Trump in an age of innocence, when a deal would be done in a day.

“Peace” is a versatile concept.  It has a spiritual context, of course, and a funereal and memorial one.  Then since the sixties it has had a vee-signed, marijuana-driven usage originally followed by the word “man” but these days by “bro”, which more or less sums up the depth of consideration thus far given it by Donald Trump.

Not everyone on the international stage is so blasé.  The honest ones, of whom there are far too few, employ it in the proper humanistic sense of a deliverance from conflict into a longed-for and enduring state of safety and such concord as is possible when the guns have fallen silent but there is still a lot of hatred in the air.  As the hatred subsides so the meaning of peace matures into the one given generally to civic life in times of ease and gentility, which is only what all peoples expect and deserve from life.

But there are some people in the charmed circles of power … liars and ambitious men, “men of force” ... who hold the expectations of the common man in contempt, and who talk of peace as something quite other than that expectation.  Their meanings tend to be party to the same struggle as the wars they also engage in when they can.  Thus in the Kremlin’s case peace is as much a weapon as any rocket or gun:

During a telephone conversation with US President Donald Trump on March 18, Russian leader Vladimir Putin put forward a number of conditions for the introduction of a 30-day ceasefire with Ukraine. In particular, to stop mobilization in Ukraine and the rearmament of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, the Kremlin reported.

Trump seems to have been blissfully unaware that Putin’s peace is not at all a shallow and instant thing like his.  It is ideological, public, formal, structured, and purposive.  Its purpose is the expansion of Russia:

“Russkiy Mir” is a Russian quasi-ideology aimed at the expansion of influence abroad and uniting the states considered by the Kremlin as its backyard on the basis of Russian language common history in the Moscow’s perception and Russian Orthodox Church (ROC). As a political concept it gained some importance in 2000s, particularly after Vladimir Putin started using it in his public speeches, making an appeal to the “compatriots” abroad.
...
With “Russkiy Mir” Putin’s Russia attempts to establish itself as a civilization-forming state and as a leading geopolitical actor.
...
It is also worth mentioning that as the concept, first of all, serves political interests of the Russian authorities, it is populist and adaptive. In such a way under the umbrella of “Russkiy Mir” a number of cultural and historical narratives are united, even though they initially may seem to have no relation to it. Still, in the end, rewriting history with the focus on whitewashing the image of USSR, appropriating the victory over Nazism, labeling every attempt to critically evaluate history as “fascist” also work in favor of “Russkiy Mir”. Putin’s Russia grants itself with the messianic title of the vanquisher of absolute evil – and with the opportunity to fight against what it considers fascism again. Systemic cultural appropriation also adds to the picture. It enables the portrayal of formerly colonized states as having a poor culture, with is partially appropriated and partially discredited, while “Russkiy Mir” is pictured as a culturally rich opposite. The Kremlin consistently discredits pro-democratic policies in target societies, employing disinformation and promotion of destructive narratives, then attempting to offer “Russkiy Mir” as an appealing alternative to such policies.

This is the “peace” which, within the framework of Russia’s war on the Ukrainian people’s will to independence and autonomy, is Vladimir Putin’s guiding light.  Even allowing that the Americans are not providing him with a helping hand, nothing Donald Trump can say would steer him away from it.  But does Trump want to say anything anyway?  What evidence is there that he and his government are moved by the all too western moralities of the post-1945 settlement?  His denial last week of intelligence and satellite imagery to the Ukrainian military – shocking in its suddenness and effect – was perfectly timed for the Russian and North Korean push in Kursk.  It removed Zelensky’s hard-won bargaining chip and cost hundreds of Ukrainian lives.  Taken with the shameful staged assault on the Ukrainian president in the Oval Office it speaks of “right-wing” America’s near-total moral collapse.

It was on display again in Tuesday’s 90 minute telephone call between Trump and Putin, summarised thus by David Blair in the Telegraph:

Putin has played his familiar trick of agreeing to something that binds Ukraine’s hands much more tightly than his own.

But the relative lack of substance in the readout must itself raise suspicions.

Two presidents do not need to talk for 90 minutes to serve up the thin gruel in the public account of their call.

What else did Mr Trump and Putin discuss and what private agreements might they have made?
Ukraine and the rest of Europe are not party to these talks: they can only guess at what could be happening behind the scenes.

The only certainty is that the dismal pattern whereby Putin concedes nothing and offers nothing, while Trump declines to respond with any hint of steel, remains the order of the day.

If the Americans continue in this vein, disavowing any firm, suppressive action against Russia, one will have to conclude that they, too, mouth words of peace when they really only mean conquest, and do so because the global contest of power requires such immorality.

In that condition America will have friends besides Putin: others with visions of a similarly “peaceful” dominion.  For example, as a counterpoint to Putin’s russkiy mir, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his government are advancing the doctrine of Mavi Vatan.  Should Putin achieve his maximalist aims in Ukraine one then waits to see if Viktor Orban can pull together an integralist cohort from among Hungary’s six other neighbours in Middle Europe and the Balkans.  I think it quite likely, given the level of pro-Russian sentiment there, as well as the desire to annex parts of Ukraine that Putin may deign to gift them.  I think humanity is moving ... being pushed, actually ... ever further from the nationalist desideratum of an age of the people’s will, which is a will to peace, yes, but not at the cost of national dissolution and foreign dominion.  It is doing so because it is moving further from democratisation’s very 20th century transformation of that people into a bloodless demos, a mere electorate governed by a permanent political class.  We are moving once again into an age when “greatness” is sought among the nations of men; but it is a greatness expressed in power over other nations when power is the possession of an untouchable and authoritarian few.

If that view of the historical process is wrong then we should now see Donald Trump understand the complete humiliation he has suffered at Putin’s hands.  Being useful to Putin only makes him Putin’s idiot.  The situation has clarified.  American greatness will not come via American humiliation.  Trump’s vanity alone ought to provoke the necessary reaction.  We should then see him double-down on his determination that peace shall prevail, but switch tack to bring Putin to heel.  That means a full-hearted and massive re-arming of the Ukrainians with the best equipment the American arsenal possesses.  Then, perhaps, another kind of negotiation will be possible.

It would be charitable to conclude that the 45th and 47th president of the United States of America is a regular if inordinately successful guy and a great and fearless patriot with an instinct for the wants and interests of the common man.  OK, he’s not a very subtle person.  He can deliver himself of some quite surprising, not to say shocking, public statements.  His dedication to the security of Israel is fawning and slavish if politically necessary, probably.  But he’s the first US president in decades to speak the language of ordinary Americans.  So in the vernacular, cut the guy some slack while he blows away the whole friggin’ mess that is Dems in federal government, right?

But with Trump we are not just talking about pulling down the progressive order in federal government.  He is seeking a new order internationally as well as domestically.  It turns out that his new international order has nothing to do with “peace”, and is not directly concerned with Ukraine at all.  It turns out that his vaunted economic nationalism, always assumed to be just a domestic, blue-collar cause, is also economic imperialism.  It is, from a Russian imperialist perspective, also an opportunity to throw Trump a hydro-carbon or two to bind him to his and Xi’s grand strategy, and not the other way round.  Which would make this less Nixon and Mao than Molotov and Ribbentrop, with Putin playing the role of Ribbentrop.  As of today Beijing is plainly betting on that, because it has given its support to the “negotiations”.

The big reveal

From Day 1 of his second term the reborn Donald Trump has been pursuing a politics for the world which, it seems, none outside his own circle in the Republican Party saw coming, and very few if any have fully grasped even now.  This politics has three broad goals:

i) To put a stop to the decades of progressive marxisation and malaise in American life, especially economically, and thereby to ring in a new dawn of American power, prestige, and prosperity.

ii) To force the European states to address their post-Berlin Wall political, moral, and fiscal decadence and weakness, so that they may shift from that same destructive trajectory of mass immigration and marxisation to one of political self-rediscovery and self-preservation (crucially, the “self” here being the state, not the natives of the state).

Thus freeing Washington to pivot towards ...

iii) Ending China’s long march towards global military, economic, and political hegemony, principally by confronting it in the Indo-Pacific Ocean.

The start-point for the Trump administration is Ukraine.  Hence the unwelcome energy with which it has distanced itself from the expectations of the European democracies and NATO, while showering Putin with outrageous largesse under the rubric of peace negotiations.  It was the big reveal.  The deceit and childishness which has characterised the campaigns of Trump and Musk against the Ukrainians is pure theatre, but in the scheme of things they’re nothing more important than positioning.  Ukraine itself is not important except as a bargaining chip, its sacrifice a clear signal to Putin that he could even create his fourth Russian empire in the West if he can defeat the Europeans and keep the American military quiet.  BUT ... he can’t have his new world order with himself and Beijing at the apex.  America will remain the hegemon in a force-based Glazyevian system of empires.  The post-war rules-based order is dead.  Starmer’s love object of international law is without a point.  Democracy is no longer the international standard for good and just government.  A force-based system doesn’t have to care about good or justice.  It’s just the wrong metric.  NATO, meanwhile, will be left without the American guarantee, which effectively guts it and leaves Europe militarily defenceless.  Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference now makes perfect sense, warning the European political elites that their three decades of spending the so-called peace dividend on weak and sickly liberal-universalist causes has to change, and change now.  Virtue signalling elitism is done for.  Universalism has drained European politics of all moral authority.  The old values will have to be rediscovered if self-defence is to mean anything or to have any hope of success on a future battlefield.

Likewise, Trump’s alarming expansionist talk about annexing Canada and Greenland, and sending the military to take control of the Panama Canal, also now makes sense.  The global order of an empire of empires isn’t a fanciful confection of a few Russian dreamers like Glazyev.  It is the alternative order to the west’s model, and as the once and future hegemon America, too, must have its empire, albeit principally an empire of corporate expansion.  Nixon’s week in China also had a pay-off for corporate America (if at a terrible cost to the American working man).  Eventually it led via neoliberalism to the Davosian technocracy we encounter today.  The Trump administration, mindful that it is weaker than the people and must maintain the institutions of democracy, will hope that Americans actually benefit this time.  But any such good will be incidental.  The politics are fatally vested in the maintenance of American corporate and hegemonic power, not in Americans per se.  Trump is not a real nationalist.  The Republican Party cannot encompass real nationalism because the liberal project which is America is wholly antithetical to it.

Further, the eastern imperial model is oligarchic and elitist, intending state dictate and socialism for the masses of the world.  It is also worth emphasising that it does not at all preclude the Davos corporate and financial elites from its Great Game.  The dissenting right, in its lumpen way, has assumed that Davos is western, and its globalism with it.  No, it is only the politicians who are western.  The rest is worldwide because the Money Power behind it is worldwide.  With the one exception of Israel, it will adapt itself to any polity provided racial universalism obtains or could obtain therein.

All that said, there are points of potential push-back against the Trump agenda. Ukrainian fighters for one (the Ukrainian media is already relaying intelligence reports that Putin plans to announce his victory over NATO on the 24th February anniversary of his invasion).  American voters for another.  Resistance in the established order for another, and from anyone else who does not relish a political betrayal which benefits the murderers of Moscow.  Perhaps the Russophile civic nationalists in Germany and elsewhere will not be able to show their faces once Moscow’s gaze falls on Ukraine’s fellow Europeans to the north and west; and we might get some real nationalism in Europe.

Can a European people, or the greater part of it, find the Truth of itself today ... its living, unchanging ethnic person, its relational wholeness, its belonging to the land and to past, present and future? Even at this hour, filled with error and confusion and rampant wickedness as it is, can such an awakening … some might call it a rebirth … be achieved?  Or sufficiently achieved to, at a minimum, preserve our existence?  Those are the questions with which Part 1 of this series concluded.  A century ago Germans faced another ethnic crisis – not the same as ours or so acute, but very urgent in its way.  So the precedent exists.  What can it teach us?

THE WAGES OF CONFECTION AND IMITATION

Once upon a time in a land far away (or these days about 1 hr 40 min from London by passenger jet) the great mass of a defeated and despairing people gave their love and their allegiance to a messianic little man with a toothbrush moustache.  They believed in him and in his power to lift the heavy moral and economic burden on them, give them inspiration, bring them light.  They believed as no other European people believed before or since.  But it was not an irrational belief.  There were reasons for it.  Among other things, he had a plan to Macht Deutschland wieder groß, and he made good on it.  He spoke to the people as his people, his blood.  He spoke of belonging and uniqueness, and of honour, heroism and destiny.  He did it with a near religious fervour, and in an oddly histrionic but mesmerising way which gripped all who saw and heard him.  It was easy to believe in the messianic image which he had himself carefully engineered over many years.  Everything from his table talks to his set-piece public appearances and pronouncements was calculated and theatrical, nothing more so than those at the stupendous and dramatic parade ground that his party had built in Nuremberg.

An image not lost: the Cathedral of Light at one of NSDAP’S Nuremberg rallies.

On top of all that he had a highly competent Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda.  And his Reichsminister had a sophisticated understanding of how to sway and inspirit the Volk.  The inspiriting part still hold a general truth for racially European peoples today, much-abused as we all are.  But too much of what was said and done in the NSDAP years was not true at all.

For example, the little man with the toothbrush moustache opined that:

The efficiency of a truly national leader consists primarily in preventing the division of the attention of a people, and always in concentrating it on a single enemy.

Just by that choice of words we can infer that he identified attention as the means to ethnic self-awareness, and grasped at least something of its polarities and dynamics.  Of course, he did so not as an ethnic nationalist and identitarian but as an “Aryan supremacist”, German imperialist and hammer of the Jews, each of which array negatively against someone somewhere.  But, with the possible exception of Jews, a group identity which reifies and defines itself against an Other, even in part, will always be distorted by some or other non-essential element.  Indeed, in general sameness is a stronger reference and rallying point than difference – ask any identical twin.  More specific to race and ethnicity, what is shared is stronger than what is unshared, and that is true whether we are speaking of peoplehood, genes, land or any other shared natural interest, the defence of which is always more necessitous than is the attack upon the being and interests of an Other.  In other words, defensive or life-preserving interests possess a greater import and urgency than expansive or resource-acquisitional interests.

READ MORE...

This is the second of a series of essays on liberalism’s reification of the unfettering will and nationalism’s exposition on the human reality.  By liberalism I mean the ideational system derived from three and half centuries of western thought, which constitutes the organising Idea of the modern epoch and arrays politically as left and right.  I do not use the term in the narrow American sense of progressive opinion.  By nationalism I mean an ethnic and/or racial nationalism of our peoples’ truth, life and natural interests.

THE LAST LIBERALS

What happens when a regnant political culture of centuries standing simply loses its inner motive force?  No revolution takes place.  No viable replacement philosophy is to hand.  Nothing on a systemic scale occurs to force the change.  Yet the historical agency of this culture, which still today imbues the life experience of hundreds of millions, quite suddenly fails.

Well, we westerners are about to find out.  It has taken the over-reach that is trans extremism and the humiliation of the Democrat Party at the hands of Donald Trump.  But it is surely now clear that the constant leftward migration of western politics is at an end.  Ideologically, the tyranny of the same which is absolute human plasticity and self-authoriality, and which has worked away at western socio-economic life at least since the publishing of the first volume of Das Kapital, and possibly since the French revolution, is exhausted.

The consequences are, of course, epochal.  Liberalism, the system under which we westerners all live, will never deliver the “fully-human” estate of limitless freedom which its radical intellectuals and activists promised (or threatened).  There will be no breaking of all the bounds.  They have withstood the ravages of liberal ideology and emerged inviolable.  Nature is regnant, and the tabula rasa has been falsified.  Accordingly, the existential equalities which rest on it, and on total nurture, must now wither and die, for they have no surviving foundational claim.  The liberal “individual”, the great raison-d’etre of the system which works through our very person, has been found out.  Its never entirely reconciled twin ideologies of right and left, and therefore of libertarianism and equalitarianism, have both … both ... lost their compass.  Likewise, Nature’s political revival robs universalism (after liberty and equality the third of liberalism’s four interlocking and defining principles) of its justification.  In Nature’s realm there can be no brotherhood of all men because human relation is not flat and featureless, and cannot be dispatched by a faked sodality, be it liberal, be it Christian (ie, Judaic).  The human reality of race and ethnicity, kinship, discrimination and belonging, and everything that flows exclusively therefrom, cannot be put away.  The pharisaical attempt to turn it, in the European case alone, into “hate” and “racism” is destined for a very public repudiation.

The final philosophical blow is to the fourth defining principle: progress.  After the trans reversal there is no other ideological space into which liberalism can penetrate and expand.  This, too, is telling.  When there is no novel and exotic identity it can propose, no theoretical oppression it can confect, the whole of liberalism – essentially a conflict philosophy - loses its motive historical force.  It is become like a supertanker which has put to sea with insufficient fuel for the voyage. It has forged onward through the gales and high seas.  Now the great engines are rattling to a stop.  One hundred thousand horsepower is reducing to nothing.  Already, the vast rudder cannot be turned.  The ship is dead.  The crew remain at their stations because, for now at least, there is inertia in the system.  Given its weight and size, the vessel will continue to cleave the waves for quite some distance.  Every European life in the west will continue to be structured by the old desiderata, perhaps even for a generation – likely longer in the case of white Americans, because race gives a weaker signal than ethnicity.

READ MORE...

A medley of DT headlines for 4th January 2024

Since the July general election the The Daily Telegraph has grown increasingly rebellious.  The editorial stance didn’t shift further to the progressive cause, as was the case in 1997 when, after eighteen years of Tory rule, Tony Blair’s party was positively welcomed into power with palm leaves laid at its feet.  No such change of tone for Kier Starmer and his hapless ministers.  Indeed, not just the Labour government but the entire liberal Establishment - no doubt as embodied at The Times and The Guardian – has quickly become fair game for the newspaper formerly derided as the Torygraph.  It seems that Donald’s Trump’s triumph in November has tipped the scales,and the DT’s owners and senior editors spy a radical shift in the polity and a chance for a revitalised commercial future.

Never has this been more apparent than today when the online site has overdosed on moral outrage at the decades-long political complicity with, and inaction against, Muslim child prostitution gangs.  One should, of course, bear in mind that prior to this the DT has had little interesting to say about the scandal.  It was The Times chief investigative reporter Andrew Norfolk who broke the omerta with coverage of the crimes committed in Rotherham.  The Times, it has to be said, has fallen silent on the scandal now; as the DT was until now.  But better late than never, the DT has published a clutch of pieces - at least five - in the wake of Labour Minister Jess Phillips’ rejection yesterday of a national public enquiry into events in the Lancashire town of Oldham.  One of the articles, which are all pay-walled, actually uses the term anti-white racism to describe the actions of authority.  That would have earned a DT commenter an instant ban not so long ago.  But now the native cat is out of the bag, and it won’t be put back.  The nationalist cat will be looking to follow!

The most impressive of the articles is titled How the grooming gangs scandal was covered up.  It is a joint effort by Sam Ashworth-Hayes, a leader writer and business columnist at the DT, and Charlie Peters, a National Reporter at GB News – a cooperation which itself shows the direction of travel at the DT.  The article is the best piece of journalism on the subject that I have seen for years.  It concludes with the following excoriating sentiments:

The state must leave no stone unturned in its efforts to root out this evil. As one victim told GB News, “a government inquiry is the only way to hold Oldham Council and Greater Manchester Police accountable for their huge failures that led to hundreds of survivors being mistreated and not listened to. A Telford-style inquiry will give answers to survivors but it won’t give justice to those who deserve it.”

As shadow justice minister Robert Jenrick recently wrote in these pages, “a national inquiry is just the start: we need justice for the victims”. In his words, “this appalling scandal continues today because perpetrators still walk free and the officials who covered it up have been let off. The individuals who turned a blind eye to these crimes – and fed the most vulnerable women to the wolves – should be in jail.”

Reform UK’s Rupert Lowe has called a “full, free and fair public inquiry” that will “show the British people the facts, and let them decide”.

“No stone must be left unturned” in holding the guilty to account, “including those who acted to cover up these atrocities”. For the guilty, Lowe’s prescription is simple: “deportations and prosecutions, lots of them”.

“Any man or woman found to be complicit in these crimes should be deported, including dual nationals who should have their citizenship stripped away. That includes family members who were aware of what their husbands, fathers, sons and brothers were participating in. Swift and brutal justice is required”.

And above all, concerns over multiculturalism must no longer be allowed to outweigh the need to keep the public safe. As Dampier points out, we “need an end to two-tier community relations and the application of the law equally to all”.

Robert Jenrick agrees: “to sustain order in multicultural Britain, the state considered it necessary to apply the law selectively. For decades the most appalling crimes from diaspora groups were legalised and actively covered up to prevent disorder. The rule of law was abandoned to sustain the myth that diversity is our strength, destroying the lives of thousands of working class white girls in the process. This scandal starts with the onset of mass migration. This appalling affair is the final nail in the coffin for liberals who cling to the argument that Britain is an integration success story. Mass migration must end immediately and the foreign nationals prosecuted for their monstrous crimes must be deported - no ifs, no buts”.

It may sound strong. But strong measures are required. The British state’s soft touch approach left this problem to fester and rot.
Children were abandoned to suffer in the name of community relations, an unforgivable price. And it was a price that brought nothing: harmony based on lies doesn’t last. Public fury is swelling, and there is more to be angry about than if the cases had been dealt with swiftly at the time. Indeed, abuse may still be taking place because the state failed to act properly before.

It’s time for a new approach. The truth must be brought to the light.

The political techtonics are shifting beneath the feet of the liberal Establishment.  The age of lies is coming to an end.

The screenwriter who penned “an ancient race” marking “Once Upon A Time In The West” as mythic Requiem For Man, died a week ago.

The travesty that civilization has made of sex is reflected in the travesty that has been made of marriage as most obscenely manifest in “weddings”: Put the couple in a third mortgage-sized debt – in addition to the two mortgage-sized debts they incurred that they can’t escape even in bankruptcy in order to obtain unconstitutional life patents of nobility called “degrees” that are a shibboleth admitting them to sell their fertile years to “Human Resources Managers” similarly castrated to serve in the sterile worker caste.

READ MORE...

To my cousins in England from an American Orange Man, the deep history of your manhood you feel needs this perspective to guide your actions.  I offer my body as your Sovereign to be sacrificed by you my people if you will but take heed and follow this lead.

READ MORE...

Southport was a trigger.  So now a prediction.

The English have had enough of the foreign in their home, of the Other, and of government forcing the Other down their throats.  They have had enough of their towns and cities being colonised street by street.  The media focus might have been on “small boats”, it might have been on “immigration”.  But the English have had enough whenever and however the Other arrived.  They know replacement when they see it.  They know when they are being ordered to get out of the way.  They know the official agenda, the unspoken agenda.

They have had enough of the racial equality agenda, too, which they know perfectly well actually means anti-white racism.  They have had enough of being told by government that they are existentially guilty, that some confected political sin is theirs for being a people with a homeland that they love and want to protect, like any people.  They have had enough of the sheer loss and insecurity which “diversity” actually means.  They have had enough of white girls being prostituted by Moslem gangs.  They have had enough of black stabbings, enough of crime and violence which they know perfectly well is not caused by “poverty” or “racism”.  They have had enough of the political lies, and the ratchet law-making.  They have had enough of the persecution of those who speak for them.  They have had enough of being silenced.  They have had enough of the activist police.  They have had enough of sanctimonious, lying talking heads.  They have had enough of the trashing of their culture, enough of the TV ads.  They have just had enough of being trod upon.  They have had enough.

They have had enough, too, of the sexual weirdness.  They have had enough of mentally ill homosexuals in dresses, daubed like pantomime dames, going in to their children’s classrooms.  Just as, too, they have had enough of the Covid manipulation, enough of the Climate manipulation; enough of the lockstep between government and international institution, and government and media.  They have had enough of one-way government traffic, enough of everything that government has become.

They had had enough of all this with Sunak and his government, and they destroyed it; just as, in December 2019, they destroyed the disloyal parliament that thought it could overturn the people’s decision to become an independent nation once again.  They want for something that affirms their existence, their interests, their rights (which are the rights of the native).  They know they won’t get it.  They know the Labour Party is the most toxic institution in the land, which they now dare to continue the betrayal.  It is continuing it on steroids and already, not yet one month in, they ... the English ... have had enough.

We are, at this point, at the very beginning of a trial of strength.  The political traitors, the government machine, the media traitors ... the Establishment ... are pushing on in the belief that ever more naked power, basically a police state, will press the very blood out the English.  I predict that it will not.  Their resolve will harden to iron.  They will bring down the Labour government.  They will bring down treachery.  They will tear the beating heart out of it. It will not happen quickly.  But it will happen.  There is no other way for them to find their way to life, and no people can be told it may not live.