Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘russia’

Russia, Not Syria, Is Again The Target Of Trumpreich Intervention In Syria

Tuesday, June 27th, 2017

When the United States first attacked a Syria airfield, Amerika was the only news source at the time to point out that this was a proxy war. Proxy war occurs when two superpowers clash by using a third country. The Spanish-American War, Vietnam War, Korean War, Granada Conflict, and Cuban Missile Crisis are all of this variety.

Currently, the USA is warning Syria not to go ahead with a purported proposed chemical weapons attack. Do we think this is bu– nonsense, made up and fabricated? Yes and no.

Assad is getting ready to end the US-sponsored rebels. These rebels almost surely exist in order to thwart Russian power in the region. Why else would a superpower create them? He is going to end these rebels by concentrating their active forces in a few areas, and then barrel-bombing them to death. Many civilians will perish, which is fine, since any pro-Assad civilians were beaten up and driven out by rebels long ago.

This means that the CIA-or-whomever loses a pet project, and worse, that Russia gets power in Syria. When looking at superpower actions, you have to use naturalistic metaphors, so this is one group of wolves driving another one away from a prime hunting ground. There is no moral dimension to it higher than that, but one is not needed; power is self-evident.

Just like in the last attack, this one is about superpowers maneuvering for dominance over strategically-important regions of the world. No one really cares if Assad gasses or barrel-blasts a few million more starving, low average IQ middle eastern zealots into oblivion. But everyone is also representing their own best interests.

As always, what seems like warlike conduct by Trump is in fact a way of staving off warfare. It could be that too much Russian weaponry is turning up in hostile hands in the middle east, or that he wants these resources not under their control. But his strong warning now means that the chances of an unintentional war later are reduced.

For example, consider Vietnam. We think the Gulf of Tonkin attack was fake; it was a pretext for war, sort of like Fort Sumter. But what if a decade before America had threatened to bomb any Russian or Chinese personnel in the area? There would be been a political event, and that is what democratic politicians hope to avoid. But it might have staved off war by making a clear communication instead of a wishy-washy one.

Trump is not wishy-washy. He needs Russia out of Syria. He also needs something else that separates the sane from the insane. Each time he does something sane, some people on the Right and Left scream and wail, and those get silently marked in the Useful Idiot category by not just Trump but most of the sane people left in America. His momentum builds and America gets closer to separation each time this happens.

Leftists Attempt To Summon Crowd To Depose Trump With Secret FISA Indictment

Sunday, May 14th, 2017

Leftists realize they are losing dominance of the narrative through the combined assault of media, government and academia. In each of these industries, people have made careers by enforcing the dominant ideology of Leftism, and without it, they will be forced to compete on the basis of delivering results, something they seem less capable of doing.

These industries work as de facto monopolies, using not a single company or institution to control the market, but a broad and tacit conspiracy to only mention, promote and hire those who are “good thinkers,” namely those who advance Leftism in its post-Soviet form of consumerism (replacing capitalism) and social welfare states, justified by civil rights concerns.

Concerned about the rising wave of “populism,” or resistance to the Establishment they have created to enforce this monopoly, the Leftist industries are launching a new attack on Donald J. Trump through a sealed indictment based on FISA data:

Separate sources with links to the intelligence and justice communities have stated that a sealed indictment has been granted against Donald Trump.

While it is understood that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution means that, until Mr. Trump is impeached, he cannot be prosecuted, sources say that the indictment is intended by the FBI and prosecutors in the Justice Department to form the basis of Mr. Trump’s impeachment. The indictment is, perhaps uniquely, not intended or expected to be used for prosecution, sources say, because of the constitutional position of the President.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows, among other things, collection of electronic signals data from foreign powers. The American government will not wish to reveal the extend of this data, which makes sealed indictments a plausible possibility, but this creates a loophole: the secret investigation can be used as a weapon.

If a secret indictment reveals cause for further investigation, it creates a dilemma for the president. He must either unseal the sources so he can defend himself, which will open him to accusations of weakening the nation, or deny the witch hunt on the basis of secrecy itself, making him look guilty.

The Left is fully aware that it does not have data to support its accusations, and is hoping to convict by implication, using the media to whip up the Leftist constituency into a frenzy. It may not even intend to actually impeach Trump, only to give itself more talking points which will fascinate the conspiratorial mind and drive the crowd into a polarized mass movement against the presidency.

By using the “court of public opinion,” the Leftist industrial Establishment (L.I.E.) hopes to shatter the power of the Trump presidency and recapture the 2020 election before Trump can further dismantle the methods that the Establishment uses to control its herd, who most of all fear instability that could threaten their livelihoods and so can be counted on for a “panic vote” against actual change.

Undoubtedly this new sealed indictment is based on the same dubious data that was purported to show Russia hacking the election, the comedic Steele file filled with cocktail party chatter, and other attributes of the general Leftist meme that Trump is somehow colluding with the newly-Hitlerized anti-LGBT Russians.

Who Won The Vietnam War?

Wednesday, May 10th, 2017

Korea and Vietnam remaining the two most frustrating wars for Americans because they were proxy wars, which means that the actual fight was not the battle itself, but political objectives involving world powers jockeying for position.

In Korea, for example, we battle the recently-risen Chinese Communists, who took over China just the year before, in order to prevent them from expanding China to include the Korean peninsula, but the bigger fight was to discourage China and Russian from expanding further.

On paper, it is not clear who won because North Korea remains a Communist dictatorship to this day. But the real target, China, did not expand further.

In Vietnam, another proxy war was waged against China and the Soviet Union, both of whom supplied materiel and advisors to the Communist North Vietnamese, who then used that to sponsor a rebel group in the South know as the Viet Cong (or “Vietnamese Communists”).

As Peter Brimelow points out, political victory was achieved there as well by checking Communist expansion once again:

An odd feature of Sheehan`s book is that enough facts have survived his emotional selectivity and analytical ineptitude to refute his thesis completely. Thus he admits unhesitatingly that the Vietcong were always a wholly owned subsidiary of North Vietnam, contrary to ardent antiwar assertions at the time. He makes it clear that guerrilla warfare was not some new military magic, as David Halberstam implied in his influential 1965 book The Making of a Quagmire, and that it was quickly replaced by conventional main-force action; that Westmoreland`s approach, whatever its faults, was indeed wearing down the Communists even before the 1968 Tet Offensive; that Tet was a military disaster for them; that after Tet their grip on the countryside was broken; and that Nixon’s 1970 incursion into Cambodia achieved its objective in disrupting North Vietnam’s preparations for another offensive. He even notes that American bombing, which Vann originally criticized as too indiscriminate for the detailed war he wanted to fight, did indeed ultimately have the effect of driving the population into government-controlled areas where the Communist influence could not be sustained.

These battles resemble the way the West fought off the Mongols: we did not outright defeat them because they were numerous and fanatical, but we defeated their objective by putting up enough resistance that they went back to their homelands and shortly thereafter failed there.

In other Asiatic wars, a similar pattern has emerged. When fighting the American Indian (Amerind), the settlers did not achieve total domination for a long time, but broke the spirit of the Indians by making it clear that those Indians could not break the spirit of the settlers. The resistance wound them down and they over-extended their economies in order to fight, then experienced social upheaval as a result.

The Left, which hates anything good and successful with the acid bile of envy, teaches us that we lost those wars because we did not utterly conquer the proxies. A more advanced view is that we saved some from a disaster, and checked the further expansion of cancerous Communism, which was victory in itself.

Avoiding Future Holocausts

Friday, May 5th, 2017

Although this view is not shared by all on the Alt Right and by increasing many on the Left, a sane look at history sees the Holocaust as tragedy; worse, it was an avoidable tragedy.

It is tragic on many levels. First, it contradicts the nationalist ideal of relocating people to their countries of origin where they are the founding group. Second, it commits “un-Aryan” acts such as working people under bad conditions, which also led to low-quality labor.

Finally, it simply shows a misunderstanding of how the world works. Each group acts in its own interest, and so it is foolish and illogical to expect foreign groups to behave as the national group does.

None of these were mysteries to Theodor Herzl, who had witnessed the Dreyfuss Affair and realized that anti-Semitism was a product of diversity. He converted to nationalism as a result, and advocated a return to Israel in order to avoid future pogroms:

Herzl concluded that anti-Semitism was a stable and immutable factor in human society, which assimilation did not solve. He mulled over the idea of Jewish sovereignty, and, despite ridicule from Jewish leaders, published Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State, 1896). Herzl argued that the essence of the Jewish problem was not individual but national. He declared that the Jews could gain acceptance in the world only if they ceased being a national anomaly. The Jews are one people, he said, and their plight could be transformed into a positive force by the establishment of a Jewish state with the consent of the great powers. He saw the Jewish question as an international political question to be dealt with in the arena of international politics.

Viewed in the context of history, the Holocaust was just another pogrom, but conducted with more efficiency thanks to state support as opposed to local authority or state unofficial approval of what were essentially lynch mobs.

The core of Herzl’s argument is that diversity pits groups against one another. National groups have a need to defend their values, genetics and culture. When another group is present, that group becomes a threat, and is scapegoated in times of instability.

To this we can add the symptoms of this problem, including that different cultures are naturally incompatible, which leads to alien groups participating in destructive activities without being fully aware of the negative backlash to come:

While in 1934 38.5% of the top officials in the NKVD were Jews, this number was decreased to 31.9% in July 1937, 3.9% in September 1938 and 3.5% in January 1940.

The NKVD was a Soviet secret police organization that removed ideological non-conformists and purged the Soviet Union of many of its best and brightest. For a group that comprised a small fraction of the Soviet population, 38.5% participation was huge, and resulted — in a gentler form of what happened in Nazi Germany — in a purge of Jewish participants in the system.

Jews were heavily active in far-Left organizations in general, leading to an association of these groups with Jewishness:

Jews were proportionately overrepresented in the RSDWP from the start. Apart from being active in the party’s Jewish faction, the Bund, which sought to mobilize the “Jewish street” by conducting propaganda activity in Yiddish, Jews comprised a significant proportion of the party’s “Russian” contingent. These acculturated Jews generally inclined toward the Mensheviks rather than the Bolsheviks, but even among the latter, there were not a few Jews. In early 1917, their numbers reached just under 1,000 out of a total of 23,600. Most important, they were highly overrepresented in the Bolshevik leadership. Significant figures included Iurii Kamenev, Maksim Litvinov, Karl Radek, Iakov Sverdlov, Leon Trotsky, and Grigorii Zinov’ev. This was so blatant that anti-Bolsheviks frequently associated the party with Jews in order to contaminate the party’s public image.

…Jews remained overrepresented in the party rank and file. Representing just 1.8 percent of the total population in the 1926 census, Jews comprised 5.2 percent of party members in 1922 and 4.3 percent in 1927; in Belorussia, they accounted for 24 percent of the party membership. The proportional decline did not signify an absolute decrease, as total membership rose in this period from slightly more than 400,000 to almost 800,000. Of the Jewish party members in Ukraine, 67.5 percent were classified as workers and 28.8 percent as white-collar employees; in Russia, 47.8 percent were workers and 48 percent were white collar. The size of the party continued to grow until 1933, when there were more than 2.2 million full members; it then fell, topping the 2 million mark again only in 1941. In both 1922 and in 1927, Jews were the sole ethnic group, with women comprising more than 20 percent of its membership (24.1% in 1922 and 23.0% in 1927).

…Extrapolation leads to the conclusion that Jews remained, into the 1960s at least, the most party-saturated nationality in the Soviet Union, and in terms of absolute numbers, the largest non-Slavic group of Communists, with the possible exception of the Tatars. At the same time, the party saturation of the Soviet Jewish community fell from about 300 percent of the national average in 1940 to between 140 and 180 percent in 1965. However, once the Jewish emigration movement gained momentum, and the Jewish population continued to drop as a result of both emigration and negative natural growth, the percentage of Jewish Communists among all party members nationwide fell progressively, although in certain areas their proportion in the Jewish community actually grew.

This showed Jews as over-represented in both the Revolution and the ruling parties that came in its aftermath until Stalin began his purges, most of which were apparently bloodless, that removed Jews from power and made anti-Semitism part of the official doctrine of the Soviet Union.

At that point, however, the idea had been cemented in European imagination that Jews were the driving force behind the Bolshevik revolution, and this idea remained consistent for some time, especially given high Jewish participation in Communist and Socialist organizations in the West.

Today we are beginning to see discussion of this portion of that segment of history, including an acknowledgement of the high number of Jews involved in war crimes in the Soviet Union:

An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name “Genrikh Yagoda,” the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century, the GPU’s deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin’s collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system.

…Many Jews sold their soul to the devil of the Communist revolution and have blood on their hands for eternity. We’ll mention just one more: Leonid Reichman, head of the NKVD’s special department and the organization’s chief interrogator, who was a particularly cruel sadist.

In 1934, according to published statistics, 38.5 percent of those holding the most senior posts in the Soviet security apparatuses were of Jewish origin. They too, of course, were gradually eliminated in the next purges. In a fascinating lecture at a Tel Aviv University convention this week, Dr. Halfin described the waves of soviet terror as a “carnival of mass murder,” “fantasy of purges”, and “essianism of evil.” Turns out that Jews too, when they become captivated by messianic ideology, can become great murderers, among the greatest known by modern history.

Sever Plocker, the author of this piece, makes an important distinction here: Communism is a “messianic ideology” which converts Jewish tendencies toward trying to do good into apocalyptic visions. This appeal snared many in the West, such that in the 1930s most “intellectuals” had Communist sympathies.

In fact, in America, the composition of the Communist party was very similar to the frequency of Jewish participation as found in the Soviet Union:

The so-called “Old Left” was led by the Communist Party (CPUSA), and that organization almost collapsed after 1956, when its members learned, to their sorrow, that the Soviet state they had been worshiping for decades was, under Joseph Stalin, actually a murderous tyranny.

…In 1939, according to Professor Klehr, some 40 percent of the 39,000 CPUSA members were Jewish, and concentrated in big cities, New York in particular. Half of the party’s cultural apparatus, centered in New York, was Jewish, added Tony Michels.

When Henry Wallace ran for president on the Communist-inspired Progressive Party ticket in 1948, about one third of his vote came from Jews.

This furthered the view among Western leaders that Jews were associated with Communism, and was information that the Nazis were almost certainly aware of. Douglas Reed writes of the international opinion regarding Jewish participation in Bolshevism and Communism:

At the time, the facts were available. The British Government’s White Paper of 1919 (Russia, No. 1, a Collection of Reports on Bolshevism) quoted the report sent to Mr. Balfour in London in 1918 by the Netherlands Minister at Saint Petersburg, M. Oudendyke: “Bolshevism is organized and worked by Jews, who have no nationality and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things.” The United States Ambassador, Mr. David R. Francis, reported similarly: “The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution.” M. Oudendyke’s report was deleted from later editions of the British official publication and all such authentic documents of that period are now difficult to obtain. Fortunately for the student, one witness preserved the official record.
 
This was Mr. Robert Wilton, correspondent of the London Times, who experienced the Bolshevik revolution. The French edition of his book included the official Bolshevik lists of the membership of the ruling revolutionary bodies (they were omitted from the English edition).
 
These records show that the Central Committee of the Bolshevik party, which wielded the supreme power, contained 3 Russians (including Lenin) and 9 Jews. The next body in importance, the Central Committee of the Executive Commission (or secret police) comprized 42 Jews and 19 Russians, Letts, Georgians and others. The Council of People’s Commissars consisted of 17 Jews and five others. The Moscow Che-ka (secret police) was formed of 23 Jews and 13 others. Among the names of 556 high officials of the Bolshevik state officially published in 1918-1919, were 458 Jews and 108 others. Among the central committees of small, supposedly “Socialist” or other non-Communist parties (during that early period the semblance of “opposition” was permitted, to beguile the masses, accustomed under the Czar to opposition parties) were 55 Jews and 6 others. All the names are given in the original documents reproduced by Mr. Wilton.

Maybe all of these guys were anti-Semites; maybe they were not, or the truth was somewhere in the middle. It is important to avoid committing the fallacy of accidentally cherry-picking data, because as anyone can figure with some basic math, most Jews were not involved.

It may be that Jews have a higher rate of Leftism. There is an idealism in the Jewish faith and culture that always seeks a pacifism and balance, as one would expect from a mercantile and not warrior society, combined with an honest goodwill. In my experience, most people of Jewish heritage have been generous, thoughtful and highly opinionated, and these characteristics taken together lead toward a proclivity toward idealistic beliefs such as egalitarianism, and anyone who looks seriously at egalitarianism realizes that it is unstable without socialism, which in turn requires a strong state to protect it, much as we now have in the West.

These documents are not mentioned here to fuel the anti-Semites, but instead to do the exact opposite: to point out that wherever a group is foreign among a national culture, it will feel like an outsider, and thus be inclined toward political activity, at which point it will act out its own cultural mandate rather than that of the host culture. This is why diversity does not work: each group works in self-interest, and according to its own inclinations, as Herzl noted long ago.

To avoid future Holocausts, we need some clarity on this issue so that it can be fairly discussed without devolving into the kind of scapegoating that leads to pogromism. Then, we need a safe homeland for Jews, which means an Israel without rampaging Palestinians blowing themselves up on buses and at cafes. This assertion proves controversial for the West, which being Leftist has aligned itself with the underdog in the Palestinians instead of the more successful Jewish population in Israel.

It would also make sense for Jews in the West to right now start abandoning radical Leftism. With a Jewish candidate for president, Bernie Sanders, running on a socialist platform, and Jews making half of the donations to the Democrat party, Jewish visibility as a voice of the Left endangers them as cultural backlash collides with the Left. People have seen what our future would be like under the Obama-Clinton regime, and are starting to realize how much the Left has re-shaped American and European society over the past century, and the radical response seen with the election of Donald J. Trump and Brexit signifies that the pushback is still in its infancy but gaining strength rapidly.

As we transition from failed liberal democracy and the socialist state, we run a high risk of re-enacting old and bad patterns including pogroms. It is better to face this issue honestly now than to allow the possibility of violence to emerge unchanged and bloodthirsty as it does when a scapegoat is successfully created.

Latest Russian Election Interference Story Is Fake

Thursday, April 20th, 2017

The Left has been trying to crank up the idea that the Russians hacked our election or otherwise interfered with it on Trump’s side, probably as a precursor to attempting impeachment or invalidating the election.

Their latest efforts will fail like the previous ones. The most recent propaganda piece conjures up a Russian “plan” to disturb the election.

Let us look closer at what is actually said:

The first Russian institute document was a strategy paper written last June that circulated at the highest levels of the Russian government but was not addressed to any specific individuals.

It recommended the Kremlin launch a propaganda campaign on social media and Russian state-backed global news outlets to encourage U.S. voters to elect a president who would take a softer line toward Russia than the administration of then-President Barack Obama, the seven officials said.

A second institute document, drafted in October and distributed in the same way, warned that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was likely to win the election. For that reason, it argued, it was better for Russia to end its pro-Trump propaganda and instead intensify its messaging about voter fraud to undermine the U.S. electoral system’s legitimacy and damage Clinton’s reputation in an effort to undermine her presidency, the seven officials said.

The lügenpresse are counting on the fact that the average voter has zero experience with policy think tanks. Policy think tanks make strategic recommendations and generally have no awareness of actual policy, i.e. what is being done. Instead, they speak in hypotheticals.

For example, that the document says “it was better for Russia to end its pro-Trump propaganda” does not imply that Russia was issuing pro-Trump propaganda, only that it could be assumed as a possibility and therefore, the suggestion can be made to alter that strategy.

The fact that we have two documents, both pointing in different directions, suggests that these were contingency documents, or potential position papers drawn up to deal with different events that might emerge. Nothing suggests these were adopted as policy but the implication is there in the press.

In the meantime, Trump has rebuked Russia by blowing up an airbase they helped maintain in Syria. What he said during the election was that he viewed Russia as a potential ally, not that he would favor Russia.

If we went through Washington, D.C., looking for think tanks that had made policy recommendations (which is enough to make them “Obama-linked” in the press lexicon) we would find all sorts of absurd plans recommending that the USA redirect resources that might not exist toward possible ideas that look good on paper.

This is the type of analysis this Russian think tank offers, couched in bureaucratspeak of potentialities and possibilities:

It is hardly to expect the development of Obama’s environmental agenda from President Trump, who’s known for his skeptical remarks in relation to climate change. At the same time, it seems that the general strategic course of the United States in the Arctic, outlined in the end of the XX century, will continue. An indirect evidence of the continuity of the current Arctic policy of the US is the fact that almost all the key officials of the State Department responsible for implementing the US policy in the Arctic under the Obama administration, retained their positions under the new President.

In this way, the Russian version follows a format we have seen many times before, which is to second-guess other nations and take broad policy positions, mainly as a way of alerting politicians of options and signaling across the sea (indirectly) about Russia’s concerns and thus likely future actions.

This is not the smoking gun the media wants to try to hype it into being. Behind all of these Russia-stole-our-‘lections stories we can see the hands of a powerful Establishment and the Obama-Clinton gang, who are still looking for a path to permanent, Soviet-style power.

You Will Not Get What You Want In A Democracy

Tuesday, April 11th, 2017

No one got what they wanted out of the Trump Syria strike. The American public is leery of any explanation that begins “we are fighting in the middle east because $latest_muslim_hitler has WMDs,” the Alt Right wants European-descended people to get OK with letting the rest of the world suffer and die, neocons wanted a real war, and Leftists wanted a commitment to democracy and human rights.

Trump stumped them all. Instead of acting ideologically, he acted pragmatically, or balancing the needs of the system in which he now works, the people involved, and many varied and incoherent policy needs. Was it good or right? If you are asking these questions, you are already lost in the 21st century; now, self-interest rules the day, and it was that.

The grim truth is that we are dealing with the oldest American issue here. America was started as a colony, which meant that people could go there and set up a homestead and do well for themselves. The only problem is that over time, it started acting more like a country, including when it revolted against the British and gave itself independence. Oops.

At heart, America is the first libertarian nation. People assume that civilization will always be there for them, and that other people can be controlled by financial self-interest — libertarianism is as controlling as Communism or Nazism, but prefers indirect and therefore less visible methods, kind of like the modern state does — so they might as well follow the bourgeois imperative to live well and ignore any issue that extends past the boundaries of their subdivision. Left and Right agree on this, because as constituted in the post-WWII era, the Right is more Left than Right, and the Left loves granularity so that it can impose its power structure through chaos.

That libertarianism reflects its colonial status. American political theory could begin with the idea of “if life were as it is now as a British colony, but with a few things removed” and so it has, like Leftism, always been based on negative ideas or removing bad things to leave only good things. This is the nature of ideology. It can only exist in an already-working civilization, and works by supposing that the design of that civilization can be changed without modifying its output or strength, which is a complete denial of reality.

America still is not sure if it is a nation. Most people want it to be a giant suburb or city apartment block, where we each have our own little worlds and we all do whatever we want; this combines the rugged individualism of the right with the actual meaning of individualism, which is placing self before principle and civilization and therefore externalizing costs to society instead of taking on the burden as individuals. Any time you find the cart return area at a supermarket in total disarray, you are looking at individualistic externalization of socialized costs!

As the upset over the Trump strike of Syria and against Russia shows, Americans want an isolationist foreign policy. This is the primal libertarian instinct, which is that we like to assume that if we individually take care of our homes and work hard at our meaningless jobs, then everything will turn out alright. This misses the fact that most of our species is crazy and incompetent, and unless repelled, will take over everything good and destroy it, because this is what pathological people cannot stop themselves from doing. Isolationism does not work because problems that begin far away then arrive on our doorstep.

For this reason, Trump has to act against North Korea, Russia, Iran and possibly Syria. If bad guys get power, and come into possession of nuclear missiles, we will have quite a to-do on our hands, to put it mildly. No matter how isolationist we are, we have to deal with these problems when they are small and distant, or when they are huge and in our homelands.

The problem of democracy complicates this situation. Trump cannot admit a Machiavellian worldwide; all the single mom Sallies and pajama boy students of the world will cry out together at once, and weepy maudlin Europe will join in, and then Trump will find himself shuttled out of office. These people are opposed to realism because it offends them. So he must work around those on one hand.

On the other hand, he must also find a way to appease those who understand nothing but strong force. They want America’s army (usually with someone else’s kids in it) to rise up, surge forth and smite all evil in the world. For them, reality is a finger-puppet epic drama in which good and evil are acted out so that we all go to heaven. Trump has to manage these, too.

Most importantly, he has to assault a sacred myth, which is that humanity has unity. Most people think in absolute terms about simple categories; some things are good, some are bad, if everyone agrees on something it is good, and if someone steps outside of this framework they are bad and must be smote. This is how democracy makes people think, and if Trump deviates from it, he loses.

And so, democracy demands that everything told to the voters is a lie. The voters will bum rush and guillotine anyone who reveals that the lie is in fact, a lie. This means that Trump must hold up pictures of dead children from a dubious aid group, claim an emotional and moral high ground, and retaliate against a specific airfield, even though his actual goal is thousands of miles away in Moscow.

It is immensely unpopular to say this, but the problem is the voters. They hold the power, after all, and yet in every election, seem to vote in an idiot. Why are there only idiots running? The audience selects the message: to succeed in democracy, people need to dumb down a message, make it emotional and create a scapegoat to symbolize its opposition, and then turn it into entertainment.

That condition applies to a real issue. Most of the time, voters are not interested in real issues. They are interested in voting for free stuff for themselves, which is an extension of individualistic externalization of socialized costs. They are interested in revenge against other groups in their society. They want something exciting that makes them thing they are “making history.”

After a couple centuries, the voters have approved enough dumb stuff that one election cannot change much. Sure, Trump wants to dial back American foreign policy. But how does he deal with the mess Obama has created? Does he just wait for Russia and China to take over the world and then tell the voters, “See, I told you so”?

Nah. Instead he does what any sane leader would do: he attempts to staunch the bleeding, stitch up the wounds, and then begins to work on physical therapy to make the whole body stronger. He knows that the same morons who voted for the Civil Rights act, the Great Society, the New Deal and Obamacare will not let him fix anything.

And even more, he knows that if he is going to do anything on the international stage, he has to turn it into a cartoon. Big cheesy evil Hitler-like villains versus innocent children gasping for breath in the rubble. That way, the voters will be afraid to oppose him because he has taken the “moral high ground.” Democracy means manipulation all the time.

The question of democracy cuts to the same question that afflicts America: are we cooperative or individualistic? If we are the former, we will need a culture in common and to commit ourselves to activity in the scary world beyond our subdivisions, jobs, churches, favorite bars and television programs. If we are individualists, we should not have a foreign policy at all, because if an enemy wants to invade he will be unopposed.

Democracy allows voters to think that they will forever be in their little suburb and nothing will affect them, so they should weigh in on symbolic issues and use those as a means to virtue signal, or show off how enlightened they are to their friends in the suburbs. Those friends then do the same, “keeping up with the Joneses,” and soon a crazy echo chamber of a hive mind is created.

We live in a literally insane time. There are so many humans that we all know this cannot end well. Our governments are all bankrupt and deep in debt, so we know default and collapse is in the future. We have polluted and overused earth to the point where a crash there is imminent. Our economies are Ponzi schemes, and across the globe, insanity reigns and corrupt leaders triumph.

The cause of all of this is democracy.

If we were in a monarchy, as the West generally was during the era of colonialism, there would be no doubt about what was going on in Syria. One of the European nations would have it as a colony and would dispel marauding Russians and aimless sadistic terrorists as efficiently at is repelled invaders and domestic criminals.

In a monarchy, Trump would not have to point to pictures of twitching babies dying of nerve gas to justify a strike. He would simply do it and then explain the actual reason why: “the Russians were encroaching on our territory” or “the rebels got a bit too close for comfort.” The bodies would be stowed — a daily middle eastern event — and the world would move on.

Instead, because the voters demand that everything be a lie in order to satisfy their personal pretense, Trump comes to us with what are essentially marketing terms. The dead Syrian babies foaming at the mouth are the political version of a beer that claims to help you lose weight, or a car that will help you get laid, or some new gadget for your phone saying it will revolutionize your life.

We The People are chumps. We are deceived every time and now we have ruined our governments as well as most likely doomed our own species. We know we are incompetent but like a sick tyrant, we refuse to leave the throne. And so we will never get what we actually want, which is sanity, something that only begins with realism.

The Alt Right benefits from this Trump kerfuffle by getting a chance to differentiate its own brand, and thus to put more pressure on Trump so that he can be spurred toward what we need him to do. We should not, however, become useful idiots for the opposition like the Left did in America during the Cold War, specifically 1930-1980s.

TASS, the Soviet propaganda arm, put out newspapers designed for American liberals. These told obvious untruths that appealed to the personality defects of these people, and were immensely popular. Anti-war protests essentially destroyed American policy and prevented a win, which the Left then used as a weapon to argue against participation in the Cold War itself. It was unpopular.

And yet, it was necessary. Like Trump, Reagan and Thatcher sold the Cold War through emotional symbols and pictures of dead babies. They were then able to beat back the menace and we are all fortunate that they did, although maybe one in ten people knows what they did and why it was good.

During the time that the West was fighting for its life in the Cold War, it was considered de rigeur in hip cosmopolitan social circles to insist that Reagan was bad, the Soviets were peace-loving equals to us, and that all we needed was a world campfire song of “Kumbaya” and all would be good. The voters were self-deluding then and were useful idiots to the Communists.

As it turned out, the Communist propaganda was lies and the Soviet Union fell exactly as Revolutionary France did, which was through the unrealistic nature of Leftism. The Crowd was wrong, as usual. (Power user tip: if “everyone agrees” and the Crowd asserts that something is universally true, be assured that it is a lie.)

The Alt Right has to avoid falling into the Useful Idiot trap as American Leftists have. We need to get back to our root idea, which is realism. Trump is a pragmatist, or someone who makes deals and compromises with the power structure; Leftists are ideologues who believe in a fantasy. We need to assert reality, and get us out of the dishonesty trap that democracy has created for us.

World Wakes Up To Trump Agenda On Syria (errr… Russia)

Monday, April 10th, 2017

Over the past few days, we have published a series of articles advocating an unorthodox theory of why President Trump ordered missile strikes on a Syrian airbase. On this blog, many of our most fervent and committed supporters frequently find themselves either confused about or opposed to what I and other writers write, and some of my best learning comes from the discussions in the comments.

In the spirit of keeping this dialogue alive, maybe it is time to revisit the Trump Syria strike and see what its effects have been and therefore, what its intent was. From Ralph Peters in the New York Post, an insight into how Trump weakened Putin and stabilized the middle east with the Syrian airstrike:

The biggest loser from last week’s cruise-missile strikes on a Syrian air base wasn’t “President” Bashar al-Assad. It was Vladimir Putin. The Syrian leader was punished, but Russia’s new czar was humiliated.

…Much has been written and spoken about our attack’s potential effect on North Korean calculations. Whether or not the strikes affect Kim Jong-un’s behavior, the strategic math has been altered.

But what really changed was Iranian perceptions. The cruel old men in Tehran have been counting on their alliance with Russia to help ward off US or Israeli blows. Suddenly, Moscow doesn’t look so dependable.

In other words, power in the region switches to the USA.

This is what “America first” means in a foreign policy context. We are not there to defend Israel, although it will benefit from our actions; we are not there to bring democracy to Viet NamIraq; we are not there for the United Nations, or from some humanitarian sense, although Trump played that up at the press conference. We are there to represent our interests, which includes driving all the other parties back to their own spheres of influence.

Iran and Russia have been allied for some time in an attempt to have power in the region. It does not matter whether they are good guys or bad guys; they are not our guys and that is all that matters. We are back to colonial logic here, which is that territory must be understood in a Machiavellian sense, and acquired for the sake of power because otherwise someone else will do the same.

The article quoted above talks a great deal about another cold war aspect of this fight, which is competing weapons sales between East (Russia/China) and West (US/NATO). Popular Mechanics gives the best view of this situation with an explanation of why Putin did not shoot down the American cruise missiles:

There is no greater open question in the defense world than just how effective Russian anti-aircraft weapons really are against American technology. Russia generates money and international leverage by selling systems that it claims can thwart American weapons. But the United States’ jamming, cyberwarfare, smart missiles, and advanced decoys are designed to defeat these digitally-linked Russian systems. There would be no greater marketing disappointment than shooting at U.S. cruise missiles and missing, which would demonstrate the deterrent Russia is selling may not work as advertised.

This means that Trump has reduced Russia’s influence twice: first, in Syria and by extension all the territories that Iran wants in the middle east; second, worldwide, by reducing the prominence of Russian weapons systems, thus giving Russia less power over the rest of the world. Again, America first.

The Alt Right has taken an admirable ideological stance on this issue, which is that we want the USA to back off of the world policeman role that requires us to be enforcers of humanism, diversity, pluralism, tolerance, democracy and equality worldwide. Trump’s public statements about the tragedy of the alleged gassing, which is dubious for many reasons but mostly because the rebels are known to use chemical weapons and the anti-Assad aid groups are known manipulators of public image with incentive to lie about Assad’s use of nerve gas, may or may not have been sincere, but they probably did not state his actual objective. This is unfortunate, as Trump is generally a masculine leader, and masculine leaders dislike public deception because it creates a standard of deception for international relations, but if Trump had come out and said he was taking Russia down a peg, he would surely have caused a world war, so this minor deception may have been necessary.

But at its core, Trump’s act was not ideological; it was about maintaining a balance of power so that America comes out… first.

As if to confirm this, the axis of Russia, Syria and Iran has formalized itself, which points out what Russia was doing, namely trying to take over the middle east. They could be doing this to secure their flank, as I have argued, or for a combination of reasons including the fact that if they control middle eastern oil, they can raise oil prices and rebuild their economy. Russia has traditionally tried to control the middle east by forming alliances with radicals who could then, with help from Russian and possibly Chinese military gear and training, be used to fight a proxy war against the US in the region. Witness the political intrigue expressed in carefully-coded statements:

The Syrian state news agency SANA said Assad told Rouhani the Syrian people and army were “determined to crush terrorism in every part of Syrian territory” – a reference to the rebels who have been fighting his bloody rule for six years.

He also thanked Rouhani for Iran’s support for “the Syrian nation”.

We know that Assad cannot back down. If he falls, his people — a minority in Syria, hated by the undifferentiated mass — will be deposed if not wiped out, or at least suffer the attempt. For him, an alliance with Russia means a chance to crush the rebellion in his land. For Russia, it provides a way to bring in another Russian ally, and then force allegiance between those two powers so that a large chunk of the middle east is under Russian control. Or was, until Trump checked the Russian advance.

Trump’s strategy is to maintain unpredictability so that he can aggressively represent American interests, and the whole Bannon-Ivanka-Kushner drama may be part of this smokescreen. It is hard to tell what he intends to do, and how much of it is continuation of the Bush-Obama-Clinton policy of subversion of foreign governments so that they can be replaced with democratic ones. More likely, Trump is hiding his real motivations in order to scare others nations into falling in line with his “America first” plan:

In a week in which he hosted foreign heads of state and launched a cruise missile strike against Syria’s government, Mr. Trump dispensed with his own dogma and forced other world leaders to re-examine their assumptions about how the United States will lead in this new era. He demonstrated a highly improvisational and situational approach that could inject a risky unpredictability into relations with potential antagonists, but he also opened the door to a more traditional American engagement with the world that eases allies’ fears.

As a private citizen and candidate, Mr. Trump spent years arguing that Syria’s civil war was not America’s problem, that Russia should be a friend, and that China was an “enemy” whose leaders should not be invited to dinner. As president, Mr. Trump, in the space of just days, involved America more directly in the Syrian morass than ever before, opened a new acrimonious rift with Russia, and invited China’s leader for a largely convivial, let’s-get-along dinner at his Florida estate.

In the process, Mr. Trump upended domestic politics as well. He rejected the nationalist wing of his own White House, led by Stephen K. Bannon, his chief strategist, who opposes entanglement in Middle East conflicts beyond fighting terrorism and favors punitive trade measures against Beijing.

Speaking of Beijing, Trump seems to have several interests there. He wants to break up the traditional Russia-China axis which killed his classmates in Vietnam, and he wants China to fall in line with American demands for fair trade. This requires him to follow Machiavelli’s dictum that it is best to be both loved and feared, and so by bashing down Russia, he sends a message to China as well. This applies to both trade and the question of whether China will, as it did during the Korean War, respond to American military intervention in North Korea by sending its own forces streaming over the border and starting the dreaded land war in Asia, essentially a war of attrition. Trump seems to have brought China partially into line on trade:

China is prepared to raise the investment ceiling in the Bilateral Investment treaty and is also willing to end the ban on U.S. beef imports, the newspaper also reported.

“China was prepared to (raise the investment ceilings) in the BIT but those negotiations were put on hold (after Trump’s election victory),” the Financial Times also reported citing a Chinese official involved in the talks.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said on Friday that President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping have agreed to a new 100-day plan for trade talks on Friday.

North Korea is another actor being sent a signal here. A president who has no qualms about sending sixty million dollars of cruise missiles into a hostile land will have no problem blasting North Korean nuclear reactors and missile sites, or simply taking the really devastating move of blowing up electric plants, irrigation and water purification plants. North Korea is close to starving as it is, and depends on the US for food aid, so a crippling strike would send the North Koreans crawling back to the negotiating table in a position so weak that they would have to agree to US demands for an end to the North Korean nuclear bomb and intercontinental ballistic missile program.

The Alt Right are not dumb. Neither are Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter, both of whom spoke out against this strike. There will not be definitive proof that Trump is not a globalist here because Trump is so camouflaged it is hard to tell exactly what his intentions are. However, by looking at how international politics has shaken out, we can see what he achieved, and assuming his competence, can inference that he intended similar results.

This leads us to the question of Steve Bannon and whether or not Trump is driving him out to make way for a Kushner faction on the staff. If we take this at face value — that is, if we assume that somehow Trump has stopped playing everyone at the same time — we could assume that this is a division in the face of the Trump team. But as insiders observe, the Bannon-Kushner fight is more like American government struggles in the 1960s:

  • The changing culture: Here are the two crucial words to understand the outgoing style and incoming style: We’re told that rather than “nationalist” vs. “globalist,” think of “combat” vs. “collaboration.”
  • How the Bannon bubble burst: The last straw for his internal critics: news stories portraying Bannon as the keeper of the Trump flame, in opposition to Jared, Ivanka and economic adviser Gary Cohn — all New Yorkers.
  • Playing defense: Bannon’s allies both inside and outside the White House are scrambling to try to save his job, Axios’ Jonathan Swan reports. They argue that getting rid of Bannon will cost Trump among his “America First” constituency, and that Trump’s key to victory is to keep his base motivated.
  • What’s next: This weekend, Bannon, Kushner and Priebus are having discussions about whether the marriage can be saved: “Either Steve becomes a team player and gets along with people, or he’ll be gone.”

None of this is verified information, and if it were official, it would be even less verified. That is the sign of strong power: the Trump team does not allow us to judge them or second-guess them, much as by stating no doctrine, Trump has established a doctrine that leaders should act decisively according to the specifics of the situation and not broader and consistent ideological objectives.

If a fight is brewing between Bannon/Alt Right and the rest of the Trump team, it is most likely this: Trump’s anti-ideological doctrine is pure pragmatist, or responding to the demands of power itself and the system in which he finds himself. His reaching out to both sides of the aisle, and allowing them to attempt compromise legislation that then fails like the Obamacare replacement, allows him to work the dynamics of power by showing others they need him, and that he is willing to make some deals to achieve results.

The natural enemies of pragmatists are both ideologues, including any ideological interpretation of the Alt Right, and realists, who see the questions of civilization survival as more important than being able to work within the system. The system, to realists, is a distraction; the question is the end results of our acts, and how well they develop or destroy Western Civilization, a once-thriving enterprise now in a state of failure and looking for brave leaders to help restore it.

An action that is more related to making essential change happen than being consistent is inherently anti-ideological. The new Trump doctrine is similarly pragmatist; however, the question is whether by attempting to compromise with the system, Trump could turn himself into another of its mouthpieces, which is what the Alt Right fears. However, Trump needs to be at least somewhat pragmatic because he has an extensive and somewhat controversial domestic agenda, and this will require him to — like Reagan — trade off on some things in order to get what he really wants to come to pass. For that reason, a winning move for him would be to deprecate Bannon in order to hide how important Alt Right issues are to him; by the same token, he might also simply drop the Alt Right as unworkable and focus on intermediate steps, making him do the same things as past presidents but improve them halfway through a heady dose of business sense. With his willingness to preserve social welfare programs and socialized medicine, he at least acts this way.

Whichever of these cases shakes out, the Alt Right needs to reposition itself as opposition to pragmatists and ideologues both, but it cannot do this by becoming an ideological horse of a different color; it must instead become the movement of extreme realism. We do not care how the game is played; we care about one thing, which is restoring Western Civilization. This requires us to recognize the current power system as both transitory and something to be opposed, not on an ideological basis, but because it is dysfunctional. In the same way, we should be actively seeking to roll back as much of democracy and the machine of big government as possible, and simultaneously growing the cultural wave that we started to press for long-term policies that will restore the West and nurture it back to health.

The drama playing out with the Alt Right, Bannon and Trump suspiciously resembles what happened in the 1960s. The youthful rebels were intensely ideological and achieved early victories. Then they slipped into a trope of repeating the same things. In the meantime, the government machine realized two things: first, it could never honestly speak about the pragmatic details of power again because they would shock the TV-watching folks back home, and second, that it could use this “peace movement” toward its own ends. Within a decade the idea of peace became “fighting for peace,” and we got launched into the cycle that peaked with George W. Bush and Barack Obama of worldwide war to promote democracy and equality, which coincidentally made us powerful and kept us distracted from our domestic problems.

The Alt Right can win in this new political era by keeping pressure high on Trump to make structural fixes to the West: remove affirmative action, end immigration entirely, abolish entitlements of all forms, and reduce the size of government. For now, those are achievable and tangible acts that others will resonate with. While we do that with our left hand, our right hand should continue the cultural pressure of subversion by dissolving illusions: that diversity is good, that democracy works, that the sexual revolution was good, and that our culture comes from politics and not genetics. We may never know what Trump is up to, but we can figure out from what he has done what he will do, and adapt to that to maximize our message.

If The Neocons Are Wrong, Why Are The Russians Acting As If They Are Right?

Saturday, April 8th, 2017

Trump struck Syria, and the Alt Right lost its mind. They had hoped that Trump would go farther to the Alt Right, when in fact he has always been a moderate who likes cultivating opposites under his roof so he can pick the right decision on a case-by-case basis. Key fact: the man still believes in democracy and diversity. He is step one of a hundred back toward health.

By the same token, it is foolish to describe this as a strike on Syria when it was actually a warning to Russia. Trump blew up a few older planes at an airfield where Russian personnel had been present. He gave the Syrians time to remove all equipment and people they cared about. He warned the Russians in advance. This was not a military strike, but a signal to Putin: go no further.

Putin, who is accustomed to Obama, is trying to call this bluff. The Russians did this during the Cold War, too. Putin will continue to sail ships around the English channel, have his nuclear bombers fly over Sweden, and braggart about the Mediterranean with his battleships. Why? Because his need to create Russian self-image is powerful, and because he will take any power we give him.

The Left tells us Russia is evil; the Right tells us they are good. Both are wrong. Russia is like every other nation on this earth: self-interested. They do whatever is in their interest, which means that their goal is to take as much as they can and give back as little as they can. This is reality; only those who support democracy would think that people are “nice” and these rules do not apply.

It is almost as if the Trump administration bungled, and then the Alt Right fell apart in response. We can do better than this. Heck, we need to. If Trump made a mistake on this one, it was trusted the local Syrian agencies that claimed the gas attack happened. Assad had no need to gas these people; he was already winning. We made the same mistake in Iraq, trusting local informants who hatted Hussein and therefore, would tell us whatever they thought would get us to go to war with him. Shucks, we made the same mistake in Vietnam and trusted a series of bloodthirsty politicos just because they claimed to hate Communists. The trump card, if you do not mind a pun, is that Trump does not care about the gas attack. He wants Putin to fall back and get out of Syria.

Putin is rebuilding the Soviet Union. He is doing this for a simple reason: his people want it. They are a starving nation, beaten in a Cold War and a cultural war, and known mostly for selling their women on the open market. Their average IQ is ten points behind that of Europe. As a people of a quarter Asiatic blood, they are forever stranded between being European and Asian, hence the term “Eurasian” has been historically applied to them. They will always struggle for borscht, vodka and firewood. Putin cannot change this situation because no one can change this situation. But people do not live by material alone. They live by spirit. This is why they love Stalin despite his many murders. Under Stalin, Russians felt like not a failed state, but a great empire, and they want that feeling back. To that end, Putin is annexing or partnering with territories on all of his borders, building the greater Russian empire after which the Soviet Union was built. Soviet Union – Communism = Putinism. This is just him acting in self-interest for Russia, doing the best he can for the Russian people.

The West has a competing self-interest. We want what they want, and they want what we want. We are a different people. Time to extract your head from the delusion of collectivized individualism; there are no “rational solutions” that we reach through “compromise.” They are not like us, and our needs inexorably conflict. That means they always do. There is no international, universal magic place where everyone is equal and therefore we can agree on what we all need and act on that. Every party in this fight is a corporation acting to maximize value to its shareholders. Any “higher” truth than that it no truth, but a manipulation.

Trump has just checked Russian self-interest, but this means less than people think, because Trump’s “flip-flopping” is in fact an unwillingness to commit to agendas; like most natural conservatives, even if a moderate one, he takes problems on a case-by-case basis to avoid inducing blindness through dogma, repetition and social pressures. That is not politics but good management practice. And if you want the proof that Trump acted as I said he did, look to how Russia reacted:

Putin this morning denounced the strike as an ‘illegal act of aggression’ and also ripped up an agreement to avoid mid-air clashes between Russian and US fighter jets over Syria.

Putin saw the US action as an ‘aggression against a sovereign nation’ on a ‘made-up pretext’ and considered it a cynical attempt to distract the world from civilian deaths in Iraq, according to Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov.

Meanwhile, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev took to Facebook on Friday to declare US-Russian relations ‘completely ruined’. He also said the US was ‘on the verge of a military clash with Russia’.

Rex Tillerson also delivered some harsh words on Thursday and said Russia was either ‘complicit’ in the Sarin attack that killed more than 80 people or ‘simply incompetent’ in getting Syria to surrender its chemical weapons.

Part of the problem of the Alt Right is that much of its ideation originates in Libertarianism, and Libertarianism originates in the city suburbs. There, people are accustomed to a great degree of order and “reason” aloud, in wispy voices, that if everyone is a rational market actor, and we reduce all questions to those of the market, we will find peace and sensible human order. Obviously they are idiots, since this has never worked throughout history, and like the rest of the first world are drugged on consumerism and democracy such that all of their problems are “first world problems” entirely unrelated to the reality outside the consensual hallucination of social pressures, advertising and speeches made by actors who have taken political office. Libertarianism is just another form of Leftism, albeit one that allows markets and not votes to decide.

Back in RealityLand, we know that most people are delusional and that this is the secret humanity is trying to hide. Democracy is a fraud and an illusion. Consumerism produces the best ripoffs, not the best products. These are only in place because we overthrew the kings, refuse to admit that this was a mistake, and so have tried out other forms of modernity like Communism and Fascism which turned out even worse than our toxic brew of democracy, consumerism and the social welfare state. Our modern society is a waffle, a hybrid produced of what has not yet catastrophically failed. That means that it will fail slowly and not by a single point, but by many thousands of small errors and omissions. We are seeing that failure now, as diversity depletes us, people vote for more social welfare systems, and other daily stupidities consume us. But right now, it is hard to argue with the “success” of democracy. Money, technology and growth are all up. And so, in the timeless way of refusing to let the smart people make decisions because our monkey-egos demand that we be right, we are going to have to wait for it to fail instead of doing something intelligent.

Looking at this Trump strike, we see the impossibility of democracy. It sets up assumptions that cannot be worked around because they are absolutes, which tells you right away that these are rules made in defense of the individual and not in favor of civilization. Trump cannot admit the real reason for these strikes because the peaceniks would clobber him. The hippies would be in the streets again singing “Give Peace A Chance” and banging drums, all of the American Leftists would start reading Sputnik News, Russia Today and Russia Insider (all of these are products of the old Soviet propaganda agency TASS), and our country would be sabotaged from within as it was during the Vietnam war. That is what our enemies hope for. So Trump waits for the Syrians to lie about a gas attack and uses it as a pretext to warn off the Russians — literally:

America had used a special military-to-military hotline to warn Russia about the airstrike around 30 minutes in advance – but the Trump administration did not ask Moscow for permission.

It is likely Russia alerted the Syrians about the incoming strikes but this has not been confirmed.

Of course Russia warned the Syrians. The point was not to generate casualties, but to send a message. The message was for Russians to stay in Russia with their influence, and this is far different than what Putin expected after he brushed aside weak leader Barack Obama and seized Crimea. Again, he is not being portrayed as a bad guy here; self-interest is beyond good and bad. Each party does what is to its benefit and we hope the best ones win. That leads us to the real issue that is being hidden here, which is that for us to understand Trump’s actions, we have to understand the role of the West, and that is that we must win because we are the best ones, or at least once were. Everyone else is incompetent and under Western leadership, the world prospered without self-destructing. Of course, that was through the remnants of monarchy and not democracy, which is doing its best to destroy that competence so that everyone can feel equal, which is what individuals do when they fear their own incompetence and irrelevance. If we remove the pretense of equality, they can stop having those feelings and we can get closer to realism again.

Russia is acting exactly as we would expect them to — if Trump is right. Russia is withdrawing its slapped wrist and posturing around so that Putin does not lose support at home. This shows that, for whatever reasons he made this decision, Trump got it right and the only reason people are upset is that it offends their pretense. This is typical of democracy.

No one wants to admit it but neocons are a product of We The People like anything else. We are in a democracy; if you do not realize that that makes you, as a voter, culpable for what comes out of Washington, then you are not even ready to understand a tenth of what is going on in this article. We the voters created the neocons. They are people who advance an American agenda in certain areas by sacrificing other areas, and they always do it through justifications like Syrian babies getting gassed because they learned from Vietnam that to do otherwise is to be destroyed. The voters demand to be lied to, manipulated, swindled and deceived. This allows them to escape culpability, claim victimhood and still allows government to be quasi-functional. The best response to this would be to limit leadership to the less than 1% of the population who actually have a chance in hell of understanding what is going on. If we do otherwise, we are doomed to have leaders like Putin and Trump communicating through airstrikes and social codes, and to never get a sensible world order because we do not simply allow the best to dominate.

A Witch Hunt And Watergate II

Saturday, March 4th, 2017

According to the scientific non-partisans who do our research, the objective fact of Rightist overthrow of media is upon us:

Our own study of over 1.25 million stories published online between April 1, 2015 and Election Day shows that a right-wing media network anchored around Breitbart developed as a distinct and insulated media system, using social media as a backbone to transmit a hyper-partisan perspective to the world. This pro-Trump media sphere appears to have not only successfully set the agenda for the conservative media sphere, but also strongly influenced the broader media agenda, in particular coverage of Hillary Clinton.

…But pro-Trump audiences paid the majority of their attention to polarized outlets that have developed recently, many of them only since the 2008 election season.

Attacks on the integrity and professionalism of opposing media were also a central theme of right-wing media. Rather than “fake news” in the sense of wholly fabricated falsities, many of the most-shared stories can more accurately be understood as disinformation: the purposeful construction of true or partly true bits of information into a message that is, at its core, misleading. Over the course of the election, this turned the right-wing media system into an internally coherent, relatively insulated knowledge community, reinforcing the shared worldview of readers and shielding them from journalism that challenged it.

Remember: the Leftist cries out as he strikes you. They are accusing the Right of exactly what they did.

In a relative universe, someone breaking away from someone else may be stationary. When two parties interact and one suddenly takes a radical swing to the Left, to that party it will seem like the other party is moving away from them, when in fact it was the first party who moved away.

The American people for the most part stayed where they were; the press swung left; now it accuses Americans of “moving away” into an insular world of their own, when in fact that was what the lügenpresse did. Consider the usual tale of two stories that shows exactly why most Americans are moving away from reliance on mainstream media:

If you ever doubted that the media see the news through a partisan prism, consider this: in less than two days, ABC, CBS and NBC devoted nearly 7 times as much coverage to Jeff Sessions meeting with the Russian Ambassador in his role as a U.S. Senator than they did when then-Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress in June 2012.

…Back on June 28, 2012, then-Attorney General Eric Holder became the first Cabinet member to be held in contempt of Congress for withholding documents from the House investigation into the Obama administration’s Fast and Furious scandal.

One of these was a legitimate scandal based on a well-documented investigation; the other, vaporous accusations of collaboration with Russians, has yet to produce any hard data. The media is biased, and this is why Americans refused to follow it Leftward, which to the dying media looked as if Americans were moving Rightward when in fact they were staying where they always had been.

Across the West, people are not moving Rightward so much as withdrawing from the Left. This was the motion predicted by French writer Michel Houellebecq, who described himself as “anti-liberal” but not conservative. We may not know what we want, but we do not want to go down the direction the Left is taking, which ends with us replaced by immigrants and our institutions destroyed by corruption.

People are realizing — slowly — that the Left are essentially organized crime. Their goal is to use altruism to paralyze the brains of the population with happy silly notions while the Left then steal everything they can from behind the scenes. The end result will be much like Venezuela or Cuba, a third world wasteland ruled by extremely wealthy “men of the people.”

Our media realizes that this is happening and that with it, obsolescence of the current media is guaranteed. As a result, they have launched an attack against President Trump based on nothing more than social popularity. All of their gambits (riots, impeachment, Russia, “pussy grabbing”) have had no substance but were hammered into false scandals by the media.

The “deep state” — entitled bureaucrats dependent on dysfunction in the system for continued employment — is striking out at Trump as well. They may have tapped his phones; if so, this is an event bigger than Watergate, where they only attempted to spy on the opposition. The media will conceal this as well, pitting Trump against them for control of the narrative that flows by us like an invisible river, filling itself with content of its own if we do not direct it.

If Trump is able to beat the media machine, he will make it irrelevant and it will die a natural death as a legacy industry. This is why they are all in panic to destroy him and do not care if what they are saying is entirely flimsy conjecture or not. As the old order collapses, the combatants line up to see who will dominate what remains.

Culture Is The New US Foreign Policy

Tuesday, January 24th, 2017

Over millennia mankind has adopted military conflict as a means of ending negotiation through extortion: “Hands up or I shoot.” The problem with this method is that it succeeds and thus, like a virus, replicates itself. Extortion becomes the norm.

The second world war, for example, was caused by the lack of extorted success after the first war. Nowadays people talk excitedly about WWIII because the winner wants more; it is hard to reject a method that has been successful in the past, and even harder to defend having done so when governments are bankrupt, the middle class hovers on the precipice of doom, and our citizens are disunified and adrift.

With the advent of the cold war, strategic efforts by the Pentagon to “win” included an article written by the Pentagon’s “Mr. X.” Apparently it was successful but while the end of the cold war caused the breakup of the Soviet Union, America also suffered because they did not know how to be the world leader, a position to which their status as the unitary superpower elected them.

Again the Pentagon came to the rescue with an article written by a duo calling themselves “Mr Y.” It proposed a competitive environment based on business instead of military superiority through technology. Instead, it leveraged technology to achieve business superiority, much as the Japanese had successfully accomplished their delayed invasion of the United States by making inexpensive, reliable cars in the 1980s.

This idea was probably the basis for the “new world order” announced by G.H.W. Bush in 1991: the US and its allies would form an economic bloc, dominate the world with financial power, and thus achieve indirect rule much like Havel’s concept of soft totalitarianism: people would want to be part of the regime for fear of being excluded, not from fear of extortion.

However, the Leftists intruded and bungled this as they do with everything they touch because their “ideology” is based on reality-denial disguised as reality-correction. This became the de facto policy of the Left from Clinton onward. Under recent Democrat leadership, America has inverted the old formula, and now is using war as a means of business.

Clearly the saying “business is war by other means” has unintended consequences. If business fails, it goes bankrupt. If military fails, people die. However, if the people who are dying are not of statistical concern to voters, this does not matter. This creates an American foreign policy biased toward war — in Libya, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Syria — because this enables a “circular Ponzi scheme.”

In this circular Ponzi scheme, government dumps money on the military and more importantly, its contractors, who then generate economic activity with that money and cause the currency to be in greater demand (a classic Leftist demand-side economic concept) which then enables the government to borrow more to keep the cycle going. It is “Keynesian Socialism” by any other name, and the government does the same thing with welfare.

Having a foreign policy that defaults to war affects American society because it covertly structures that society towards supporting war. The economy, political system and social order all become dependent on having a war and people orient themselves relative to that war. Apparently this is a sensitive issue because when Donald Trump questioned it by asking “who is paying for it?” the Establishment panicked.

Trump backpedaled from the Democrat strategy to something more resembling the Mr. Y approach: by making the US into an economic powerhouse, he could induce cooperation rather than compel it. The difference for Trump is that he has detached foreign policy from ideological concerns, making it a practical issue and not a quest to spread certain ideas worldwide, so it can serve the cause of stability alone and thus aid business.

The Trump doctrine while have a massive influence not just on geopolitics, but on how government is organized and thus, the functions around which American society is structured. This means that economics will influence military functions and in turn influence politics and culture, creating a feedback loop with the idea of pragmatism at its center.

Defense and Economics are essentially single disciplinary functions in Government, but culture is a multi-disciplinary function for which there can be no single Secretary of Culture. Years ago managers were arguing about organizational structures being either project or line oriented.  But functional structures were overall quite effective.

However, discussions with Boeing revealed that value was added when an “integrative management function” was added.  Different words to describe this “function” could be “Systems or Function Integration” where the responsibility would be to test the combined team effort against a multidisciplinary framework.

This would be performed within the Organization’s defined framework, but in a Government, this framework will change to National Culture. The foreign policy ramifications are anticipated to strengthen cultural ties with France and Russia during the first phase based on this motivation as follows:

In order to stabilize cultures towards a new trading world as opposed to the new world order (NWO) directive, the cultures of the major players will be briefly assessed herewith. But first, the dimensions used to measure cultures require clarification as follows:

  • Power Distance: This dimension deals with the fact that all individuals in societies are not equal; it expresses the attitude of the culture towards these inequalities amongst us. Power Distance is defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally.
  • Individualism: The fundamental issue addressed by this dimension is the degree of interdependence a society maintains among its members. It has to do with whether people’s self-image is defined in terms of “I” or “We.” In Individualist societies people are supposed to look after themselves and their direct family only. In collectivist societies people belong to in-groups (like cults, gangs or families) that take care of them in exchange for loyalty.
  • Masculinity: A high score (Masculine) on this dimension indicates that the society will be driven by competition, achievement and success, with success being defined by the winner/best in field – a value system that starts in school and continues throughout organisational life. A low score (Feminine) on the dimension means that the dominant values in society are caring for others and quality of life. A Feminine society is one where quality of life is the sign of success and standing out from the crowd is not admirable. The fundamental issue here is what motivates people, wanting to be the best (Masculine) or liking what you do (Feminine).
  • Uncertainty Avoidance: The dimension Uncertainty Avoidance has to do with the way that a society deals with the fact that the future can never be known: should we try to control the future or just let it happen? This ambiguity brings with it anxiety and different cultures have learnt to deal with this anxiety in different ways. The extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations and have created beliefs and institutions that try to avoid these is reflected in the score on Uncertainty Avoidance.
  • Long Term Orientation: This dimension describes how every society has to maintain some links with its own past while dealing with the challenges of the present and future, and societies prioritize these two existential goals differently. Normative societies. which score low on this dimension, for example, prefer to maintain time-honored traditions and norms while viewing societal change with suspicion. Those with a culture which scores high, on the other hand, take a more pragmatic approach: they encourage thrift and efforts in modern education as a way to prepare for the future.
  • Indulgence: One challenge that confronts humanity, now and in the past, is the degree to which small children are socialized. Without socialization we do not become “human”. This dimension is defined as the extent to which people try to control their desires and impulses, based on the way they were raised. Relatively weak control is called “Indulgence” and relatively strong control is called “Restraint.” Cultures can, therefore, be described as Indulgent or Restrained.

The current major Atlantic players (and supporters of Admiralty Law), is America and Britain while on the Europe mainland it is Germany. According to Geert Hofstede, their cultures are (briefly) compared herewith as follows (with all detail on the website available to the public):

Using America as the leading example, it is clear that for practical purposes its dimensions are similar to those of the United Kingdom. However, Germany deviates in the last three dimensions, meaning that they are more risk averse. This may explain their insistence on maintaining the EU monetary union, because if they don’t mitigate those risks, who (in Europe) will? America’s hold over Germany’s strong trade relations with China can be fruitfully used to the benefit of Atlanticists. The disadvantage of an Anglicized Germany is creeping Sharia and their resultant inability to even understand such a “minor external” threat.

The alternative French cultural comparison is as follows:

The difference with the French is that they find authority more acceptable, perhaps due to the influential longevity of their royal bloodlines. This allows easier relations with countries where Dictators operate. The French will as a result also be more pragmatic in their world view even encouraging criticisms of Islam as well as the resurgence of nationalist politics. They see themselves as speaking French and “being” different, which advances natural disruptive activity within the English NWO. These disruptions now include the idea that Islam is better engaged using the combined capacity of America and Russia. In other words, where Russia is sensationalized as the (military) World Enemy, France finds Islam (on a cultural basis), an existential threat. The question is which is the better American fit, Germany or France?

Using this line of thinking, the next comparison should be to determine Russia’s better fit. Herewith Germany:

Where Germany deviated in the last three dimensions with America, it now deviates in the first three dimensions (not by much, but still). The Russian acceptance of authority almost dwarfs the other dimensions. The surprising Russian collectivism points to German incompatibility despite being equally risk averse.

Here is France and Russia:

There is no question that France is a better cultural fit for Russia than (current) Germany in my opinion. However, it does not have the same trade benefit with China, but then Russia might be able to fill that gap (for America).

In order to address the Islam question, it would require of America to develop positive relations with Russia and France because it is not a question of firepower, it is a question of culture. That China may prefer such an arrangement is obvious.

A US – France – Russia cultural agreement could replace the militarized New World Order. The benefit will be a stable society better placed to improve relations with (other) cultures.

Recommended Reading