Counter-Currents
2,561 words
Author’s Note: On October 15, I debated Mark Collett on the Ukraine war. My opening statement is here. After our opening statements, the format was to answer questions posed by the host/moderator Joel Davis. These are my answers to the first five questions. I appended my answer to the sixth and final question to my opening statement.
1. Was Russia justified in invading Ukraine? What responsibility does NATO have in creating the Ukraine crisis?
Russia’s invasion is pure imperialism. I would say naked imperialism, were it not for the tiny fig leaves of the “genocide” in Donbas and NATO encroachment.
I do think the US was stringing Zelensky along with the possibility of NATO membership to bait Putin into this war. I think the US had a very clear idea of how corrupt the Putin regime is and how weak the Russian military proved to be. I think they believe that a defeat for Putin could bring about regime change. I think that Putin was a fool to start this war. But baited or not, he was still the one to start it.
On a deeper level, though, NATO has no real responsibility for this war for the simple reason that Ukraine joining NATO was a disposable pretext. If NATO had given Zelensky a hard “no,” Putin would have invented another pretext, because I think he was hellbent on seizing Ukraine and thought it would be easy.
There’s a lot of disinformation about NATO in Russian propaganda.
NATO made no promise to Gorbachev not to expand eastward. They did promise not to put nuclear weapons in East Germany, a promise they kept. NATO expanded to the east because the countries there had legitimate security concerns vis-à-vis Russia. Unlike the Russian Empire or the Soviet bloc, NATO did not expand by conquest. NATO is a defensive alliance that countries ask to join.
Nor did NATO rebuff Russia. Putin asked why Russia was not invited into NATO. He was told that countries apply to join, and the members vote on it. Putin said that Russia would not wait in line behind insignificant countries, and that was the end of it.
Putin’s attitude, of course, is pure Russian imperial chauvinism. Under international law, all sovereign states are equal, hence equal treatment by NATO. Putin, however, thinks that you are only as sovereign as you are powerful. He does not fundamentally respect the sovereignty of smaller nations, which is why Russia’s former satellites wanted into NATO in the first place.
NATO’s member states are not “vassals” of America. What would happen if a NATO country tried to leave? Would there be regime change? Did America attack France in 1959 when she withdrew her Mediterranean naval fleet from NATO command? Did America attack when France refused to permit foreign nuclear weapons on its territory, forcing 200 US military aircraft out of France? Was France attacked in 1963 for withdrawing its Atlantic and Channel fleets from NATO command? Were there American tanks in the streets of Paris, as there were Soviet tanks in the streets of Budapest in 1956 and Prague in 1968? No; the other members of NATO respected France’s sovereign decisions.
Nor does NATO threaten Russia. NATO is a defensive alliance. It would not go to war with Russia unless Russia attacked one of its members. NATO, of course, has been used beyond its remit, for instance in Serbia and Libya. But that won’t happen to Russia because she has an enormous nuclear deterrent.
The idea that Russia cannot live behind its 2013 borders is nutty, yet we are told that this is an “existential” conflict. But the only thing existentially threatened by staying within its borders is Russia’s imperialist mentality.
NATO was built to contain Soviet imperialism. When the USSR was dissolved, it looked like NATO was obsolete. That impression was wrong. Russia’s post-Communist regime mourned the loss of their empire and immediately set to work subverting the newly-independent nations — which is why 15 of them applied to join NATO.
The only reason Ukraine was invaded is because it was not in NATO and did not enjoy its protection. This is why Sweden and Finland have now joined NATO. Armenia and Georgia should join as well. Putin’s war has strengthened NATO enormously.
2. What attitude should nationalists in the Anglosphere have towards NATO? Is NATO an anti-white geopolitical force?
Let’s not limit this to the Anglosphere. As a White Nationalist, I believe in white solidarity. When a white nation is attacked by a multiracial empire, I believe in coming to its defense. I think it is blatantly immoral to argue that we should be indifferent to the fate of other white nations because, somehow, the destruction of Ukraine would make it easier for us to fix our own governments at home. Even if that were true, it is at best petty nationalism, not White Nationalism.
If I believe in white solidarity, then I should also want organizations in place to defend white nations from aggressors. NATO happens to be performing that role right now, so I am happy with that.
Is NATO an anti-white geopolitical force as such? When NATO was founded, most of its signatories were deeply racist nations. The United States had immigration policies committed to maintaining a white supermajority. It had segregation in the South. It was a genuine white supremacist society. Germany based citizenship on German blood. NATO did not change all these things. The changes moved through different channels entirely. As my friend James A. argued recently in a piece I reprinted at Counter-Currents, NATO has not wrecked Poland, and not being in NATO has not saved Ireland.
Even though many NATO countries have insanely anti-white regimes, with the arguable exception of Turkey, NATO is a defensive alliance of white nations that are committed to mutual defense if any member is attacked. That makes NATO a de facto pro-white alliance, regardless of the politics of people like Biden or Macron.
3. Is the Russian Federation anti-white? Is the Russian Federation a threat to pro-white politics in Eastern Europe (and beyond)?
Yes, absolutely.
Russia is a multiracial empire in which the white majority has below replacement fertility, and the only growing populations are Chechens and Tuvans. Russia also has large numbers of non-white immigrants from the Stans who are more fertile than Russians. As White Nationalists, we all know what those trends mean in our own countries. They mean the same thing in Russia: Unless these trends change, in a couple of centuries the average Russian will be a Muslim with significant Mongoloid DNA. The only way to preserve the Russian people is to create a Russian ethnostate.
In the West, we are more or less free to advocate for ethnonationalism. We can even advocate ethnonationalism for Russians. But in Russia, that will get you gulaged as an advocate of “cave-man” nationalism. Russia is an authoritarian society with aggressively pro-multicultural, anti-nationalist propaganda — and short of revolution, there’s no way to change it. This makes Putin’s regime bad for whites in Russia — as bad as a Trump dictatorship would be for whites in America.
Putin’s express aim in invading Ukraine is de-Nazification, which does not refer simply to Azov. Russians use “Nazi” and “fascist” like Jews do in the West: to stigmatize any patriotism, national identity, or national self-determination other than their own. Russia also brands Poland, Finland, the Baltic states, and now even Sweden as “Nazi.”
Francis Parker Yockey described the Soviet Union as the leader of the outer revolt of the non-white world against the white world. Putin’s recent speech, which so many in our movement have lauded, is direct from the Soviet anti-white playbook. As Michael Tracey asked: Who wrote this, Noam Chomsky?
Finally, Putin’s regime has made a concerted effort to subvert ethnonationalist movements in the West. He has Western ethnonationalists ready to drop their principles on the spot to shill for Russian geopolitical interests. Some of the marks of this shilling are:
- Selective anti-Semitism: Jews make America and Ukraine bad, but Putin can dedicate a monument to the Red Army in Israel with “an army of Jewish billionaires” at his side, and . . . no comment.
- Selective self-determination: Self-determination is good in Donbas and Crimea but bad for Ukrainians, Chechens, and the Baltic states, not to mention Kurds in Syria or Tibetans and Uighurs in China. Some empires are good, apparently, others are bad. (In the debate, Collett actually airily referred to Russian multiculturalism as “natural” because it is a big country [the word is “empire,” and they are made, not grown], but he also referred to Ukraine as an “artificial” state whose Russian-made boundaries needed to be redrawn to reduce multiculturalism.)
- Selective anti-Islamism: Muslims in Ukraine can behave like Muslims in Rotherham and provoke no comment from some Western nationalists.
- Selective concern with demographic decline, differential fertility, and replacement migration. Western nationalists sound the alarm about the long-term consequences of such trends in their own homelands, but when confronted with the same trends in Russia will suddenly revert to cuckservative arguments circa 1965, dismissing the very possibility of demographic change as alarmism.
Such contradictions don’t help Russia, but they do undermine your credibility if you support them.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The White Nationalist Manifesto here
I don’t know what the Russians or their Western supporters think they are getting out of this. I don’t think our opinions will affect the outcome of this war one way or another. I suppose it is flattering that the Russians think we are important enough to subvert, but they are doing terrible damage to our movement for no measurable benefit to themselves.
I don’t know what Western nationalists think they are gaining by supporting Russia. Some, surely, have fallen for a form of the QAnon delusion that they have powerful friends in high places. But we don’t. We have to fight this regime ourselves. Some, surely, play too many video games, where they enjoy real dopamine from imaginary agency and imaginary victories. Time to put away childish things. Some, surely, are paid agents of influence, although it is reckless to make such accusations based solely on circumstantial evidence.
But the accusation of selling out for money is actually the most charitable, because although it is dishonorable, it is at least “rational” in some sense, whereas “selling out” for no apparent benefit at all is baffling.
My mind is drawn to the grotesque image of a huge cuckoo chick being frantically fed by tiny birds who have been fooled into thinking this monstrous parasite is their own offspring. Such cuckoldry is all too common among humans. It is easy for us to see when it takes the form of whites adopting non-white babies or opening their borders to non-white migrants because their natural nurturing instincts have been hijacked by anti-white propaganda. We need to react with equal horror when we see mental cuckoldry in our own ranks. We are fighting the most evil establishment in history, with almost no resources but truth and courage. We can ill afford to pour our scarce credibility, time, and money into the bottomless gullet of Russian imperialism.
Our movement gets nothing from Russia apologetics, but it costs a great deal. In the short term, it causes polarization, ill will, and the breakdown of our ability to work together toward our true mission: saving our race. In the long run, it undermines our effectiveness as racial champions by making it unclear what we stand for. Championing contradictory ideas also undermines our credibility.
4. Does Ukraine’s right to national sovereignty necessarily trump nationalist concerns with US/NATO power projection?
Whose nationalist concerns are you talking about? Are you talking about “geopolitics” here? Because when I hear that word, I reach for my pistol, because I sense I am about to hear that I can somehow advance White Nationalism by giving verbal assent on the Internet to something blatantly immoral, anti-white, and anti-nationalist.
Yes, Ukraine’s national sovereignty trumps “geopolitical” concerns with US power projection, purely on principle, because the only geopolitics White Nationalists care about is creating a world of sovereign states.
But if such abstract principles leave you cold, still yes, because Ukraine is a very special country, where white ethnonationalism is very strong. Ukraine could be the first country in Europe to have a genuine ethnonationalist regime someday. If Ukraine became part of NATO and the European Union, it would be a natural ally of nations like Poland and Hungary against the worst influences of the West.
Russia’s apologists love to say that if a country joins NATO or the EU, it will be flooded with non-whites and trannies. Ukraine, they say, would be doomed. Well, if it really is their position that countries like Ukraine or Poland or Hungary, with their large nationalist movements and stubbornly sensible populations, are doomed by NATO and the EU, what hope do Western nationalists have? If Svoboda and Azov and the National Corps can’t beat back Western decadence, what chance does the National Justice Party? If Orbán can’t win, then what chance goes Patriotic Alternative have?
5. Can/should NATO be reformed? What would be the ideal Western security architecture?
I am a White Nationalist, which means I am a partisan of a political system that does not exist (yet), not a partisan of any existing political system. That said, from a White Nationalist point of view, some are better than others. Beyond that, I can understand why countries faced with the real-world choice between NATO membership or being a Belarus-style satellite of Russia are eager to join NATO, even though they are aware of all the problems with the West.
There are definitely bad things about NATO. NATO has encouraged the militaries and martial spirits of most of its members to atrophy. Finland and Sweden have excellent militaries and have a great deal to lose under NATO. Also, NATO has been used by the US as way to impose Jewish-penned free speech violations on new members. When Romania wanted to join NATO, for instance, they were told it was problematic to honor Marshal Antonescu. The United States would actually oppose the NATO membership of a country that adopted the US Bill of Rights. Obviously, those are bad things, but they are hardly the apocalyptic predictions of Russian propagandists and nothing compared to the tyranny exercised within the Warsaw Pact and the USSR proper, which is the main reason those countries find NATO membership so desirable.
But, for all that, yes, NATO can be reformed. NATO would be great if every NATO member country had pro-white leaders. That is up to every nationalist movement in every NATO country to accomplish. Obviously, that’s a long way off. And short of that, Central and Eastern Europe would probably be better off with the Intermarium alliance that has been widely discussed at CC since 2015. (See, for instance, Émile Durand’s article on Intermarium.) The Intermarium was an interwar Polish geopolitical idea to create a military alliance of nations between the Baltic and the Black Sea to serve as a cordon sanitaire, sealing off Europe from Russian Bolshevism. A modern Intermarium could embrace Finland, the Baltic states, Poland, Chechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Moldova, Ukraine, Bulgaria, and even the former Yugoslav republics. Together, these nations have the power to deter any Russian aggression short of nuclear warfare, but they would also protect the most racially and culturally healthy countries in Europe from Western decadence.
Southern Europe also needs a way to seal off the continent from Africa and the Near East.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “Paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
- Third, Paywall members have the ability to edit their comments.
- Fourth, Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
- Fifth, Paywall members will have access to the Counter-Currents Telegram group.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
Notice: Trying to get property 'ID' of non-object in /home/clients/030cab2428d341678e5f8c829463785d/sites/counter-currents.com/wp-content/themes/CC/php/helpers/custom_functions_all.php on line 150
51 comments
Where can I find the whole debate? I think that this is probably the most interesting debate in white nationalist milieu since debate between Jared Taylor and Michael E. Jones on race.
https://odysee.com/@joeldavis:0/Mark-Collett-vs.-Greg-Johnson—the-Ukraine-debate:1
Thanks!
Collett & Co., apropos of this issue, remind one of the “NaMe ThE jEw!!!” types over at Gab, who seem to think there is only one enemy, or enemy type, worth contending with. It is simply impossible to tolerate listening to him opine (steamroll, really) about Russia-v-Ukraine.
I support and appreciate both him and Patriotic Alternative, but his “based Putin” stance is insufferable.
IMHO, Greg’s take on this is irrefutable.
Judeo-American-Liberal-Democratic Regime! Try talking like that to a normie. Big success guaranteed.
One should make a step back and think about it like that: How is it that a movement concerned about demographic replacement of a people gets so wrapped up with whether that or another state will enter that or another international alliance?
The answer is: by steady state of pro-Moscow propaganda which is directed at any political and non-political community of size and steered towards attitudes that are conductive for the expansion of the Muscovite imperium.
Prowhites are desperate for someone, anyone, with real power to be on their side. So too many see only what they wish to. Putin is white; is tough; is unafraid of the “Rainbow Reich” controlling the West, and who hates him (obviously a mark in his favor). Eastern Europe in general is less racially demoralized and defenestrated than Western populations. He therefore looks the part of a leader who is either literally or at least effectively prowhite. It has been disappointing to me, as well, to discover that he isn’t (though I knew this long ago, when I first heard about him cracking down on various “Far Right” [trans: Russian indigenous ethnonationalist] and “Nazi” [trans: prowhite] groups inside Russia).
Turning to Realpolitik: if Mr Putin is seen to fail or be humiliated, then surely his life is in danger from his ‘comrades’? That may be just, but would he not then be tempted to use nuclear weapons in a last ditch attempt to halt the collapse of his armies and save face? Which could trigger a calamity benefitting no-one at all! Distasteful though it may be to the brave Ukrainians, I would suggest that negotiations to end the war are not undertaken in the spirit of imposing an overly punitive settlement on Russia(*)
The invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent conduct of Russian forces on campaign have been an enormity, and yet ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine seemingly had some legitimate grievances. Some manner of land-for-peace deal with a couple of the disputed oblasts, including the Crimea, going to Russia, would seem to me a possible basis for discussion.
(*) Such as breaking the Russian Federation up and holding a Nuremberg-style tribunal as some ‘neoconservative’ pundits have proposed.
Some manner of land-for-peace deal
Maybe it would work with the English, the French, the Japanese etc. But the Ukrainians will not believe that the Russians after got some lands would stop their aggression/expansion. There is too much mistrust (mutual) and this mistrust is not unfounded.
Well, an old Nogay saying tells “When you meet on the road a venomous snake and a Russian, better trust the snake than the Russian”. And Qazaqs say that when you go to sleep with a Russian, keep your axe near and ready.
The only thing that would guarantee keeping Russia out is NATO article 5.
The Military Balance yearbook says that the NATO of today is weak, and that the military-industrial complexes of the NATO countries could now not compete with the Russians in quantity of weapons. In quality yes, but the quality does not matter for Russian tactics and strategy.
I think Russia’s poor performance in the recent war is a better indicator of relative strength than this book.
As a neutral observer I thought both yourself and Mark made good points at times which is a credit to an interesting conversation being had…but I must say Mark’s tone at times was very close to coming across as insulting.
Perhaps the weakest argument I felt made by Mark was the notion that just by dint of opposing America that means Russia is deserving of support. That because on the global stage Russia is ,sometimes, a counter-foil we should automatically side with them.
They are too quick to forget how many anti-white revolutions the USSR funded and approved of all over Africa, South America, South East Asia. Just because Putin has funded the defense of Assad for their own geo-political aims does not undo history of how people like him (KGB…) used ideology to manipulate and foment anti-white revolutionary movements int he past.
Ditto, the USA, the US State Dept., Peace Corps, NED, Congress for Cultural Freedom, Africa-America Inst., et al. .
I think Mark crossed the line into being insulting many times.
Standard “methodichika”.
If you aren’t in total agreement with the Russian propaganda then you are “too stupid to understand a simple thing like this”. They are going to this level pretty fast. It is their escape when all their arguments were politely refuted.
He certainly did. As a PA supporter, I felt appalled and embarrassed. I can only hope he will maintain his position of speaking in a personal capacity on this issue rather than speaking for PA.
The butchery of this dysgenic war is just appalling, and whenever it can’t get any worse, it does. Until I die I will never forgive this administration for gambling with all our lives like this. White nationalism will be a moot issue if we’re all f*****g dead. What if there really have been 90,000 Russian ‘irrecoverable losses’ as they call it? Is this supposed to be a good thing? These are the most virile men in the country, the cream of the crop. Loss of good soldiers is everyone’s tragedy. Relations between the west and Russia have been set back 100 years in less than 8 months. And this is the country, really a whole civilization unto itself, that brought us among others Chekov, Berdyaev, Scriabin, Balanchine, Nabokov, Shestov, Pushkin, Illich, Baratynsky, Merezhkovsky, Tarkovsky, Solzhenitsyn, Bely, Prokofiev, Eisenstein, Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy and Akhmatova, all of whom have enriched my life immensely. This is the country with a polity dating back 1000 years, with a cultural heritage that imo dwarfs America’s, our own. Redditors will call Russian soldiers ‘orcs.’ That’s because with their limited mental horizons they have to relate real world events to their favorite movies. (Not that there’s anything wrong with enjoying a good film or fantasy novel) I doubt many of them even read books however. Instead, like when they promote potentially myocarditis inducing mRNA vaccines, get arsonist DAs elected to let criminals loose, flood the country with lethal drugs allong with assorted third world human refuse, ruin the economy and now get us embroiled in a potential world war, I’m forced to concluded someone somewhere very high up simply wants to bring the whole world with him when he dies.
At least you have for what to live, so thank to your each and every administration.
I choose death anytime over the Russian occupation. Lived all my life under the effect of the Russian occupation, and influence, and let me tell you it’s not a life worth living.
So I’ll hate Russia, and the Russian apologists to the end of my life.
You forgot, among others, Turgenev, Solovyov, Bunin and Platonov, not to mention Tchaikovsky. Maybe the Jew Vasily Grossman. Not sure I would have included the quarter-Jewish Marxist Eisenstein, and I personally would have left the insufferably boring Tarkovsky off the list completely (I have hated every Tarkovsky film I’ve masochistically forced myself to watch). And which Illich are you referring to? Ivan the priest and social critic? I don’t think he was Russian at all. Is there another famous Illich?
I meant Ivan Ilyin not Ivan Illich, (who wrote the book On resistance to evil by force, О сопротивлениии злу силою) although I also find Illich fascinating.
Yes, Illich, also known as Carlos The Jackal. He was of course a Venezuelan, but studied in the SU.
I was assuming Ivan Illich, the Catholic theologian and social critic (some of whose work overlaps with NANR concerns and stances). Ilich Ramirez Sanchez was the Jackal. Very different persons (to say the least!).
With respect to NATO, while members were initially “racist” and pro-European, this is hardly the case today. Non-European countries have extremely close ties to NATO–Israel–as well as Columbia, Morocco and Japan; one can hardly argue that NATO today is a vehicle for white self-defense and nationalism. The idea that NATO was European, western-civilization alliance against a Slavic Communist machine was of the past and forgotten. While we can clutch the past, this does not change the future.
Coming to the defense of co-ethnics is hardly a tiny fig leaf. White America, in the past, in saner, clear-thinking times, repeatedly came to the aid of white Americans, during the frontier period, in Hawaii, in Central America, China and elsewhere. The term imperialism has been bent out of shape beyond recognition by modern progressive white masochist academics. Europeans in Africa and Asia were there to improve the lot of the people–as well as for selfish reasons. Whether the Russians hope to do the same in eastern Ukraine remains to be seen but at the very least they are there to aid kinsmen.
NATO is certainly a vehicle for white self-defense, because practically every white nation in Europe is in it, and NATO obligates all nations within it to come to the aid of any member that is attacked. It doesn’t matter if a NATO country has a pro-white leader like Orban or an anti-white like Macron. The alliance functions as objectively pro-white.
It is a tiny fig leaf, because the bloodshed in the Donbas was started as a Russian destabilization op. Russia created the “genocide” they are now claiming to save their co-ethnics from.
If NATO is a mechanism for white self-defense, why hasn’t it defended whites against the invasion of nonwhites into Europe?
I think the old description of keeping the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down is more accurate.
Good question
It is a multifaceted issue.
1. It is a legal loophole here regarding saving lives at sea. So any ship on the sea have to save all the lives. Not saving the boats with migrants is breaking old international treaties.
2. The biggest trouble was done by Angela Merkel, Putin’s friend and puppet.
3. The European agency that has to protect the EU borders, the FRONTEX is under attack on all fronts for doing its job. Not really wondering who ordered the attack.
4. Russian savagery in Syria started the migratory wave. The Russians had a campaign to destroy all the hospitals. The Russian soldiers committed every conceivable act of terror in Syria. They knew very well what they were doing.
What could NATO do? Send the tanks in Paris and Berlin?
Arrest Merkel for espionage and treason? And along with Merkel half of the prime-ministers and ministers in Europe? Sebastian Kurz, Berlusconi, Mateo Salvini, Gerhard Schroder, Matteo Renzi, Christian Kern, Francois Fillon, Esko Aho, Paavo Lipponen, Karin Kneissl, Hans Schelling are only the very tip of the iceberg. All of them are linked to Putin. Many of them are working for Russian companies right now. You can check name by name.
Not that I wouldn’t like it, but things are not going to work this way.
Once Putin defeated and his puppets removed from power the migrants will be sent home in a civilized manner. Without Russia/USSR Africa will be a much more peaceful place.
Anyway, are you sure that a Ted Kennedy was only a disgusting idiot and he didn’t know what he was doing 1965, and that he was colluding with the KGB only since 1983? It would explain a lot.
Immigration was devised from the beginning to weaken US and Europe. Cui prodest scelus, fecit est! And the only one benefiting from it is…
Crazy world. Gustav Scholz wants to sell the Hamburg maritime port to China. Another traitor.
‘[K]eeping the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down […]’
To be fair, two out of three isn’t all bad.
NATO is a military organization , not a pan European political party in power, and Europe is about 85% white. So yes, NATO is a defender of white nations, to answer Vegetius.
Playing the Devil’s advocate for Mark for a moment, I don’t want to dismiss him completely. Europe is about 85% white, so is Russia. America is about 60% white , with less than 50% white for under 16 years of age. Place your bets for who’s got a better chance to be on our side in the far future.
As for the immediate or mid range future, I cannot be on the side of violent empires like Russia, that seek to dominate and enslave other people. So at the moment Mark is wrong.
Except that those who run NATO (the military tool of the American Empire) are working hard to turn their majority white member countries into majority non-white countries while supporting all kinds of other related corrosive ideologies.
They make it crystal clear what their ideology is.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_183679.htm
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_206998.htm
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_179494.htm
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_132050.htm
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_143802.htm
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_64099.htm
Clicked randomly on a link. First name? Another de Maiziere. Isn’t Germany ready yet to get rid of the famous spy and traitors family? Or is it safer to blame NATO than Russia, while NATO is full of all kind of spooks like these.
“NATO’s member states are not “vassals” of America. What would happen if a NATO country tried to leave? Would there be regime change? Did America attack France in 1959 when she withdrew her Mediterranean naval fleet from NATO command? Did America attack when France refused to permit foreign nuclear weapons on its territory, forcing 200 US military aircraft out of France? Was France attacked in 1963 for withdrawing its Atlantic and Channel fleets from NATO command? Were there American tanks in the streets of Paris, as there were Soviet tanks in the streets of Budapest in 1956 and Prague in 1968? No; the other members of NATO respected France’s sovereign decisions.”
Dear mister Johnson, you are very informed and intelligent man, you have certainly heard about role that USA secret services had in `68 Paris riots, that was crucial in the fall of general de Gaulle. This is only one example among many (the role that masonic lodge P2, under USA umbrella, had in stifling “far right” movements, is probably most famous).
LOL
Better remember the Hitchcock’s film TOPAZ, Leon Uris’s novel of the same name, on which the movie was based, and the real history of SAPPHIRE net of Soviet influence agents around de Gaulle in the 60’s.
You have impressive knowledge of many things, Kok Bori. I do not ask your identity, but what is your nationality; what is your profession; what is your academic background?
Well, I hope you excuse me when I answer in vague terms only. My ancestors were both “Eastern Slavs” and Caucasian Tuerks. I am assimiliated, as almost all of us whose fathers and grandfathers went under Stalin and Khrushchov to the cities for the higher education with ith “Russification”. My granddads and my dad and my mom all worked in the Soviet military industry, that’s why almost no connections to national traditions and customs, and only rudimentary knowledge of the language. I do not have any academic background, I am neither scholar, nor writer or journalist, just a reader of some (interesting) books.
Well, my mistake.
I do not think that the AMERICAN intelligence has played big role in the 1968’s rebellions in Europe. Because the same troubles there were in America itself. If I would suggest some foreign politicians staying behind those events, I would rather point on Mao Zedong and/or Fidel Castro. But not on Brezhnev and not on LBJ/Nixon.
The involvement of USA secret services was claimed by Michel Poniatowski, a high ranking french official at the time, in his memoirs. There is also a lot of things that confirm his claim. One among those is that students riots of `68 in France were the only one that demanded change of government with concrete person as a candidate for president, Pierre Mendès France, an old prostitute of speculative capital (very strange demand for communists).
I am not buying it.
You don’t have to buy it, borrow it. I first heard it from Dragos Kalajic, friend of Evola, who was well connected in higher echelon of Italian and French nationalistic/traditionalistic intellectual circles.
The imperialistic behavior of Russia has been felt for centuries by East Europeans, maybe it’s a surprise for Westerners, but not for the Eastern part of Europe. Any snall country has the right to defend itself, and make alliances with whoever they choose , when faced with an invasion. It’s not for Mark or anybody else to judge them. And by the way, Islamic extremists also hate the Jews and America, so do the Chinese but to a lesser extent (only due to their desire of world domination). Does that mean that we have anything in common with dark age societies or communist totalitarianism ?
However, the woke/equity insanity that dominates the West, specially that part that manifests itself by promoting incompetence, based on racial and ideological grounds in the core fields of scientific academic research with direct implications for the military, that is a serious mistake. The Russians and the Chinese are already ahead of the West in hypersonic missle technology, and there are many other examples. In a couple decades the situation will be much worse. So maybe this is the right time for a direct confrontation, the way things evolve it looks like it will be inevitable anyway in the future when the West will be in a far worse position.
Hopefully this will not happen, I got used to my spoiled lifestyle, and my Western comfort, hell, I can sit in my comfortable sofa with my balls hanging out of my shorts, in front of my computer while passing judgment on people who are dying fighting for their country.
Greg was right, it doesn’t matter what we think or say anyway, these things have a life of their own. Luckily !
An old African wisdom says, that if a crocodile has eaten your enemy, it does not mean that the crocodile is your friend.
Anyway, are you sure that a Ted Kennedy was only a disgusting idiot and he didn’t know what he was doing 1965, and that he was colluding with the KGB only since 1983?
Here I would recommend to read/re-read all four books of Yuri Bezmenov/Tomas Schuman. They sometimes overlap each others in their content, but they are small and good written, so you woud enjoy them and find there some information about Ted and not only about him. (Here I should note that the English originals in the Net are of bad quality, while Russian hobby translations of the same books in the Internet are better readable.)
But maybe you know it without Bezmenv that Teddy said (in 1970’s) publicly (I cannot remember if he said so in the Senate or just in newsapapers) that there were no any oppressions and violations of the civil rights in the Soviet Union, and that the Soviet people lived better, happier and more freely than Americans.
The anti Americanism at counter currents by commenters from Europe where the entire world is a victim to the USA is the reason I don’t care about Russia and Ukraine. It’s also what makes it hard to care about Europe as a whole and this is really saying something since my in laws live there. It gets old reading about how the US is behind everything and Europe is this poor hapless victim. Why doesn’t this same logic apply to White Americans? We didn’t vote to colonize Western Europe with Muslims and Africans.
I was in Ukraine in 2018 and it most definitely was corrupt and easily seen to an outsider. ( Western men at bars/restaurants are the easiest targets for scams)
But I also saw many construction projects with EU flags proudly mentioning how this construction was possible because of EU support. I also spoke to medical professionals in Kyiv and they seemed as pro EU as well as the younger 20 something women I spoke to who in the coffee shops who said their dream was EU membership. America can’t be to blame if the people themselves also want what it’s selling. It takes 2 as my grandmother would say.
There’s no denying that under Soviet and now Russian influence Ukraine was left to rot. Even comparing Eastern Germany to West Germany you see the stark differences. They made a movie about it.
The American regime is, and largely has been for eighty or more years, under the effective sway of the predominantly Jewish-directed press and various ruthless lobby groups, whose main concern, naturally enough, is their own quite sensible agenda, unconsidered even by the vast majority of Jews, namely to dominate the whole planet and eliminate potential rivals whilst prohibiting anyone from pointing out what’s happening.
It’s standard world conquest a la Alexander the Great, Rome, Arabian Caliphate, Genghis Khan, Spain, France, Britain, Russia. The only difference is that the means are much more subtle and the time span of conquest is a few hundred years, just as the successful invasion and destruction of white nations is set to take maybe a hundred years.
It is this ‘America’ which people might be railing against, certainly not the good-hearted folk whom most of us know as Americans. The same forces are operating to a greater or less extent in most European countries to paralyze and then very, very slowly poison the prey. Part of the paralysis is to feed the average punter a steady diet of black propaganda against heartland Americans through entertainment and news, but I wouldn’t think many non-American commenters here haven’t moved past that.
It works both ways. As a Brit, I come across loads of anti-British bile on right-wing comment threads, particularly from Americans and Australians. We should try not to let it bother us. The people who engage in it are unlikely to be activists.
Thank you for replying to me.
I love British people particularly the quirky and hilariously funny English men.
Real Americans have always been very friendly and curious with British and European people as a whole. We see Europe as our origin story obviously. But this friendliness changed with the invention of the internet.
As far as I know, there was a commitment by U.S. Secretary of State Baker not to expand NATO to the east. The German Foreign Minister Genscher said the same thing. All this happened in February 1990. Later, when the crisis in Ukraine began, in 2014, this was denied with considerable effort, especially from the German side. Russia is undoubtedly not the defender of the Whites, which in a way also shows the unbroken continuity of Soviet-Bolshevik understanding of history. But to see NATO or U.S. America (which is ultimately the core of NATO) as a tendentious alliance in defense of the Whites may have looked that way at times and on the surface, but it was never the essence of NATO. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early#.WjAX9r_XxYI.twitter
Well, the Poles, the Czechs, Romanians, Latvians and other ALL WANTED to join the NATO. Here should be noted that they DID NOT WANTED to join the Warsaw Pact voluntarily. And after having been a part of the Soviet Block they so much wanted to be NATO members. And note that a country could leave the NATO, as the French did (in regard of the military organization) in 1966, and it would not be bombed or invaded. Compare that with what happened to Czechs and Slovaks in 1968.
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
Edit your comment