Posts Tagged ‘russia’
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, January 19th, 2017
by Arthur Conrad
There has been a long standing warm relationship between a large portion of the alt right and the Russian government headed by president Vladimir Putin. This sentiment has been undoubtedly fueled by what the alt right perceives as more traditional and conservative Russian policies and its staunch opposition to neoconservative wars driven by the “Invade the World, Invite the World” collusion between Republicans and Democrats to further expand the American Establishment worldwide through globalism.
While Russia may be more socially conservative, and this is in itself worth defending, another reason exists for why Nationalists should oppose any destabilization of Russia: Russia serves a crucial role in the stabilization of Europe.
Russia serves as more than a geographical eastern boundary and gateway to Europe from Asia. Russia is, and always has been, a demographic barrier to entry to Europe as well. The upper classes of pre-Revolutionary Russian society instituted a harsh system of feudalism which kept large masses of Russian peasantry of various ethnic origin tied to their lands and barred from moving, and extended this to policies of mass deportations of peoples, mostly peasants, to the far eastern ends of the Empire from which they were forbidden to return. These masses of peasants would then, clear the Siberian continental mass, suppressing the more primitive local population and their customs.
Such policies not only helped curtail the rise and consolidation of lower strata of Russian society to political eminence, but displayed that great sensibility, refinement and understanding which Russian ruling class possessed in domestic and foreign affairs, which was not always met with equal understanding by competing imperial powers. These powers, at occasions often failed to understand the great part that Russian elite was playing in preserving the racial, social and political order of Europe, by not only preventing the westward expansion of large Eurasian masses of peasants, but forcing their migration to the East, where they would capture resource rich lands and suppress what were to Europeans completely foreign racial local elements. Furthermore, Russian aristocracy understood the necessity for the existence of such hierarchy and pan-European stability very well when it singlehandedly prevented the collapse of Prussian Kingdom under Frederick The Great, and Austrian Empire during Hungarian Revolution.
This perhaps crude but effective mechanism of demographic and social control led to the eventual advent of Russian culture and prominence in Europe, and the era of sharply increased scientific, cultural and artistic achievements. I believe that enough has been said on the subject of how and why Russian Empire was brought to an end, which historical and ethnic currents were driving forces behind it, and what dire consequences it brought upon Europe. That calamity was further amplified by disastrous casualties on the Western front during the same era, while any effective defensive mechanisms against demographic turbulence within Europe were brought to a definite collapse when German High Command understood that they could not win the cataclysmic war they unleashed because of nationalistic disputes with Poland, in effect handing entire Eastern Europe and parts of Finland on a silver plate to Soviet Union, a state that at the time was satisfied with so called “Socialism in one State” policy.
Fast forward to 2013, prior to the Ukrainian crisis, and we have a Russian state that has been experiencing an era of increased economic health and activity, much thanks to vast petroleum resources, as well as a fairly liberal economic policies, which although causing much plunder to state-owned companies, has at least supplied the domestic market with plenty of employment opportunities. Ever since 1991 and collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has experienced a sharp drop in its population, particularly the ethnic Russian component, while many of the educated fled abroad.
What Westerners, including Nationalists, tend to miss is that the rise of Russian wealth has attracted many who would otherwise go to Europe to settle in Russia instead, where strong cultural nationalism keeps them relegated to minor roles. Russia lies between Europe and a warland of hundreds of millions of people of non-white origins and predominately Muslim faith. The increase in Russian economic performance and its loose labor policies have attracted these people to Russia instead of Europe, borrowing not only from the Middle East but the lands of the Caucasus where Islam remains popular.
Only in light of these facts one can understand the current neoconservative and Islamic aggression towards Russia which at times seems almost irrational and excessive, but is perfectly grounded in interests of these people. Destabilizing the Russian state, and bringing about one of the colored revolutions there, would lift the gate and enable millions of rootless laborers from Central Asia and Caucasus to seek “asylum” in Europe and completely overwhelm the continent. Coincidentally, those states that are so far the most spared from Arab and African invasion of Europe, such as Poland, Baltic States or Hungary would bear the brunt of this demographic offensive. European Continent would be drowned by Africans, Asians and Arabs and for good. There would be absolutely no barrier left to defend it
Here once again, is displayed the unfortunate, tragic part that Europeans, especially its less astute populations and ideologues play in their own downfall. Apart from Liberals, cosmopolitans and Leftist Jews who have been agitating for “regime change” in Russia ever since its economic advent, even nations in the east, especially Baltic nations and Poland, have joined these ranks and are vocally supporting “regime change” in Russia, seemingly completely unaware of the consequences of the instability of their larger neighbor. Baltic states and Poland have even at certain points harbored Chechen “rebels” who fled after their defeat. Once again, petty nationalistic differences and infantile vengefulness play their part in European racial suicide. Since open war against Russia isn’t (yet) on the table, the Asian demographic barrier in the east provided by the Russian economy is under fierce and collective attack by Leftists who are unfortunately joined by useful idiots from the ranks of nationalists and jingoists.
Hopefully, those European leaders who appear to be more logical and cautious in their policies, as well as pragmatically geared toward the self interest of their nations such as Hungarian president Victor Orban, who also seem to understand the pitfalls of “regime change diplomacy”, will be able to strike a more balanced cord and soothe the impulsive policy making of their fellow-Europeans.
Saturday, January 14th, 2017
From the no-a-thousand-times-no department, the Boston Journal asks why we cannot have a NATO focused on nuclear retaliation:
That’s certainly the case when it comes to nuclear weapons. In a study last year for the Atlantic Council, Matthew Kroenig argued: “In order to deter the Russian nuclear threat, NATO needs to realign its priorities by increasing the importance of its nuclear deterrence mission and considering possible modifications to its conventional and nuclear posture.” In his view, deterrence should return as the alliance’s nuclear priority.
While Kroenig’s discussion is about NATO infrastructure and doctrine, any additional weapons likely would be American—Washington currently shares control over U.S. nukes with several alliance members—and the country most in Russia’s retaliatory sites would be America. Since two European nations possess nuclear weapons and others could develop them, why should the United States remain the country expected to bring Götterdämmerung to life?
Think this through. Nuclear weapons get used on two levels: strategic and tactical. NATO is already primed to use tactical nuclear and chemical weapons, which were called “weapons of mass destruction” until under the Obama-Bush years that term began to be used for anything the size of a hand grenade and larger. NATO is not ready to use nuclear weapons on a strategic level because it entrusts that to the United States.
This makes sense because the United States is thousands of miles away from Russia. That means that if one side detects a launch, it has a number of minutes to verify data in order to distinguish real attacks from false alarms, as happened many times during the Cold War. That builds in a layer of insulation against accidental nuclear warfare.
Europe, on the other hand, is mere hundreds of miles away from Russia and would have to make a response in a split second. This greatly increases the risk of a false trigger and resulting mushroom clouds blooming across the West and Eurasia. For this reason, the people of merely a generation ago — who apparently were biologically smarter than people now — did not empower NATO to be a strategic nuclear actor.
Friday, January 6th, 2017
The last few weeks of the rule of Barack Obama have revealed a dark side to his personality: he seems intent on holding on to power even if only by attempting to thwart those who come after him.
During this time, he has blamed Russia for interference in American elections without solid proof, and other members of the government have referred to Russian activity as “acts of war.”
Obama continues to apply pressure on the Russians with a military buildup in Europe:
U.S. and Polish forces will participate in a large “massing” exercise in Poland at the end of January as part of a series of measures aimed at reassuring U.S. allies in Europe after Russia’s 2014 annexation of the Crimea region of Ukraine.
…NATO countries say their planned deployments to eastern NATO countries are purely defensive, but Russia has rebuked what it sees as an aggressive western buildup in eastern Europe.
“Tanks never create peace anywhere,” said Christian Goerke, who heads the party in Brandenburg state. “Quite the contrary, a troop deployment of such a scale is part of always increasing buildup and provocation.”
Unless we think Russia is actively planning to invade the Baltics and Eastern Europe, this buildup makes sense only as a political ploy designed to provoke the Russians, possibly into a preemptive attack.
A war would give Obama an opportunity to indirectly seize control of the United States Government on a permanent basis. He would be able to do this through control of the media if he deemed that subversive forces were making use of it:
It shall be unlawful for any person during any war in which the United States is engaged to knowingly or willfully, by physical force or intimidation by threats of physical force, obstruct or retard or aid in obstructing or retarding interstate or foreign communication by radio or wire. The President is authorized, whenever in his judgment the public interest requires, to employ the armed forces of the United States to prevent any such obstruction or retardation of communication.
In this light, the recent government-memes of Russian interference in the election and “fake news” make sense when combined. Obama, using his typical broad interpretation of his powers, might in the advent of war with Russia declare that Russia is interfering with the media and seize communications. From that base, he could stage a coup, and become permanent General Secretary of the globalist American initiative.
Wednesday, November 16th, 2016
Ideological movements have a habit of creating the opposite of what they intend. This occurs because they treat effects as causes of themselves; for example, they want “equality” (lack of risk of social exclusion) and so they mandate it directly, instead of realizing that it must be achieved in fact before it can exist in theory.
Perfect is the enemy of good, they say, to remind you that waiting for perfection prevents you from accomplishing your task. But by the converse, good is the enemy of perfect, which tells us that most people stop at good and never aim higher. Ideology creates a permanent perfect that both prevents good and, by being good enough, discourages improvement.
This means that once ideology strikes, it does not let go until the end.
Visualize civilization as existing on an arc. This arc first goes up, then comes down. While the arc is heading upward, long-term and short-term goals are the same because those are dependent on society. On the downward stroke, however, the long-term goal becomes destruction of the civilization to restart the process, where the short-term remains with trying to keep the leaky boat float to avoid risk, terror and immediate personal loss.
Our peak was long ago and then we entered into a bad time. This happened not because we failed, but because we succeeded and beat all the previous threats; those with some experience of life knows that to succeed means you face new unknowns and deadlier threats. We reached the level boss of civilizations, which is internal decay.
To beat internal decay, you have to keep people unified on a positive purpose while removing those who are useless and stupid. This takes a steady hand and is hard to do because all the other societies around you will begin attacking you because, being unable to succeed, they think they can succeed by simply taking your stuff, although they will be unable to replicate it and therefore will fail.
One force stands in favor of internal decay: our own fear. We, as individuals, fear being excluded. We worry that a moment of inattention will reveal us as worthless, and the group will eject us. For this reason, a group within the group forms dedicated to the idea that all are welcome no matter how much they screw up. This group takes over the society, but its “ideology” of universal inclusiveness (equality) runs away from it, and soon takes the place of its original intent. The virus subdues the patient.
Imagine that it is 2018. The leaked “election results” from July 2016 in fact became the numbers that were reported, and Hillary Clinton waltzes into the White House. Or rather, she is elected; before she can take office, however, the parts of America that are not merely benefits leeches raise their fists in anger and for the first time, take action.
Looking at the possibility of quelling a rebellion, President Barack Obama instead maneuvers the USA into war both in Syria and the South China Sea, conflicts which soon spill into Europe. He uses this to make it seem morally outrageous to rebel at the time that “your country needs you.” He recites all the old Kennedy speeches.
It seems to work. People join together and set up an industry based on the war, and everyone else goes into the service. Even the illegal aliens, LGBTQ, women and minorities join in. Soon America has a gigantic army in the field and, despite going $100 trillion into debt, is able to push back the Russo-Chinese front.
All seems to be going well until India and Brazil jump in on the side of China. The third world wants revenge for colonialism, and the USA finds itself short of allies in South America, Central America, Eastern Europe, and Asia. Even the UN turns against the USA, finding (correctly) that the USA was not the sole aggressor but the proximate aggressor in this war.
This results in a prolonged conflict which cannot be won. The USA has superior technology, but the soldiers who fought the other world wars are not there, replaced instead by squishy narcissists and do-nothings who wanted to be in the services for benefits and a paycheck.
As a result, the Americans are driven out of Europe and Asia, and finally invaded when a joint Chinese-Indian task force attacks through Canada and drives toward Washington, D.C. American media has refused to report on losses so far, instead stressing how the glorious People’s militia is driving across the Rhine into Russia, and now must admit that New York is burning and the East Coast may be lost.
Despite this setback, the Americans put up a furious fight around their capital city, mainly because the units defending here are most like those from former wars. To save time, the Russians lob a battlefield nuke into Washington, D.C., destroying the soldiers there and such American icons as the Lincoln Monument, White House, Congress and Vietnam Memorial.
Millions of members of the Historical American Nation (HAN), namely Western Europeans who have been marginalized by Leftism, look at the rising fist of flame that is a fresh mushroom cloud with awe and gratitude. The long nightmare of being presumed guilty and constantly shaken down with racial animus is over. Diversity has failed.
In fact, commentators note that this is not just the failure of America and its Constitution, but a Berlin 1945 moment for liberal democracy. All of the old ideas, starting with equality, have failed. A new world is upon us.
Having realized that, the actual Americans — not the pretender Amerikans — assemble their weapons and prepare to drive out the foreign Asiatic invaders, much as they drove away the Siberian Indians and Mexicans and finally fought the Chinese in Vietnam and Korea, just as their ancestors fought Asiatics across Eurasia in the days before history.
It will be a costly war, but at least it is not a war within. We are no longer divided. Those who act against our interests we eject; those who attack us, we destroy. Existential stress drops despite the constant warfare because finally, the world makes sense again.