Majorityrights Central > Category: Cultural Marxism

When do we get back to 1983?

Posted by Guessedworker on Monday, 15 June 2009 01:31.

One is bound to ask who, in 2009, still doesn’t know that “diversity” “enriches” no one?  Who doesn’t know that blacks fail educationally a little too often, or that the danger of violence is always heightened amid black populations?  Who doesn’t know that Jews are powerful and extremely self-interested?

Well, officially everybody.  And after all, the official version is the only version that counts.

Officially, we live, all of us, in the land of the blind.  The great prepronderance of those around us accept that they are supposed to be blind, and fight off awkward enquiries with a mortified urgency.  But such willingness to put out one’s own eyes is based in fear, of course.  The most fearful are also the most sincerely convinced.  There are those who take as their own the descriptions of the world given them by others.  They believe truth to be lies, and the blindingly obvious to be immoral.  They are not free to think, for they do not begin thinking from the right, but from anything but the right.

Today, The Independent produced a hate-scribble titled “Racist rants of elected BNP man, Andrew Brons, revealed”.

In 1983, when he was in his late twenties, Andrew Brons edited the National Front’s general election manifesto that called for a global apartheid to prevent the “extinction” of whites everywhere.

The Let Britain Live! manifesto was prepared by the party’s policy department, chaired by Brons. It outlined a series of hugely controversial positions ...

These are the “hugely controversial positions” that Mr Brons and the NF advocated.

1. The NF rejects the whole concept of multiracialism.  The NF believes the gradual dismantlement of the apartheid system since the passing of the Race Relations Act in 1976 to be retrograde.  The alternative to apartheid, multiracialism, envisages an extinction of the White man.

2. The NF recognises inherent racial differences in Man.  The races of Man are profoundly unequal in their characteristics, potential and abilities.  Europeans have a greater cognitive ability than non-whites.

3. The UK has been swamped by racially incompatible Afro-Asians.

4. Black muggings of White people, especially elderly ladies, occurs regularly.

5. The eruptions in Bristol in 1980 and Brixton in 1981 were just two examples of the “cultural enrichment” promised to us by the multiracialists.

6. One ethnic, national and religious group whose power and influence has undoubtedly increased has been the Jews.

7. A number of predominantly Zionist organisations control government.

8. It can be no mere coincidence that the number of people of Jewish ethnic origin to be found in internationalist and multiracialist schools of thought and organisations of action is out of all proportion to their numbers in the population.

Shock horror, it’s all here.  The drastic effects of immigration on the native British, the issues of black violence and criminality, black IQ, the Israel lobby and the wider Jewish Question ... these are the holy of holies of thought police everywhere.  In a free land of free-speakers they should be the litmus test for the health of the polity.  But this ain’t a free land, and by finding Brons’ list “hugely controversial” in 1983 when it wasn’t, and when academic political correctness had not yet crossed the pond eastward from America, The Independent demonstrates the completeness of its slavery to the Lie Machine.

Yet despite all this, there is that feeling of fragility to the whole enterprise.  The moment when the image of a Marxised life arose in radical opposition to life itself was a long time ago now.  No one loves thought control.  Nothing so man-made and so damned offensive can last forever.  Official discourse is already vitiated and devalued.  It has become too embarrassing and too cognitively dissonant for politicians to “celebrate diversity”.  It is inevitable that, united in their inability to swallow the customary forms of lying and living in lying, people will rediscover their fearlessness and their freedom.

The only question is when.


Rumble in the Shtetl: Von Mises vs. Marx

Posted by Guest Blogger on Saturday, 04 April 2009 12:44.

By exPF

This is the pilot episode of a new series of posts where rival Jewish theoreticians go head to head in a blood-and-guts extravaganza like nothing else you’ve ever seen! Its incredible, its shocking - at the end of the fight, only one theoretician will be left standing!!! Are you ready?
Predicates will fly, conditional sentences will crunch, assertions will go “snap” under the gruesome, bone-crushing force of Ashkenazi brilliance! Be prepared to be mildly startled!

In the far corner, weighing in at 190 lbs not including the facial hair, German jewry’s gift to Eastern Europe’s smart fraction: KAAARRLL MAAARX!

In the near corner, the reigning champion, 167 lbs of pure Jewish Freedom: LUDWIG VON MISES!!!

LET’S GET READY TO RUMBLE!!! (cue music)

And they’re off! - Mises starts off with a critique from his essay, Marxism Unmasked (pfd). He describes Marxist theory in outline.

Marx developed what he thought was a new system.According to his materialist interpretation of history, the “material productive forces” (this is an exact translation of the German) are the bases of everything. Each stage of the material productive forces corresponds to a definite stage of production relations. The material productive forces determine the production relations, that is, the type of ownership and property which exists in the world. And the production relations determine the superstructure. In the terminology of Marx, capitalism or feudalism are production relations. Each of these was necessarily produced by a particular stage of the material productive forces. In 1859, Karl Marx said a new stage of material productive forces would produce socialism.

But what are these material productive forces? Just as Marx never said what a “class” was, so he never said exactly what the “material productive forces” are. After looking through his writings we find that the material productive forces are the tools and machines. In one of his books [Misère de la philosophie—The Poverty of Philosophy], written in French in 1847, Marx said “the hand mill produces feudalism––the steam mill produces capitalism.”3 He didn’t say it in this book, but in other writings he wrote that other machines will come which will produce socialism.

Its categorically impossible for one historical figure to reply to refutations of his theory which come into being a century after his death! Accordingly, Marx is just standing there, as Mises continues to pummel him with critique. This could get gruesome, folks …

READ MORE...


The Social construct

Posted by Guest Blogger on Tuesday, 02 December 2008 01:04.

By a Finn

I wrote this text originally as a short comment on Social construction, and its structure reflects that. I was asked that this text would be lifted to main-log form. My acceptance and the text’s present position does not in itself refer to agreement or disagreement with any of the opinions or texts on this site.

This text is about a specific part of Social construction theory, that which is most relevant to pro-Europeans. I develop the theme from part to part. My intention in this post is not to claim that all Social constructionists use their theory to it’s limits (although many have done so). My intention is to define Sc’s abilities and moral “boundaries”.

The information refers to those leftist intellectuals who understand their ideology, not to the useful idiots or emotional hang arounds.

¤ Social construction theory (Sc), although it is often dressed in universal altruism, is in reality one of the most efficient method of acquiring selfish political power to those intellectuals who are skillful in it.

¤ In power games truth, scientific knowledge etc. are often unimportant. For example, an emotional, scientifically false theory about “political time” might be more efficient in a power game than scientific truth about “time”.  In it’s starting point, Sc gives equal value (partly overlapping) to objective, subjective, natural, artificial, socially-constructed (i.e formed in people’s interactions/thoughts), physical, real, unreal, and imagined information, among others.  Any of these could be in some situation useful in gaining power.  In reality though, Sc is heavily weighted away from natural, objective, common sense, scientific knowledge. This is because such knowledge is generally fairly static and immutable, and is the knowledge of normal, non-Sc people, and therefore the base of their power.  Political power is obtained most efficiently when there is great latitude in the information used, which gives larger possibilities in the political game.  It creates dialectical or multi-dimensional contradictions and distances between the existing information of the rulers and it’s Sc opponents.  These contradictions and distances can be utilized in countless of ways in obtaining power - whatever is propitious in a given situation.  Sc chips away at the rulers’ power constantly in small or bigger ways, and channels that power to itself.  If Sc would agree with the information of the rulers, it’s political possibilities would be severely limited.

¤ Sc creates contradictions mainly in the following categories: space (free, limited, taxed, large, small, publicly produced, privately produced, coded entrance, constricted, wide, polluted, clean, living space [e.g. apartment houses], commercial space, crowded, empty, natural, artificial, etc.), language (words, sentences, texts, political, meaningless, scientific, subjective, objective, economy related, language upholding the power structures, powerless, desperate, poverty related, sexual, heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, dialects, languages of different ethnicities, advertisement and marketing, cultural, movie language, language in everyday situations, etc.) who is the actor (humans, machines, systems, natural laws, economic laws, market place, rulers, subjects, slave owners, slaves, scientists, lay people, producers, service producers, farmers, skilled workers, officials, man, woman, masculine, feminine, majority, minority, intelligent, wise, stupid, ignorant, progressive, reactionary, native, immigrant, virtuous, evil, moral, immoral, new, old, young, elderly, etc.), time.  I give a list:

* measured vs experienced ~ objective vs subjective
* continuous vs fragmentary vs intervals
* past, present and future in different combinations or contradictions
* experience space vs expectations horizon (Koselleck)
* time in a straight line, cyclical time (repeating events), spiral time (Jean-Paul Sartre’s construct), multi dimensional time (e.g. person contemplating in present time with the help of historical information the future of many people and their time lines)
* continuing, open and ended time
* constant speed, accelerating (e.g. internet and new technology) and decelerating time
* reversible vs irreversible time
* normal vs exceptional time
* natural vs time produced by humans
* life cycles’ different parts
* collision of two different times (e.g memory of similar historical events influences the present situation considerably)
* simultaneous vs happens in or experiences different times
* different multibranching times

Etc.

All these and their constituent parts can be analyzed and combined in dialectical or multipart wholes (parts can oppose, strenghten, harmonise, contradict, coordinate, synchronize, interrupt, prevent, accelerate etc. each other) in ways that produce the most efficient political results.

¤ Because according to Sc almost everything is socially constructed this gives it’s proponents a power that supersedes the power of “gods” and high priests. Two examples:

a) The function of the heart is, according to Sc, socially constructed no matter what medicine, evolutionary biology or other sciences say about it. This means that the function of the heart, in addition to pumping blood, could equally be determined to be giving rythm to drums, or to die (John R. Searle, The Construction of Social Reality).

b) Science proves that there are differences between races and ethnicities, but socially constructed political correctness (in everyday language, science, media etc.), affirmative action, redistribution of wealth, socialism, soft totalitarianism, free speech monitoring and suppression, etc. win out over science and reality. Thus is constructed the reality that Sc intellectuals want, and which gives them large political power.

¤ Sc also gives other advantages ... or “advantages”.  It is complex and counterintuitive, and this serves to strengthen the Sc intellectuals’ in-group definition, its boundaries and exclusivity, reducing the possibility of free-riding and outside infiltration (e.g. since conservatives regard Sc as non-scientific, not sensible, in fact stupid, this reduces the possibility of infiltratration by them. On the other hand Sc intellectuals infiltrate conservative groups and institutions eagerly and without compunction).

When Sc compels it’s political subjects to declare as “true” things they know to be false, stupid and detrimental to them and their group, this emasculates them psychologically, strenghtens the smothering power of Sc intellectuals and makes their subjects psychological slaves.

Studying and applying Sc includes elements of simpler repeats, so giving it rituals. These move it towards psychologically permanence, exact certain costs and thus reduce free-riding, help to memorise essential “slogans” (thereby giving practical operating instructions), define the in-group/out-group further, etc.  Constant repeating of the “racism” trope in different contexts, ways and intensity is one example. The r-word is a political invective, not a definition of something. If somebody foolishly accepts it is as a defining word for himself, he will be forced to explain it away: “I am a racist, but ...”  Real definitions don’t require that.

Sc gives a license, moral or practical, to do anything, i.e. to construct almost any reality; lie, cheat, murder, infiltrate, extort, to be immoral, make revolutions, rob, etc.  And not only that, it gives the possibility to mass murder and genocide, and regard it as an act of loving kindness towards all humanity.  For example, Finnish stalinists (taistolaiset) and many other cultural marxists, beginning in the sixties and seventies, regarded Stalin’s actions as morally good and loving towards all humanity, enlightened, progressive, etc. They said that the Soviet Union’s weapons are “Weapons of peace and progress” (this was also the official policy of their peace movement).  They said that communists’ wars (i.e. brutal and selfish wholesale murder, torture, rape and pillage to gain political power) are “Altruistic acts towards the betterment of humanity” and “Romantic and exciting, like a love affair”.  On the other hand they said that “Western weapons and wars are brutal reactionary acts of aggression and suppression” and “Selfish capitalists’ wars of exploitation”.

The Sc gives licence to use any need, aspiration, stupidity, knowledge, emotion, group, system, dependence, etc. of the people as a vehicle to power.

In short, the Sc is a secular selfish power religion.

It is necessary to pro-Europeans to study and learn from it and use it, but not, of course, the anti-human elements of it.


Jonathan Bowden on Marxism and the Frankfurt School

Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 13 November 2008 22:44.

Jonathan Bowden speaking to the New Right in London

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

READ MORE...


Lebensraum and Improving the Racial Stock, 21st century style

Posted by Guest Blogger on Sunday, 19 October 2008 23:42.

By David Hamilton

The dominant ideology in the western nations is built around multi-racialism or anti-racism.  But its permissiveness towards white ethnic cleansing carries echoes of its philosophical opposite, Nazism. The motive - for this can only be intentional - is to push “whites” out of their communities, and that is against democratic principles and the rule of law.

More than 50 million African workers are being brought to Europe in a secret immigration agreement. This is on a scale of evil comparable to the herding of Jewish people into gas chambers, which we are constantly told is the greatest crime in history.  It is intended to destroy a people: the whole of western Europe’s native people, and it has been implemented by the evil E.U. This ideology is totalitarian with only one viewpoint allowed. It is very intolerant of any complaint about the cruelty and injustice of it and brands dissidents as “haters”, “bigots”, “fascists” or “Nazis.” It is implemented by deceit and often in secret.

A “job centre” funded by money confiscated from Europe’s tax-payers has been opened in Mali, and is hailed as the beginning of “free movement of people in Africa and the EU”. The report is from the EU statistical agency Eurostat. It rationalises that vast numbers of migrants could be needed to meet the shortfall in two years if Europe is to have a hope of funding the pension and health needs of its growing elderly population. EU economists in Britain and other EU states will “need” 56 million immigrant workers between them by 2050 to make up for the “demographic decline” due to falling birth rates and rising death rates across Europe.

That is a lie! If the Civil Service Pensions and in particular parliamentary pensions were scaled down to sensible levels more in line with every other pensioner receiving a pension from HM Government there would be greater equality after retirement. People are paid for doing a job while they are doing it. But I don’t see why the taxpayer should be required to fund a pension which equates to a job when they have left. I know that parts of the private sector do that, but that is private and driven by profits. It is entirely different. Moreover, If we were not transferring billions of pounds in Aid to elites in the Third World, and billions as UK subscriptions to the UN and the EU, we might well be able to give our people a better pension.

READ MORE...


Nick Nightingale writes a letter

Posted by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 08 October 2008 23:27.

Today the Telegraph ran a mad Marxist horror story on an ambitious attempt by the equality tzars to control our tongues:-

Publishers and universities are outlawing dozens of seemingly innocuous words in case they cause offence.

Banned phrases on the list, which was originally drawn up by sociologists, include Old Masters, which has been used for centuries to refer to great painters - almost all of whom were in fact male.

It is claimed that the term discriminates against women and should be replaced by “classic artists”.

The list of banned words was written by the British Sociological Association, whose members include dozens of professors, lecturers and researchers.

The list of allegedly racist words includes immigrants, developing nations and black, while so-called “disablist” terms include patient, the elderly and special needs.

It comes after one council outlawed the allegedly sexist phrase “man on the street”, and another banned staff from saying “brainstorm” in case it offended people with epilepsy.

However the list of “sensitive” language is said by critics to amount to unwarranted censorship and wrongly assume that people are offended by words that have been in use for years.

Well, I’ve had a look at the website of the theologically marxoid British Sociological Association, and found three lists of “Words That Must Never Again Pass Our Sinful Lips”.  Anyone who wants a good laugh can sample these links (at least one of which dates back to 2004, not that you would know it from the Telegraph report): Sex and Gender; Ethnicity and Race, Non-Disablist.

However, this encounter with a malignant academic tumour was but the first of my day.  A little later I came across something called The Anti-Racist Toolkit, a basis, apparently, for “building the Anti-Racist HEI” (High Educational Institution).  It’s dated 2002, and formed the centre-piece of a post-Lawrence Enquiry investigation of Institutional Racism.  It was conceived by three Leeds University sociologists: Laura Turney, Ian Law & Debbie Phillips.  It ventures onto some familiar ground for MR readers:-

Unpicking ‘Whiteness’
For many HEIs, the ‘whiteness’ of the institution goes unnoticed and is simply rationalised into a day-to-day perception of ‘normality’. The research we undertook at the University of Leeds indicated, however, that when forced to identify the ‘face’ of the institution, many people working there described it (with reference to staff) as not only predominantly white, but also predominantly white and male. For the most part, however, people don’t really notice the ‘whiteness’ of an institution and the implications that this normative whiteness has for those staff and students working and studying there. What is more, people tend to over-estimate the numbers of Black and minority ethnic people working and studying in a place and assume that equality policies of any kind work primarily in favour of Black and minority ethnic people, women and disabled candidates (both staff and students). In this way the whiteness of an institution is ignored and downplayed.

... It is only recently that the study of ‘race’, ethnicity and culture has also begun to specifically address questions of whiteness. The study of whiteness has been important for this project for a number of reasons, primarily because the acknowledgement or identification of ‘whiteness’ becomes a way of making unstable its position as the normalised, central space from which ‘others’ (racialised, ethnicised, etc, groups) are differentiated.

READ MORE...


Save our Children from State Social Engineering

Posted by Guest Blogger on Friday, 29 August 2008 00:52.

By David Hamilton

Since the rise to power of the New Left in the 1960s and 70s, education has been used for progressive ends and to instil the “correct” attitudes rather than develop the child’s abilities.  The authorities brainwash our children.

History, for example, is reduced to a propaganda of the “acceptable”.  Only certain selected topics can be taught, with the Second World War dominant because Nazism can be used to frighten children away from Nationalist sentiments.  So fluid and Orwellian is the “acceptable” that propaganda can be turned into its opposite at a stroke.  Thus, a Government-funded study in April 2007 uncovered the fact that Schools are stopping teaching the Holocaust in history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils.  It found that some teachers fear upsetting Muslim students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.  Likewise, there is fear of teaching children about the 11th century Crusades when Christian armies fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem.  The problem: a different version is taught in mosques.

No such problem with black history, however.  Our children seem likely to be taught an approved version of the development of slavery, colonisation and its links to the British empire and the industrial revolution according to BBC News on 26th August 2008.

Under plans before the Department for Children, Schools and Families, children could be taught sex education from the age of four.

But there is also pressure to make advice on relationships, contraception and sexually transmitted diseases compulsory in all primary and secondary schools.  It is the latest campaign aimed at cutting Britain’s teenage pregnancy rate, which remains among the highest in Europe despite repeated attempts by ministers to reduce it.  Sexually transmitted diseases are becoming increasingly prevalent among youngsters, although this is really being imported from Africa by immigrants.  But rather than face this inconvenient truth, a group of MPs led by Chris Bryant, parliamentary aide to Harriet Harman, has concocted another plan.

Bryant, by the way, is openly homosexual, and the BBC News reported on 2nd December 2003 that he had apologised for e-mailing a picture of himself in his underpants via a gay website. From 1994 to 1996 he was London manager of Common Purpose, the controversial charity.

Bryant says that the solution to the teenage birth rate is to educate children more about sex education from a much earlier age.  The MPs, supported by charities including Terrence Higgins Trust, the Family Planning Association and the Teenage Pregnancy Independent Advisory Group, claim that children should be given relationship advice ‘in context’ if they are to make informed decisions about when to have sex.

Critics of this notion, such as the Family Education Trust, are non-progressive and so are dismissed.  Many Muslims are also critical, not least because the effect will be to teach that homosexual “relations” are equal to heterosexual relations.  They will simply be allowed to opt out of the lessons.  Our children will not.

READ MORE...


The State Persecution of Thought Criminals

Posted by Guest Blogger on Monday, 04 February 2008 00:49.

by David Hamilton

Robin Page,  former presenter of television’s “One Man and His Dog”, a farmer, columnist for The Daily Telegraph, and the chairman of the Countryside Restoration Trust, has set us an example by fighting the new Totalitarian state and winning £2,000 compensation for being wrongly arrested on suspicion of stirring up racial hatred.

He allegedly made a racist remark at a country fair in 2002, which led to him being held in a police cell, and he fought a five-year, one-man campaign to clear his name. He used the Data Protection Act and obtained official documents which showed that there had been no grounds for prosecution. “I believe I have scored a significant victory over the ludicrous and sinister politically-correct ‘hate crime’ culture that is currently doing so much to prevent free speech in this country,” he said.

It was his humorous comments at a country fair in September 2002 that led to his persecution by the police. To gain the attention of the audience at Frampton-upon-Severn, Gloucestershire, he began in a “light-hearted fashion”. “If you are a black, vegetarian, Muslim, asylum-seeking, one-legged lesbian lorry driver, I want the same rights as you.” A complaint was later received by police, and another person wrote to say he disagreed with Mr.Page’s remarks. He was arrested the following month, and then five months later was contacted at his farm in Cambridgeshire and asked by two officers from Gloucestershire to attend an interview at a police station. At the station he declined to answer questions without a lawyer and was arrested. He was put in a cell and told that he would have to stay overnight if he wished to wait for his solicitor, but after 40 minutes agreed to be interviewed without legal representation.

Mr Page said: “I was told I had committed a ‘hate crime’, interviewed under caution and given police bail.” The BBC claimed that he had been arrested for a “race speech” and he felt the incident was potentially damaging to him professionally and as a district councillor for 30 years. He was neither charged nor given an explanation. Under Freedom of Information disclosures he discovered that the Attorney General had given the opinion “no crime committed”. His name was secretly put on a “Homo-phobic Incidents Register”. He was due to go to on a journalistic trip to Kenya and requested a change of bail renewal date, and in an internal email from the arresting officer the sergeant wrote: “Let’s hope he gets eaten by a crocodile.”

READ MORE...


Page 19 of 22 | First Page | Previous Page |  [ 17 ]   [ 18 ]   [ 19 ]   [ 20 ]   [ 21 ]  | Next Page | Last Page

Venus

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

Thorn commented in entry 'Things reactionaries get wrong about geopolitics and globalism' on Sat, 17 Feb 2024 18:10. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Things reactionaries get wrong about geopolitics and globalism' on Sat, 17 Feb 2024 17:36. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Things reactionaries get wrong about geopolitics and globalism' on Sat, 17 Feb 2024 14:14. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Things reactionaries get wrong about geopolitics and globalism' on Sat, 17 Feb 2024 13:25. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Things reactionaries get wrong about geopolitics and globalism' on Sat, 17 Feb 2024 12:09. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Things reactionaries get wrong about geopolitics and globalism' on Sat, 17 Feb 2024 11:59. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Things reactionaries get wrong about geopolitics and globalism' on Sat, 17 Feb 2024 11:57. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Things reactionaries get wrong about geopolitics and globalism' on Sat, 17 Feb 2024 11:38. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Things reactionaries get wrong about geopolitics and globalism' on Sat, 17 Feb 2024 09:31. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Alex Navalny, born 4th June, 1976; died at Yamalo-Nenets penitentiary 16th February, 2024' on Sat, 17 Feb 2024 09:29. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Things reactionaries get wrong about geopolitics and globalism' on Sat, 17 Feb 2024 04:53. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Things reactionaries get wrong about geopolitics and globalism' on Sat, 17 Feb 2024 03:32. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Things reactionaries get wrong about geopolitics and globalism' on Fri, 16 Feb 2024 12:43. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Things reactionaries get wrong about geopolitics and globalism' on Fri, 16 Feb 2024 12:38. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Things reactionaries get wrong about geopolitics and globalism' on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 18:21. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Things reactionaries get wrong about geopolitics and globalism' on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 14:11. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Things reactionaries get wrong about geopolitics and globalism' on Thu, 15 Feb 2024 10:38. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Things reactionaries get wrong about geopolitics and globalism' on Wed, 14 Feb 2024 13:22. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Things reactionaries get wrong about geopolitics and globalism' on Sun, 11 Feb 2024 07:56. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Things reactionaries get wrong about geopolitics and globalism' on Sun, 11 Feb 2024 03:27. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'A Russian Passion' on Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:13. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'A Russian Passion' on Fri, 09 Feb 2024 23:16. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Things reactionaries get wrong about geopolitics and globalism' on Fri, 09 Feb 2024 22:36. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'A Russian Passion' on Fri, 09 Feb 2024 12:38. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Things reactionaries get wrong about geopolitics and globalism' on Fri, 09 Feb 2024 05:17. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'A Russian Passion' on Fri, 09 Feb 2024 04:35. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'A Russian Passion' on Thu, 08 Feb 2024 20:20. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'A Russian Passion' on Thu, 08 Feb 2024 17:59. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Things reactionaries get wrong about geopolitics and globalism' on Tue, 06 Feb 2024 22:26. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Things reactionaries get wrong about geopolitics and globalism' on Tue, 06 Feb 2024 11:25. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Things reactionaries get wrong about geopolitics and globalism' on Tue, 06 Feb 2024 11:20. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Things reactionaries get wrong about geopolitics and globalism' on Tue, 06 Feb 2024 01:47. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Things reactionaries get wrong about geopolitics and globalism' on Tue, 06 Feb 2024 00:34. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Things reactionaries get wrong about geopolitics and globalism' on Mon, 05 Feb 2024 16:58. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Things reactionaries get wrong about geopolitics and globalism' on Mon, 05 Feb 2024 06:28. (View)

Majorityrights shield

Sovereignty badge