Majorityrights Central > Category: Global Elitism

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...

What does it mean when a mind which can only conceive of economics, which only desires and schemes and labours for an empire of economics and a social order constructed solely upon economics … what does it mean when that mind is confronted by another, with an implacable will to violence and power?

Perhaps not in America so much, but on this side of the pond the message now seems to be filtering into the mainstream media:

... the democratic world needs to confront its own deficiencies if 2024 is to prove more successful than 2023. Chief among them is a tendency to prioritise the short term and to neglect vital matters such as defence spending and military-industrial production capacity. Countries like Britain will also have to be more confident about adopting a more assertive international role if other powers step back.

Over the past few years, the Government has made a good start, leading from the front in the early days of the Ukraine invasion, and signing innovative new partnerships such as the Aukus pact. But the time for complacency is over.

The sixth Jewish–Arab War and Iran’s Houthi rebels aside, it is - very obviously – the war in Ukraine which has generated this naval-gazing among the political and chattering classes of the West.  It’s not that Putin’s Russia is especially strong.  To put it mildly, its military has been unexpectedly average in Ukraine, certainly in offensive terms.  It has only really excelled at missiling train stations, markets, and maternity hospitals.  As an occupying force it has proven adept at stealing children – a crime against humanity for which the international court has issued an arrest warrant for “the chief” himself.  Diplomatically, his best friends are the mullahs in Tehran, the dear leader in North Korea, and Hamas.  Which speaks for itself.  Politically, the Russian state is under the spotlight in a way it never was in the prior thirty years of its kleptocratic existence.  It is revealed to be the worst kind of police state – indeed, an autocracy sustained by routine repression and lies, corrupt courts, and extra-judicial murders. 

The economy’s performance under sanctions has been better than expected in the west.  But we shouldn’t kid ourselves, or believe the Federal Treasury stats.  It’s no triumph to lose western markets and to be forced to flog cut price energy to India and China.  At a time when Russian airlines can’t keep planes in the sky for want of spare parts, and over a million of Russia’s brightest and best have fled abroad to avoid a meaningless death in an unwanted foreign war, government has just sanctioned “grey market imports” (ie. smuggling).  Now, with the announcement of a military spend for the next financial year of 6% of GDP, the chief has been forced to move the economy onto a war footing.  The last but one Russian value, which economics must serve, is thereby exposed.  It is power demonstrated by violence (for power without demonstration does not know itself, and those who have no power of their own cannot know it).  Only the chief’s position and reputation are more fundamental to the national condition.

No, it’s not that Russia is a force to be reckoned with, or even that a Russian geopolitical strategy must necessarily be a danger in itself, if contained within certain operational bounds.  Rather, it’s the too solid fact of the unbounded Russian value of power demonstrated by violence which is causing sleepless nights in the financial and governmental capitals of the West.  Why?  Because key to the western elites’ path to the future is a gentle and graceful relinquishment of American monopolarity and even of the dollar’s reserve status.  They have to transcend the politics of nation statehood, which is simply the wrong interest-base and a restraint on the global vision itself.  In its place they seek to drive forward their desired Re-Set not via the power principle, which is too costly and unpredictable for their taste, but via the money principle.  More precisely, they want to lever economic power as it exists today into geo-economics ... a singular and universal but, of course, immane system for the perpetual ascendency of the financial class (upon whom the whole western elite structure parasites and attends).

READ MORE...

Three Russian dolls and one other emerging but not yet not fully in view.

We mere citizens of the West, we voters for the Uniparty, we victims of propaganda do not get to hear the words spoken in the highest geo-strategic reaches of the US State Department, or in the Pentagon, or in the CIA, much less in the rival bodies in Moscow and Beijing.  What trickles out of the mouths of presidents and ministers is the usual finessed, platitudinous semaphore by which vast power structures publicly communicate with one another.  Sometimes a “government source” or someone “close to such-and-such” will add vital context, on or off the record, which is presumably then pored over by analysts a world away.  But precious little of the resultant analysis ever reaches the mass of Americans or Russians or Chinese.  Every leader’s statecraft and long and short-term geopolitical strategies are locked away in the black box that is government.  Basically, the masses are only required to think one simple thing at a time.  We must support our leaders in “difficult” (ie, costly) decisions.  We are to be compliant workers and consumers.  Under no circumstances are we to make domestic difficulties.

If opacity is necessary in certain (obvious) respects, nonetheless it is a primary cause of the fine mess which is “right-wing” opinion on Moscow’s war in Ukraine.  Many, many people still operate from the mechanical assumption that, no matter how inhuman the Russian military’s deeds, “the West” … meaning Washington + NATO …  is the real evil-doer in this world.  So Moscow gets a free pass.  Scarcely anyone troubles to analyse the geopolitics.  Russia as an historical geopolitical dynamic … expansionist Russia, therefore … the Russia which has bloody borders, and whose small neighbours can never be entirely safe … that Russia goes unexamined while the past excesses of American power are held up for ritual condemnation and blamed for everything.  It’s a wilful blindness.

READ MORE...

Bakhmut under fire [Daily Aviation]

As anyone who isn’t a Stone Age, bone-in-the-nose, bow-and-arrow tribesman in some patch of the Andamans must now know, last Friday was the anniversary of Vladimir Putin’s misconceived 3-day conquest of Ukraine.  By a year ago on Saturday the Spetznaz squads roaming Kiev were meant to have decapitated the government.  By a year ago yesterday the designated Putin puppet was meant to have made the short flight from Minsk to Hostomel for the drive through cheering crowds to the city centre for his victory broadcast from the president’s office.  Putin’s masterly use of surprise would be taught at military colleges for generations.

Where we are, instead, has been summed up by countless opinion pieces across what, in military speak, is now called “the information space”.  One pithy and accurate piece was published on Friday’s anniversary at Geopolitical Monitor by occasional contributor Nicholas Velasquez.

He summed up the current disposition at the front in a single sentence:

The stockpile phase of the Russo-Ukraine war has ended and it is clear that the conflict is now attrition based.

The stockpile, it should be noted, was always expected to be the likely deliverer of Russian victory.  Western military specialists spoke from the beginning about the several million shells and deep stores of missiles of all kinds available to the invader.  After Kiev, when the Russian command’s focus was scaled back to the east, Russian shell consumption was estimated during the successful artillery battles for Lysychansk and Sievierodonetsk at 20,000 shells a day.  But, ultimately, the stockpile was not deep enough.  The old Soviet artillery strategy of soaking the ground, allied to the widespread employment of missiles on civilian targets, has resulted in shell starvation and reliance on ageing and non-optimal missiles plus the forty or so that Russian manufacturers can actually produce each month.  The result is the switch to attrition (which is, of course, also a traditional Russian military strategy).

Accordingly, the world waited for the grand offensive to begin, and Russian numbers to overwhelm the defenders.  It now transpires that it did, in fact, begin about a fortnight ago, which one can see in the jump in Russian dead reported by the defenders.  Of course the losses render the generation of the required mass much slower than intended.  Yes, there is a build up, and pressure is increasing on the defenders entrenched in and around Bakhmut.  But so far meaningful advances remain elusive, in part surely because the dead tend to be experienced soldiers while their replacements are green mobiks who are not particularly sure why they are fighting.  Western media are reporting that Putin “is considering” mobilising another 500,000 men.  But his army doesn’t have the capacity to train that number for an offensive operation in much under a year.  It also doesn’t have the hardware to support them.  All it can do is to continue the same asymmetrical attritional process and hope that an exhausted West is driven to, in turn, drive the Ukrainians to the negotiating table.

Meanwhile, the Ukrainians are able to hold on so far, and are organising for an offensive when Western weapon and ammunition supplies allow – thought to be late spring/early summer, when the spring rains, the rasputitsa, are over and the ground is baked hard.  Their language is of a victory before winter comes again in which case, if it holds now, the fortress of Bakhmut will have survived more than a year under siege.  Unsurprisingly, this prospect is concentrating minds in Europe’s capitals and in the Kremlin about the consequences of defeat for Russia.  In his GM article Velasquez lays out what is at stake:

If the West, led by the United States, supports a peace deal where Russia gets even a mile of land in Eastern Ukraine, it sends a message to authoritarian regimes with designs on foreign lands that they can seize land by force of arms with impunity so long as the invaded state acquiesces. If the United States supports any peace settlement featuring any territorial concession it will serve as a tacit acknowledgment that the post-World War Two international order is dead.

… with the consequence that ...

Though international peace and stability should always be the object of the security policy of the West and the United States, peace in it of itself is not a noble aspiration if it can produce a world where malign states may wage war on their weaker neighbors with impunity. The Western states, as the primary architects of the rules-based international order, are responsible for its maintenance. As a result, the West must ensure that Russia’s revisionist aspirations are defeated in Ukraine and at the negotiating table.

All that is true enough.  However, I do think it stops short of the real motivation of Washington, which is to defend not the rules-based order per se but the Western investor, central banking and corporate elites’ geo-economic model for the Globality.  In that respect, internationally recognised legal restraints on the ambitions and predations of military powers are a fundamental precondition (not, of course, through any intent on the part of the Allies after WW2, but certainly by the effect of those restraints today).  Why, because the Western elites have to escape the limitations of “the West” in order to become the economic masters of the whole globe.  So Washington - the political arm of those elites - must re-engineer all the machinery of its own global hegemony in a multipolar environment secured by every other national elite consenting to leave the conflicts of history and borders behind forever.  At least that’s the expectation.  But, as stated on several MR threads, there are two other models for the Globality in play, and both are geopolitical in kind.  One, sometimes denied, subtly hidden from the historical light, is the CCP’s.  The other is Putin’s eurasianist model.  A nightmare of only superficially economic blocs, each ruled over by a single militarily dominant force, it is the polar opposite of the Western elites’ idea and an absolute challenge to the rules-based order.  The war in Ukraine is precisely a battle, and probably the final battle, in the existential conflict of these two models.  Defeat will be terminal for one of them, and it will be the Russian one.

As Velasquez puts it:

Putin, though a liar on most issues, is correct to fear that the West wants to “inflict a strategic defeat” on Russia. The West should inflict a strategic defeat on Russia that echoes throughout the Russian decision-making apparatus, such that it changes Moscow’s strategic culture from here on out.

In other words, while Russia’s future is without doubt as a part of the international architecture, perhaps even sharing in China’s economic hegemony, in military defeat there can be no eurasianism, none of the imperial adventurism, land grabs, frozen conflicts, and satrapy of old.  It is likely that Russia will be stripped of Kaliningrad and Transnistria, and Crimea too, if the Ukrainians do not take it themselves.  Across the southern republics borders will be re-drawn.  For the first time in four and half centuries Muscovy must find sufficiency in the peoples and the immensity of its own landmass.

That being so, only one question remains for the Western elites to ponder: can they really constrain Chinese ambitions, particularly in the southern hemisphere, within a geo-economic globalist corset?  In essence, is the very idea of a multipolar world an impossibility and a blind denial of the nature of men?

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...

When he appeared eighteen months ago on the GBNews slate, speaking truth to camera, Neil Oliver surprised a lot of people who remembered him only as a presenter of history programmes and the series Coast.  This is his latest offering, which is pretty good.  A few more like him could make a difference

I have been thinking about Iain Davis’s magisterial essay series on multipolarity – the prospective global power dispensation proposed by the WEF, the UN, and all the other internationalist bodies, and advanced via the BRICS nations in opposition to America’s current monopolarity.  Unless a fifth appears, it is a four part series:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

I heartily recommend the series to one and all.  Davis is a libertarian.  So not every position he adopts is agreeable from our standpoint, or wholly free of the conventional liberal dictates and blindspots.  He has no holistic identitarian or ethnological reading of our race and kind.  He does not fully comprehend the Western elites’ long campaign against our life.  He has no critique of the Jewish paradigm.  There is no evidence that he even has an understanding of it.  His is, therefore, a view of a single, completely political project conceived by past generations of Western elites, and adapting to various challenges along the way (such as the fall of the Soviet Union).  But that simplification aside, to my mind his Multipolarity series is still a signal achievement in the dissenting analysis of power in this world, and unequivocally presents to us the Chinese, or Russo-Chinese, piece in the jigsaw.

Accordingly, it explains the respective, perfectly consonant Chinese and Russian power strategies we witness today.  These strategies are not solely the products of Russian or Chinese agency.  To all intents and purposes, they are facilitated by a Western elite which has, for four decades or more, been pursuing the replacement of Western power - and thus the basis of the elites’ own power - with a radically general distribution of economic and geopolitical power.  In the modern language of internationalism that means transitioning from leadership by America and the other G7 economies of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom to leadership by the G20 economies, ie, adding to those seven the five BRICS countries of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa and the other developing G20 economies of Argentina, Australia, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and Turkey.  To a greater or lesser extent all of these last seven are there to make up the numbers and provide a semblance of global action.  The real revolutionary change is being wrought by China and Russia, but ... only because the Western elites licenced it.

This, then, is the background against which Donald Trump’s parochial and unfulfilled campaign to Make America Great Again figured as a grand heresy in the minds of the entire Western political, governmental, academic, cultural, corporate and banking class.  It is the background against which Brexit has never been effectively pursued (beyond a formal, only partial separation) by any British government since the momentous vote of 23rd June 2016.  Both of these developments stood as a popular rebuke to the ruling classes for the manner in which they had narrowed party and thus national politics to exclude the life-interests of the mass of white Americans and native British respectively.  Supporters in both polities rightfully expected change, including to the elites’ migration agenda.  I don’t need to detail the actual outcome, only the fact that the elites regard themselves as absolute rulers of our world, and no wants and desires but their own will ever be actioned even if what was a social contract in Rousseau’s time has to become a social dictate in ours, or what was the legitimacy of government in Locke’s time has to become a lie.

READ MORE...

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?