Counter-Currents
1,653 words
“Hey, did you hear about that thing Trump did?”
“Nah, what did he do?”
“Something pretty based.”
“Man, I don’t care. We Yang Gang now.”
“Look, I know you’re disappointed in him, but at least he beat Hillary and the nukes aren’t flying.”
That’s the bare-bones structure of a conversation I had with a friend about a week or so ago. I don’t remember the ostensibly based and red-pilled thing that Trump did, which means it was probably – as the kids are fond of saying – cringey and blue-pilled. That which is truly based and red-pilled resonates with you and is burned into your memory. When the Access Hollywood tapes came out and Trump dropped a truth grenade regarding female hypergamy, it immediately spread around the world, and it remained in our collective memory. Women do let you grab ‘em by the pussy if you’re rich, famous, or are alpha in other ways. You can get away with violations of their personal and private space that’d land the average beta in jail.
Through the misty fog of nostalgia, we look back on those years when many normies – indeed, many of us – were galvanized, when the red-pills made the scales fall from our eyes, and we were full of hope for the future. We felt the courage that comes with the certainty that there’s someone powerful at the helm, that a lion beloved of God marches at the head of the column. God help us, we marched behind him and put our faith in him.
We’ve come a long way from that time. No longer are we dealing with a pussy-grabbing, wall-building, swamp-draining God Emperor, but rather with a boomercuck, Israel-firster who wants legal immigrants to come in by their millions, and dances to the tune played by his spoiled brat of a daughter and her (((husband))). The Swamp drained him – or he was The Swamp from the get-go. It doesn’t matter. The mainstream media arsed it up, as usual. He’s not Orange Man. He’s Orange Golem.
But he ain’t Hillary, remember?
So was Obama. I’ll admit that during my conservative phase, in the Tea Party era, I had an inordinate amount of hate for Obama, to the point of believing the Ulsterman Report’s bullshit “White House insider” stories, in which someone who was ostensibly a Democratic party operative was leaking info on Obama out of loyalty to the Clintons. Unfortunately, I can’t find you a link to the reports themselves (which were somehow lurid and boring at the same time), but you can use any non-Google search engine to track down the general context of the thing. There was also a short-lived attempt to character-assassinate Michelle Obama by comparing her unfavorably to past First Ladies, especially Hillary Clinton, who was apparently ladylike, as well as claims that the Clinton camp would vote Republican in the following presidential election. These wild conspiracy theories and character assassination plots were most likely cooked up by the Clinton crime family, but they never really took off in the way that Qanon and other boomer-bait stories did, probably because a necessary assumption of these theories was that Hillary Clinton is ladylike and not a monster. I strongly doubt that even the most deluded of paranoid schizophrenics would believe that.
Now that I’ve managed to purge myself of this Obama-hate, I can in retrospect say that he had one thing going for him: he was Not-Hillary. Not-Hillary is important in a politician, as my friend put it. It means the nuclear nasties are grounded and not zipping willy-nilly through the air, seeking out the great cities of Europe, Asia, and North America, shredding the best of human stock whilst sparing those people too primitive to build a target worth nuking. As we’ve already established, Orange Golem himself is Not-Hillary – which is good, I guess. But as far as Not-Hillaries go, he’d seem to be worse than Obama on several important counts.
Firstly, Trump would appear to be worse on interventionism. It took much arm-twisting from Hillary, Leon Panetta and other warmonger types in his administration, as well as foreign leaders, to get Obama to acquiesce to adventurism in Libya, and even then he “led from behind” and let the French under Sarkozy take the lead. Plus, that did not transpire until the third year of his presidency. Trump, on the other hand, seems to be very gung ho for interventions in Syria and, chillingly, Iran. He’s swinging his dick around in Venezuela, and is at this point very much an Israeli-firster. Obama, famously, snubbed Benjamin Netanyahu and was less favorable to Israel than either Trump or Hillary. It sent the tribe into such hysterics that they produced a ridiculously funny and outrageously racist parody video where Obama sings about relocating Israel “under the sea.” Blackface and offensive accents are apparently okay if you’re of the Joo persuasion. Contrast this to Trump’s proskynesis before Netanyahu and his service to Israeli interests.
Secondly, Obama was in a sense less bad in personnel selection than Trump. Whereas Obama appointed black kakistocrats and race-hustlers such as Van Jones and Eric Holder, Trump seems intent on surrounding himself with crypto-trotskyite Jewish fanatics such as his much-beloved son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and the countless others who’ve goaded him into various cuckeries and stupidities. The black kakistocrats, at least, can be bought off and controlled by careful dispensation of gibs, and there’s also the black tendency to be direct and forthright, which is refreshing compared to Jewish dissimulation and neuroticism. Blacks are easier to control and mollify, whereas Jews are out-of-control and insatiable in both greed and demand for unearned respect. Regardless of race, thieves are always preferable to fanatics, for they can be reasoned with. Also, to his credit, Obama did not bomb foreign countries because his daughters cried at obviously staged videos of chemical attacks.
Now, I’ll give Blumpferino credit where credit is due – he didn’t arse up the Supreme Court nominations, and he’ll probably not arse up his third one when the Left finally admits that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is dead. However, this is probably not due to his own merit, but rather, as Jim puts it, due to the fact that he can draw upon the personnel pool which is the Federalist Society, which is a self-policing group devoted to an ideal amenable to our side. That blog post, incidentally, contains good information on exactly what is necessary to govern, so I wholeheartedly recommend reading it.
So yeah, you could say that, in a sense, I sorta kinda miss Obama. That song makes our dear ol’ milquetoast mulatto sound like a full-blown ghetto nigga lord – which would have been preferable to eight years of mild-mannered cuckery, but hey, that’s life for you.
Obama not only had the benefit of being Not-Hillary, but also the benefits of being Not-McCain and Not-Romney. Why Not-McCain is good is pretty self-explanatory, I’d say, but it bears repeating that he was a warmongering piece of shit who set an aircraft carrier on fire, killing 134 sailors. He was also an unlikeable liberal-leaning opportunist, which is why Republican enthusiasm for him was poor in 2008, handing the White House to Obama. Not-Romney is pretty good as well. Romney is a rich man in an age where wealth is mostly accumulated through graft and plundering of the commons, and Romney’s Bain Capital did exactly that. He got mocked for what would later become the official narrative of the globohomo: scaremongering against Russia. He’s also a Mormon, which is just plain weird and creeps people out. If one were of a conspiratorial bent, one would think that the GOP was softballing Obama with these two screwballs.
Obama was, of course, preceded by Dubya. Dubya is a historic personage in more ways than we currently understand. Éordred, in a recent article, tries to get to the bottom of what constitutes the Dissident Right, and he gets closer than most, but he misses the essence of what we were in the very early days: we were Not-Dubya, but on the Right. We were skeptical of global capitalism, we were skeptical of interventionism, and somewhat indifferent to the limp-wristed way in which the evangelo-cons fought the culture war. That’s a huge umbrella to get under.
Now, Dubya himself had two major benefits. He was Not-Kerry and Not-Gore. It seems like ancient history now, but Dubya wasn’t exactly popular back then, and we saw that his approval ratings collapsed in the wake of the 2004 election. You can run on Not-Kerry, but you can’t govern on it. Again, those of conspiratorial bent would be inclined to believe that the Democrats were softballing Dubya.
Which brings us back to Orange Golem. Much of his campaign was centered on being Not-Hillary, Not-Jeb, and Not-The Swamp in general. It turns out that he can’t govern on that. What is necessary for governance is positive identity, both ideological and biological. The Federalist Society is such a positive ideological identity – a “synthetic tribe,” as Jim puts it – whose organizational model lends itself well to good governance. White Nationalism is another such positive ideological and biological identity, rather than the Alt Right, which for a while just meant Not-Dubya, or, more exactly, not the mainstream conservatives; literally, an alternative Right. Not-The Other Guy will do in a pinch, but governments, nations, and other complex corporate entities cannot be built on negative identities. Incidentally, this is why what Steve Sailer calls the Coalition of the Fringes, and what the Spandrell calls the Bioleninist coalition, will eventually collapse. Their cooperation is predicated on not being white males.
Trump eschews positive identity by dodging clear identification of his voter base and his intellectual support. The identity vacuum has therefore been filled by Jews and Zionists, since this is the second-best positive identity that Trump can access, through his daughter and the oy grey eminence of Jared Kushner. Not-Hillary doesn’t automatically mean us; it could very well mean Netanyahu.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
24 comments
I’m very much out of the loop on this Yang thing but the basics I’m aware of is that he’s a hyphenated American of Asian stock who speaks about the plight of white Americans while pushing the cookie-cutter Democrat platform of lowering the voting age to get misinformed socialist kids mixed up with elections and restricting gun rights.
Might I suggest that this Asian democrat might be so cynical and opportunistic as to use the awakening racial/demographic concern of whites to exploit as a voting block for his own political gain and pushing his very basic leftist agenda, which itself does not at all benefit from helping the whites in America, who are generally pro-gun and anti-Marxist.
But chairman Yang is going to put things right and really believes in social justice for whites.. Never met an Asian that gave one iota about other races. They have a horrible track record when it comes to treating their own, let alone outsiders.
I’d vote white or not at all but then again, I’m pretty much out of the loop as well. Trump was quality entertainment, don’t hear much about Yang.
This is my feeling as well. But, far be it from me to tell other WNs what to do or how to vote. Yang is harmless as his daring but misbegotten and unworkable synthesis of middle-of-the-road Democrat progressivism with a hint of white-pity will inevitably fail. Unless his legs can open wide enough I doubt he can fit both the social liberals and racial conservatives of the nation under his frock. A vote for Yang is harmless as he won’t come close to winning the primary and when it’s time to vote Biden or Trump 2.0 in 2020 they’ll vote either Trump or third party anyway. The thing is, if you’re determined to throw your vote away, why not throw it at a real white nationalist instead of this watered down ricepirate?
What surprises me about the Yang thing is the moral cowardice of WNs who are pushing it, as if to signal that while they are engaged in racial politics, its not really racist, no sir massa, as the fella they’s votin fo ain’t white, y’see? Even Asians can be white nationalist!
Either it’s a futile spasm of a directionless movement or it’s some kind of 5D chess that’s fully beyond me.
You see clearly.
The only way forward is a campaign to split up the United States, and the movement faces are afraid to go there (but weren’t afraid to do Hitler salutes, armed Marches on Whitefish, and “white sharia now” for some reason…)
After Yang flops out of the primary it will be back on the Trump Train and if he loses it will be all she wrote; if Trump wins the Enemy will just run out the clock like they are doing now. Partition is the only way.
Well stated! Except there’s no 5D anything. It’s pure grasping at straws by juveniles. One defining trait of the young and/or stupid is the expectation that some politician can be even semi-perfect AND get elected in the post-1965 American faux-democracy.
Of course, I too am disappointed in Trump. He could have done so much more!
But I was never under any illusions about the guy. Trump is a true patriot, imo, just not one who is capable of even the level of “deep thinking” characteristic of the average alt-right commenter. In his gut he knows Whites are being shafted, and that allowing tens of millions of illegal aliens to remain in the country, while taking in endless millions from “shithole” countries, is insane. But he’s not any kind of systematic thinker, and his attention span is limited (this latter element is a huge part of why I believe in his essential patriotism: he has been rightly complaining about our borders for at least a decade, and he continues to make an issue out of it even now, when little constructive can be done after losing the House {mainly thanks to his own terrible “optics” and “messaging”}). He blew probably the last chance to save a still semi-civilized America.
Now it’s “The Ethnostate or Bust!”.
“If one were of a conspiratorial bent, one would think that the GOP was softballing Obama with these screwballs.”
You bet. By selecting knucklehead, dysfunctional family, millenialist Palin, Juan McCain demonstrated he was not serious about the presidency, and was eager to throw the election. I’m sure the Bigwigs of the Republican Party told him he had to be a good soldier, because he was “next in line”, and Obongo was the first Negro in history…
Had Romney won he would have gone down in history as “the White Obongo” because never has there been a worse racial panderer. Romney said he was tickled pink when the Mormons allowed Negroes into the temples. Romney also wrote the playbook on “bringing peeps of colour and single women into the Republican Party”; the paramount rules therein: “Never criticise a Negro because it’s mean, hateful, divisive and raycis” and “It’s not nice to say truthful things about girls.”
The Palin gamble nearly succeeded.
The GOP was trying to fight Obama’s novelty value with some novelty value of their own and in that sense, choosing Palin did work. It briefly turned his campaign around and his poll numbers got a boost until the economy tanked.
Sure, she’s a dingbat but if the goal was to get elected president, Palin was an inspired choice. She’s been a walking punchline for so long, people forget how fascinated the country was with her when she came to national prominence.
Yes, exactly! She was almost like a mini trump for a little while, but then all these embarrassing small town controversies came out about her, together with the unfortunate coincicidence of her teenage daughter getting knocked up. Governors of very small states are less powerful and well vetted than mayors of some major cities. She was an inspired gamble but the dice rolled snake eyes. I saw it as desperation at the time.
Those who were too young to be following politics at the time probably can’t understand what was going on during the 2008 and 2012 elections. It wasn’t so much that the Republicans were “softballing” Obama, but rather that they recognized that their chances of beating him were small. After 8 years of Dubya, who was getting some of the lowest approval ratings in US history during his second term, given his failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Hurricane Katrina, and to get Osama, followed by the worst financial crisis in recent history, the Republican Party was about as thoroughly discredited as is possible. They ran McCain in 2008 because he had a reputation as a “maverick” within the party who represented a “moderate” faction of the Republicans who dissented from Dubya’s policies (yes, incredibly, Dubya was thought of as an “extremist” back then) and who could get along with the Democrats. Although McCain is generally thought of as a neocon – not without good reason – many have forgotten that he was the most prominent Republican criticizing the Bush administration for its failures in Iraq. So the Republicans thought that McCain was the only one among them who had a chance of appealing to the (substantial) anti-war crowd, as well as those pesky “undecideds” who simply wanted to see change from Dubya’s policies. But I think they well understood all along that they were in a weak position and that Obama was a very strong candidate, and thus McCain was more or less a sacrificial lamb offered up for the slaughter (sort of like Bob Dole vs. Bill Clinton in 1996), which is how many commentators understood him at the time. The only time that anyone thought McCain truly had a shot at the White House was during the few days after Sarah Palin was named his running mate at the RNC that summer, because some people thought she might attract a lot of women voters, but when she soon revealed herself as a moron, that hope quickly dissipated.
As for the 2004 election, Kerry never really succeeded in capturing enthusiasm among the Democrats and undecideds; he was widely seen as the “inevitable candidate,” but not someone who many people liked except insofar as he was Not-Dubya. As someone who hated Dubya myself, I thought that Howard Dean was a much more promising candidate, but the media decided to pounce on him after the then-infamous “Dean scream,” and they quickly made mincemeat of him – which, viewed from today’s perspective, seems like a non-event when compared to much of what Trump has been doing on a daily basis since the campaign. But, it shows how much things have changed just in slightly more than a decade.
I’m old enough to remember.
It was really weird seeing people on the alt-right hardcore project onto Trump in 2015-16 the same way that liberal / progressive Millenniels projected into Obama back in 2008.
“Oh well of course liberals would messianize Obama, they’re emotional instead of rational. Surely however, our people would never act in the same way”
Oh how I misjudged that one!
John Morgan,
Much of what you say is blatantly untrue (just how “young” are people around here anyway?).
Morgan: “They ran McCain in 2008 because he had a reputation as a “maverick” within the party who represented a “moderate” faction of the Republicans who dissented from Dubya’s policies (yes, incredibly, Dubya was thought of as an “extremist” back then) and who could get along with the Democrats.”
1. “They” didn’t do anything. The GOP primary electorate narrowly chose McCain in a hotly contested race with five major figures all making respectable showings: McCain, Romney, Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul.
2. GWBush was NOT thought of as an extremist by anyone except Democrats (Hard Rightists like me thought he was reckless as well as liberal). And the GOP “moderates” (imo most of the party were and are “moderate”, sadly) were mostly for Romney and Giuliani, NOT McCain. McCain’s policy preferences, with the albeit important exception of his support for “doing something” about non-existent “climate change”, were literally indistinguishable from W’s. If anything, and to give the late devil his due, McCain was actually slightly better (more conservative) than W when it came to fiscal restraint.
Morgan: “Although McCain is generally thought of as a neocon – not without good reason – many have forgotten that he was the most prominent Republican criticizing the Bush administration for its failures in Iraq.”
3. I need to go back 35 years and restudy “logic and language”, because this singe sentence is a masterpiece of a type of logical fallacy (but I forget which one!). Putting side my recollection of Ron Paul as “the most prominent Republican criticizing the Bush administration for its failures in Iraq”, McCain’s criticisms of Bush were operational NOT ideological. Unlike Ron Paul, who relentlessly criticized the Iraq War from Day 1 and from anti-interventionist first principles, McCain’s criticisms were those of a HYPER-neocon who 100% supported the war, but who thought Bush was not going far enough in deploying the fullness of American military power to defeat the Iraqi “insurgents”. Have you forgotten the much ballyhooed “surge”, which was largely a McCain project, and for which he publicly insisted on taking the lion’s share of credit?
Morgan: “So the Republicans thought that McCain was the only one among them who had a chance of appealing to the (substantial) anti-war crowd, as well as those pesky “undecideds” who simply wanted to see change from Dubya’s policies.”
4. WHAT??! Which Republican thought that?? McCain was by far the first choice for “pro-military” Republicans (voter polling data long ago confirmed that). He was by far the favorite of the neocons, and for all who wanted clear “victory” in Iraq. Ron Paul was the hero of the antiwar crowd – which is in part why the GOP Establishment did everything they could to marginalize and discredit him.
Morgan: “But I think they well understood all along that they were in a weak position and that Obama was a very strong candidate, and thus McCain was more or less a sacrificial lamb offered up for the slaughter (sort of like Bob Dole vs. Bill Clinton in 1996), which is how many commentators understood him at the time.”
5. McCain was selected as the GOP nominee well before the Sept 2008 financial crash. No one thought of him as a “sacrificial lamb”, except in retrospect. Obama was not at all seen as a particularly strong candidate, other than that he was black (and there were massive arguments as to whether his race would help or hurt him). He was in fact seen as the inexperienced lightweight that he actually was. Nor was Dole a “sacrificial lamb”. In 1996 (I did a bunch of volunteer work for Pat Buchanan in 1995-early ’96), Clinton was widely regarded as eminently defeatable. After the GOP delivered a shellacking to the Democrats in 1994, many assumed Clinton would lose reelection; at the very least, it would be a tough fight.
I hated W as much as anyone (and never voted for him). But Howard Dean is a disgusting leftist, and always was.
The phrase, “Yang gang, is reminiscent of the Dark Horde of the Society for Creative Anachronism.
The USS Forrestal is to McCain what the birth certificate is to Obama: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/john-mccain-fire-uss-forrestal/
It does matter, because the people who said he was “Swamp” from the beginning – based on his decades long career of very public actions and words – now have “credibility” because they told the truth and were proven correct by developments.
Those who ignored Trump’s decades long career of very public actions and words, in order to spin ludicrous fantasies about Trump being pro-white or how he was playing “4-D chess” are proven to be either liars or idiots, or both.
It matters a lot and the next time something happens it pays to pay attention to people’s track records. The Alt-Right and White Nationalists that lied about Trump and spun fantasies about him to their audience should be considered to have extremely low credibility the next time they promote some politician or cause.
On the other hand, those who were correct about Trump, and simply pointed to his decades long, very public actions and words, have more credibility because they told the truth and were proven correct.
It matter A LOT.
Any nationalist in a swing state who does NOT vote for Trump is a phony nationalist. Disappointing as Trump has been, ANY Democrat, including Chinese colonizer Yang, will be 100-1000x worse from a pro-White perspective. On the following White-related issues, every Democrat is not merely “insufficiently pro-White”, but actively antiwhite:
1. “Reparations” for Negroes
2. Amnesty AND a “path to citizenship (with full family chain migration privileges) for “Dreamers” (and “Dreamers” for Democrats number in the millions)
3. building the Wall
4. deporting illegal aliens
5. reducing/halting legal colonization
6. expanding (?!) affirmative action
7. upholding the First Amendment (internet, universities, government agencies)
8. protecting firearms rights (possession and self-defense usage)
9. “law + order”: supporting the police confronting ghetto thugs, mass incarceration
10. diminishing US national sovereignty via globalist institutions, treaties
11. multicultural brainwashing in schools
12. granting statehood to Puerto Rico
That’s just for starters. On every other issue, all the ones not directly tied to race and White genetic interests, Trump is better, too. Just imagine what types of Justices and Federal judges the next Democrat (including an improbably “President Yang” {as obnoxious a sound as that of “President Obama”}) will impose on us (and the effect they would have on White racial speech, self-defense, and property rights).
Better to lose slowly with Trump/GOP than to see the nation destroyed in short order by any Democrat.
Better to die of cancer over several painful years, leaving nothing but a truckload of medical bills to your family than take extra-strong chemo that can kill you, but could also kill the cancer, right?
Is there some kind of argument embedded in this response? “Voting for an Oriental colonizer might stop White dispossession.” Is that it?
Here’s what I think of Yang and support for him.
https://counter-currents.com/2019/03/the-accelerationist-yang-gang/
I read your linked article. I primarily define myself as a “Faustian Man of the West”. Spengler was interesting and deserving of respect and serious consideration, but he is not my Muse. Western Civ is what I wish to save. Indeed, ensuring the biological purity and perpetuity of the White race is a necessary precondition for saving the West. I am fully onboard – and have been probably since before you were born – with the idea of the interracial untransmissibility of racial civilizations (not all civilizations are racial, but the West certainly is). No White man, no Western Man.
But there are a lot of White losers and jerks about whom I care not one whit. I care only about the ideo-culturally purest ‘breed’ of White man – men like me. I don’t care about preserving Jews (though I have some good Jewish friends, who frankly are more rightwing than many commenters here), queers or other perverts, commies/socialists/progressives/liberals/neocons, or assorted Nazis, Wotanists or wiccans (I can live with Nazis and pagans, but not under them). I care about my kind of people, “best of breed” Whites, the “plain peoples” of the West, especially among conservatives. I like non-PC Christians, and wish I could be philosophically restored to the Faith of my fathers. The Old American Republic – White, Christian, Constitutionalist, capitalist, conservative – was one of the peaks of human civilization, especially for ordinary people. I love that nation, and would like to see it resurrected. In the unlikely event that I live to see and move to an Ethnostate, I will fight to make it look as much like pre-1960s America as possible. Truly, with all Archie Bunker fans, “those were the days …”.
America is far from dead, though it may have to withdraw inwards for a long period of time. But it will rise again, and so will the broader West. The task now is to reacquaint White men with their Occidental heritage; to correct the misapprehension that being a good Christian requires one to be a White traitor; and to work for White racial separation and sovereignty. In the meantime, few people live by race alone, and whether the economy is booming, as under Trump, or stagnant as under Obama, has a real impact, as does whether we have a government which maintains public order, or one which sides with criminals. “Accelerationism” is actually a form of young man’s escapism, in its own less spectacular way as forlorn and juvenile as what the idiot Tarrant did in NZ. Building White consciousness and the critical mass of Awakened Whites necessary to create the Ethnostate takes patience and hard work, but it also takes a political and economic “breathing space”. We need “macro-decelerationism” to allow ethnostatism time to percolate, and permeate much more of White ‘mental space’ and society.
Losing slowly gives us the time to plan and prepare to win bigly down the road.
NO to Yang, YES to Trump!
I’m more cynical about this.
The Democratic primaries are going to be an all-consuming news story for around 6-9 months. We’re gonna want to have a couple horses to back just to stay part of the conversation.
If either Yang or Gabbard starts gaining traction, you can be sure that the media will label them “the white nationalist candidate”. Or they’ll say “Yang, who has been endorsed by the Daily Stormer….” Or “Tulsi Gabbard, of whom David Duke once said…” and the like. It also lets white liberals know we have some common ground with them.
Neither Yang nor Tulsi are going to win. You will have to choose between Trump and one of those two. Just consider the Dem primaries a practice Meme War. It gives us an opportunity to flex our meme powers, influence the narrative however we can, and have a bit of fun
Totally concur with the comment by “We Were Right” above. There were indeed people on the woke spectrum who saw Trump as he really is and was back in 2015 election season and before, and they said it as loudly as they possibly could. Full cred to Aryan Skynet and especially to “Hipster Racist”.
All the talk about “don’t punch right” is ineffective and contrary to larger goals if the equally destructive policy of “punch left no matter what” is followed in a rectionary manner.
Trump from an Eastern European perspective.
1. No escalation in the Donbass.
2. Trump’s ambassador doesn’t lecture us on gay rights, anti-semitism or Gypsies every other day. Refreshing!
3. No attempt to remove Orbán by orchestrating another Euromaidan.
4. No war against Iran (yet).
We’re OK with Trump. Please don’t elect a Democrat. Thanks.
Depends on where in Eastern Europe you live. You could get a State Department puppet government ram treasonous and illegal constitutional changes down your throat, as in Macedonia or get a color revolution where maniacs with chainsaws menace the state news service employees, as in Serbia.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment