|
|
|
Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert
Some say 200 drones, some say 300. But however large it was no one can say that Iran’s attack on Israel last night was provoked by the CIA. Or Nuland. Or Biden. Which is a relief. One injured girl is said to be the cost to the Israelis. The Iron Dome worked brilliantly well, although it was not faced with Iran’s ballistic missiles. Netanyahu, having said only yesterday that Israel will reach out and hurt those who hurt Israel, can now justly say that the hurt is not what it might have been, and leave it there. For its part, the Iranian government has said that honour will be satisfied by the one attack, which follows Israel’s strikes on Iran’s consulate in Syria a fortnight ago. That latter killed eleven people, including Mohammad Reza Zahedi, who was the General in command of Iran’s elite al-Quds force and in charge of Iran’s network of proxy militias in Lebanon and Syria. The militias can now reflect on the, of course, great honour of their patrons in Tehran, and tell themselves that Allah’s will has been done. Assuming the Israelis don’t feel the need to make a point, there is no advantage to anyone at this point in escalation. But a line has been crossed. For the first time Tehran has attacked the hated Israelis from its own soil. It has also learned that to be anything more than a nuisance a missile attack must be ballistic. The quiet which should now obtain will be uneasy. Israel will not be restrained from targeting Iranians in Syria, because they see that as self-defence. There would be little point for Tehran in responding to another death like Zahedi’s with a few hundred pin-pricks. But a ballistic response, if it gets through, would mean outright war with every possibility of America being dragged in. That’s more or less where we are this morning. The world of nations is slowly assorting itself into two camps broadly interested in, on the one hand, a world of rules, global corporations and money and, on the other, a world of force and empire. One might conclude that one side now consists principally of Poland, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Baltic States, the Czech Republic, Holland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Spain, Australia, Canada, Saudi, Israel, Japan, South Korea. The other side consists of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, North Korea, China, Iran and its various proxies, South Africa, and, in the west, Slovakia and Hungary. Not yet forced to choose, or likely to remain as much as possible on the sidelines, are Trump’s America, India, Brazil, and Turkey. I would certainly contend that this grand divide is now the principal geopolitical framework, and nationalists like ourselves are going to have to adjust to this reality. As I wrote earlier, in a more limited context of the western elite’s drive for The Globality:
It is clear that our elite class committed the sin of assuming they had won, and their desired goal was historically inevitable. They lost all interest in nationhood, and therefore in the defence of the nation, thirty-five years ago. Now their project is failing. There are signs everywhere. But the contempt they displayed towards us … the decay they have wrought upon us mere economic men, mere racists and moral dross … has gone too far, and leaves them without a fighting tradition, a unified and motivated people, to call upon. This can bring opportunity for nationalism if a point of balance is reached whereby the elites’ many-sided assault on the European life is undermined by history, and the national principle and the native principle are even grudgingly respected (because only these can confront eastern force). In other words, the west must survive but not Davos, and the east must not come to us in any shape or form, be it by geopolitics or military action or colonisation. So, Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan; the three unlikely pillars of western security. Do nationalists want to defend them or desert them? Comments:2
Posted by Thorn on Mon, 15 Apr 2024 20:56 | # GW, One theory that’s currently being articulated by many experts in foreign policy is the Likud Party has been trying to expand the war thus drawing the USA into fighting Iran on behalf Israel’s security. The experts I speak of are convinced that AIPAC (aka the Israeli Lobby) is for all intents and purposes calling the foreign policy shots in DC. It wouldn’t be the first time Israel via AIPAC pressured the bought-and-paid-for pols in DC into using the US military to fight a war for them. Of course, Iraq tops the list. 3
Posted by Vought on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 03:43 | # Typically, internal revolutions follow external defeat or retreat which cause a delegitimization crisis. For example, Russia’s defeat in 1905 and losses in WWI gave an opportunity for the Bolsheviks. Thus GW’s insistence that the “pillars” be successfully defended likely would maintain the Western elite’s position and the drive for “The Globality,” rather than overturn them to the benefit of Western nationalists. What GW describes here seems to be what James Bowery predicted years ago would be “pan-Western fascism” led by Jews and Zionists first against the Muslim world and then others as the Western elite’s power would decline. Though I don’t think James predicted most Western nationalists and racialists would be on board with the enterprise like GW appears to be. 4
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 09:06 | # Vought, an absence of legitimacy is not existential for dictators. The western elites’ model of The Globality is not legitimated. They don’t care. The vital thing for them is historical agency, not the consent of the governed. So we need to put away such thinking, which belongs to, or relies upon, precisely the traditions of government in the west against which our elites are in such complete and final revolt. I’m not in agreement with James. I make a distinction between (a) the Judaic project, (b) that project’s re-fashioning as the globalism of the post-war decades, and (c) the technocratic or Davosian project of today (which actively includes China, btw). This then yields a distinction between the sociobiologically-driven impulses of Jews per se and the corrupted will to absolute power of the financial dynasties. Under technocracy that absolutism extends to the dynastics re-engineering themselves as the global investor and asset management class, and thence to their detachment from the general body of Jewry. Why else did Israel get the vax so hard? What that distinction then leads to is the divide and interplay between technocratic globalism and geopolitics; and this I do not believe James was considering. Although he is not a WN, he spoke from a more or less “normal” dissident standpoint one might have encountered at any time in America since 1945. But that Jew-centric analysis does not translate to the world of power today. WNs have simply not noticed. They are stuck in the YouTube echo-chamber, and see only a vast Judaic evil in Washington as the cause of all the world’s travails. Would that it were that simple. On the real world of power, for the last two years of the Ukraine war I have been making the point that a defeat to the east complete enough to neutralise the western elite project does not mean a continuation of our society. It does not mean that our little liberal life can continue minus the betrayals of our elites. It does not mean a retention of our mores, our laws, our votes, our freedoms, our civilisation indeed. Most especially, it does not mean a rise of nationalism and, thereby, our restoration to Truth, and to psychological and societal health and security. It means a Han supremacism unbounded by political pressure from the west, an epoch of technocratic dictate more alien and authoritarian and more essentially violent than anything the European political mind, as it is constituted today, could or would seriously contemplate. In fact, I’ve spent a lot longer than two years warning against what I have called inevitablism or isostasy - the happy assumption that there is some unseen but certain, underlying historical process of return by which everything we want must come to pass if some key set of suppressing circumstances could be got off our backs. Our nature, with its wild creativity and imagining, its moral objectivity and intellectual destining, is one thing. The history of agency is another. We must not lazily conflate the two. Obviously, for our nature to fashion our life in the way that we all want, we must have agency. Yet in an eastern-led future, agency does not pass to us. The east does not want a reinvigorated, destining racial Europe. It wants its own global Totality which it calls Tian Xia. It wants the re-emergence of its own grand destiny, which it quietly nurses as the reborn Middle Kingdom whose future was stolen by the upstart west. If Taiwan falls we can expect Chinese ambitions to be strengthened, and thus Chinese military expansion to advance. But the interest of the western elites lie not in an independent Taiwan but in a New World Order of peace. Why? Because the realisation of their global empire of money requires an end to instability and uncertainty, and so an end also to the ambitions of men with the old narrow vision of power and self-aggrandisement and a taste for wealth and lands of others. These two forces are too profoundly and practically oppositional to co-exist. It’s the ultimate example of the unstoppable force and the immovable object. Something’s gotta give. Someone has to be flexible. As Beijing is absolutely set upon its historical mission the flexibility will have to come from the forces of peace. The western elites will have to do what the British government did when Hong Kong’s lease was up - give in gracefully and try to secure a few guarantees (ie, “One Country Two Systems”). Therefore, they will lean on Taiwan to choose “realism” (which most Taiwanese politicians understand all too well, actually) and try to convince Beijing to play nice. At no time will we see anything more than a display of American military power. The resulting bloodless takeover will be proclaimed in western capitals as a Pax Occidentis, and the drive for The Globality will be safe! Of course, it won’t because, as I said, the forces of violence and empire will be emboldened everywhere – none more so than Beijing. Where, then, will the Americans make a stand? Obviously, it has to defend the western elites’ project somewhere, and obviously that will be Israel – not because of AIPAC but because knocking a few Muslims about in the Middle East is relatively containable and has least implications for the project. No one in the western power structure will worry that five to ten million more Muslim refugees will flood north into Europe. All that said, could there be an outcome to this great struggle for global dominion in which the western elites’ model of the Globality fails and eastern geopolitical ambition, eastern globalism is not realised? Can we see an opportunity in which nation in the west might come through the gap, so to speak? 5
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 16:03 | # Dovetailing my comment @ 2 The crucial question is, for what purpose did the IDF bomb the Iranian embassy in Damascus? Prof. Jeffery Sachs: “They [the Israeli government] want the US to be in a war with Iran.” 6
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:44 | # GW , Americans have tried hard to fix the world . Wars waged and money , blood , genetic futures ruined. Given a choice between Sadiq Khan , Humza Yousaf and the Mulatto who runs Wales , not to mention the Gays and Feminists who also hate White men , a Lee Kuan Yew type ruler seems positively appealing. 7
Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:50 | # # 5 You finally caught yourself on with the help of the Jew , Sachs . Israel decides when the stupid Americans go to war . It was ever thus . 8
Posted by Manc on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 09:12 | # What Israel did next… https://www.thejc.com/news/israel/israel-strikes-airbase-deep-inside-iran-dq8ighnv 9
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 19 Apr 2024 10:31 | # @7 “You finally caught yourself on with the help of the Jew , Sachs .” LOL And you, for the umpteenth time, display yourself as a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance. 10
Posted by Thorn on Tue, 23 Apr 2024 18:48 | # I love me some MTG!! She stands out as one of the few Republicans in the House who boldly criticizes the corruption among the bought-and-paid-for neocon colleagues in her own party.
11
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 07:29 | #
People who use this line are basically appeasers and likely criminals. Ukrainians are fighting for their existence as a people and a nation against an aggressor which will prove genocidal and maximally expansionist if the west does not do its duty. Would MTG not have this brave and proud people live? Does she want millions more Ukrainian refugees? Does she want Georgian refugees after that, and Moldovans to follow? And who next? Does she ask the east Europeans if “Russian World” is likely to be an improvement on the western rules-based order? Does she want empire and force to be the principles of the international order? Does she want the west to fall under the geopolitical and economic control of China? The single most damaging aspect of people like MTG and Mike Lee on this whole issue is that they cannot or will not look beyond America and see the totality of the contest. They cannot draw the lines. They do not understand the profound implications of a defeat to the east complete enough to neutralise the western elite project. As I have noted previously, “it does not mean a continuation of our society. It does not mean that our little liberal life can continue minus the betrayals of our elites. It does not mean a retention of our mores, our laws, our votes, our freedoms, our civilisation indeed. Most especially, it does not mean the triumph of dissent in this land and, thereby, our restoration to Truth, and to psychological and societal health and security. It means a Han supremacism unbounded by political pressure from the west, an epoch of technocratic dictate more alien and authoritarian and more essentially violent than anything the European political mind, as it is constituted today, could or would seriously contemplate.” This isn’t about supporting the western elites. It’s about the conditions under which our dissent might best materialise - and the conditions under which it won’t. 12
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 10:55 | #
GW, the biggest criminals involved here are those who deliberately manipulated the Ukrainians into fighting a NATO proxy war against Russia. The core motivation of those criminals is to overthrow the Putin regime in Moscow. So I ask you, GW: is/was it worth the sacrifice of an entire generation or two of Ukrainian men for the reckless attempt to accomplish a regime change in Moscow? Or to simply to “Weaken Russia? ... as U.S. The Secretary of Defence Austin has officially, on record, stated?
I doubt you are correct in your opinion of them. I think they are very much in tune with the larger geopolitical/geoeconomic implications at play; namely, the rise of the BRICS coalition along with the decline of the USA as the world’s reserve currency. They know what the USA is attempting will only strengthen the BRICS coalition concomitant with weakening the status of the USD as the world’s reserve currency. If you think Mike Lee and MTG are ignorant of the Sergey Glazyev plan, then you are falling into the mistake of making unwarranted assumptions. 13
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 12:18 | # There is no proxy war, Thorn. You are the victim of propaganda, be it Anon-type conspiracy theory or direct GRU engineering of western opinion. You are a nationalist. It is incumbent on you to be better than that, and to find truth. That involves penetrating beyond your prejudice and near-sightedness. Let’s deal with this notion of a proxy war. First, Putin’s Muscovite violent expansionism is non-moral. It kills the rights of peoples, including in the Western Ukrainian case the right to exist as a people. It is not a cause any nationalist should ever support. It does not matter than the western elites are criminal too. One always, always, always cleaves to the native principle. Second, NATO has an absolute right to deny Russia control over the nations and peoples to its west. It has an absolute right to undergird the desire of those nations and peoples to be free of Russian dominion, Russian satrapy. Acting accordingly is not “provoking Putin”. Putin needs no provocation. He has a self-justifying narrative which he has constructed to provide cover for his real and wholly self-serving agenda. If the Asiatic Mind was absent from Muscovy it might be possible for Putin and Russia to live alongside those nations and peoples. As it is, empire is written in Russia’s physical constitution, and it does not seem to be able to hold itself together without a “great leader” striving to expand it. The ontology of empire is expansion, after all. If it is constrained it turns to decline and, eventually, collapse. Third, this isn’t about the western elites (who, in my view, cannot now achieve their aims - though they will continue to try). We have been shown by Putin that there are fatal weaknesses in the elites’ grand project, not least their own hubris. It isn’t a simple matter to shift the world’s populations into a geo-economic, technocratic Globality. Covid failed. Net Zero is fraying badly. Public understanding is increasing, and as it increases so does dissent. Nationalisms of a sort are rising across continental Europe. We do not need to rely upon Putin and Xi for a freedom they would never want to grant. We must be adult about this, and look them in the eye. They are hostiles. 14
Posted by Thorn on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 18:51 | #
Okay, GW, I can change that to this: The U.S. is in a direct war with Russia. A war incited by the U.S. for at least the decade leading up to and now beyond February 24, 2022. However, it all could have been avoided if only NATO (led by the USA, of course) would have negotiated in good faith then agreed that Ukraine remain a neutral country. The inclination of the U.S. to engage in conflict with Russia rather than accepting such reasonable terms clearly indicates who instigated and is perpetuating the war.
15
Posted by Landon on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 00:50 | #
The problem with this argument is that the Russia-Ukraine conflict is between East Slavic brother peoples. It is like a civil conflict. The external forces in the conflict such as NATO are constituted by West European powers which are foreign to the East Slavs and dominated by the US, which itself is increasingly a non-white, Latin American empire. Moreover, the argument is being made by a Briton, whose empire proliferated billions of pajeets and negroes around the world, including into Ukraine. 16
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 06:57 | # There is no problem with my analysis, Landon. Brother wars are the norm in human history because resource competitition is most constant between neighbouring populations (and, especially, their elites). Further, in this case it should be remembered that Kiev was a centre of a high European empire when Moscow was still a petty village. There is no historical right for Muscovy to any part of the land we know as Ukraine. There is, though, a unique little self-deception in Muscovite history whereby a place, once occupied, is claimed to have always been occupied. It’s strange but usual, and is probably of a piece with the administrative practise which imperial Russia has exhibited since Catherine of dispersing local populations and moving in Russians. Something similar has happened in Mariupol, where 50,000 Central Asians have been despatched. Your second point seems to suggest that Ukrainians have no agency, and are somehow mere pawns in the hands of “west Europeans”. That is obviously a product of the “NATO expansion/provocation” deceit fostered so skilfully by the GRU. The reality is that, like any people threatened with or suffering Moscow’s dominion or satrapy, Ukrainians want freedom and autonomy. Lastly, the British empire is “guilty” of as many fine and noble acts as it is of others one may condemn. But it has nothing whatever to do with the natural right of Ukrainians to fight for life and land. To say that as an Englishman I may not speak of such because of the actions of 19th century British imperialism is to commit a blood libel. Not a sound basis for debate. I only ask that you detach from the prejudice and propaganda which passes for news on YouTube and Russia Today, resist the reflex to see only “the evil West”, and look at the geopolitical and globalist contest between east and west, of which Putin’s attack on Ukrainians is but a small but pivotal part, and ask how that may impact us. 17
Posted by Thorn on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:26 | # GW, for clarity purposes, the struggle can and should be seen as divided between two forces: Either the Ukrainian and Russian people will be governed under those with the mindset of the George Soros types or that of Putin. That’s the reality of the situation. Given your unyielding perspective on the matter, it’s pretty obvious you’d choose to be under the yoke of Soros rather than that of Putin. Of course. the Soros route leads to genocide via the race-replacement of the native population in that entire region. As you are aware, we here in the USA are being governed by those with the mindset of Soros. One glaring result is Whites are being subjected to race-replacement at a rate never seen before in history. The same is being planned for all of the eastern European countries. 18
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 19:46 | # Thorn, George Soros has retired. He was, in any case, part of the internationalist structure which Beijing has indicated that they would maintain and adapt to their interests. Likewise Davos would be maintained. It is not simply a western structure. It is common to east and west - the western corporations are also eastern corporations; and China is the world’s first Davosian state. In a CCP-led global hegemony there will be no salvation for us. We will not be granted power to survive. The Chinese do not want the creatively brilliant parvenus of racial Europe to rise again. Their ascension to global dominion rests wholly on the collapse of our race. They could never do it without that. You are drawing the line in the wrong place. That you mention Putin at all shows how much you are under the sway of the YouTube “experts” and their utter dross about “Putin the traditionalist” and Russia the last great bastion of “white” Christianity. Obviously you are not listening to me! What’s the problem? The most hopeful outcome for us would be that the west defeats the east’s model of empires, killing off that struggle for Globality. Then we can fight against the western elites, whom we know, whose Mind we know, whose weaknesses we can exploit. You, my friend, might think we cannot win because of our poor showing to date. But against the western elites we can fight. However, against Han supremacism? 19
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 19:58 | #
Again you are unwilling to assign human agency to poor, poor little Putin, the unfortunate, well-meaning victim of those despicable Americans. But, then, why has Putin been crushing independence and stealing land in states on Russia’s southern border? Why did Putin stamp out the will to freedom of the Belarussian people? Why has he had his political opponents in Russia murdered or exiled, or incarcerated? How do you explain his actual deeds without assigning him agency and agenda? Your hatred of the Washington sharks is one-eyed and self-limiting. I sense that something very like the mechanical anti-racism of the hating left is at work here. I see it often in folks of “the right”. Perhaps it is a feature of religious feeling, I don’t know. 20
Posted by Landon on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 23:36 | # GW, if you want to argue that the conflict is a proxy war against China and justified on that basis, you should do so directly, instead of rambling with metaphysical speculations about “globality” and the “Davosian state.” Anyone can easily grasp the concept of a proxy war against China. What you appear to be arguing is that any cost of the conflict - hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of more Ukrainian casualties, ethnic depopulation and emigration, and even race replacement immigration in a hypothetical future liberal Ukraine, would all be worth it because it would be some sort of indirect loss for China. I don’t think most would find that very convincing, even among the biggest China hawks on the right. If anything, most China hawks would prefer to turn away from Ukraine to focus on the China threat, and even seek some sort of detente or accommodation with Russia to focus on the China threat. 21
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 07:26 | # You have to get the order right, Landon, or nothing can really be seen in itself. The Glazyev strategy, the Chinese strategy, Putin’s military strategy, the BRICS strategy, all this coalesces as a highly destructive competitive reaction to and against the geo-economic form that is western globalism. This reactionary whole constitutes eastern globalism. To define what “western” means we have to also understand that the WEF, the Trilateral, UN, WHO, IPCC, IMF and the other components in the globalising structure are not themselves just western. Taken together they function as the engine of the process, and remain such in both western and eastern forms. That engine is essentially what we know today as technocracy, which began to replace the old Judaically-informed structure after 1971. It will sustain itself with only some change of personnel even if it is the eastern form which eventually comes to fruition. So that leaves us the western financial and political elites as the core of the avowedly western form of globalism, whom we identify by their advocacy of geo-economics over geopolitics. It is geo-economics as sole practice which the eastern elites abhor and which they are striving to tear down. So the order is first the western form and then, in reaction, the eastern form. This has nothing to do with “provocation” or trespass against Mother Russia or whatever. It is simply western globalism working itself out however it is able. Many political actors around the world do not like it, most usually because they are men of violence ... big fish in small ponds who have come to understand that their pond won’t be theirs any more. Putin is one of these, and his decision for empire actually flows from that fear of irrelevance. By their very fact, empire and violence render a geo-economic dispensation undeliverable. Forcing the west to re-arm and defend itself militarily already puts western globalism on indefinite hold. It seems to me that you and Thorn and many others on the dissenting right have learned the old siren song of western aggression, expansion, duplicity and so forth far too well, and it now seems indisputable to you. It is your core assumption, supported by the too too obvious genocidal crime of population change in our lands, which crime the old Judaically-informed globalism initiated, and which everyone involved today, including Jews drawn in to the technocratic structure, has carried forward, indeed accelerated. I understand that. But the fact remains that the actual aggressor in this war of giants is the east. The whole notion of a proxy war by Washington and the CIA and NATO is fundamentally wrong. How you guys give it up and start addressing the reality of this very complex issue I just don’t know. I have done my best to try to break through and reach you. But it’s obviously not enough. 22
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 11:26 | # GW, in this international chess game the USA and China are engaged in, the USA made a bonehead move by driving Russia into the arms of China. In effect we sacrificed Ukraine as a pawn in order to—in a three move ahead strategy—maneuver China into a checkmate situation. Instead, by driving Russia into China’s arms the USA in effect scarified its queen. Now the USA is in a panic. This week’s 61 billion Ukraine aid package is a desperate move to regain advantage. But the only result of that aid will be prolonging the war resulting in hundreds of thousands - maybe millions - of Ukrainian casualties ... and add to that all the Russian casualties…. The fools in DC should have made Russia an ally, but instead over the course of the last thirty years they’ve managed to make Russia an adversary. Hubristic idiots!!! Russia’s military actions towards some of its neighbors can attributed to and justified by its security concerns. That’s obvious. Moreover, among the Russian people, Putin enjoys more than an 80% approval rating. Why do you think that’s so? My understanding is he is a Russian patriot and nationalist - just as more than 80% of the Russian citizens are too. Putin reflects what the common Russians want. OTOH, the leadership of both the UK and USA are at hostile odds with its working-class White citizens. Can you see the difference between Russian leadership and our own? BTW, ... speaking of George Soros, he stated back in 1993 that “We are going to use eastern Europeans to fight Russia.” ... 1993, GW. Then came Victoria Nuland on the scene. There may be nothing to it, but I kinda see a pattern there. 23
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 11:44 | # Putin made his agreement with the Chinese early in his first presidency. It wasn’t “DC”. It was just Putin. He was a state security man from 1975 and a Eurasianist from the fall of the Soviet Union. That’s who he is. That’s where his politics comes home. He is not a victim. You have to stop making him out to be one, and give him his due as the champion of the Siloviki ... the men of force ... ruling a police state he has created, murdering his opponents, making war and stealing the lands of other peoples wherever he is able. You are so focused on “the west” you do not look Putin in the eye. Come on, you are a nationalist ... a man of independent mind, not a shill for the Kremlin repeating all the usual vulgar propaganda. Make a stand against ordinariness and find your way to a position where you can critique both parties and excuse neither. 24
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 12:03 | # Thorn, how do you know what Soros said? Did he put it in writing or utter it in a speech? And what, evidentially, did Nuland actually do? I keep hearing about this, but beyond one telephone conversation with her ambassador in Kiev I can’t find anything. Some people have directed me to a scare story in the Guardian and the BBC, of all places. But it doesn’t actually supply definite facts. I suspect that there is nothing, and all the talk among the usual dissenting suspects is what thinking folks call construction. 25
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 12:54 | #
So what! The USA made its agreement with China in 1973. Ever since then we watched the Chinese workers out produce us at a tiny fraction of the cost. Talk about a competitive advantage!! As a result, the Chinese have gained the upper hand in so much of the world- especially in the global south, but it’s rapidly gaining power in the West too. The fact is, GW, the USA is a declining empire whilst China is rising at a rapid pace. Anyone paying attention to international events (whilst witnessing the debasement/subversion of western culture/values) back in 1973 could have easily predicted China would eventually overtake us. Secondly, I never thought of Putin as a victim. I view the situation between the USA and Russia as one created by our leaders trying to subvert the Putin regime and install one more suitable to western “woke” ideology; but more importantly, one that international corporations can exploit. What a foolish thing to do! Continuously poking the Bear! The result of such is we’re now at the brink of nuclear war. Who couldn’t see that coming? IMHO, the “geniuses” in DC making foreign policy have a track record of making one miscalculation after another - and not just with Russia. And it needs to be noted, much of the decision making is influenced by the Israel Lobby. In fact, the Biden administration is very top heavy with Jews. Look it up! Between the Likud Party in Israel, combined with the Zionists (Jewish and non-Jewish Zionists alike) who’re currently in control of the White House, the results of their decisions are leading us down the path towards destruction! Can you not see that?!? 26
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 13:43 | # A couple of good articles. They outline why pushing Russia into China’s arms was such a bonehead move on the USA’s part. First this: Excerpt: then this: https://www.reuters.com/world/us-says-china-is-boosting-russias-war-machine-ukraine-2024-04-12/ 27
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 18:05 | # As I have tried to explain, Thorn, the answer to a remark about person A is not made by remarking about person B. No matter what person B does or doesn’t do, the actions of person A remain unaddressed. Addressed they must be. So, focussing everything on Washington does not address the deeds of Moscow. One has to find one’s way to a position where one can critique both parties and excuse neither. You are, of course, not at all alone in committing this sin against logic. A lot of people simply can’t address Putin’s actions without the “Nuland” thing, the “Biden” thing, etc. This afternoon I was treated to this remark at TCW to a post titled, “The world’s troubles all lead back to America”. In a few words it laid out the all too real emotional condition that is dislocated religious mis-appropriation:
This reveals a genocidal mentality. I am wondering if only people with genes for faith can be so wildly committed to a cause that genocide is just a necessary policy. 28
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 19:14 | # GW, here’s some commonsense logic for you: It was flat out recklessly stupid for the USA to deliberately provoke an authoritarian dictator - particularly one who has an arsenal of 5,580 nukes on the ready. If backed into a corner, he will use them ... on us! 29
Posted by Thorn on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 19:50 | #
. If you look at a map of Ukraine showing the demographics of who voted for whom, it clearly shows the vast majority (75 to 80%) of the voters east of the Dnieper voted for Yanukovych. To the west of the river the exact opposite was the case. The more east in Ukraine you go, the more the concentration of pro-Russian voters is represented. There will never be peace In Ukraine until the map is redrawn separating the pro-Russian pop. from the pro-West pop. That has to be done at the negotiation table, but the West wants to keep fighting Russia right down to the last Ukrainian. P.S. Remember when Elon Musk suggested that the Ukes in the eastern territories (namely Kharkiv, Luhansk and Donetsk) hold a UN supervised election on deciding whether they want to separate from Kiev or not? Yeah, he was almost skinned alive by the western establishment for daring to make such a suggestion. 30
Posted by Guessedworker on Fri, 26 Apr 2024 23:11 | # What provocation was this ... is this, Thorn? Do you mean constraining a murderous expansionist now; only after no action was taken in Belarus, in Georgia? Are they not “provocations” of the west by your measure? How many people have to be sacrificed on the alter of the Russian strong man? How many appeasements? How many times does his will have to prevail against the will of the people before the west stands up for its own core principles? What moral alternative do the western elites have but to constrain Russia? As for ethnic Russians in the Donbas, they did not rise up in 2014. They did not rebel. The war was fomented by Putin’s forces. There was always the possibility in the east of making a politics of reunification. But Putin wanted control over the whole of Ukraine. That is what his satraps Kuchma and Yanukovych were there to do. The Donbas war was only began because the Ukrainian people threw the satraps out not once but twice. Give them their due. Theirs is the moral cause. 31
Posted by Thorn on Sat, 27 Apr 2024 10:45 | # The problem is people with malfunctioning brains think it’s imperative that Ukraine be armed to the hilt whilst becoming a member of NATO. That’s the provocation, GW. And to think Russia has the capability to role across Europe is just plain ignorant. There is a little thing called logistics that prevents them from doing so. The fact that Russia has their hands full in eastern Ukraine should inform you about the very limited capabilities of Russian expansion. GW, you really need to reevaluate your premises WRT who provoked the Ukraine debacle. Refocus and realize the USA is using Ukraine to fight a proxy war against Russia; and more importantly, China, inadvertently, is using Russia to fight a proxy war against the USA. IOWs, China is becoming the biggest beneficiary in all this. 32
Posted by Landon on Sun, 28 Apr 2024 04:48 | # GW, if we grant your premise - that China is hell bent on world domination and must be stopped - it does not follow that Ukraine should be destroyed, either via war with Russia or via race replacement immigration in a future liberal state. It does not follow that we should be risking nuclear war with Russia. In fact, the exact opposite of what you argue follows. If China is hell bent on world domination and must be stopped and we must fight it, then it becomes entirely reasonable to accommodate Putin and Russia to try to counter China, no matter how mean, scary, authoritarian, dictatorial Moscow is. 33
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 28 Apr 2024 11:07 | # On the topic of Putin and Russia, apparently GW’s point of view has been influenced by the Kagans of the world? AMERICA’S STARK CHOICE IN UKRAINE AND THE COST OF LETTING RUSSIA WIN Excerpt:
RTWT https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/america’s-stark-choice-ukraine-and-cost-letting-russia-win
34
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 28 Apr 2024 12:50 | # Pro. John Mearsheimer: Who/What Caused the War in Ukraine? 35
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 28 Apr 2024 16:06 | # I am moving towards the conclusion that faith perverted by Christianity ...the lie that a god will judge us gentiles ... is the root cause of the need to condemn an Other via obvious mental constructs like “the West”. Third order intellectuals like Mearsheimer are not free of this corruption. 36
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 28 Apr 2024 17:05 | # GW, when I refer to “the West,” I mean it as an abbreviation for ‘the Western world,’ which includes the United States, Canada, countries in Western Europe, and Australia. I don’t consider “the West” to be an abstract concept. 37
Posted by Thorn on Sun, 28 Apr 2024 23:01 | #
I think you may be a bit out in left field on this one, GW. Allow me to help you out here: The belief that “the West” instigated the invasion of Ukraine is held by individuals of a wide range of faiths, including Christians, as well as those without religious affiliations - even those who do not possess the faith gene. Post a comment:
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsThorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:19. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:53. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 22:36. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:20. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Tue, 23 Apr 2024 04:24. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 22:54. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:12. (View) |
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 15 Apr 2024 10:10 | #
Well, that didn’t take long! Seen at TCW this morning, posted by a madly Christian, madly Putin-gullible Trumper:
Is this the latest must-wear assertion for the fashion-conscious YouTube lackey?