Category Archives: Nationalism

The Putin Stole the Election Nonsense

Putin really does have over 80% popularity. There were six other people running in the latest election. Anyone could have voted for them, but few did. A lot of the opposition is not coming from a much different place than Putin is. The Communists are Left-Putinists and Zhirinovsky is a Nationalist-Putinist. Two others are more or less Putinists.

There were two pro-Western liberals running. Anyone could have voted for them. But only 2% did. That’s because about 2% of the country supports the pro-Western liberals.

State TV put both of these liberals on debate shows all time during the campaign. In fact, state TV puts anti-Putin people on all the time. The format is debates. Now, it is argued that Putin puts these people on these TV debate shows so his supporters can show how idiotic the liberals are, but they are definitely on TV.

The Russian opposition is all over the Internet, and I think all those sites are free for Russians to browse. There is a lot of opposition press published, mostly in Europe in places like Finland. It’s just that Russians don’t want to go to those sites.

Anti-Putin newspapers publish every day and are on sale in Moscow every morning.

There are many anti-Putin people writing in magazines and especially in opinion journals. There are anti-Russian websites you can go to that quote opposition people writing in some journal the most outrageous anti-Putin nonsense. A different opposition person is quoted in a different journal every day on those sites.

Look, if you give the people what they want, you get massive support. Putin gives the Russian people what they want. He’s a Russian nationalists. The pro-Western liberals are seen by most Russians as traitors. Those opinion surveys are conducted by good Western firms and are anonymous and completely reliable. No one knows who talked to some pollster, and no one worries about being persecuted for talking to some pollster.

The latest election was free and fair. Navalsky was forbidden from running because he’s a criminal. I think last time he ran he won ~1%. The Opposition called for a boycott of the elections, but that’s helpful. The voting was fair, the ballot is secret, and the votes are counted accurately. There are cameras in polling places to guard against fraud. There was a bit of fraud this time around, but the Election Council threw most of those votes out. Putin got 73% of the vote, and he gets 82% approval in polls. His election totals and his popularity line up very well.

4 Comments

Filed under Eurasia, Journalism, Left, Liberalism, Nationalism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Russia

Economics and White Racism/Nationalism in the US and Europe

Beauregard writes: Not all WN’s are NS. There is sort of a natural anti-government slant with them as they believe it unjustly compels Whites to support non-Whites through taxes or other.

In the US, White nationalists are all Libertarians and Republican type conservatives, no exceptions at all. Well, very few are not Libertarians and almost none of them oppose laissez faire economics and neoliberalism. At least of the typical US variety you see on the main US White nationalist sites. White nationalism in the US is a Libertarian movement – full stop, almost no exceptions.

The only exceptions would be a few of these Left of the Alt Right types coalescing around Rabbit and his site. Those are sort of leftwing White nationalists. A lot of people say that that makes no sense, but really it does. Ethnic nationalism doesn’t have to be rightwing. Rabbit is a liberal/Left type on almost every single issue other than race. How dare we call him a rightwinger.

In Europe, Libertarian White nationalists basically do not exist. There is literally no such thing. All Nazi and White nationalist types in Europe are socialists – usually national socialists. There are really no Libertarians period in Europe – the closest is the Tories and UKIP in the UK, but the UK has finally gotten sick and tired of Thatcherite neoliberalism, which was continued by the execrable Tony Blair.

Inequality has exploded and the UK is turning into a smaller version of the US. Why any sane nation on Earth would want to model itself on the United States is beyond me, but the general atmosphere in the UK now is US-type Republican Party politics for the Tories and disgusting Hillary/DNC corporate liberals in the Labor Party promoted by the Guardian and other fake left outfits. There has been a huge fight in the Labor Party over its soul as corporate branch of party seemed to have the power and the money, but they were defeated by a Sanders-style insurgency with Corbyn, who is now being predictably red-baited.

So racist Libertarianism is a peculiar American disorder, but it may have analogues in the ultra-capitalist reactionary politics of the Philippines and Latin America, in which the White and Chinese elites preside over a de facto Libertarian stripped state, the motivation for which being anti-Malay racism on the party of the Chinese and anti-mestizo, Indian, mulatto and Black racism on the part of the Latin American White elites. That’s probably as close of an analogue to US Libertarian racism (the Republican Party is a de facto ultra-racist party, as the reason for the Libertarianism, neoliberalism and government stripping is rooted in White racism seeing no use for government and government as a drain on White taxpayers to fund mestizo and Black good for nothing layabout criminals.)

Stormfront has always had a large socialist (national socialist) section possibly because all of the European forums are made up more or less completely of socialists. Tom Metzger, as nasty as he is, was at least for the workingman. This Heimbasch with his Traditionalist Workers Party seems to be onto a pro-worker project also. At this point, I’d rather support a pro-worker Nazi that a Goddamned corporate Democrat with neoliberal economics, neoconservative foreign policy and the Cultural Left on social issues. Neoliberals kill far more people every year than Nazis anyway. How many people do Nazis actually kill in a year? A handful? How many do neoliberals kill? Millions.

70 Comments

Filed under Asia, Asians, Black-White (Mulattos), Britain, Capitalism, Chinese (Ethnic), Conservatism, Economics, Ethnic Nationalism, Europe, Fascism, Government, Latin American Right, Left, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Malays, Mestizos, Mixed Race, National Socialism, Nationalism, Neoconservatism, Neoliberalism, Philippines, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Republicans, SE Asia, Socialism, US Politics, USA, White Nationalism, White Racism, Whites

Three Major Recent False Flag Attacks Staged by the US and Its Allies

In the  US-supported coup against the Venezuelan government in 2002, the Opposition managed to station some snipers on a bridge who shot their own people and Chavistas, US/fascist style.

US-supported thugs did the exact same thing in Syria and Ukraine – snipers on rooftops or in buildings fired on both police and demonstrators and then blamed it on the government in both cases. To this day the corporate media in the West continues to insist that Chavistas on the bridge fired on Opposition people (and their own supporters?), Syrian government police on rooftops fired on demonstrators below (and their own police?), and the Berkut Ukrainian police fired on demonstrators below (and their own police officers?).

All of these are lies, and all of these were false flag attacks to blame the opposition for a human rights outrage. All three were planned and supported by the US.

In the case of Syria, the snipers were Saudis and they were smuggled across the border.

In the case of Ukraine, the snipers were NATO forces carrying musical instrument cases all firing from one building. They were later allowed to leave without opposition by the new government. I have seen footage of these “musicians” (snipers) leaving the building and heading to planes back to where they came from. In Ukraine, the snipers were sent by NATO and came from Lithuania, Poland, and Georgia. NATO trained these snipers in Poland a couple of months before.

Some of the Georgian snipers are now on record saying that they were part of this false flag attack. They say they were tricked into firing on the two groups of people and now they feel betrayed. Of course, not one single media outlet in the West has reported on these Georgians testifying that they were the NATO snipers who fired on the people below. The killings were then used to justify a coup in the Ukraine in which a pro-Russian government was replaced by a Nazi Russophobic Ukrainian nationalist regime. The US cooked up these whole plot a few months before. A woman named Victoria Nuland was the go-to person for this plot. She started working on the plot several months before.

In the case of Syria, the massacre at the demonstration was blamed on the Syrian government and was used to justify a civil war against the Syrian government. To this day, all of the Western media bar none blames the attack on the demonstrations on Syrian police.

So there you can see three different false flag attacks that were planned by the US and its allies (especially NATO) using the same technique – snipers in a tall building or on a roof firing on both government supporters and security personnel and opposition demonstrators.

People say there is no such thing as false flags. Well there are three false flags right there, and two of them are in the last decade.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

Leave a comment

Filed under Americas, Conspiracies, Ethnic Nationalism, Eurasia, Europe, Fascism, Geopolitics, Georgia, Journalism, Latin America, Left, Lithuania, Marxism, Middle East, Nationalism, Nazism, Near East, Poland, Political Science, Regional, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South America, Syria, Ukraine, USA, Venezuela, War

Fake Controversies, Fake Settled Questions, and Ideological Authoritarianism in Modern Linguistics, with an Emphasis on Mutual Intelligibility and the Dialect/Language Question

There is a lie going around that the dialect/language question is controversial in Linguistics. It really isn’t. Most linguists have a pretty good idea of where to draw the line. If you don’t believe me, study the internals of the Summer Institute of Linguistics change request forms for languages. The field is a lot more uniform on this question than the cranks think.

Hardly anyone thinks Valencian is a separate language. There were 5-10 experts writing in on Valencian and they were all in agreement.

Romagnolo and Emilian were split with zero controversy. All it took was a few authoritative statements by the experts in these varieties to settle the question.

In other words, the language dialect question is what is known as a fake controversy.

Really the only controversy about this question comes from nationalists and language activists.

Sadly, many linguists are nationalists, and their work has been poisoned by their ideology for a long time now. Some of the worst ones of all are in Europe.

Linguistics in the Balkans and Poland has been badly damaged by nationalist linguists for a long time, with no sign of things getting better.

Similar nonsense is going on in of all places ultra-PC Denmark and Sweden. Bornholmian and Southeast Jutnish should have been split from Danish long ago. In fact, Jutnish was split, but Danish nationalist linguists pathetically had it removed.

The many langues d’oil have never been listed and probably never will be. No doubt this is due to the state of Linguistics in ultra-nationalistic France. There are easily 10-15+ langues d’oil that could be split off.

Greek linguist nationalists have raised their ugly heads over splits in Macro-Greek.

Bulgarian Linguistics is all nationalist and has been lost in retardation forever now. No, Macedonian is not a Bulgarian dialect.

There have been some ugly and ridiculous fights in the Baltics especially with Estonian and Latvian, neither of which is a single language. I doubt that Estonian and Latvian linguists are comporting themselves well here given the fanatical nationalism that overwhelms both lands.

There are easily 350-400 language inside of Sinitic or Chinese according to the estimate of the ultimate Sinologist Jerry Norman. The real figure is clearly closer to 1,000-2,000 separate languages. Chinese nationalism is mandatory for anyone doing Sinitic linguistics. No one wants to bring down the wrath of the Chinese government by pulling the curtain on their big lie that Chinese is one language. I am amazed that SIL even split Chinese into 14 languages without getting deluged with death threats.

Arabic is clearly more than one language, and SIL now has it split into 35 languages.  This is one odd case where they may have erred by splitting too much. That’s probably too many, but no one can even do any work in this area, since Arabists and especially Arabic speakers keep insisting, often violently, that Arabic is a single language. Never mind that they routinely can’t understand each other. We have Syrians and Yemenis at my local store, and no, the Syrian Arabic speakers cannot understand hard Yemeni Arabic, sorry. Some of the Yemeni Arabic speakers have even whispered conspiratorially in my ear when the others were not around that speakers of different Yemeni Arabic varieties often cannot even understand each other, and that’s not even split by SIL. I have a feeling that the Arabic situation is more like Chinese than not.

A Swedish nationalist wiped out several well documented separate languages inside of Macro-Swedish simply by making a few dishonest change request forms. SIL pathetically fell for it.

Occitan language activists wiped out the very well-supported split of Occitan into six separate languages based on ideology. They are trying to resurrect Occitan, and they think this will only work if there is one Occitan language with many dialects under it. Splitting it up into six or more languages dooms the tongue. So this was a political argument masquerading as a linguistic one. SIL fell for it again. Pathetic.

No one has talked much about these matters in the field, but a man named Harold Hammerstrom has written some excellent notes about them. He also takes the language/dialect question very seriously and has proposed more scientific ways of doing the splitting.

SIL was recently granted the ability to give out new ISO codes for languages, and since then, SIL has become quite conservative, lumping varieties everywhere in sight. This is because lumping is always the easy way out, as conservatives love lumping in everything from Classification to Historical Linguistics, and the field has been taken over by radical conservatives for some time now. Splitters are kooks, clowns, and laughing stocks. One gets the impression that SIL is terrified to split off new tongues for fear of bad PR.

As noted above, the language/dialect question is not as controversial in the field as Net linguist cranks would have you believe. SIL simply decides whatever they decide, and all the linguists just shrug their shoulders and go back to Optimality Theory, threatening to kill each other over Indo-European reconstructions, scribbling barely readable SJW sociolinguistic blather, or whatever it is they are crunching their brains about.

SIL grants an ISO code or refuses to grant one, and that’s that. No ISO code, no language. The main problem is that they refuse to split many valid languages mostly out of PC fear of causing a furor. Most of the opposition to splitting off new languages comes from linguistic hacks and cranks who exist for the most part on the Internet.

Most real linguists don’t seem to care very much. I know this because I talk to real linguists all the time. When it comes to the dialect/language split, most of them find it mildly intriguing, but hardly anyone is set off. You tell them that some dialect has now been split off as a separate language or two languages have now been merged into one, and they just perk up their ears and say, “Oh, that’s interesting.” Sometimes they shrug their shoulders and say, “They (SIL) are saying this is a separate language now,” as if they really don’t care one way or another.

Linguists definitely get hot under the collar about some things, but not about the dialect/language question, which is regarded more as a quizzical oddity. Most linguists furthermore care nothing at all about the mutual intelligibility debate, which at any rate was resolved long ago by SIL way back in the 1950’s. See the influential book by Cassad written way back then for the final word on the science of mutual intelligibility. Some enterprising linguists are finally starting to take mutual intelligibility seriously, but even they are being much too wishy-washy and unsciency about it. A lot of very silly statements are made like “there is no good, hard scientific way to measure mutual intelligibility, so all figures are guesswork.”

There’s no need for these theoretical shields or hyper-hedging because no one cares. No one in the field other than a few nutcases and kooks on the Internet even gives two damns about this question in the first place. The mutual intelligibility question is actually much less controversial in the field that the linguist kook loudmouths on the Net would have you believe.

We have more important things to fight about, like Everett’s resurrecting of the hated Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis; Chomsky’s Universal Grammar (defended pathetically by the Old Guard and under attack by the Everett crowd who everyone hates); not to mention Altaic; and Joseph Greenberg’s poor, regularly pummeled ghost, along with mass comparison in general.

The field is full of many a silly and pretty lie. One for instance is that Linguistics rejected the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis long ago, and now it is regarded as a laughing stock. Actually that’s not true. Really a bunch of bullies got together and announced very arrogantly that Sapir-Whorf was crap, and then it become written in stone the way a lot of nonsense our field believes does.

If you go back over the papers that “proved” this matter, it turns out that they never proved one thing. They just said that they proved Sapir-Whorf was nonsense, and everyone fell for it or just got in line like they were supposed to.

Not to mention that Linguistics is like an 8th Grade playground.

Let’s put it this way. If you advocate for Sapir-Whorf in academia, I pray for your soul. You also damn well better have tenure.

I don’t know how anyone advocates for Altaic these days. I would never advocate for Altaic or any remotely controversial historical linguistics hypothesis without tenure.

The field is out for blood, and they burn heretics at the stake all the time. We’ve probably incinerated more wrong thinkers than the Inquisition by now.

3 Comments

Filed under Afroasiatic, Altaic, Arabic, Balto-Slavic-Germanic, Chinese language, Comparitive, Danish, Denmark, Dialectology, Europe, France, Germanic, Greece, Greek, Hellenic, Indo-European, Indo-Hittite, Indo-Irano-Armeno-Hellenic, Italic, Italo-Celtic, Italo-Celtic-Tocharian, Language Classification, Language Families, Linguistics, Nationalism, Occitan, Poland, Political Science, Regional, Romance, Semitic, Sinitic, Sino-Tibetan, Sociolinguistics, Sweden

Catholic Communism: The Story of the Catholic Left in Europe

The link between Catholicism and the Left has been ongoing for some time now. In Eastern Europe, especially in Czechoslovakia, Catholic Communists were common enough to form an actual movement. Obviously there were Catholic Communists in Spain and particularly in the Basque Country. The ETA was virtually a Catholic Communist revolutionary movement. The armed Left, especially the Communists, started killing priests in the Spanish Civil War. Although burning churches has been an odd tradition in Spain for a good century now, the actual killing of priests did not go over well. Of course the same could be said of the great IRA in Ireland, most of whom were Catholics.

In Poland, Ukraine and Lithuania, unfortunately, the Catholics were virulently anti-Communist for whatever reason. The Communists under Stalin brutally repressed the church, killing many priests and lay workers. In Poland and Ukraine, Catholicism got wrapped up in an anti-Communism in a horrible way. One of the main beefs against Communism particularly in Poland was that the Communists were not only anti-nationalists but mostly that they were anti-Catholic. At any rate, Catholicism and nationalism are so wrapped together in Poland that one can hardly see where one ends and the other begins.

Nevertheless, most of the virulent Polish nationalist Catholic anti-Communist were committed socialists. However, many of these folks who were often also anti-Semites as these Poles linked Communism with Jews. Anti-Semitism in Poland is as old as dirt. Yitzhak Rabin once noted that Poles learn their anti-Semitism at their mother’s breast – it’s that deeply rooted in the culture. There was a nationalist rally in Poland recently that drew a huge crowd of 50,000. One of the things that they demanded was a Judenfrei Poland. The problem is that there are probably no more than 4,000 Jews in Poland to this day. One wonders what evil effects such a tiny community could have on the national body politic, yet this shows you the intensity and paranoia of Polish antisemitism.

In Eastern Europe, there is a big difference between a socialist and a Communist. Almost everyone you meet in Eastern Europe is a socialist or practically one, although Poland is particularly pathetic in this regard, a sorry habit in light of the centuries of abuse the reactionary feudal lords committed against the 95% serf Poles for centuries. The Polish ruling class is still feudal in nature and has changed little since the days of the lords of the land. It also has deep ties to a deeply conservative Polish army, which has always had strong links to the feudal royal ruling classes.

It is a little told story, but when Communism first came to Poland, it was quite popular, particularly among the downtrodden peasants. It was also very popular among the urban proletariat and to some extent among intellectuals. But the brutality of the Polish Communists working in the model of Stalin quickly doomed the project. The Polish Communists were hoist on their own petard. Even Stalin recognized the futility of the project. “Imposing Communism on the Poles,” Stalin said, “Was like trying to put a saddle on a cow.” Basically doomed from Day one.

Leave a comment

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Catholicism, Christianity, Czechoslovakia, Economics, Europe, Ireland, Left, Lithuania, Marxism, Nationalism, Poland, Political Science, Racism, Regional, Religion, Socialism, Spain, Ukraine, USSR

About that Coup in Turkey

Remember the bizarre coup a year ago in the summer, which Turkish President Erdogan said was fomented by his arch rival Gulen and his network?

This coup is an example of just how dirty and evil geopolitics really is. The truth is that geopolitics is a dirty game where only sociopaths need apply. If  you’re not already a sociopath, you will have to act like one in order to play this nasty game. If you’re not a sociopath, I have a hard time seeing how you can even engage in geopolitics considering all the dirty business you will have to engage in.

Back to the coup.

Actually Gulen and the Gulenists had nothing whatsoever to do with the coup. The coup was actually staged by secular Ataturkist Turkish nationalists in the military over Erdogan’s attempt to Islamicize a secular state and his disgusting corruption. It looks like Erdogan was warned about the coup beforehand by someone, possibly the Russians.

It also looks like the US was involved in the coup and definitely had foreknowledge. The US motivation for the coup would have been to punish and remove Erdogan for his recent moves cozying up with the Russians, as Erdogan had started making friendly with them only a week before the coup. This infuriated the Deep State, so they activated their coup network in the Turkish military. This network already had their own reasons for wanting Erdogan out.

It looks like Erdogan knew that the coup was going to go down and simply allowed it to happen so he could use it to his devious advantage. Erdogan already had lists with tens of thousands of names on them of his enemies to be arrested in case of a coup. Obviously these lists had been made up long beforehand and were sitting in some drawer just waiting to be used.

So he whipped them out and arrested ~40,000 of his enemies, mostly people who were part of this Gulen Network, which actually had nothing whatsoever to do with the coup. Gulen is an Islamist just like Erdogan and in fact, he was close to Erdogan until they had some sort of falling out, which resulted in Gulen’s becoming Enemy #1. Gulen does indeed have a network in the military and all around society, but they are not secular and were not involved in the coup. We can tell who the coup plotters were by the language used in the statements they issued during the coup. The wording used would only be used by Turkish secular Ataturkist nationalists. Many of Erdogan’s enemies were killed in the roundups. Much more were arrested and thrown in prison, where many of them were tortured.

Anyway, Erdogan immediately blamed Gulen (falsely) and then set about dismantling his network in Turkey while also shutting down most of the opposition press and arresting most of the opposition politicians. As of now, Erdogan is simply dictator of Turkey. Turkey is also an untouchable member of NATO of all things.

Leave a comment

Filed under Eurasia, Europe, Geopolitics, Nationalism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Russia, Sociopathy, Turkey, USA

Alt Left: Homage to Catalonia

DLCklLHWkAAJsYF

“This level of repression in Catalonia has not been seen since the Franco dictatorship.” – American academics

The Catalan people are having a revolution.

A referendum was held in Catalan territories today to decide if Catalonia should secede from Spain. The Spanish state called out the Guardia Civil to stop the vote. Incredible footage of  police beating up and shooting rubber bullets at voters were broadcast on the Net. Even more dramatic footage emerged of Catalan firefighters battling Guardia Civil police in the streets. That footage was simply breathtaking.

One video I saw showed armed Spanish police raiding a polling station, grabbing ballot boxes, trashing them and throwing them on the floor, scattering the votes. Other police were confiscating ballot boxes full of ballots from angry voters who were engaged in a tug of war with police, trying to keep the ballots from being confiscated.

I saw that and thought, “This is what fascism looks like.”

Indeed, the Conservative Party that now rules Spain has deep roots to Francoist Fascism. The Fascists never went away after the return of democracy to Spain. Instead, there are still millions of Spaniards who support fascism. I have been to their Internet sites. Those are large sites with hundreds of people commenting on them. Most of the Fascist supporters drifted back into politics and although the Conservative Party has no official fascist links, nevertheless the remaining fascists are still associated with that party if they are associated with any party at all. It is like the link between the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda or the relationship of White Supremacists to the Republican Party.

Earlier today, the votes apparently were counted and the referendum appears to have won by a landslide vote. The President of the region of Catalonia urged the Legislature to implement the resolution voted on and to declare the independence of Catalonia from Spain. That was about eleven hours ago or around noon PST.

What do the Catalan people want? Land and Freedom, nothing less. Instead they got 1984. Shame!

From 1937 to 2017, the spirit of the Catalan people remains unbroken. The cry, “¡No pasarán!” yet rings through the streets of Barcelona, the echoes of eighty years.

What I saw in the faces of those Catalan protesters, no power can disinherit. No explosion that ever burst can shatter the crystal spirit of the Catalan people.

The voice of independence radiates across Spain and the rest of Europe, shaking the very foundations the EU.

Let the EU bureaucrats tremble at a Catalan Revolution. The Catalans have nothing to lose but their Nationalist chains. They have a Europe to win.

Nations want to be free. Let freedom ring across the lands!

 

3 Comments

Filed under Europe, European, Fascism, History, Modern, Nationalism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Revolution, Spain

Poland Talks Alt Left! Polish Left Political Journal Discusses the Alt Left movement with a Focus on My and Rabbit’s Writing: “Race Realism, Or Center-Left on Culture,” by Michael Smolen

Race Realism, Or Center-Left on Culture

MICHAŁ SMOLEŃ

Writer for Respubliki Nowa. He writes about social philosophy and innovation.

March 13, 2017

Krytyka Polityczna

Two marginal racist bloggers from the US claim to start a new movement on the Left.

We are beautifully different on the Left, and it’s one of the great things about us.. Each leftwing tendency focuses on a slightly different target group and offers a slightly different view of the world situation. So it is worthwhile to rise above the divisions, often driven more by personal conflict than actual ideology, and to open ourselves up to the entire spectrum of the leftwing media, all the way from liberal center-left to very radical. Disagreement is natural, and ferment is creative. Sometimes, nevertheless, people on the left advocate disappointing ideologies that are hard for the rest of us to get behind.

THE LATEST FASHION

The article started out interesting anyway: “I would like to criticize the leftwing of the Vistula backwater for not being aware of the latest leftwing tendencies emanating from our leftwing brethren from the Fatherland of the World Creative Class” – begins an article about the “Alt Left” written by Dr. Hab. Jaroslaw Tomasiewicz which appeared in New Citizen, a Polish leftwing social justice magazine. I regard foreign influences as inevitable and often useful, so naturally I was interested in this new leftwing movement outside the mainstream which has so far escaped my attention.

After today often encountered failure characteristics “Hipster-Left”, focused on easy wojenkach culture, the author writes about the new collective actor on the political scene, “The Alt Right – a rebirth of the “Old Hard Right” – ethnopolitical, traditionalist, populist – in a new postmodern form. A sort of return to the roots. And the Alt Right managed to overcome the Mainstream Left on its own home turf: to win the support or the workers by emphasizing economics and de-emphasizing cultural issues. Think a somewhat obsolete Thomas Frank.

A flashing red light at this point heralds a warning. Did Donald Trump really gain the support of part of the White working class through the efforts of the teenage racist trolls under the leadership of Richard Spencer – the elegant (at least when not performing a Seig Heil), erudite, and informal leader of the Alt Right?

You are probably thinking of the Centrist Democrats so disliked by Tomasiewicz. It seems however that the notion that the anti-elitist mood of working class Trump voters (many of whom supported Obama in the past) was powered by the notions of the Alt Right leader Spencer is not only factually questionable but also overly bleak in that it elides the appeal of Trump to a section of the electorate steeped in US nationalism. Or perhaps this is just a problem of the Old Left?

Tomasiewicz :

Some believe that the challenge posed by the Alt Right requires a symmetrical response: the creation of an alternative to the Mainstream Left emphasizing the forgotten foundations of Leftism, such as the primacy of economics over culture, the relationship of the base to the superstructure, and a return to the Marxian thesis that ‘existence shapes consciousness.’

Next there is a quote from a manifesto from Alternative Left writer Robert Lindsay proclaiming,

We will be leftwing on economic matters […] but rather Centrist in the sphere of culture.

Tomasiewicz later cites another vague point in Lindsay’s manifesto of the Alternative Left. This vision paints a picture of the Social Democratic movement distanced from the alleged excesses of Cultural Left, materialistic in the old style, although “small and diverse” – which, although it should not be imitated in the dark (we as Poles have common sense), nevertheless deserves our at least with fingers crossed.

RACIAL REALISM

So what’s wrong with this picture? More than you’d expect. The author refers to two online sources for information about the Alt Left, and clicking on either of them reveals some rather disturbing content. The Altleft.com site notes at the top of the page that it is The Left Wing of the Alt Right. Nothing dziwnegi therefore that it is enough time to go through the lengthy scraps to find the few real gems. In the text quoted by Tomasiewicz, we find this passage:

Though I disagree with him on some ideological points…It just so happens that I support Richard Spencer and repeatedly defended him when some oversensitive (and often sanctimonious) factions or some prominent individuals of the AltRight unsuccessfully tried to sacrifice him to improve the image of the movement.

In another text by the author of the site (who goes by the pseudonym “Rabbit”) in response to an appeal to downplay the racial aspect of the Alternative Left brand, he said:

The Alt Left always been about race realism and gender realism. This is the whole fucking nail on the head!

What is race realism? It’s the familiar old and frightening idea that believes in biological differences between “races” of people, eg. in terms of IQ, which it stipulates as very important for races to gain social or political significance. AltLeft.com openly promotes White Nationalism, and at the same time is quite honest, which clearly shows in the title of one of his posts talking about the “unreality” of nonracist “race realism”. The post notes the hypocrisy of the supposedly nonracist race realists and asks a rhetorical question:

“What’s wrong with hatred anyway?”

What of the second author of the Alternative Left manifesto commented on by Tomasiewicz? Robert Lindsay is a prolific blogger who refers to himself as a “liberal race realist” (the title of his previous ideological project), who rejects Political Correctness and “Cultural Marxism” and in their stead proposes “positive White identity” and masculinity for men (to fight Gender Feminism and Radical Feminism).

Once again though – it is not difficult to see where Lindsay is really coming from. Although in the manifesto quoted by Tomasiewicz, Lindsay rejects “racist fascism”, it begins with an attack on the Black Lives Matter movement and ridicules people who talk about White privilege or have an “obsession about structural racism.”

According to Lindsay, to belong to Alt Left, one should accept “racial realism”, which is one of the three pillars of Alt Left ideology – the other two are leftwing views on economics, to which Lindsay moreover dedicates little space, and a special form of moral libertinism who boils down to formally supporting the basic rights of minorities combined with a gut hatred against the movements that are fighting for those very rights.

Lindsay seems to be less directly hateful – and more eccentric – than Rabbit, but his journalism nevertheless includes discussions about the abominations of gay sexual practices, alleged reasons why women cannot lead Western civilization, and complaints about aggressive and obnoxious “Jewy Jews” who are themselves responsible for anti-Semitism.

As for the Alt Left, this is all we need to know about it right here. Tomasiewicz refers only to Lindsay and the author of a blog about the “Left Wing of Alt Right” because that’s all there is to the Alternative Left. Otherwise, the concept still appears occasionally as a rhetorical device in journalism, primarily as an insult. So the entirety of this new and noteworthy movement is a small group of readers of two marginal blogs that are attempting to enrich the standard White Nationalism of the Alt Right with an aversion to neoliberalism and a promotion of anti-feminist libertarianism (the latter being merely a rejecting the traditionally conservative views of women).

LEFT PRIEST JOHN

The detailed reasons why this leftwing website published a fictitious post about a couple of marginal racists in the chronicle New Citizen are not something that should concern readers. Suffice to say that it is difficult to believe in the sincerity of the author, who was after all the one who first discovered the sites of these bloggers. Why did he go out of his way to ferret out these marginal bloggers? Nevertheless, I do not think however that one could accuse the editor-in-chief of tolerance for “race realism,” nor is the readership enthusiastic about this concept.

The case recalls to me deeper concerns of some Polish Left intellectuals’ dislike for the “Left of Manners” or Cultural Left. Often it is not so much about the demands of this faction but more about the alleged incompatibility of this project with the conservative nature of the Polish people. These charges are often simply unfair.

For this often based on fantasies – Maciej Gdula in Political Critique accurately dismantled the idea of the conservatism of the people that is shared by anti-elitist liberals as well as the current anti-elitist Left. A plea to keep the Left only about the workers and to reject helping different minorities seems particularly unfair when we look at the development in recent years of leftwing movements and characters (like Total in Poland or Bernie Sanders in the US), fully and harmoniously integrating cultural issues and economics.

The spectacular failure of this article on the “Alternative Left” to resonate on the Polish Left brings to light another problem. This article published in the New Citizen is the modern equivalent of the medieval legend about the state ruled by Father John, a Christian enclave somewhere in the distant Orient.

We can see that the Cultural Left is an imaginary issue on the Left in anecdotes written by various intellectuals as diverse as Remigiusz Okraska, Stephen Twardoch and David Wildstein that the notion of the good old-fashioned Polish people who do not care about these newfangled cultural oddities is every year moving further from reality.

Tomasiewicz article, in which the role of Father John played the Richard Spencer, stands out as an apology for some particularly nasty and in the Polish context completely unacceptable notions such as race realism (perhaps even our extremist ONR does not openly promote the idea of biological racism). We need only barely scrape the surface of almost any “Morally Centrist” manifesto’s concern for ordinary people to see the usual hatred and disgust for certain disadvantaged groups – sometimes consciously  but more often probably not. In this situation, to put on a mask of folk naiveté seems to be at best frivolous and at worst insincere and wicked, and we have not even begun to deal with the extreme views of of Rabbit of AltLeft.com which go so much further than that.

3 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Culture, Democrats, Economics, Europe, Labor, Left, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Nationalism, Neoliberalism, Poland, Political Science, Politics, Race Realism, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Republicans, Sane Pro-White, US Politics, White Nationalism

Polish Political Scientist on the Alt Left

This is a very important article, the first review of the Alt Left ever written by an actual expert on politics, in this case a Political Science professor. The only problem is that he lives in Poland and he wrote this article in Polish! He seems to support the Alt Left. He discusses both me and Rabbit, but most of the focus is on me. And why not? I am the one who started this whole mess after all.

Here it is translated in the best translation I could do.

Alt-Left

Dr Hab. Jarosław Tomasiewicz

02-10-2017

For a decade I have criticized the Polish Left for intellectual impotence expressed in the mindless import of foreign designs. CTRL + C, CRTL + V. It is such a vicious circle: the peculiar combination of geopolitical, historical, socioeconomic and cultural factors has left the Left in Poland (aside from some historical exceptions) a lone minority.

The feeling of isolation meant that the Left waited for outside help (“Moscow yesterday, today Brussels”); elevating “brotherly international solidarity” instead of concentrating on the workers at home deepened the alienation of the Left. Where, a hundred years ago, the Left flourished intellectually (Brzozowski, Abramowski, Luxembourg, Kelles-Krauz, Machajski, Hempel – and many, many others), nowadays, after decades of importing foreign ideas and attempting to implant them in Polish culture, the Polish Left has become intellectually sterile. Bringing the Polish Left to the role of translator of external trends, I see not only me – a “very strange figure” as one of the leftwing editors once called me – but also the Left-leaning generals.

But there is no need to repeat myself as my position on this is well-known. On the contrary – I will criticize the Native Left of the Vistula Backwater for remaining unaware of the latest cutting edge Left political programs from our brethren born in the homeland of the World Creative Class, that is, America.

This latest development followed this pattern:

In recent years, the Hipster Left, now pretending to be a Radical Left, has sunk in the warm sun of a Liberal Mainstream now dominated by the geopolitical system. It was safe to fight for progress behind the back of the liberal state – obviously not to seek any pure utopia ostensibly criticized for “errors and distortions”, but it was still considered less evil than the menace of populism.

The Left was kept in check by the “enlightened absolutism” of the European Union and America reasserting itself as as the keystone of the global order under the leadership of  the benign Uncle Barack. In this way, a phenomenon characteristic of the final days of empires emerged.

First, the Imperialist Left who finance social reforms in the metropolis of the First World profited from the Developed World’s hegemonic oppression of the periphery – the people in the Third World – and therefore was interested in maintaining the existing oppressive geopolitical order This situation was described well by Bernard Semmel.

Next, the toothless Mainstream Right, centered on maximizing corporate profits, could still attempt to launch a Cultural War but was instead generally pushed into a deeply defensive position due to the increasing domination of culture by the Cultural Left.

Finally, the Far Right was more interested in their hysterical, sensationalist, and conspiratorial media than in the real world .

Until one day a Demon returned from the the past.

An “Alt Right” appeared on the scene. “The Alternative Right”: alternative to the Mainstream Right. The phenomenon is otherwise uneven. This is not a reactionary neoliberal/neoconservative New Right whose last expression was the Tea Party. Alt Right is the rebirth of the hard-core “Old Right” – ethnopolitical, traditionalist, populist – in new postmodernist forms. A unique return to the roots. And it was the Alt Rightists who managed to beat the mainstream left in its own field: to win the support of the workers using non-cultural terms (Thomas Frank was a bit outdated) and economics. Workers from the Core Belt backed protectionism against globalism.

For the Left, who has already forgotten the anti-imperialism that once characterized it, this is a geopolitical earthquake like a reversal of the Earth’s magnetic poles. Suddenly there was no point of support, no reference point. The Left must find himself given the reality of this new situation. We need self-criticism, reorientation, and re-evaluation. Answer the question: What is to be done? The most popular answer is: What we have always done, only moreso. Purge the ranks, dig in their positions.

This is a bourgeois reaction frightened by the status quo. The bureaucracies of the safe zones become the universities and the liberal self-governments of the big cities. Rolling Stone Magazine describes the formation of the anti-Trump coalition . There will be pro-immigrant groups, environmentalists, feminists, sexual minorities, gun control advocates, and  interestingly, “true conservatives” (the neoconservatives) who are reluctant to support Trump. Did I miss anyone? Did you notice? One group I failed to mention is the unions. It seems that the Left has insulted the workers. Instead of Democrats meeting with union leaders, Trump meets with them.

However, not all American Leftists are carnal cult members, confident that the repetition of certain rituals will provide them with prosperity. Some believe that the challenge of Alt-Right requires a symmetrical response: to create an alternative to the Left mainstream harkening back to the forgotten foundations of the left. Opponents see the emergence of the Alt-Left phenomenon as a new embodiment of the alliance of extremes, “the place where Pat Buchanan meets Ralph Nader, ” although Alt-Leftists reject any form of cooperation with actual fascists, hardcore racists, and obsessive and conspiratorial anti-Semites. Proponents argue that this is a de facto return to the tradition of the Old Left – “the Left as it was from the Second World War to the counter-culture of the 1960’s.”

This implies first and foremost, the primacy of economics over culture, the primordial basis of superstructure, and a return to the Marxian thesis that “being forms consciousness.” Contempt for the poor and losers in capitalist society is condemned as one of the worst sins of all.

“We will be Left on economic matters [but] more Centrist on culture,” wrote Robert Lindsay, a leading Alt Left thinker.

This approach puts the Alt Left in opposition to both technocratic social democrats that have long since taken up neoliberalism while abandoning the working class on the Right and the “Cultural Left” on the other side of the political spectrum. The Alt-Left sees the Right as simply “traitors to the working class – our class enemies,” according to Lindsay. But it is towards the second group, which the Alt-Left sees as “rootless cosmopolitans,” that the Alt-Left devotes most of its polemical fervor.

Alt Left tolerates the Cultural Left as long as they are relatively quiet about their antagonizing views. The Cultural Left is criticized not for the legitimacy or direction of cultural change but rather for its extremism.

Lindsay writes:

Gay Rights – yes! Gay politics – no! Support and tolerance for biological homosexuals to live their lives as they wish in freedom and happiness. On the other hand, homosexuality should not be exalted or promoted […].

Women’s rights – yes! Women’s politics – no! The Alternative Left supports equity feminism while rejecting  the gender feminism of radical feminists who hate men.

According to Alt-Leftists, the “Identity Politics” promoted by the Cultural Left led to the replacement of class struggle with racial and/or sexual conflict. In this view, White people were evil…and anyone who was not White was automatically a saint. This meant not only that all Whites were part of a racist class but that they also all shared collective responsibility and guilt. Let us note that while class membership can be changed relatively easily, race or gender cannot, which makes any antagonism engendered by race or gender insurmountable.

Another aspect of the Alternative Left is internationalism, but here it is understood as anti-imperialism instead of cosmopolitanism. Lindsay emphasizes that the desire of people to have a national, ethnic or religious identity should be seen as a right that can not be interfered with. The result is an acceptance of  the multiculturalism of immigrants in the first generation but the promotion of assimilation in the next. On the one hand, extreme patriotism and Western imperialism are also criticized –  the Alt Left even singles out Bernie Sanders, as as a “Cold War liberal”. On the other hand, the view that “the West is pure evil” is rejected. The Alt Left detaches itself from both anti-Semitism and Radical Zionism, accepting anti-Zionists but also moderate Zionists.

The American Alt Left has been around for only little over one year (the site Altleft.com appeared in November 2015), and is a small movement made up of a number of different strands or wings.

One of Lindsay’s followers wrote:

Unfortunately, Alt Left attracts a wide variety of weird people, and each one has their own clichéd ideas for what Alt Left should be.

Well, beginnings are always difficult.

Should Poles mimic the Alt Left? No. It is enough to return to our native traditions, a matter-of-fact, homegrown analysis of reality – simply common sense. Swallows can be seen.

Dr Hab. Jarosław Tomasiewicz,.born in 1962, is a political scientist and researcher at the Institute of History of the University of Silesia, a journalist, and an author of a number of books in recent years, Terrorism against Political Violence: An Encyclopedic Outline (2000), Between Fascism and Anarchism: New Ideas for a New Era (2000), New National Democratic Party Groups in the Third Republic (2003), Evil in the Name of Good: The Phenomenon of Political Violence (2009) and National Revolution: The Nationalist Ideas of Social Revolution in the Second Republic (2012), as well as many magazine, newspaper and journal articles. He is a regular contributor to The New Citizen.

New Citizen 13
Publisher: Association of Citizens
Website: kooperatywa.org

3 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Capitalism, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Democrats, Economics, Europe, Geopolitics, Immigration, Imperialism, Internationalism, Labor, Left, Liberalism, Nationalism, Neoconservatism, Neoliberalism, Obama, Poland, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Republicans, US Politics, USA, Vanity, 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