Category Archives: Journalism

Jews and the Hollywood Sleazeathon

This whole sordid episode of the unfolding of mass Hollywood sleaze among heavily-Jewish Hollywood and media men is interesting. And yes, they are heavily Jewish. I counted up recently and 41% of the 21 men accused (nine out of 21) recently were Jews. Of course, Gentile men are complete pigs too, but this does seem to cement the conservative stereotype of Hollywood Jewish men as depraved, secular, liberal Jews.

Back in the 1950’s, Hollywood and acting was considered to be seedy business and as such, many Christian Gentiles thought it was too sleazy to get involved in. Jews apparently not being encumbered by such moral anchors, moved readily into the business. This is the Jewish argument – that a number of fields that Gentiles avoided due to being seen as sleazy or morally tainted quickly became filled with Jews. Banking being one example.

Also Jews had already captured Hollywood in an actual conspiracy from 1900-1920.  Five Jews from Galicia ended up controlling most of the industry. The conspiracy was hatched at a time when Jews were very tribal and were frankly a menace. They took over Hollywood and the newspaper media at this time. This efforts were funded by some wealthy Jews mostly out of New York. They also made runs on Wall Street and commercial banking.

Both of these were stopped because Gentiles were quite anti-Semitic in those days, and anti-Semitism was  both highly adaptive and necessary against Jews waging ethnic warfare against other groups. Word got out among Gentiles that the Jews were making runs on Wall Street and the Gentiles simply stopped selling seats to Jews. Of course the Jews had long ago stopped selling their seats to Gentiles. So the run was stopped, but Wall Street now is quite Jewish. Quite Jewish is not the same thing as being run by Jews. Wall Street is not run by the Jews the same way that Hollywood and the media are. Wall Street is full of Gentiles, mostly White men.

Later on, the Jews made runs on banking in the US. Once again, anti-Semitic Gentiles blew the whistle on them and simply stopped selling banks to Jews. The Jews were unable to get very far in US commercial banking, so Jews have never run the banks in the US the way they did in Europe for a long time. However, the Jews were able to make a significant penetration of financial banking before they were stopped once again by alarmed anti-Semitic Gentiles. Jews are much less tribal nowadays, which is good for them and us. Tribal Jews cause anti-Semitism like night follows day. Nevertheless, the remains of their earlier tribal forays can be seen to this day.

All of these episodes were laid out immaculately in Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent and later in The International Jew, which is actually not a bad book. I also do not consider it be more anti-Semitic than it needed to be. He opposed  pogroms will all of his force and mostly the book was a plea for Jews to stop being so tribal and work together with Gentiles. “Come, Jews! Join us Gentiles and together we will build a great America!” He says at one point. Ford comes across as more exasperated than anything else. Of course the paper and the book are now tagged as evil anti-Semitic publications. Be that as it may, I have read the book and a lot of back issues of the paper and I concluded that much of what Ford said was simply true. The tone of the paper was cynical and exasperated too.

For the crime of telling the truth and exhorting Jews to give up their vicious ethnic warfare and work to build a better country (“Jews! Stop being Jews, and start being Americans!” he exhorts at one time.) the Jews tried to kill Ford. There was an attempt to murder him by running him off the road on a country lane in the 1930’s. It was widely thought that Jews were behind the murder attempt.

This shows you that when Jews are viciously tribal, Gentiles absolutely must become anti-Semitic in order to stop their conspiracies and schemes. If Gentiles don’t organize to stop the Jewish plots, the Jews will take over most of your country and economy. So in that sense, anti-Semitism is not just adaptive but also necessary. Of course, as Jews get less tribal, anti-Semitism becomes a lot less important down to where it is probably not necessary anymore.

17 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, California, Cinema, Conspiracies, Europe, History, Jews, Journalism, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, The Jewish Question, US, USA, West

Who Is This Man?

5237

Who is this man?

This man is no longer alive, having died recently. What is he famous for? What was his profession? Where did he live most of his life?

9 Comments

Filed under Celebrities, Journalism

HBD: Do IQ Tests Have a Cultural Bias? If So, How Do They Need to Be Reformed?

Answered on Quora.

We must talk about two types of scientific thinking.

The first type are the intelligence researchers, the top names in the field, and people who actually study the issue. They write in journals like Intelligence. Charles Murray, Philippe Rushton, Arthur Jensen, Richard Lynn, and James Flynn are some of the top names in this field. I keep up with the field, and Flynn, discoverer of the Flynn Effect, is actually an acquaintance, so I know what I am talking about.

These and a few others are actually the most respected names in the field. However, outside the field, Murray, Rushton, Lynn and even Jensen are often pilloried as racists, and the popular line is that their work is pseudoscience or scientific racism. However, in the intelligence community, they are regarded as the top names of all, their work is regarded as excellent science, and their views are regarded as valid hypotheses about race and intelligence that are worth investigating.

Although the genes versus environment matter for IQ has not been sorted out (the above names are some of those fighting it out), the argument in the journals about whether the tests are culturally biased or not was settled long ago. The leaders of the Pure Environment group such as Nesbitt ran up the white flag a while back on the cultural bias issue. Nesbitt never talks about cultural bias anymore and accepts that the tests are valid. Instead, he argues about different things. He simply argues that the scores are correct, but the differences are due to environment, not genes.

The problem here is that just about nobody is monitoring the actual debate in the intelligence community and the journals, so a huge disconnect has emerged between popular scientists and journalists who write on this subject and the experts in the field.
The former continue to insist that the tests are biased despite the fact that the matter was settled in the journals for some time now. The people writing in the popular press are either not following the debate in the journals or they are and they are lying (I cynically suspect the latter). To be honest, there are a few radicals in the community who continue to insist that the tests are biased, but they were defeated as a group a while back. There are only a few holdouts left.

Almost everyone who knows about the issue follows the debate in the press, but almost none of them bother to dig into the actual debate in the books and journals, so you get this huge disconnect between how the state of the debate is portrayed in the popular press and the actual state of the debate in the field.

Long story short, the debate has been settled for quite some time now in the field (15–20 years), and the cultural bias folks mostly admitted they were defeated, acknowledged that the tests were not biased, and moved on to other arguments. But popular opinion has not caught up with the science, so flat-out lies such as that the consensus among intelligence researchers is that IQ tests are biased continue to be peddled as fact, and most readers are not educated enough to figure out that they are being lied to.

The tests are correct. There are indeed differences in average intelligence between the races. The debate’s over on that too for quite some time now. Instead the debate has shifted to whether these differences are due to genes, environment, or both.
Popular opinion is lost back 15 years ago, anyone who says there are documented intelligence differences among the races is shouted down as an evil racist, and massive attempts are made to destroy their lives and careers for stating a simple fact of science. James Watson was a recent casualty. It’s pretty depressing when people are getting fired for telling the truth, but it happens all the time in our PC Culture where the truth is often Outlawed Speech, and patent lies masquerade as fact.

2 Comments

Filed under Culture, Intelligence, Journalism, Psychology, Race Realism, Science

Something Conservatives Will Never Understand: Armed Leftwing Revolutions Only Happen in Horrible Countries

I will grant that Colombia is more rightwing than the US, but at least they have a great Left. Hell, the Left down there is actually armed for Chrissake! They have guns, bombs, RPG’s full battle uniforms, you name it, and they use their weapons all the time to kill the conservative police and army, who very much deserve it.

This shows what happens when your society goes too rightwing or when your rightwing goes too rightwing. Not only do you get a monstrous, fascist, usually murderous Right, but, just as sure as night follows day, you end up with a very radical Left that in many cases arms itself against the murderous Right.

Extremes beget extremes. Do you really need to read Marx to figure that out? Hell, I bet I could explain that to a 5th grader and they would nod their head in agreement.

But show me an American conservative anywhere who agrees with that statement. Nope, according to the US Establishment, the radical Left rises out of ether for no apparent reason at all other than sheer fanatical evil to overthrow the capitalism that their ideology orders them to blindly hate.

While the USSR was still around, it was a convenient White Whale for any stirrings of the radical Left.

Why is the Left armed to the teeth down there, killing people left and right? Well, Number One is just because they are evil. Idiots, but evil idiots.

Are they taking up arms for any reason? Of course not, there is never an indigenous reason for any Left revolution. Well, what’s the cause of it? Cuba! And the USSR! The Cubans and the Russians put them up to it! Oh God, what crap this is. But this is the ideology of the entire US political establishment and the entire US media for decades now. And it is the lunatic ideology of the vast majority of the American people since 1946.

We lie like this because the truth is hard to swallow.

The Communists were not stupid. The individual CP’s in various countries generally felt that only when the capitalist conditions in the country approached a truly horrorshow of a Hell would there be reason for revolution. Otherwise they would always try to take power by peaceful means. Many a CP ruled many, many times that the country was not in a revolutionary situation and hence taking up arms was not justified. I can’t tell you how many documents I have read that said X country was not in a revolutionary situation right now so taking up arms was illegitimate.

Taking up arms was always an extreme last resort for any CP in any country. And when people did take up arms in what was seen as a non-revolutionary situation, as with the Shining Path in Peru, the vast majority of the Left lined up with the state against the Marxist rebels. Nevertheless, even in those cases there were variables. Towards the end the situation in Peru had gotten so horrific with the war and the monstrous turn of the state into a murderous charnelhouse that a number of parties around 1992 declared that the country was now in a revolutionary situation and it was acceptable to take up arms. That is why a number of other groups took up arms in 1992 at the peak of the war.

In many cases, CP’s even cruelly denied help to local CP’s on the grounds that they were not in a revolutionary situation.

Every American hates North Vietnam and Ho Chi Minh, but he was a rational man and North Vietnam was a reasonable state.

After the cancelled elections of 1954 which were ruined by the US (the UN ordered elections in the country, and the US ordered South Vietnam not to participate), the South Vietnamese Communist Party (really the Viet Cong) tried to obtain power by peaceful means. They were not armed with a single bullet. Nevertheless, with strong US support, the South Vietnamese government murdered 80,000 unarmed South Vietnamese Communist civilians between 1954-1960.

All this time, the South Vietnamese Communists were asking for permission from North Vietnam to take up arms. The North consistently refused armed support, so 80,000 Communists died. This shows you how grave most CP’s thought the decision to take up arms was. Finally in 1960, the North gave the South permission to take up arms, and the war was on. As you can see, South Vietnam started the Vietnam War by killing 80,000 unarmed civilians with the enthusiastic help of the US. The Viet Cong actually took up arms in self-defense. They simply got tired of sitting in their villages and waiting for the government to come murder them. They decided that if the state was going to try to kill them anyway, they might as well pick up a gun and defend themselves against the killers.

If you study most Communist revolutions in the 20th Century, this was the case in almost every single one of them. The decision to take up arms was only a last resort when conditions in the country deteriorated drastically and in particular when all peaceful methods of change were blocked. In the 20th Century, Communists almost always took up arms grudgingly, as a last resort and typically in self defense.

If you had a decent country, you never had to worry about an armed Left rebellion. If you had a shithole, well, a Left revolution was definitely something to worry about. The conclusion here is that every country that had an armed Left revolution in the 20th Century basically asked for it and got what they deserved. It was the fault of the leaders of every one of those countries for making conditions so horrible that the Left took up arms in the first place.

2 Comments

Filed under Asia, Capitalism, Cold War, Colombia, Conservatism, Economics, Fascism, History, Journalism, Latin America, Latin American Right, Left, Marxism, Modern, Peru, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Revolution, SE Asia, South America, US, US Politics, USSR, Vietnam, Vietnam War, War

Robert Stark Interview: Alt Left Chaos Magic with Brandon Adamson

Here.

You all should know who he is by now. He blogs under Rabbit at altleft.com, and he is one of the very first early Alt Leftists. Although he is controversial due to racial views and his association with the Left Wing of the Alt Right, I still think he is one of our most important thinkers.

Furthermore, his racial views are exaggerated. I would say that the difference between the Alt Right (AR) and the Left Wing of the Alt Right (LWAR) is that the real AR types are real hardcore racists who are open about their views, have extreme views and are not afraid  to talk about them, often use slurs and and hostile language about non-Whites, and pose drastic solutions, usually some form of White Separatism which would not be completely nonviolent. They also use a lot of White Supremacist and Nazi imagery.

The LWAR, on the other hand, usually does not use slurs and hostile language towards non-Whites, and in fact they often do not discuss race much at all. I think Rabbit would mostly like to be writing about other things, and race is only a small part of his Alt Left project. The LWAR types have much less extreme views and propose less extreme solutions to the racial question.

For instance, Rabbit says he does not with to harm any non-Whites in the US in any way, and he doesn’t want to carve out a White state in the US, which would obviously require some type of ethnic cleansing. Instead, Rabbit takes a very long view and is much more of a dreamer. Sure he would rather not live around non-Whites, but he wants to establish his White State in places like Patagonia, Antarctica or even outer space. He sometimes describes himself as a “Space Communist.” 

Given that the LWAR views on race are more polite and their solutions are less extreme, I have a hard time understanding why Rabbit has become such a persona non grata in much of the Alt Left, especially considering that he was one of the founders.

I still believe that Rabbit is one of our finest and most important thinkers, and he is an excellent writer. In fact, he has a book of poems out called Beatnik Fascism. I imagine it’s pretty good. His views on nonracial matters are intelligent, important and deserve an audience.

I get the feeling that Rabbit is uncomfortable writing about his racial views. I figure that is because he is basically a liberal or Leftist, let’s face it. And when Lefties go racist, they often don’t go too far down the line because there is always that liberal antiracist guilt nagging away at you causing you to tone down and attenuate your racial views. And it is for this reason that the LWAR will always be a lot more toned down and reasonable on race than the AR. Racists with a guilt complex usually can’t go real far down that racist road they’re on. The guilt keeps pulling them back.

Alt Left Chaos Magic With Brandon Adamson

Robert Stark and co-host Sam Kevorkian talk to Brandon Adamson. Brandon blogs at AltLeft.com, is the author of Beatnik Fascism, and has a Youtube channel Self Checkout.

Topics:

Brandon’s Official Response to Trump’s Remarks on the Alt Left.
The context of Trump using the term “Alt-Left” to describe the antifa as opposed to the original Alt Left.
The media’s references to Brandon’s Alt Left site and how the only semi-accurate one was The Week’s article.
Confusing political hacks with esoteric outlandish cultural references.
The “Orange Pill.”
How the less aggro elements of the Left and the Alt Right should combine forces for single payer health care, student debt relief, and dismantling the College Football Industrial Complex.
How massive online censorship forces people to build alternative tech universes.
Corporations enforcing a uniform culture of consensus among workers.
Companies policing employees behavior outside of work.
Why a 6 hour work day would be more efficient.
People Don’t Think Universal Basic Income Be Like It Is but It Do.
New Suburbanism.

 

8 Comments

Filed under Anti-Racism, Conservatism, Culture, Economics, Health, Higher Education, Journalism, Labor, Left, Liberalism, Political Science, Politics, Racism, Republicans, Sports, US Politics, White Racism

Fake News: Most US Catholics Have Been Voting Republican for Many Years Now

I have no idea why people believe this nonsense.

I had thought that US Catholics had never voted for a Republican President, but I was wrong about that. Nevertheless, out of 16 Presidential elections since 1956, Catholics have only voted for Republicans in five of them. The other nine times they voted Democratic. There has been no major trend towards Catholics voting Republican in recent years, and their record after Reagan was not much different than before Reagan. Catholics voted for Eisenhower in 1956, Nixon in 1972, Reagan twice in 1980 and 1984 and Trump in 2016.

In all other years, they voted Democratic. The highest turnout of course was for Kennedy, when Catholics voted 82% for him. They voted twice for Johnson by high margins, once for Carter, twice for Bill Clinton, once for Gore and Kerry, and twice for Obama. It’s hard to say there if much of a trend in how they are voting in any direction. It’s mostly been a wash.

So 70% of the time, Catholics vote Democratic. Trump changed that pattern in a single case history last year, but let’s see how long that lasts.

1 Comment

Filed under Catholicism, Christianity, Democrats, Journalism, Obama, Politics, Religion, Republicans, US Politics

Have Hispanics Ever Voted for a Republican President?

For some crazy reason, a lot of people insist that a majority of Hispanics voted for George Bush in 2004. It’s fake news, absolutely not true. Bush did get 41% that year, but Kerry got 59%. This is the best that any Republican Presidential candidate has ever done with Hispanics. I do not believe a majority of Hispanics will ever vote for a Republican President in my lifetime. And it’s probably getting worse, not better. Republicans were crowing that Donald Trump got a whole 28% of the Hispanic to Hillary’s 72%. Hispanics vote Republican! There are headlines like that all over the Net. I am sure these rightwing media clowns wish that was true. Since when is losing an election by 44 points something to crow about? What universe do these people live in?

I have studied Presidential elections all the way back to Richard Nixon in 1972. Hispanics were only tracked well in recent elections and 1972 was the earliest tracking I could find for Hispanic voters. No doubt there were Hispanic voters before 1972, but they were such a tiny percentage that they may not have been tracked. I am completely certain that no Hispanic majority ever voted for a Republican President prior to 1972 either. Hispanics just don’t vote Republican. They’re not as hardcore of Democrats as Blacks, but they are about next up.

Next to Bush Jr.’s record, Nixon comes in second for Hispanic votes. He got fully 40% of the Hispanic vote in 1972, but George McGovern, parodied as the ultimate hard loser in US politics, got a full 60% of the Hispanic vote in a year that was a legendary massacre for him. The fact that 60% of Hispanics voted for one of the most unpopular Democratic candidates in recent history really tells you something about how these people vote.

Hispanics voted for McGovern, Carter twice, Mondale, Dukakis, Bill Clinton twice, Gore, Kerry, Obama twice and Hillary.

The fact that so many media accolades were showered on George Bush Jr. after losing the Hispanic vote by 18 full points just shows you how pathetic the fools who think Hispanics will ever vote Hispanic in the next 20-25 years are.

7 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Democrats, Hispanics, Journalism, Obama, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Republicans, US Politics

Everyday Background Racism in America

DIaZkR-UwAASsD_

Face it, this is flat out racism.

This is the sort of thing the SJW anti-racists talk about when they talk about the normality and banality of everyday racism in the US. I hate SJW anti-racists and pretty much want them all dead, and they drastically exaggerate this problem.

Nevertheless, there is something to what they are saying. There is a certain amount of background normative quotidian racism against Blacks in this country. The reason for that is that way too many Black people act bad, but that’s no excuse for unfair captions like you can see above. The SJW’s and really any decent American would be correct to point out the glaring racism in the captions above. It’s just not right.

Note that the White people didn’t steal the food, they “found” some food in someone’s else’s grocery store! Sure wish I could find some food in my local grocery store and walk out the door with it! Presumably these heroic White people were just taking that food so they could have something to eat and survive. What are they supposed to do, wait until the stores open again? Note also that the Whites are residents, that is, they actually live in the neighborhood.

The Black on the other hand, is simply a youth. He is not described as a resident, though surely he is. The suggestion is that he does not live there and instead is simply some outsider who invaded the area to steal from local residents and their businesses.

And note that whereas the Whites just innocently happened on some food that someone left out for the taking, this Black kid was actually evil enough to steal some food. He stole it from a flooded out grocery store where most everything will be thrown away, but he’s still a thief. You know how those Black people are, always stealing. Presumably this Black kid has weeks worth of food back at home, undamaged by the flood, and he stole this food not because maybe he was hungry (probably the real reason) but just to be a sinister thieving sociopathic Black natural born criminal.

People call the Alt Left racist all the time, but I would say that the Alt Left is very much against this sort of unfair journalism. It’s just not fair. And if it’s not fair, the Alt Left is against it, as a general rule.

21 Comments

Filed under Anti-Racism, Blacks, Civil Rights, Cultural Marxists, Journalism, Left, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Sociology, USA, Whites

“Russia in Ukraine: Enemy or Friend?” by Eric Walberg

My good friend Eric Walberg sets the record straight on the Ukraine War. Bottom line is every single thing you are being told in the Western media is propaganda of some sort. It’s either a distortion, misleading or out and out false. The number of Western media outlets offering the truth of what is going on over there is zero. This is what I mean by our controlled media and why I say that there is no dissident press in the West.

Russia in Ukraine: Enemy or Friend?

Eric Walberg

Putin is either an aggressive schemer, to be opposed and vilified at all costs, or a wise, restrained real-politician, balanced irreconcilable forces next door. Which is it?

The 2014 coup in Ukraine succeeded due to the fierce campaign led by neo-fascists, heirs to the Banderistas of 1940–50’s, now lauded as freedom fighters, but seen at the time as terrorists, murdering Ukrainians and Jews, and sabotaging a Ukraine in shambles after the war. They had almost zero support then, having collaborated with the Nazis to kill tens of thousands, but their hero, Stepan, was honored with a statue in 2011, erected by the godfather of the current anti-Russian coupmakers, the (disastrous) former President Viktor Yushchenko. Ukraine’s Soviet war veterans were outraged and the statue was torn down in 2013, just months before the coup, bringing the Bandera-lovers back to power.

The eastern Ukrainians, mostly native Russians, centered in Donetsk and Lugansk, saw the coup as a surreal rerun of WWII, this time with Banderistas triumphant. They had no real plan, but panicked at the thought of what was to come, and seized government buildings and declared themselves mini-republics, calling on Russia to come and rescue them, as was happening in Crimea.

A tall order. Putin empathized with his fellow Russians, now being bombed and boycotted by the Ukrainian forces, with a death toll of 10,000 so far. Between 22 and 25 August 2014, Russian artillery, personnel, and what Russia called a “humanitarian convoy”, crossed the border into Ukrainian territory without the permission of the Ukrainian government.

This state of stalemate led the war to be labelled by some a war of aggression against poor Ukraine, a “frozen conflict”. The area has stayed a war zone, with dozens of soldiers and civilians killed each month. Close to 4,000 rebel fighters and the same number of ‘loyalists’ have been killed, along with 3,000 civilians. 1.5 million have been internally displaced; and a million have fled abroad, mostly to Russia.

A deal to establish a ceasefire, called the Minsk Protocol, was signed on 5 September 2014 but immediately collapsed. It called for reincorporation of the rebel territories under a federal system, with full rights of the Russian-speakers and open relations with the Russian Federation. Russia stands by the principles of the protocol, calling for Ukrainian borders to stay as they are, despite the pleas of the rebels. This restraint pleases neither side. The Russians clearly will not abandon their fellow Russians, but at the same time, refuse to invade and start a war with their unpredictable, basket-case of a neighbor. Russians are surely thinking: Ukrainians — you can’t get along with them or without them.

The Russian position is clear and firm: give Russian Ukrainian their rights, make our borders porous for locals and their relatives, revive shattered economic links among common peoples with a thousand years of common history. Get on with it.

The Ukrainian position is mostly hysterical, calling for NATO and Europe to fight off the Russkies, salvage the bankrupt economy, and ignore the creepy fascists. WWIII if necessary. The coupmakers are unrepentant as Ukraine slides deeper into insolvency, and corruption is getting worse (if that’s possible). Poroshenko is as unpopular as a leader can get, and only the threat of a Ukraine shattered in pieces gives him a life preserver among his citizens.

WWII replay

The West incited the coup and quickly embraced it, ignoring its unsavory origins in nostalgia for fascism. While it feigns shock and anger at Russian actions, it certainly can’t ignore that the Russians really had no choice, that their actions were/are both necessary and measured.

It looks suspiciously like the West is sitting back and enjoying the fisticuffs, reminding one of how the West sat back and let the Russians do the dirty work in WWII, defeating the Nazis, with the ‘Allies’ joining in the last year to warrant their claims (now the official story) that the US won the war — with a little help from its friends and even the nefarious Russians.

A messy conclusion to that war, the ultimate ‘frozen conflict’, the Cold War, that spawned the current many mini-frozen conflicts (Trans-Dniester, Abkhazia, Ossetia, Kosovo, not to mention ones farther afield, like Taiwan and Somaliland — all legacies of the Cold War).

‘No Pasaran!’

The plan is evolving, depending on what the Russians do. Putin’s red line is that Ukraine cannot – will not — join NATO. The NATO creep eastward, a violation from 1991 on of the implicit understanding with Gorbachev and Yeltsin, will not be tolerated.

The Ukrainian coup created a new scenario. If Russia had moved to support the rebel territories, form a customs union with open borders, aimed at eventual incorporation in the Russian Federation, that would have given the NATOphiles their trump card, and NATO and the EU would be hard pressed not to move in and try to salvage a bankrupt dysfunctional state, with the final coup as its prize: NATO now lined up surrounding Russia, the last real holdout against US world domination.

The Baltic ministates and (almost all) the Balkan ministates are now in the NATO fold. There are a few loose ends for the EU in the Balkans, but EU hegemony economically and US hegemony militarily are the new playing fields. Then there’s Turkey as a key NATO ally.

Whether this is an actual conspiracy or not only Russian hackers can tell, but the logic is there. Putin sees this logic and is not biting the bullet. Better a tolerable federated Ukraine where Russians are left in peace or another frozen conflict than NATO breathing fire on Russia’s borders.

The West played the ‘shock and anger’ card over Crimea, ignoring the fact that Crimea has been a key part of Russia since Catherine the Great incorporated it in 1783, the heart of Russian naval power, thoughtlessly given to Ukraine when Soviet internal borders were meaningless, populated by mostly Russians and Tatars.

As Ukrainian nationalism heated up after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia still maintained its bases there, paying rent to Ukraine. But dreams by Ukrainian Russophobes to join NATO and the desire of NATO forces to occupy Crimea or that somehow Russia and NATO could share Crimean bases are nonsensical. Russia’s only option was to accede to Crimeans’ pleas.

‘Remember 1856!’

As if to taunt the Russians on Crimea, a British missile destroyer and a Turkish frigate docked at the port of Odessa in July for a joint NATO maritime exercise , several days after the US, Ukraine and 14 other nations deployed warships, combat aircraft and special operations teams for the ‘Sea Breeze 2017’ exercise off the Ukrainian coast.

It looks like a reenactment of western policy following the Crimean War in 1856, when Russia was denied its naval presence in the Black Sea, as Britain and France were preparing to take the Ottoman territories for themselves and keep Russia out in the cold. Combined with the NATO creep in the Baltics and Balkans, it also looks like a replay of the build up to WWII but without the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. To Stalin’s (sorry, Putin’s) discomfort, there is no split among the imperialists anymore. Germany et al are postmodern nations, nations without a foreign policy, beholden to the world hegemon, the US. There is only one thousand-year Reich (sorry, Pax Americana) on the table these days. History may repeat itself but in its own ways.

Frozen conflicts have a bad reputation, but peace is always better than war. Tempers cool over time, and past wrongs can be ironed out with reason and compromise. Donetsk and Lugansk will not hoist a white flag to Kiev given the bad blood. They will continue to get electricity and gas from Russia and revive their economies by reviving trade and industry with their real ally. Kiev should be careful in its game of trying to starve the rebels into submission. Russians as a people have never backed down when faced with a hostile enemy.

The longer the freeze continues, the more willy-nilly integration with the Russian economic sphere will proceed. Or rather the Eurasian Customs Union (EACU) that Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan formed in 2010, eliminating obstacles to trade and investment that went up after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Moscow stands to benefit as a natural hub for regional finance and trade, and Ukraine is welcome. Win-win. A free trade pact as an economic strategy elevates the prospects of the entire region where Russia is a natural center of gravity. In 2015 the EACU was enlarged to include Armenia and Kyrgyzstan. Russia imports labor from the ‘Stans’ and could well help Ukraine by inviting Ukrainians to work as well.

Sensible realpolitik by the West would take NATO away from Russian borders and push Ukraine to make an acceptable deal on a federal state structure to keep its own Russians and its neighbor happy. Sensible realpolitik by Ukraine would be to join the EACU, bringing ‘Little Russians’, ‘White Russians,’ and plain old Russians back together. This would be welcomed with relief by EU officials who have no military ax to grind and are not happy about the billions it would take to get Ukraine off life support.

More here and here.

24 Comments

Filed under Armenia, Asia, Belarus, Britain, Cold War, Ethnic Nationalism, Eurasia, Europe, European, Fascism, France, Geopolitics, Germany, History, Imperialism, Journalism, Kazakhstan, Modern, Nationalism, Nazism, Near East, Political Science, Regional, Russia, South Asia, Turkey, Ukraine, USA, USSR, War, World War 2

Just Got Interviewed by Al Jazeera

Just got interviewed by a writer from Al Jazeera for an upcoming piece on the Alt Left . The real Alt Left, not this fake crap the conservatives refer to as Alt Left, which they mean the Hard Left, PC Left, SJW Left, or Antifa Left. The real Alt Left is opposed to all of those factions in one way or another.

I just counted up members of Alt Left sites on Facebook and there were over 18,000 members of groups that appeared to pushing real Alt Left ideas. On the other hand, I would probably renounce 50% or more of those people. Alt-Leftist Empire is the largest group with over 10,000 members, and I completely renounce them. These entryists have captured the movement and turned it into some sort of Cultural Left Libertarian Nationalism. Or something. Most support Trump and neoliberal capitalism. Supporting either is grounds for expulsion. No Alt Left person should support Trump except in a perverse way (accelerationism) and of course you can never support neoliberalism.

This movement is like a runaway train and it has gotten out of the hands of the people who started it in a very bad way, but a lot of political movements are probably like that.

So an article on me and the Alt Left, including quotes, should run in Al Jazeera fairly soon. Another may appear in Alternet at some point later. The author was not real friendly to the Alt Left, but I would not say he was extremely hostile either. I really don’t care how they portray us. In Hollywood they say all publicity is good publicity and that may well be true in politics also.

43 Comments

Filed under Capitalism, Cultural Marxists, Economics, Journalism, Left, Libertarianism, Nationalism, Neoliberalism, Political Science, Politics, US Politics, Vanity