Majorityrights Central > Category: World Affairs

The full complexity of east-west relations according to Western reactionary opinion

There are times when the absence of an ethnic nationalist worldview in those who proclaim themselves nationalist (but not specifically, say, National Socialist, or traditionalist, or fascist) really limits communication.  What, after all, is our common frame of reference?  David Lane’s minimalist Fourteen Words accurately summarise the existential essence of all nationalism.  But the formulation is reductive, and can in no way function as an holistic ideology functions, ie, it cannot situate us in a pre-existing, broad-scale system of life-affirming truth by which a people may orient itself in Time and Space.  It is because of the systemic nature of an (actually very rare) epochal philosophy that it can, first, unify a political constituency and, second, energise a mass re-organisation.

But we do not possess that philosophy today.  We are, in consequence, caught in a pre-revolutionary cycle that cannot complete.  We have no unifying ideological standard around which to rally.  Along comes a large but perfectly uncomplicated political question, and we lack the framework to determine where justice lies.

Today such a question is: Do the people of Ukraine have a right to fight the violent imposition of Russian empire, and to struggle for national autonomy?  No ethnic nationalist should have a moment’s difficulty answering that.  But, instead, a substantial majority have lost their heads completely in contemplation of a second question: How dare America and the West challenge Russia’s security needs?  Of course it is a false question.  A need for expansion is not a need for security.  The theft of natural resources, farming produce, and even children is not a requirement for the creation of buffer zones.  It speaks of ancient tribute.  But Muscovy is an empire with an origin in its own payment of tribute to the Asiatic aggressor, and thus even into our time it has remained an empire with an historical culture of entitlement to further empire, and the wealth thereof.  That, not security, is the well-spring of Russian foreign policy.

Explaining this to the holders of “right-wing opinions” is a challenge.  Indeed, it feels like I’ve been challenging the dominant and reactionary pro-Russian sentiment and anti-American prejudice of on-line nationalists and trad-cons since the very first jolt forward of the first T72 in Vladimir Putin’s fateful full-scale invasion of 24th February 2022.  They don’t like it.  They don’t listen.  Their judgement is overwhelmed by anger at the globalist machinations of the Western hierarchy, and they don’t look any further.

READ MORE...

There is a tendency for prominent politicians, central bankers, and other panjandrums of Western public life, inevitably men and women of a globalist bent, to refer to their coming global order not only as an historical inevitability ... the product of vast and insuperable forces ... but also as a struggle fraught with the possibility of tragic failure.  There is a sizeable “if” about the whole idea.  Notwithstanding their measureless power, these people worry that The Globality may, in fact, prove elusive.  What can this mean?

After all, there is no resistance anywhere in the West to their project.  The democratic process is a captive or, if it cannot be captured it is ignored or, if it cannot be ignored, it is repeated until the “right” answer comes back.  The main political parties were long since captured, the political class corrupted.  All offer the same narrow policy platform.  The dateline corporations are on board (despite reservations in some cases).  The astonishing technologies which are developing in computer science and the life sciences are being successfully piggybacked.  Thus the means to impose control through a digital currency, be it linked to a health passport or not, already exists.  The means to permanently surveil the movements, purchases and public statements of the population exists.  The utilisation of the dicta of Sustainable Development to cover nitrogen and methane, and so meat production, thereby “requiring” the expropriation of farmland and the forcing on the “useless eaters” of no doubt highly profitable non-meat substitutes, is coming into effect already in certain pilot countries.  It is true that the wired trans-human is still more science fiction than reality, as is the end of ageing.  But other programmes are more advanced, and not a few fully realised.  So with all this rolling along nicely, why do our glorious elites speak with such uncharacteristic diffidence?

Our glorious elites speak with such uncharacteristic diffidence because they cannot be certain of the compliance of their non-Western counterparts.  Specifically, they fear that:

(a) The ambitions of non-Western leaders remain stubbornly within the old limits of personal and national aggrandisement.

(b) The Western elites and their technocratic framework are perceived to be foisting yet more arrogant and grasping post-colonial dictate on southern hemisphere nations.  “Arrogant” and “grasping” the elites probably don’t mind too much.  But “post-colonial” hits a nerve.  Theirs is, after all, just another control system originating in the West.

It is the first of these fears, however, which is most disruptive, and which has brought the Western elites into open and existential conflict with Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

READ MORE...

One of the prime events of the calendar for Anglosphere nationalism is also its year-end event.  That is Millenniyule, the unique and engrossing series of twenty plus live-streams conducted by the cultural critic and content creator Millenialwoes (Woes for short).  This year was the eighth in the series.

I have not listened to everything, though I have visited every stream to get a sense of the interview subject.  Many are well-known on the dissident podcast scene.  They are an eclectic mix, which only adds to the immense task Woes sets himself each December (and handles so expertly).  Some of them our host engages for 45 minutes, some for a couple of hours.  The two marathon streams, though, are several hours apiece.  Of these, the longest by far, at one minute longer than seven hours, was the final stream of Millenniyule 2022, with Morgoth:

Next for sheer expansiveness, at four hours nineteen minutes, was the stream with Academic Agent:

AA’s analysis, it must be said, is that of Schmittian reductionism, placing power before idealism.  But there is a lot of interest in the conversation, as there is, as ever, in the Morgoth stream.  It seems to me that one can just as profitably start the year with such material as end it.

Given that the West is saddled with a tradition of freedom and democracy (which its elites want to retire, of course, but never mind for now), and given that a Sino-Russian global hegemony is the end-game of the Ukraine adventure, should we not look into the Eurasian face, mindful of its natural affinity for authoritarianism and conformism, and ask the final question:

Would it be easier for us to fight for our people’s life and land in a Western hegemonic system or in a socialist system under the tutelage of, principally, China, with input from Russia, India, and Iran, if these are indeed the alternatives?

Yesterday the UN General Council voted by the required two-thirds majority to exclude the Russian Federation from the UN Human Rights Council.  This morning the Kremlin’s reply landed at a train station in the Donbas - not one missile but two, and not a single-warhead but cluster munitions.  Initial reports say thirty people were killed on the spot, and a further hundred injured.  It is totally apparent from the personal items and clothing strewn about the place that this was not a military target.  The local mayor has stated that there were some 4,000 civilians at the station at the time.  The strikes were a perfectly clear statement to the effect that the Kremlin doesn’t give a damn about the safety and human rights of the people of the Donbas, never gave a damn about the safety and human rights of the people of the Donbas, and will break any and every moral boundary it pleases.  Even to make a bitchy political point.

One awaits the first Western nationalist to explain that if only the UN General Council hadn’t been so aggressive in pushing Putin to the limits, those refugees might still be alive.

Well, three days ago the Spectator carried a piece on the massacre in Bucha.  It referred to a remarkable article which had appeared in the state-owned, Russian-language news service RIA Novosti.  The Spectator article was written by one-time resident in Putin’s fiefdom Christopher Booth.  It set out the future of endless de-Nazification for Ukrainians in the Donbas and the south who cannot free themselves from Russian occupation and control.  Of the Novosti article it says:

It speaks in detail of how Russia might achieve the ‘denazification’ of Ukraine – the first stated aim of the invasion.

The piece comes just as the Kremlin would have us believe that the goals of the so-called ‘special military operation’ have been recalibrated, and perhaps all will end in some sort of queasy compromise in the east of the country. In case you have fallen for this idea, here’s a quote from the RIA Novosti article in question:

“Apart from the Ukrainian leadership, a substantial part of the population is also guilty of being passively Nazi, and facilitators of Nazism. They supported the Nazi regime and urged it forward… The further denazification of the population will require re-training through ideological repression and fierce censorship, not only in the political sphere but also in the sphere of culture and education.”

The author goes on to say: ‘History teaches us that Ukraine cannot exist as a nation state’. Note – this was written less than a week ago. He recommends further that Ukrainian school textbooks be confiscated; that the population should be compelled to denounce one another for the greater good; that memorials to Russian soldiers should be erected to commemorate the war against Ukrainian fascism; and that ‘anti-Nazi’ commissions should be established in what remains of the country for at least 25 years.

So, a Russian propagandist writing in a state-owned Russian publication, giving advice that cannot be at odds with Kremlin thinking, is seeking a “de-Nazification” that is not at all restricted to the Azov Battalions but is code for a population-wide cleansing of “guilt”.  This is precisely how the horrors of the Soviet Union proceeded.  It explains what a survivor of Bucha told the Western media, namely, that the Russian soldiers were demanding where “the Nazis” were and, in some cases, stripping villagers in search of incriminating tattoos.  Some of this behaviour has been ascribed to Chechens.  But it is also ordinary Russian soldiers ordinarily brutalising and murdering people of their own accord, because such behaviour is, if not ordered, more or less given licence from above.  Russian military operations have been that way in Chechnya and in Syria.

So we come to the matter of support among Western nationalists for Putin and the Russian military.  For years now I’ve been referring to the borderline personality types who populate our world.  These are people who are unable to “fit in” with the general Mind.  But they are perfectly able to withstand all the hatreds that are visited upon nationalism, rather like bacteria in hospitals that survive the action of chemical cleaners.  Our politics, therefore, is a natural home for these people.  On the Spectator thread there was an explanatory comment by someone named Venk (evidently not a nationalist himself) which I found relevant:

It puzzled me too until I realized that their hatred for western elites has twisted their worldview. They loathe our leadership class and they admire Putin because he’s a strong-man alternative to woke green-obsessed liberal western elites. Unfortunately, they lack common sense and moderation, so they adopt a “see no evil” approach.

If the western media says it; it must be a lie. If Putin’s propagandists say it; it must be true. If Putin’s forces do something obviously evil, it must be a western lie or a justified action given the circumstances. It’s a bit like the trait psychologists call splitting in people with Borderline Personality Disorder.

They remind me a little of the Cambridge Five, upper class communists who hated our system so much they sided with the enemy. They managed to convince themselves that the USSR was the solution to Western shortcomings, and they either ignored evidence to the contrary or explained it away as a necessary evil on the path to the greater good.

I don’t think it’s a phenomenon that can be attributed to the left or the right, but to certain personality types who can’t process complex realities or balance the good and bad in any scenario.

One would hope that the missile strikes on Kramatorsk train station might cause some of these folk to think again.  But for many, I think, the itch to attack “the West” and “the Jews” will be just too powerful, and they will go on, like the Russian propagandist who apparently wants the gulags back for the next twenty-five years, giving voice to the same certainties in fulfilment of the same emotional needs.

Apart from the hair.  And about a week.  And the use of military firepower.

Puteau, or possibly Trudin

Example 1

a) Autocrat commences upon a population control project on the pretext of public health measures.

b) Autocrat portrays protesters in dehumanising and deceitful terms.

c) Autocrat gives himself war powers.

d) Autocrat employs paramilitaries to crush protest, employs legal and financial terrorism against dissenters.

Example 2

a) Autocrat commences upon an empire building project on the pretext of supporting separatist fighters in neighbouring independent nation.

b) Autocrat portrays neighbouring nation as never really being separate from his own nation.

c) Autocrat obtains formal consent from the Federation Council for his military deployment.

d) Autocrat launches his military against neighbouring independent nation.

Western elites response to first autocrat: Delicate silence based on the fact that they, too, are trying to transition to a population control model.

Western elites response to second autocrat: Constantly ramping-up economic sanctions against Russia, supplying “defensive” weapons to Ukraine.

This latter is geopolitics, of course, and not merely a moral issue; so we mere members of the public don’t get to see much of the real picture until the historians get to work perhaps a decade or more later.  One would assume that the principal objective of the Western elites is to avoid entangelement in Ukraine while discouraging further Russian expansionism.  One would hope that there are no voices arguing in the private councils of power for conflict as a fast route to the Re-Set; though I wouldn’t rule out the possibility.

If that world is veiled to us, we can at least see what our fellow British nationalists are thinking.  Until now they have tended to support Putin because they think he is a defender of the Russian people against corrupt Western neoliberal and neo-Marxist values.  They tend to see Ukraine, on the other hand, as a nation created by a Jewish neocon revolution, now led by a Jew, and exploited by the West and by NATO as a vehicle for anti-Russian expansion (though Jewish support for Pravi Sektor, based on a shared hatred of Russia, throws them a bit).  Nationalists here probably won’t quibble too much if the Russian Army goes beyond the two areas in which separatists are fighting, say to the Dneiper or down the coast to establish a land route to the Russian-held Crimean Peninsula.  However, everything should change if the Russians push on to occupy the entirety of Ukraine, which seems inevitable.  Likewise, a future threat against Lithuania should cause nationalists to totally re-assess their thinking about the autocrat Putin.

Ultimately, human freedom and the democratic model (or some form of it, anyway) are not contrary to any of the nationalisms beyond the fascisms.  The more of both the better.  It is their scarcity, together with the absence of a genuinely independent and honest press, which constrains the political efforts of not just the nationalists but all the minor parties in the West.  We should be in no doubt which side to support in Ukraine.

And the autocrat Trudeau?  Well, his actions have revealed that the left all across the West isn’t remotely interested in the cause of the freedom and independence of the working man.  It is interested in its own pathological hatred for him because he’s just too white, and for that clarity we can thank the little Canadian autocrat.  Likewise, in one brief, ruthless act he has probably done more than anyone since Henry Morgenthau Jr. in 1944 to demonstrate the morality and ambitions of Power in the supposedly democratic West.  One would desire that he pays a steepling high political cost for it, and the woman Freeland with him.  But then the stress test on his minority government was passed with some ease, so he will probably continue serenely and untroubled in his labours on behalf of the folk in Davos.

As every thinking nationalist should know, the dominant modus of thought informing selfhood in the West is liberalism.  But one could be forgiven for thinking that its time as the epochal Idea, the organising system of the European life, is past.  Certainly, the will of the eponymous “individual” of Enlightenment philosophy, by name the Common Man, is no longer unfettering.  The Third Worldisation of the urban space, the marginalisation of European masculinity and the africanisation of the European genome, the homosexualisation of marriage, the trans-sexualisation of what it is to be a woman, the toxification of white skin, the forced mass vaccinations of the Covid era, the utterly shameless electoral fraud in “the greatest democracy on earth”, and shortly, we are to believe, the enslaving Great Re-Set ... all of this is happening only because the common will has been assiduously suppressed and the common opinion traduced and demonised.

No, the great arc of liberal thought has come to rest in the neoliberalism and the weaponised neo-Marxism of the Western political class and the corporate elites they represent.  These things never belonged to Europe’s peoples.  They only ever belonged to elites.  The only will unfettered by them is theirs.

Historically, these elites have by no means been monolithic in form or singular in their interests.  They are human beings, after all.  They shift generationally and, because they are opportunists and hustlers, always with the flow of political possibility.  There is a natural tension between worldviews, not least those of Jews, always mindful of their ethnic struggle for Olam Ha-ba, and WASPs totally unmindful of that or, of course, of their own peoplehood, and simply, mechanically given to modernity and a narcissistic, even sociopathic individualism extending no further than their own epidermis.

Importantly, there has, too, always been a tension between banker and producer ... between money-as-debt which, by its nature, seeks to extend its suzerainty over the loanee, to enslave and own him, and the principle of progress and techne, which seeks to free its own creative hand from such blind and selfish constraint.  This latter (which, in modern parlance, has been an ideological “thing” since the time of the Russian Revolution) has turned out to hold the winning historical ticket.  If only for the sake of clarity then, let us attempt to delineate it from the old money-based power of the Jewish banking families and the old Anglo-American Establishment, which may or may not have an attachment to tauroctony and masonic symbology, and which is in serious and seemingly final retreat.  Of course, we can do so most succinctly by defining it as a power centred (now) on Davos and grounding itself in the interests and potentials of science-led industries, the American social media platforms, hedge funds, asset managers and, increasingly, FinTech.

Asset-holding, it turns out, is this new elite’s means of eradicating the bankers’ web of debt.  Accordingly, there is an on-going tectonic shift of personnel and institutions towards Davos as it becomes ever clearer that the fiat system, as a guarantor of value and a bestower upon global elites of wealth and agency, will founder on the hard reality of asset-value.

We could say that banking parasitism is giving way to predatory corporatism.  Perhaps another way to look at it would be through the lens of personalities, so the Rothschilds and the European royal houses versus the Rockefellers and the US political Establishment.  Another would be methodological, so supra-nationalism and immigrationism versus the smart mega-city and inclusiveness (both pairs being destroyers of the natural human fundamentals as they express in nation, kind, home, love).  Yet another would be Marxism versus scientism; and another the New World Order versus Sustainable Development.  We might even identify one more in the priest-class of Judaism’s Olam Ha-ba versus Homo davosian, the wired transhuman of the fourth industrial revolution.  Or we could lighten up a bit, and contrast and compare the doomed Merkel and her sad little, pyramid hand signs with the business-like photocalls of the mischling technocrat Schwab.

While we are in a lighter mood, and following the heavy hint of the stage design, the Bregenz sequence from Quantum of Solace, written some time after 2006, contains elements quite specific to what would later become the Davos stratagem:

A conspiracy hidden in plain sight, the corporate language, the manipulation of Washington, the participation of the Deep State, the ownership and control of strategic assets- indeed, in this case “the world’s most precious resource” (and so wholly fitting to the real-world contest with fiat money).  It’s not a bad attempt at making an ageing spy movie franchise relevant to the modern age.  A little further into the movie we learn that to advance its criminal cause Quantum hawks a fake environmentalism, complete with talk of global deforestation and soil depletion.  It deplores corruption in government while corrupting government; and we see how “acting out of necessity” drives the other governments into an alignment of interests with it.

Well, something changed Boris Johnson from a breezily triumphant, newly re-elected prime minister in December 2019 confidently telling Downing Street staff he would not have them going off to Davos the following month “to drink champagne with billionaires” into a catatonic, serial witterer about the Great Re-Set, saying only a few days ago at the G7 conflab amid the delights of Cornwall that “We must build back better with a global economic recovery based on greener and fairer foundations.”

This is politician-speak for total submission to the Davos agenda, which is the UN 2021/2030 agenda, and which amounts to a bare-faced lie told to the weak by the powerful not just so the powerful can rule over them - even in perpetuity - but so that they can make the whole Earth and the future of everything their own.  They’re doing it, too.

What is Nigel Farage up to?  It is now a month since he launched Reform UK as the new incarnation of The Brexit Party.  No one in British politics has a shrewder political mind than Farage, but at the time it seemed a strange choice for him to bet his continuing relevance - as he seemingly has - on The Great Barrington Declaration.  Barrington recommends “an approach to herd immunity called focused protection” whereby only the old and vulnerable are maintained in lockdown, while the rest live life normally. 

The Declaration itself is a culmination of months of criticism and questioning of the Western governmental response to the virus by senior figures in academic and practising medecine.  But precious little has been heard of it amid the lock-step media coverage of the official narrative.  As a populist cause, it hardly ranks alongside Brexit.  Moreover, it’s not as if better targeted regimes than a general lock-down haven’t been tried.  The Swedish experience with such a regime did not work out particularly advantageously.  Its principal advocate, Sweden’s chief epidemiologist Anders Teigel, has been sidelined today and his infection control model replaced by a much more conventional lockdown model.

In any case, the common and extremely rosy expectation is that lockdown will become a thing of the past ... a blip in the unstoppable progress of human freedom ... as mass vaccination swings into effect.  A political stand on lockdown, therefore, is only a prelude to a political stand on vaccination itself.  The first segues effortlessly into the second.

Of the three vaccines developed so far, the Pfizer-BioNTech product is already in roll out.  Over the next six months most vulnerable British citizens and key workers will be vaccinated.  Regardless of the inevitability that Covid 19 is going to be with us in the long-term, there would seem to be very little political cause here which is likely to be around for the next General Election.

So, what is Farage up to?  Is there a way of interpreting his re-launch decision other than as a political mis-step?  Well, in contrast to the rosy assumptions of returning, untroubled normality there are three future scenarios which could gift the ever-opportunistic Farage the leading role in a new attack on the politics of the Establishment.  In taking up a position critical of the lockdown he automatically positions himself against the first and least troubling of those three scenarios, and by that action he also positions himself against the second scenario; and by taking up that he automatically positions himself at the fore of resistance to the third, should events move that far.  If that is to be the trajectory of our collective future, then for all its limitations Barrington is no bad political starting point today.

So let’s look at that in more detail.  In order of their historical challenge and severity the three future scenarios are:

Scenario 1: Rising public doubt about the vax

According to the New Scientist, a group of researchers have extracted data from the ten most reliable of some 175 reports on Covid 19 infection fatality rates.  Taken together they show a mortality-to-infection rate by age of:

for people under 40,  0.1%
between 50 and 60, 0.36%
between 70 and 74, 2.17%
between 80 and 84, 5%,
over 90, 16%

At the average, Covid has an infection fatality rate of 0.25% or even less, and around double that of common flu.  This puts Covid on a level with the Hong Kong Flu 1968 or the Asian flu 1957 in terms of danger - nothing like the 1918 Spanish flu which had a 2-4% fatality rate, and not a once in a century type threat at all. There is a certain historical routineness to it, therefore.  A similar type of pandemic to Covid may well come again in the lifetimes of most of us, and maybe sooner than we think. 

People are not stupid.  They see the police treatment of those who point out such inconvenient truths (Piers Corbyn, for instance, and his fellow lockdown protesters) and know that treatment to be excessive.  They compare it to the treatment - “taking the knee”, basically - of BLM protests, where maskless gatherings without social distance mysterously go unopposed.  Then they see that the authorities don’t actually know that much about the vaccine:

There are no data as yet on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy, either from human or animal studies. Given the lack of evidence, JCVI favours a precautionary approach, and does not currently advise COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy. Women should be advised not to come forward for vaccination if they may be pregnant or are planning a pregnancy within three months of the first dose.

... As trials in children and pregnant women are completed, we will also gain a better understanding of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines in these persons.

People understand when they are being manipulated by politicians (as they understood in droves with the Stronger-In “Project Fear” campaign in the 2016 EU Referendum).  They will inevitable question what is justified action and what is hidden agenda, and if they think they see a hidden agenda they will react accordingly.  Among the online media-savvy section of the public, vaccine skepticism is already up and running.  An Opinium poll for the Guardian has found that 30% of respondees will not accept the jab.  By way of a sample of the sort of things people are starting to think and say, the following comments appeared in a Daily Mail thread last week, after the lightning fast formal drug approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech’s product by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.  They are by no means the exception:

“Pfizer vaccine is APPROVED by regulators. What a surprise. There wasn’t a snowball’s chance in Hades that it wouldn’t be because that’s what they were instructed to do. All the normal protocols for assessing safety were abandoned”

“... now expect them to believe having a vaccine will help them ...amendment. I just believe people need to weigh up the real risks to their family, friends and themselves, and proceed with extreme caution. People are not being given honest, fair reasonable arguments. Infernally wicked choices and diktats are being foisted upon them. People should be very, very wary indeed. Do NOT trust them.”

“WHY, WHY, WHY has a company like Pfizer, with a very well documented history of legal cases, prosecution and payouts (due to the devastating side effects of some of its products) been granted immunity from prosecution if this vaccine is so safe? WHY? “

“Ask yourself this, Bill Gates has been banging on about depopulation for years. What makes you think that all of a sudden he wants to save us all?”

“So many coincidences this year. They really think we’re idiots. Now anticipate the FREEDOM PASSPORTS to divide and force us into having it! And when you decide, consider the following: We have law changes to prevent litigation over side effects, trials lasting a few months instead of years, “flexibilities” allowed in the mhra safety regulations, scientists and regulators with conflicts of interest, compulsory vaccination in all but name, a new AI system to log the tsunami of unprecedented side effects. Potentially introducing laws to stop criticism and questioning of vaccinations, like this post! If these aren’t huge red flags I don’t know what is!”

“... experimental mRNA vaccine never before used. Phase 3 trialled ONLY since July 27th = 129 days! CANNOT POSSIBLY KNOW THIS IS SAFE. What about long term adverse reactions? Autoimmune responses / cancer etc?”

“As a Covid survivor I certainly welcome a vaccine against this virus, but whats worries me the most is the speed in which this vaccine has been deemed safe. It’s been months in the making and I think because they usually take years we’re all very concerned what long term health issues may happen. It won’t be long before we see those on the news having the vaccine, proving it’s safe but will the cameras be back on them if it goes wrong.”

Neither is Farage alone in positioning politically to ride this developing wave of public opinion.  Days after he re-launched TBP as Reform UK a new party in Germany sprang up along rather similar lines:

READ MORE...