on the line for it.

Most of the book is very meditative and philosophical, with the teachers and leaders being very Socratic with their underlings. Rather than a “shut up and obey” mentality that tells conscripts what to think, the leaders go out of their way to answer hard questions and constantly challenge the new volunteers in how to think. Rather than a factory-produced kind of man, the republic seeks fully-developed individuals to thrive off.

The second reason Heinlein’s thesis is so brilliant is because it recognizes the difference between control over oneself and control over others. The biggest criticism of his thesis is from those who believe it would be innately totalitarian. Heinlein disputes this, and his counterargument relies on pointing out democracy’s greatest weakness: democracy entails giving up control over your own life in order to have a fraction of control over everyone else’s.

Civilians in his fictional world freely renounce this control over others’ lives. By remaining non-citizens, they retain maximum control over their own lives, and are allowed a broad array of rights and freedoms that enhance their own lives without giving them control over others. Those who volunteer for citizenship are constantly reminded that they are freely losing this control over their own lives, and that the power they seek isn’t as big or amazing as it looks from the outside.

Heinlein was firmly against conscription because he believed it would lower standards and openly said it was a form of slavery. As Christopher Dawson wrote in his 1915 essay on the modern state, the state of modern western man is to possess great political liberty but to have less and less control over his own life. This centralization of political and economic power should be an obsolete concept, as it seamlessly leads to communism.

Heinlein believed very strongly in the concept that those who wished to accomplish something should roll up their sleeves and do it themselves, a very American ethic, and his book argues that those who desire control over the lives of others as leaders of countries, should be forced to feel what it’s like to lose control over their own lives, as a prerequisite. Most right-wing literature and films of the 1950s focused on the notion of the hero who has too many volunteers and must pick the qualified from among them, and this ethic has not entirely been forgotten by the West.

Another point in favour of Heinlein’s system is that it addresses the dreaded careerist. In the modern-day republics of the West, careerism is an easy punching bag. Careerists are the ones who have no loyalty except to their fat paychecks, and are readily associated with inept men embedding themselves in the system, while the better-qualified are let go.

Heinlein’s system improves on this by giving career men a place, but locking them into it for 20 years at a time. The average volunteer, by contrast, spends around two years in public service, then becomes a citizen. During his service he has no decision-making authority, and can therefore appreciate what it feels like to be on the receiving end of his future political power. The careerist, however, only gets the right to vote after completing his service. Thus, a typical careerist would not be allowed to vote earlier than the age of 40. The trade-offs are fair, and thus turns careerism from a liability into an asset: only the true believers who survive get to vote.

In conclusion, the modern right needs to stand for something other than a passive status quo, and Heinlein’s thesis is a solid direction. It’s anti-systematic, even to the point of being pseudo-libertarian. It’s filled with both aristocratic virtues and philosophical self-criticism. It has the strengths of both medieval heroic chivalry and Roman order. By turning the idea of the republic inside out, the problems of mass democracy can be addressed without throwing away real social progress.

DEPOPULATION FOR DUMMIES

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 04 Feb 2022 21:11:00 +0000

by Hewitt E. Moore

Ever since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, conspiracy theories have been the talk of the internet. One of the most interesting phenomena regarding the pandemic has been witnessing conspiracy theories evolve into “science,” and vice versa.

Mass confusion became so rampant that the establishment's Department of Propaganda (i.e., Big Tech) was forced to step in and become the arbitrators of truth, establishing a non-negotiable narrative that silenced all dissenters. This resulted in an Orwellian-style censorship campaign used to combat COVID “misinformation,” which consequently divided the public into two camps: conformists and non-conformists.

Those who weren't devout disciples of authoritarianism came to realize that this oppressive suppression of speech wasn't actually about “misinformation,” rather it was about control of the narrative. Anyone could post all the “misinformation” they desired as long at it acted as a representative of the state's narrative. However, even renowned experts and their empirical data have been collectively censored for simply challenging the science.

Those who boastfully tout “Science!” seem to have forgotten what makes science an acceptable doctrine of truth. Science is the acquisition of knowledge due to rigorous skepticism via the scientific method. Science and censorship are compatible only in the sense that science will act as its own censor when challenged. In layman's terms: if the truth isn't challengable, then it's probably not the truth.

The establishment's response to the pandemic proved to be a complete fiasco, which highlighted a level of systemic incompetency that no amount of damage control by the Department of Propaganda could possibly repair. Censorship never fixes problems, it always creates them. The whole of Western Civilization (perhaps excluding Sweden) illustrated to the world that radical neoliberalism (a system based on emotions and feelings) is incompatible with logic and reason.

But, maybe that's what they wanted. Maybe the powers that be (PTB) have been co-opted by accelerationists who see the West as a dying empire, and they hope to speed up the process, with the intent to build back better. That could explain the blatant ineptitude of those making the decisions. Nonetheless, it's almost impossible to analyze the last two years rationally without going down some type of conspiracy-driven rabbit hole.

One of the more popular COVID conspiracy theories has been the idea of population control. Whether it be with the mRNA vaccines, the “novel” virus, or a combination of both, there are literally millions of people who believe the pandemic was a “plandemic.” In fact, according to a recent poll, 1 in 5 people think the COVID pandemic is a “depopulation tactic”:

Amid a disturbing rise in the number of conspiracy theories taking root in the US population, a new poll has found that nearly one in five people believe that the coronavirus pandemic is a “depopulation tactic”.

Conspiracy theorists cite things like, WEF's Great Reset plan to “build back better,” Bill Gate's 2017 admission that vaccines are designed so governments can depopulate the world, or that the virus itself was man-made and intentionally released from a Chinese lab with the purpose of killing millions of people, as sources to justify their theories.

Regardless of how you feel about the pandemic and/or the conspiracy theories that surround it, there is no denying that there are powerful people who believe the earth is overpopulated. That is essentially the underlying agenda of the “climate change” crowd. Obviously, they aren't going to come out explicitly as depopulationists, any more than diversity advocates are going to openly endorse White genocide. But, where there's smoke there's fire. Anyone who believes humans are destroying the planet are going to be de facto depopulationists to some degree.

In practical terms, the concept of depopulation is an equation of implicit actions resulting in explicit changes that are factored exponentially over a period of time. Assuming the official COVID numbers are accurate, we are currently at 6 million deaths (80% of those over 65) on a planet with 7 billion people. That means 0.08% of the planet's population died from COVID over a two-year period. Yet, during that same time period, 280 million people were born. This illustrates the mathematical complexity depopulationists are faced with, and perhaps the irrationality of the “conspiracy.” However, that doesn't necessarily debunk depopulationism as an ideology, nor pragmatically from an eugenics perspective.

The fear that has driven the pandemic has been the notion that nobody knows who will get serious disease. Some people get sniffles, while others are placed on a ventilator. Just because the reasoning isn't known to the public (or even the “experts”) doesn't mean the reason isn't known. If this virus was created in a lab (most think it was), it could be designed to attack a certain genetic sequence, that appears to infect people randomly, when in fact it doesn't.

To the naysayers who might respond with, “if they wanted to implement population control measures, they could just start another world war and kill off millions of people.”: The only way that happens is with nuclear war, and all parties involved know that's suicide. Technology and the nuclear weapon has eliminated the possibility of large scale ground wars. The idea that the world could just deploy armies of men to a battlefield and have them shoot each other until 100 million die is completely irrational. If there were to ever be another world war, it would be the last war. All future conflicts will be in the realm of 4th generation warfare, which will be technological, biological and asymmetrical. This type of warfare will be more efficient, controllable, eco-friendly and profitable (the world's 10 richest men doubled their wealth during the pandemic).

From an ethical point of view it should be noted that this idea that the PTB wouldn't release a bioweapon capable of killing millions of people on the premise of “they care about us so much” is both disingenuous and naive. The people in a position to make these kind of decisions are primarily comprised of two personality types: sociopaths and justifiers. These are the same people who have sacrificed the lives of hundreds of millions of young men for “the greater good” in a multitude of meaningless wars. In fact, in the 20th century alone, there were 123 million people who died in battle. Thinning the herd of a few million “useless eaters” in order to save the planet is no different than sacrificing the lives of millions of young men for “communism” or “democracy.”

Therefore, the conspiracy theorist would posit that when conventional warfare becomes obsolete (as it has), unconventional warfare becomes conventional. After all, warfare is just a means to an end. Therefore, let's assume that humans really are putting a huge strain on the planet's resources and causing climate change that will inevitably become catastrophic. Combine that with the technological revolution that has transformed humans into “useless eaters” (consumers who don't produce). If the PTB believe this to be true, are we to assume that they wouldn't consider drastic measures? If they think the fate of the planet lies in their hands, are we to believe that these gods would sacrifice millions of lives for “freedom,” but not to save the planet?

To make an argument in a court of law, motive usually needs to be established. Motive is defined as, “the cause that moves people to induce a certain action.” If the earth is in an existential crisis, is there motive to institute population control measures?

Let's ask a few elites what they think:

Stephan Hawking: “In the last 200 years the population of our planet has grown exponentially, at a rate of 1.9% per year. If it continued at this rate, with the population doubling every 40 years, by 2600 we would all be standing literally shoulder to shoulder.”

Albert Einstein: “Overpopulation in various countries has become a serious threat to the health of people and a grave obstacle to any attempt to organise peace on this planet.”

Michail Gorbachev: “We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren't enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”

Isaac Asimov: “Democracy cannot survive overpopulation.”

Prince Philip: “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”

Bill Maher: “Shouldn't we be against procreation at this point in time? With overpopulation and the strain on the resources on this planet? Shouldn't we reward people who don't spawn?”

Bill Gates: “The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent.”

Doug Stanhope: “When you consider the overpopulation in this world ... homosexuality is completely underrated in this society.”

Ted Turner: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

Richard Branson: “The truth is this: the Earth cannot provide enough food and fresh water for 10 billion people, never mind homes, never mind roads, hospitals, and schools.”

Margaret Sanger: “All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class.”

Paul Erlich: “Basically, then, there are only two kinds of solutions to the population problem. One is a ‘birth rate solution,’ in which we find ways to lower the birth rate. The other is a ‘death rate solution,’ in which ways to raise the death rate — war, famine, pestilence — find us.

Jacques Cousteau: “In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it.”

Pentti Linkola: “If there were a button I could press, I would sacrifice myself without hesitating if it meant millions of people would die.”

Dan Brown: “Overpopulation is an issue so profound that all of us need to ask what should be done.”

Based on the above observation and reasoning, I've developed the following thesis using the Hegelian Dialectic (problem, reaction, solution):

The PTB have scientifically reached the conclusion that human overpopulation has placed the planet in an existential crisis. They've determined that if drastic population control measures aren't enacted soon, irreparable damage to the planet and its ecosystem is inevitable. They intend to address this issue in three phases: 1. Socially-engineered sterilization, 2. Technological escapism, 3. Space Emigration. We are in Phase 1 and on the verge of entering Phase 2.

Socially-engineered sterilization is a systemic-endorsed collusion amongst establishment entities that actively promote the breakdown of the family unit in order to discourage reproduction. The primary methods used are feminism and homosexuality.

The socially-engineered sterilization aspect of the depopulation effort has already been successfully implemented. The United States has frequently been below replacement numbers (2.1) since 1971, and has been consistently below since 2007. In 2020, the U.S. hit a record low at 1.6 births per woman. The breakdown of the traditional family as the result of radical feminism is the biggest contributor to the reduction in birthrates.

With regard to homosexuality, there has been a sharp rise in those who identify as LGBTQ, particularly among millennials. According to a recent poll, 5.6% of adults identify as LGBT, up from just 3.5% in 2012. Among millennials, data suggests that 20% identify as LGBTQ, compared to 12% of Gen X and just 7% of baby boomers. This illustrates the fluidity of sexuality when manipulated. Homosexuality as a cause is social, but as an effect it's evolutionary.

The entirety of the West has not only endorsed feminism and homosexuality, but has vehemently enforced it. People get stuck in the mud moralizing these behaviors instead of rationally processing them. When a person is able to escape their feelings and analyze homosexuality and feminism critically, from an evolutionary perspective, they are able to see these behaviors for what they really are: a crypto-eugenics psy-op.

The next phase of depopulation is the one we are currently entering: technological escapism. This is the concept of replacing - or fusing - biological reality with virtual reality. The Metaverse is the evolution of the internet. Like it or not, it's the next thing. This technology alone will plummet birthrates below one. People will just not leave their homes anymore. All of their relationships will be virtual. Reality will become a social construct.

Companies are literally spending millions of dollars as we speak buying up “property” in the Metaverse:

CNBC reports that since Facebook made the move towards becoming Meta, prices of digital plots have gone up by as much as 500%. One company reported spending over $2.5 million USD on land in Decentraland, a metaverse based around crypto complete with its own currency where every piece of content in the game is owned, completely autonomously, by the players. Another firm revealed spending $4.3 million buying a plot of land in Atari’s The Sandbox metaverse.

Metaverses, in the current zeitgeist, refers to these niche virtual worlds which in most cases, look a lot worse than your average videogame. Celebrity appearances and shows are becoming fairly common, a bit like the Fortnite concerts, and some like Snoop Dogg and Paris Hilton even own property in these worlds. Having celebrities onboard naturally is helping to drive up the price, with the house next to Snoop’s planned mansion going for $4.3 million.

Another suspicious circumstance regarding the COVID pandemic is the timing aspect. Right about the time this VR technology is ready to be rolled out, society gets put into this perpetual state of nihilistic despair, glued to their phones in isolation. Everyone is miserable and depressed (77 million people in the US are on psychiatric drugs). Drug overdoses have reached all-time highs, with 93,000 people dying in 2020. Roughly 50,000 people commit suicide annually. Then out of nowhere, this new technology appears that will allow people to escape their living hell and create a better reality in a virtual world. Seems rather convenient, but it's probably just another weird coincidence.

"Useless eaters"

In a recently published article, an Australian professor of philosophy says that “virtual reality is genuine reality, and we need to embrace it.” Not only that, but he says that virtual reality will become a safe haven from things like “environmental collapse, pandemics and nuclear wars.” He even says that living in physical reality will eventually be viewed as a type of fetish:

It is hard to imagine humans spending their lives in virtual reality when the experience amounts to waving your arms about in the middle of the lounge with a device the size of a house brick strapped to your face. But this is where humanity is heading, says the philosopher David Chalmers, who argues for embracing the fate.

Advances in technology will deliver virtual worlds that rival and then surpass the physical realm. And with limitless, convincing experiences on tap, the material world may lose its allure, he says. “A common way of thinking about virtual realities is that they’re somehow fake realities, that what you perceive in VR isn’t real. I think that’s wrong,” he told the Guardian. “The virtual worlds we’re interacting with can be as real as our ordinary physical world. Virtual reality is genuine reality.”

But where does this leave the physical world? “In the short term we’re pretty clearly going to be based in physical reality and I certainly wouldn’t recommend abandoning it,” Chalmers says. “But in the longer term, it’s possible to imagine people spending most of their lives inside virtual reality.” The pursuit of the physical may come to seem a novelty or a fetish, he adds. Writing in the book, he describes numerous draws that will pull people in to VR.

These are worlds in which people can enjoy superhuman powers, possess other bodies, experience new sensations and explore environments with different laws of physics. With almost unlimited space, everyone can have a virtual mansion, or even a virtual planet. And if the physical world becomes dangerously degraded – by environmental collapse, nuclear war or an interminable pandemic – VR could offer a safe haven, he says.

So, for the majority of “useless eaters,” the options are going to be, a) single and overweight, addicted to porn and opioids, suicidal and on antidepressants, b) buy some property next to Snoop Dogg and Kim Kardashian in the Metaverse with worthless crypto and become a handsome superhero with a private jet who gets all the chicks, or c) be an outlier.

That leads us to Phase 3: space colonization. Last year alone, investors dumped a record $14.5 billion dollars into space stocks. That's 50% more than was invested in 2020. Colonizing the final frontier might sound like a thing of fantasy, but it's going to happen. And probably sooner than you think. After all, exploration and conquest are the essence of European Man. By the time space colonies are established, we will be in the midst of the sixth extinction, and the human population will have been considerably reduced. Earth's ecosystem will be in recovery and become a nature reserve that the elites from space use as a vacation resort:

Amazon Founder and space explorer Blue Origin owner Jeff Bezos, recently forecasted that Earth will soon become a "natural resort." According to a WION report Bezos said, this planet will soon turn into a natural resort because only a few "will be allowed to stay here in the future.

"During the annual Ignatius Forum in Washington DC, the billionaire also said, the Earth is special and "we cannot ruin it."Talking about Blue Origin, his new firm, Bezos explained the experts are aiming to make sure that millions of people get to not only work in space but be born and call space as their first home, as well.

Bezos also explained millions of people will move from Earth to space over time. More so, it is the vision of Blue Origin to make millions of people work in space. For hundreds of years, he added, most, or many of the people "will be born in space." It will be these humans' first home. More so, they will be born in these colonies, not to mention, they will live in such colonies. These people may visit this planet the way one would visit a national park, forecasted Bezos.

He believes the space colonies in the future will have forests, wildlife, and rivers of their own, a similar Republicworld.com report said. Describing his prediction, Bezos said this planet can support, for example, 10 billion people to a certain level. He elaborated they'd have to work quite hard to find out how to do that without degrading the Earth.

Ge added the solar system can "support a trillion people." Even though the billionaire is relatively positive about taking humanity to space and keeping this planet for a selected few, he was uncertain about claiming who is to decide who's staying on this planet.

It's not some kind of secret conspiracy theory when the richest man in the world is publicly telling everyone what the future looks like. The only way his vision doesn't become reality is if it's impossible to achieve. Ask yourself how many things you experience or witness everyday that 100 years ago would've been considered impossible by all practical measures. Bezos and company are serious, and they have every possible resource available at their disposal. Once you combine mission and motive, there's only one unknown variable to the depopulation equation: time.

BRITAIN IS FILLING GERMANY'S BOOTS IN EASTERN EUROPE BECAUSE OF THE HOLOCAUST NARRATIVE

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 23 Jan 2022 17:04:00 +0000

Kind of awkward

by Colin Liddell

In a daring diplomatic move, Britain has set up a military alliance to counter Russian expansionism and adventurism.

The new alliance—dubbed "the Trilateral"—involves increased military, financial, and diplomatic support for Poland and the Ukraine, to enable them to better stand up to bullying from the regime of Vladimir Putin.

In a speech delivered on Friday, 21st January, to the Lowy Institute in Australia, UK Foreign Minister Liz Truss outlined the main points of the new set up, which will supplement and enhance existing arrangements with NATO:

This week, the United Kingdom announced a new package of training, support and defensive weapons for Ukraine to boost their defensive capabilities. And we’re working with our partners on high impact measures targeting the Russian financial sector, and individuals.

We’re also strengthening our bilateral partnership following high-level talks in London in December – and we’re fostering new trilateral ties with Poland and Ukraine.

We’re also pushing for alternatives in energy supply, so that nations are less reliant on Russia for their gas.

Support among ordinary Russians for Putin's corruption-infested government has been hollowing out for years. It is only maintained by blanket control of the media and by allowing a clown opposition of fake extremists like Vladimir Zhirinovsky and the old Communist Party to contest elections. Anyone really popular, like Alexei Navalny, gets poisoned, killed, or jailed.

In fact, as someone who has completely distorted the political process in his own favour, Putin requires much higher poll ratings than Western leaders just to survive. Also, if he were to lose his power, it is almost certain that he would be on criminal charges for corruption and probably for murder.

Typically, when he slumps in the polls or his support starts to noticeably hollow out, he tries to pull himself back up by posing as the great nationalist leader—despite normally jailing Russian nationalists. This sometimes involves picking fights with his much smaller and weaker neighbours. In recent months he has been spoiling for a fight with someone to help restore his falling ratings.

Due to the weakness of other major European powers, like France and Germany, Putin has felt strong enough to start throwing his weight around again.

But what we are really dealing with here is a long-running structural geopolitical problem.

Since WWII the geopolitical balance of Europe has been skewed by Germany's moral and therefore geopolitical weakness. As the Continent's economic giant, it should be doing a lot more to maintain a stable balance of power, but it won't or it can't. Britain's recent move is clearly an attempt to compensate for this German deficiency by creating a direct vector of support from Britain straight into the heart of Eastern Europe, effectively and literally by-passing Germany:

Germany's geopolitical weakness comes from its inability to take on a strongman role without evoking the ghosts of Naziism, as well as from its attempt to "greenwash" itself through espousing extreme ecological politics. These two phenomena are connected, as greenwashing is Germany's preferred path of moral redemption.

The result of this has been domestic denuclearization and decarbonization, which, of course, has deepened its dependency on Russian gas. For these reasons, Germany is practically useless for shoring up Poland or the Ukraine, which is why Britain has bravely stepped into this role.

This policy is all part of a larger picture, in which the US, China, Japan, and Australia also feature, as Truss indicated in her speech:

Russia and China are working together more and more, as they strive to set the standards in technologies like artificial intelligence, assert their dominance over the Western Pacific through joint military exercises and in space through closer ties. The International Institute for Strategic Studies argues we are now seeing the “strongest, closest and best relationship” the 2 countries have had for 70 years.

And we are seeing an alignment of authoritarian regimes across the world. It is no surprise that regimes like Belarus, North Korea or Myanmar find their closest allies in Moscow and Beijing.

They don’t look to these nations as partners but as puppets. Moscow wants them to promote their propaganda and destabilise free democracies on their doorstep. At the same time, Beijing has forged a so-called “iron brotherhood” with Belarus. China is the biggest buyer of Iranian oil and Pyongyang’s largest trading partner.

China and Russia have spotted an ideological vacuum and they’re rushing to fill it. They are emboldened in a way we haven’t seen since the Cold War.

What Truss failed to mention here or anywhere else is that continued German weakness—caused by the West's over-reliance on the Holocaust guilt narrative in order to 'service' its multiculturalism—has created a power vacuum that Britain has been forced to step into.

Britain is literally filling Germany's boots in Eastern Europe because Germany is too cucked by the West's increasingly toxic "anti-racism" agenda and its dependency on mass immigration. This could lead to war.

Connected content:

"Arguably the Alt-Right's Most Perspicacious Observer of Russia"
The Need For German Moral Rearmament
The Boundless Insanity of Neo-Russian Imperialism

COVID: THE CONSPIRITARDS WERE WRONG

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 21 Jan 2022 23:31:00 +0000

"Covid is a globalist psy-op, bro, trust me"

by Colin Liddell

On Wednesday (19th January) something that wasn't supposed to happen, happened: Covid curled up and died.

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson stood up in Parliament and announced that mandatory face coverings in public places and vaccine passports were to cease henceforth. The government also dropped its advice for people to work from home.

This was deeply embarrassing to one group of people in particular -- the conspiritards, i.e. those who believe that Covid is just a made up disease so that Davos-controlled globalists, like Johnson, can seize more power and introduce something like a Chinese-style social credit system in the West as part of a greater plan for One-World government and mass depopulation.

Yes, stand up more than half of the Dissident Right.

People like Dave Cullen (Computing Forever) and Paul Joseph Watson, who rake in fortunes from their gullible followers, along with many lesser lights of the "Conspiritard-o-Sphere" were left swinging in the wind by Boris's announcement. It literally took the ground from beneath their feet and wind from beneath their wings.

Yes, 'let's just let everybody do what the fuck they like' isn't exactly textbook Orwellianism now, is it?

This is extremely awkward for people like Watson and Cullen, who have come to rely on the discomfort, fears, and creeping dread caused by the pandemic to stoke up a paranoid fantasy in which we're all helpless victims of some evil globalist plot and omnipotent elite.

Right now, and with this precise event, the conspirators have been utterly exposed. Egg has been well and truly rubbed into all their faces. In short they have been utterly discredited.

Nobody is more devoted to the Covid cult than Dave Cullen.

But in the Internet age of fast-flowing narratives and soon-forgotten facts they will "live to blight another day" with their lies, bullshit, distortions, and self-serving paranoia. This is because people are stupid, the world is complicated, and nobody can explain to the peanut gallery the intricacies of power -- or its limitations.

Sure, there are still other governments acting in ways that continue to feed the Orwellian myth of the conspiritards: Austria is attempting to coerce its people into taking vaccines, while its near homonym Australia is expelling tennis players who clash with its "lock down messaging." But meanwhile, in "Perfidious Albion," the home of the "Eternal Anglo" and the seat of the "Reptilian Monarchy," the one place on the Earth outside Switzerland where you would expect the Globalists to be pushing extra hard, they have mysteriously given up the ghost and lost focus. Gadzooks! We have even seen a return to comparative normality.

It really is beginning to look like some governments, at least, were just trying to do the right thing about a tricky new flu, and didn't have some dark, deep, and dirty secret agenda like all the idiots and grifters in the Dissident Right claimed.

People, next time you see a steaming hot pile of conspiritard bullshit, try not to jump on it and shovel it down your quivering throat as fast as possible. It's not a good look, honest!

IS NATIONALISM A SHIT MAGNET?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 18 Jan 2022 17:36:00 +0000

Luke Ford considers the irony of Richard Spencer calling nationalism a "shit magnet." Originally recorded 19th February 2021

Luke's YouTube channel

Luke's Soundcloud channel
Luke's Twitter

COLIN LIDDELL ON THE IRON DUKE CHANNEL

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 17 Jan 2022 17:38:00 +0000

Affirmative Right editor Colin Liddell makes another appearance on the Iron Duke channel in order to discuss a wide variety of important subjects.