934 words 
At the start of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, both the “Dissident Right” and mainstream conservatives in America quickly became lockstep in praising Putin and criticizing Ukraine. Nationalists in Europe were not so easily taken in. Part of this was undoubtedly due to geographical proximity. The Russian bear looks more cute and cuddly the further away one is. However, there were also cultural issues which explain this stark divide in attitude.
Political amateurism has been a perennial problem in America. Thus, a discussion of it is warranted before turning to the recent scandal in which Tenet Media channeled Russian money to American influencers.
Americans are more vulnerable to propaganda in general for several reasons. Drawing upon Oswald Spengler’s writings, Francis Parker Yockey in Imperium explained how the English did not have a proper understanding of true politics due to their “splendid isolation” arising from their protected, or rather coddled, geopolitical position. This phenomenon was then transferred to America and further exacerbated by an even more severe geopolitical isolation. There were plenty of personal dangers on the North American continent, but no real political dangers after the War of 1812. Indians and dysentery can certainly end one’s life, but not the sovereignty of one’s state. (The Civil War was a self-inflicted crisis. Since the Confederacy had no interest in ruling the North it was not even a proper civil war, but rather a war of secession).
You can pre-order the Centennial Edition of Francis Parker Yockey’s Imperium here.
Skills and instincts are honed by use, and atrophy from lack of use. From the start, the American mind has had ample opportunity to hone its business skills in exploiting raw resources but practically zero opportunity to practice politics. True politics is based on the friend-enemy distinction as laid out by Carl Schmitt in The Concept of the Political. What Americans consider to be politics is almost exclusively what Schmitt defines as mere policy and is mostly a question of distributing plunder. This amateurism at politics is part of why Americans are so vulnerable to propaganda.
A second issue is rootlessness. The Founders envisioned a new aristocracy based on merit which would replace the old, burnt-out aristocracy based on privilege of birth. This was in theory a great idea, and even dare I say it, protofascist. This new meritocracy never arose, however. Instead, America devolved into rule by merchants. Such men excel at building an economy and infrastructure. That they did so out of a desolate wilderness is amazing. But merchants are incompetent at guiding society from above towards an affirmative vision, or crafting and implementing a grand strategic policy. Without an aristocracy the masses are vulnerable to manipulation because someone else will invariably step in to lead them, since they cannot lead themselves.
This leads into a third issue, which is that a lot of common sense and folklore was lost when Europeans came to America. Imagine if the Poles had diffused their suspicion of the Jews to the rest of America. The absence of folk wisdom to guide the people from below further exacerbated the lack of guidance from above.
Thus, the last 250 years or so, from sea to shining sea, are a sheltered kiddie pool which has produced a people who are easily deceived. This culminated in the quiet Jewish revolution described by Yockey which hijacked America relatively unopposed in the 1930s, and which was all the more effective because it was so quiet.
Alas, this didn’t come out of nowhere. Americans have been manipulated from the start. The Revolution at its best was a blood and soil reaction to foreign rule. The Declaration of Independence is often hailed as a great foundational document, but much of the Declaration reads like a hysterical conspiracy theory worthy of Alex Jones himself. And if one steps back objectively, the Boston Massacre was similar to a modern BLM riot.
Furthermore, Benedict Arnold, the supposed traitor, did not switch sides purely for financial gain, ego, or pressure from his wife. He also believed that the Patriots were being unreasonable in their demands, that the war was unwinnable, and achieving peace would save lives. Most importantly, the Patriots had changed their original war goals of reform to outright independence once the Crown had agreed to many of their demands. Benedict Arnold did not sign up for this. If he betrayed America, it is only because the Patriots had betrayed him first. That American history was retconned from the start through propaganda shows that it was always an issue.
The War of Secession again saw the Yankees delude themselves through propaganda. Slavery is undesirable, to say the least, but it has also been common in various forms throughout history. But the moral hysteria about slavery was as fabricated as the hysteria about COVID. The North didn’t need slavery because it was already industrialized, and as the South caught up in industrialization, it was reasonable to assume that it would be phased out. None of the abolitionists really had a plan of what to do with so many freed slaves. The fabricated moral hysteria about slavery was used to justify Yankee war crimes so that industrialists could further increase their wealth and the federal government could increase its power.
This gullibility to propaganda further intensified when TV became popular in the 1950s. And it was through TV that the post-war narrative became solidified in the public mind.
Nigerian princes were neither the first nor the last to scam naïve Americans. And while Jewish manipulation is the most widespread and pertinent, the Jews certainly don’t have a monopoly on duping Americans as demonstrated in the recent Tenet Media scandal which is the subject of Part 2.
60 comments
You shouldn’t overstate the extent of industrialization in the North in the antebellum period. The North never had slavery in great measure because it was a society of yeoman farmers and independent artisans.
However, in prosecuting the Civil War, the North embarked on an era of rapid industrialization which would last until circa 1960.
Exactly. Just ask Stephen Paul Foster about browsing through a Target store.
Today, two circumstances force the realm of the political into the American mind:
Economic globalism, &
Israeli geopolitics
Do I have that right?
That was really good, look forward to part 2. One significant point of departure I have with the altright is the slouchy Covid response of the US government. I would even go so far as to support a government TASE & vax policy for unruly right wingers who refused vaccines. They put us all at risk.
I can only assume this post is ironic. It was obvious by the end of 2020 that the experimental injections were not needed, and by early 2021 that they didn’t really do anything, other than make well people ill.
I agree with you and the results show that despite being the most “advanced” nation and only 5% of the global population, we suffered the highest number of infected and deaths of any other nation. In my debate with Representative Levy in NY I was asked if the lock down did any good and responded with which lock down? We shut down MacDonalds and left Burger King open and that was supposed to fool the virus.
Maybe because your populations are physically degraded and weak, and also much too old. That is why COVID-mortality could be so high.
That is quite possible, but my first thoughts were that Maybe we refused to consider a total shut down with an international travel ban for 2 months. The life of the virus in the body was about 6 weeks regardless if you survived it or not, if it were prevented from spreading it would run its course in the infected bodies within that time. Many countries from third world countries that did not have vaccines to China were able to control it better using this method. Maybe our authorities refused to stop the commerce train and tax revenue generated for that short period, using the protested rights of some vocals to refuse vaccination, regardless how many people fell off that train. Whatever the reason,, the numbers speak for themselves.
Maybe it is because your Western elites are in Chinese pocket or on Chinese payroll? Some books, written by Peter Schweizer, Clive Hamilton, Mareike Ohlberg, Alex Joske (who is an Australian Chinese himself) and others confirm just this thesis.
Great article David.
I like that you included the conventional narrative about the American Revolution as an example of propaganda. “British tyranny” is extremely mild compared to what we face today. Sam Dickson has said on multiple occasions that he believes the Revolution was a mistake. I’m not sure I would go that far, but I do think there’s something to his argument that the violent nature of the Revolution played a role in mentally separating White Americans from their European roots.
Too many White Americans have an arrogant and condescending attitude toward Europe, which is absurd since we are an outpost of European civilization.
The only issue I would take with your view is
1-That we laugh at what they called tyranny in comparison to what we allow today shouldn’t be a condemnation of America’s forebears but of us who, across all the West, are so cowardly and pathetic that the only thing we can do in protest is talk on the internet all day and hide in our homes while the world sharpens its blade for our throats.
2-I find it hard to believe that a mildly violent revolution would be such a psychic shock to Europeans that there should be some kind of separation formed due to it. When one considers the numerous wars, purges, tortures, and rapes that the continent endured, often by one branch of European against another, I think that’s the kind of European arrogance that bugs a lot of Americans, and I say that as someone who is ALL too aware of our own special brand of arrogance here in the States.
3-As for another point of a distaste for Europeans (for me and I know this is for others in the early millennial age range that I’ve met), when I was a kid back in the 90s, I had a fair bit of interaction with Europeans and all I remember from them was being told that the US was racist, murdered the native americans, were all stupid, and…honestly, some of the stuff they teach in schools today in the US, to get White kids to hate themselves, was already coming out of the lips of Europeans 30 years ago. Swedes in particular, I must say, I do loathe Swedes.
The Americans are and maybe still are stupid because they came to Europe twice to fight in intra-European wars. Those wars did not concern the Americans in any way. Moreover, they fought in these wars on the wrong side, on the side of the aggressor. Naturally, they did not receive gratitude from either side, neither from the winners nor from the losers, since the winners in both those wars were not Europeans at all. Now America is being forcefully drawn into another one European war that does not concern the Americans and which threatens to escalate into a world war. Completely degraded Western Europe does not want to defend itself at all, but it still wants the Americans to do it for it. I hope that the Americans know that they will not get a thanking word from the Europeans this time either, and will simply abandon the Europeans to their fate, i.e., to becoming a Chinese colony with Russian prison guards as overseers.
Can the writer name one dissident Rightist or mainstream conservative who has “praised Putin”?
I’ll wait.
I think Striker’s clique certainly was ─ and they were specifically critical of Counter-Currents for their rejection of Russia and Putin as the “strong man” of Europe compared to the proverbial Sick Man of the West.
I am no fan of proxy wars ─ so are we supposed to support the poor Ukrainians until the last Ukrainian is dead? ─ but shilling for the Russkies on this one was a bridge too far.
I’m no Russophobe either, but I’m not a huge fan of the Alt-Right theory that the ex-Communist countries are really all that Based compared to the degenerate West. It is just another facet of Globohomo that Millennials probably can’t appreciate because they don’t really remember the Cold War or the before-time when everybody was not plugged into the global matrix with a Kosher vid’ya device carried in their pocket.
Anyway, both sides in the present Russia-Ukraine conflict need to negotiate something that they can live with, as this war accomplishes nothing for either side ─ not for Europe and not for White people. At one time American statesmen cut their teeth on brokering such agreements. The Donald is no Teddy Roosevelt and Kamalamala certainly is not.
🙂
I’m not under any illusions about the Russians, the current ruling click is nothing nice, look what they did to that guy they poisoned with polonium in Britain, but it just seems obvious to me, not knowing very much about the politics or history of the region, that a click of a certain kind of person has got a lock on power in Ukraine, sort of like the neocons in the US, and they are stampeding the Slavic peasant heard off a cliff to their own geopolitical ends. I mean I could be missing a lot of nuance, but it just looks that way superficially. I want it to stop too.
Have you been to Eastern Europe? If yes, you know the contrast with the Western half
Well, I hope that if I go I don’t see all the kids tatted up and sporting nose rings.
🙂
There are enough of them there, even if less than in the West. Of course, all degradation comes to the East from the West, just like alcoholism, drugs, AIDS, democracy, freedom, human rights, LGBT++++, and another BS before this.
Easy. Dissident rightest: Nick Fuentes (but of course, now he says he was just joking). Mainstream conservative: Tucker Carlson. There, your wait is over. I could name several more, but you only asked for one. Maybe you’ll emerge from your rock and pay attention to who these people are yourself?
They also leapt to my mind, but I think the point stands that nearly all mainstream conservatives were anti-Russia. The dissident right, for its part, was not in “lockstep” behind Putin but rather divided on the question. At least, that’s my recollection.
You’re claiming that Tucker Carlson praised Putin? I know that Tucker has been critical of US policy, but can you cite an example of Tucker “praising Putin”?
Carlson has made strenuous apologetics for Putin, as opposed to direct praise, probably because that’s as much as he can get away with.
If you want a better example than Carlson, look no further than Donald Trump, who has even praised Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
“Carlson has made strenuous apologetics for Putin”
I asked for evidence, not a restatement of the indictment.
“If you want a better example than Carlson, look no further than Donald Trump, who has even praised Putin’s invasion of Ukraine”
Yet another false statement.
There’s a term for this sort of behavior: “the hatchling” who, fresh from the egg and bleary eyed, opens his mouth and demands that others do his Google searches.
As far as I can remember during the so-called Maidan 2014 and in the beginning of Russian aggression, annexation of the Crimea, etc., of all prominent Western European extreme Right only one has supported Ukraine and condemned “Russian” regime, Italian Stefano Delle Chiaie. Of course, judging by his bio, he was more worth than all others taken together, but anyway.
There were undoubtedly some, at least at first (Striker is mentioned, Zman was incredibly daft in his optimism for Russian success) but the Dissident Right field was a lot more leveled than most, and definitely far more reserved than to warrant the author’s flippant, throwaway remark. I remember that even among the TRS crowd, there were some with misgivings towards Putin, while the general attitude was lukewarm, if not outright impartial.
The DR as a whole really doesn’t deserve that characterization by Zsutti.
Striker and Fuentes. I’m not going to forget two years of Russia shilling and bad mouthing Ukraine anymore than I’m going to forget mask mandates.
Can you cite a specific instance where they “praised Putin”? Also still waiting for evidence that a “mainstream conservative” praised Putin.
bad mouthing Ukraine
The most corrupt nation in Europe with a Jewish comedic actor turned president, turned billionaire, in charge, and with a penchant for holding untenable positions at the cost of Ukrainian soldier’s lives for the sake of PR?
Oh dear!
And do not omit that he is a British puppet, and that the British have started another one world war with his help, just like they did it in 1939 with the help of Poles.
I hope you all surely understand that I use word “The British” as generalization and do not mean here all common Englishmen and Englishwomen, but the “British” elite which itself is alien by its origin.
Your wait is over:
I ll name one dissident Right , White identitarian that praised Putin – me Jack Ryan of Occidental Dissent , the Political Cesspool .
Vladimir Putin put an end to the Chaos following the end of the Soviet Union, and the misrule of Jewish Oligarchs that bought Soviet State Enyerpises for pen is on the $ dollar/ rubble. The worst of these Je# oligarchs the head of Yukons Oil tried to set up Je# American style TV networks in Russia, Vladimir Putin put him in a public cage and sentenced him to a hard labor camp in Siberia! How bad as# was that ? Vladimir Putin brought back the Cossacks with all that entails and man we’re/are the Jews pissed at that!
During the Winter Olympics in Russia – the LGBT cult Marxist demo group “ Pussy Riot” tried to pull the same sh#$ they get away with in France and the West. Putin again had the Neo Cossacks public pepper spray and whip the Pussy Riot womyn and they called them “ American Whores”. I binge watch that best ever video when I get depressed about England and the USA.
Plus Putin s Russia won it s wars in Chetnia and Syria. The Russians seem now to be the only Whites left on planet earth than can deal with Muslims, sean the Muslims respect. The Russians in the 70s and 80s. Ever tried to for homosexual pride month on the Afghans like us dumb as#, Je# homo dominated Amurikuh. Hey brother were you one of the Reagan Bush boomer patriotards that got a hard on watching “Red Dawn” and Rambo 3?”
vladimir Putin like Trump and Maggie Thatcher has all the right enemies – especially the Je#s look at the Russian Collusion Max Boot, Neo Con, Je# CNN ah”#.
so yeah, I ll give you one Alt Right, American White identitarian that likes, respects Vladimir Putin… me!
Jack Ryan
Occidental Dissent
The political Cesspool
Yeah, precisely, that’s what all this is about. We’re warring on Russia by proxy because putin seized the assets of the oligarchs and wrested power back from them. That’s what I think.
That’s a Russian frame. Russia is making war against Ukraine, but Russia is pushing the line that really NATO or the US are making war on Russia. It would be laughable if it weren’t morally obscene.
I don’t know enough about the situation to fully adjudicate war guilt, but there are situations and provocations generally speaking in history, which can lead to a country declaring war without having been openly attacked, otherwise in history the side which initiated combat would always be in the wrong, which is a reduction to the absurd. The American position in the war of 1812 might be a good example. Although I do agree, the greater burden of proof is upon the side that initiated the hot war.
Prior to invasion Putin demanded a guarantee that we would not bring in NATO or US military installations into Ukraine which would then be on Russia’s border, we refused, or our ruling oligarchs refused. We had already lost their trust after we broke our agreements earlier with our entry into the other ex Warsaw Pact nations. They see our presence in Ukraine as we saw their presence in Cuba.
There was no “agreement” not to extend NATO East, and therefore there were no broken agreements. Beyond that, there were already NATO countries on Russia’s border, none of which contain US ballistic missiles, by the way.
Russia, however, did sign a series of actual agreements about Ukraine’s borders and sovereignty, and has broken them with its invasions, beginning in 2014. Russia’s complaints about NATO, like its tears about Donbass (a conflict started by Russia), are just disposable pretexts for an invasion that intended to seize all of Ukraine because the real goal of this is Russian imperial revanchism.
When I worked with US DoD Europe in the 90’s we understood that there was an agreement. (quick searches;)
“The controversy in Russia regarding the legitimacy of eastward NATO expansion relates to the aftermath of the Revolutions of 1989, when the fall of Soviet-allied communist states to opposition parties brought European spheres of influence into question. US documents claim that agreement on non-expansion of NATO to Eastern Europe took place orally[1] and the alliance violated it with its expansion[1][2][3][4] while the leaders of the alliance claim that no such promise was made[5] and that such a decision could only be made in writing.[6][7] Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, who participated in the 1990 negotiations, subsequently spoke out about the existence of a “guarantee of non-expansion of NATO to the east” inconsistently, confirming its existence in some interviews[8][9] and refuting in others.[10][11] Among academic researchers, opinions on the existence or absence of a non-extension agreement also differ.[12][13]”
“To understand Russia’s claims of betrayal, it is necessary to review the reassurances then US secretary of state James A. Baker made to former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev during a meeting on February 9, 1990. In a discussion on the status of a reunited Germany, the two men agreed that NATO would not extend past the territory of East Germany, a promise repeated by NATO’s secretary general in a speech on May 17 that same year in Brussels.
Russia and the West finally struck an agreement in September that would allow NATO to station its troops beyond the Iron Curtain. However, the deal only concerned a reunified Germany, with further eastward expansion being inconceivable at the time.”
This year government officials who left service were aired on US news reiterating the Russian demand for a guarantee to remain out of Ukraine prior to invasion which went unanswered / rejected, something I also remembered hearing prior to the invasion by the same news sources (perhaps a lack of tact / respectful diplomacy). I believe in Ukrainian sovereignty (as with ex Warsaw P. nations), and that Putin (in Donbass) is trying to make a name for himself in Russian history and is (also) untrustworthy. It is also conceivable globally, that we pose the expanding threat when we examine the geopolitical picture. Imperialism wears many faces. Could we have avoided this invasion with mutual guarantees at the table?
Verbal assurances don’t have the same standing as signed treaties. Why do verbal assurances matter to Putin but not signed treaties? Obviously, because the first give him a pretext for a war he wanted and the latter stood in its way.
I don’t think the idea of “spheres of influence” should have any moral standing in international law, because basically it seeks to normalize the idea that some countries are more sovereign than others. That would include the Monroe Doctrine as well.
The Putin’s Russia is a USSR-2 project. The Moscow ruling elite wants to return its former domains in order to even more enrich themselves. The other factor is China, which increasingly uses the corrupt Russian elite for its own purposes.
The problem with the American society is that it is governed not by logic but by lowly emotions and primitive materialistic self-interest. They don’t want even to understand that the Putin’s victory in Ukraine would entail crumbling of American global dominance; and with it the whole of American prosperity.
The US absolutely provoked this war. Russia has reacted the same way that the US would react if China began taking steps to bring Mexico into a Chinese-led military alliance.
Odd that there were not wars about the Baltic republics joining NATO.
Putin has had a series of disposable pretexts for war with Ukraine: the naval base in Crimea, then the poor oppressed Russians of the Donbass, then NATO expansion. Yet when he sat down for his softball interview with Carlson, he talked about the real reason: Russian imperialism. He thinks that land belongs to Russia and that the people on it who think they are a different nation are deluded.
I remember back in the 1980s when I was in college. I heard a lecture by John Stockwell, the highest ranking CIA officer ever to blow the whistle on the Agency. After he resigned from the CIA in disgust in the 197s, he wrote In Search of Enemies. Didn’t bother to submit it to the CA for prepublication censorship. His thesis is in the title. In 1984 I heard him state, “If the Soviet Union disappeared from the face of the earth, the US military industrial complex would quickly seek out new enemies to justify its existence.”
Just seven years later the world got a chance to test Stockwell’s prediction when the USSR did in fact disappear from the face of the earth. The Soviet threat was gone, and the Russian Federation extended the hand of friendship to the US. It would have been an excellent time to dissolve NATO, but instead the US decided to enlarge NATO right up to the Russian border despite Moscow’s protestations. Russia was flat on its back and still trying to rebuild from the disaster of communism, so there just wasn’t much that Moscow could do as the Lindsey Grahams and John McCains and the Zbigniew Brzezinskis of the world talked about bringing George and Ukraine into NATO.
In 2014 the US backed a putsch against the then pro-Russian government of Ukraine. Want evidence? How about a recording of Victoria Nuland’s voice discussing which leaders the US intended to install.
Soon after the US-backed putsch, Prof. John Merscheimer analyzed US policy and predicted that if it were allowed to play out, Ukraine would get wrecked. And that’s exactly what happened.
Had Russia allowed Ukraine to join NATO, it would have meant the possibility of nuclear-tipped cruise missiles in Ukraine, just eight minutes away from hitting Moscow, operated by the most powerful hyper-aggressive nation-state that the world has ever seen.
Russia had no choice but to put a stop to NATO expansionism.
Suggested reading: How the West Brought War to Ukraine: Understanding How U.S. and NATO Policies Led to Crisis, War, and the Risk of Nuclear Catastrophe by Benjamin Abelow.
NATO would have had no takers if Russia did not remain a threat to its former vassal states, including fomenting wars and separatist movements in Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine.
There was no “US backed coup” in Ukraine in 2014.
The Nuland recording doesn’t say what you claim it says. Did you listen to it, or are you–like thousands of others–just repeating what Kremlin propaganda tells you it says?
Joining NATO somehow didn’t lead to Russian invasions of the Baltic states or Poland, which share borders with Russia. And there are no nuclear-tipped missiles there, either. So no, I don’t buy the NATO business. It was just a dishonest, disposable pretext for seizing more Ukrainian territory, after the disposable pretexts of their naval base in Crimea and the poor ethnic Russians in Donbass.
During the Winter Olympics in Russia
Not, in RUSSIA, but in the Caucasus, in Sochi, on the lands of genocided, killed and exiled, Circassians and Adygs.
A vast Continent of scope such that Europeans can hardly imagine, and with two great oceans on either side, this did indeed form an excellent impediment to unwanted incursions. The lands of a continent were available for settlement as much as anything ever could be, and no power in the world was going to stop it.
We should not forget that one of the major populist motivations for independence from King and Parliament was that Albion had made agreements and signed treaties with the French and Indians to limit American Westward migration past the Appalachians. Daniel Boone wasn’t going to stand for it, and Marse Jefferson even included this (and the attendant atrocities) as one of the colonial grievances in his Declaration of Independence.
This particular outrage does not get much fanfare in school today, what with all the noise about taxes on tea, and royal stamps on documents, plus all the claptrap about the Liberty, Equality, Fraternity ─ and White Privilege and Amerindian Genocide. Yeah, it was all Whitey’s fault for making them fat and diabetic, addicted to government cheese and firewater.
Remember that the modern Libtard obsession with open-borders and liberationist Globaloney being a “progressive” obligation is a relatively recent one ─ following the 1890 census which deemed that the American Frontier was largely tamed and ─ yes! ─ send in those infinity huddled-masses of Yiddish speakers yearning to be deloused and to get into Harvard and Columbia and to bring us rubes the real High Culture.
(IMAGE)
It is hard to imagine now, but our elites were not always traitors. Once there were even legislative steps taken to limit the amount of Asian immigration despite any advantages for the merchant classes from the importation of cheap labor building railroads and so forth.
Nobody denies that the Chinese were good workers. But who has the right to be here? These are old questions.
My Grandmother was born in Salmon, Idaho at a time near the turn of the last century when in the center of town you could tell the ethnicity of a person walking across the Salmon River bridge in the middle of town just by how their wooden shoes clopped.
I’m not against industrialization and technology and modernity. I like those things and I despise Anarchists. But all of these values are things can be conceptualized and realized in many different ways; there is no preordained path that will absolve us of taking leadership by the reins. We owe it to ourselves and to our descendants.
Perhaps, contrary to the Transcendentalists and Abolitionists of the 19th century, or the awkward hem between the Cultural Bolsheviks and Project 25, we Americans can learn to imagine more depth to our lives and to the world than the notion that rootless cosmopolitans and consumerism and whatnot somehow organically comes from certain ways of life, and that these founding values are not necessarily spawned by purity spirals of either yeoman agriculture or petty-bourgeois artisanship.
We need to embrace a non-toxic worldview that is more cognitively expansive and not necessarily rooted in state legislatures dominated by the planter slavocracy or by the banker-merchant caste that served crucially in founding the Republic itself. Yockey praises Alexander Hamilton after all. And we don’t give George Washington nearly enough credit for his noblesse oblige and perseverance that ultimately held it all together successfully from start to finish.
The author says that Americans are uniquely susceptible to propaganda, and I don’t disagree.
We are neither more Exceptional nor more Virtuous than our racial kinsmen and peers in the old countries. And we have made equally catastropic blunders. Everyone does. If we are to remain a superpower in any sense, we have to unlearn as a people that there is no need for Americans to seek what John Quincy Adams called “Monsters to Destroy.” We have to decide what is wholesome for ourselves and for our own lands. That is what everyone must do.
🙂
It would be interesting to have a brain game of sorts. Just hypothetically. To imagine what would have happened to America and the world if the British colonies had not declared independence at the end of the eighteenth century, but had remained part of the British Empire, later becoming dominions, like Canada, Australia or New Zealand. Would it have been better for a) the English in the mother country and in the colonies, b) for the Europeans as a whole, c) for the white race, d) for the world as a whole. I have a strong suspicion that all these questions can be answered positively.
Possibly, but I don’t think that the results would be so great for Americans, much like the old revolutionary pictogram with the snake balkanized into thirteen different mutually-hostile and impotent pieces.
Also, if the international powers had really been able to prevent European migration to America and effectively halt the Westward expansion past the Appalachians as intended, then what might have happened to Europe itself without this pressure release?
Maybe the Rivers of Blood prophecy (1968) would have been realized in an earlier century.
The British were not the only players on the New World continent either. The French and Spanish had a stake, and even if these empires were moribund, how moribund really with a demographic vacuum ready to fill? Unlike the other Americas, Norte América had a unique demographic situation in which the land of the continent was virtually empty and waiting to be settled.
Many philosphers have noted that this entailed the burdens of frontier settlement for the pioneers, but not, for the most part, the burdens of conquest. The Amerindians were often vicious, but not nearly as numerous as the Mongol Hordes, and this probably shapes the mentality of the people on that frontier.
I can speak to this to some extent without the Hollywood mythology since my ancestors were in fact pioneers of these Western lands.
In any case, the American global mischief and imperialism that we all know did not begin until the cusp of the 20th Century, and then was arguably influenced by a certain immigrant Ashkenazi diaspora that somehow became elites that cannot be questioned nor even criticized ─ though old stock Puritan Anglos have beaucoup blameworthiness for such circumstances and adventures as well.
I agree with some that we are of fundamental and inalienable European stock, and not rootless interchangeable parts nor atomized human capital for the purposes of realizing global financial market speculation. Our roots in the New World may not be nearly as long, but they exist, and I don’t agree with John Fitzgerald Kennedy that we are a “nation of immigrants.”
Most Americans now are of German or increasingly since 1965 of Hispanic stock. The only majority-Anglo states in the USA today are Maine, Utah, and Idaho. The people who settled the latter two territories, now states, put a massive missionary effort into England and later NW Europe for converting those people into “Latter-Day” Saints and bringing them to settle out West, so there remains a high Anglo ancestral heritage there.
Here is a family photograph taken in Idaho from about 1900 near American Falls. The little girl in the White dress is my great-grandmother (LINK).
The picture depicts life about ten years after the U.S. census declared the American Frontier to be tamed ─ and that is mostly true. I can remember the elderly people telling stories from this time period that Injuns often came on horseback to their cabins and ranches such as shown in the picture and demanded food and firewater. They gave them food but abstained from the latter. The settlers were sometimes concerned that the Noble Savages would kidnap a kid playing out in the meadow, but mostly they just moved along without incident.
It is notable and perhaps problematical, however, that the “Midwestern” German heritage which is so significant in all of the lower-48 states ─ enthusiastically went along for the most part with the Anglo-American wars against the old country, particularly the one where Bolshevism was threatened.
Albion did prevail in these global conflicts but mortgaged her own future in the process. Judging by British Television today, the old country is practically run by Negroes. I have a hard time believing that we did this to them. Many factors must be at work besides American philistines. This is not what the American Founding Fathers wanted. President Washington and Secretary Hamilton practically invented American Isolationism.
🙂
Jews and their expertise in usury within a good many of their banks w0rldwide has been their well-hidden exploitation of most of the planet. Lock your credit cards.
Very informative article but can you cite some examples of what you mean when you said, “much of the Declaration [of Independence] reads like a hysterical conspiracy theory worthy of Alex Jones himself.”??
“The Founders envisioned a new aristocracy based on merit which would replace the old, burnt-out aristocracy based on privilege of birth. This was in theory a great idea, and even dare I say it, protofascist. This new meritocracy never arose, however. Instead, America devolved into rule by merchants. Such men excel at building an economy and infrastructure. That they did so out of a desolate wilderness is amazing. But merchants are incompetent at guiding society from above towards an affirmative vision, or crafting and implementing a grand strategic policy. Without an aristocracy the masses are vulnerable to manipulation because someone else will invariably step in to lead them, since they cannot lead themselves. Thus, the last 250 years or so, from sea to shining sea, are a sheltered kiddie pool which has produced a people who are easily deceived.”
In “my opinion”, truer words could not be spoken.
As for slavery and its many forms, I recall immigrants in Ohio and Pennsylvania coal mines who lived in worse conditions on 2 cents a day henceforth; “The Molly Maguires appear in America”
The NATO was always “softer” than the Warsaw Pact. When the French left the military organization of the NATO, and the Greeks also tried to do this, they got economical and political pressure, but nobody invaded their lands and nobody bombed them. Just compare this to Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968, and in lesser degree, because without foreign invasion, Poland 1981.
The Poles, Czechs, Baltics, Romanians THEMSELVES wanted to join the NATO, they had and have fears of Russia, and these fears are still justified. Should Americans forbid them to join? Why? These nations are sovereign and have their own rights for their foreign policy.
Ukraine was pushed to Anti-Russian position by the politics of Russia itself, starting in 2000’s. Even the Maydan was not hostile to Russians. And it was pro-EU, but not pro-NATO oriented. And even if this orientation was and is wrong, that the internal Ukrainian matter.
The problem of Ukraine now is that it is fighting on the wrong side. Because of Russian aggression it fights on the side of the Coalition of Dead (the West) against the Coalition of Living (China, Russia, Iran). Of course, the Dead will lose. But the Ukrainians could not switch sides, because they are killed and oppressed by Russians. The Ukrainians have no illusions about the weak and degenerated West, I hope, but what can they do NOW?
Very true. The only remark that I want to make is that Russian society is dead too. In literal sense of this word. Russians are dying-out at unprecedented rate. Not because of the war but due to the multitude of internal problems. This process is terminal; nothing could avert the approaching collapse of ethnic Russians. It is a matter of years or a few decades at most. Russians had never recovered from the devastation of the Soviet rule and WW2 (that was provoked first of all by Soviet aggressive foreign policy and British stupid obstinacy).
The ongoing war in Ukraine greatly increases all existing internal Russian problems. The level of interethnic tension inside Russia has risen manifold in the last two years. There are constant interethnic conflicts in Russian army (including shootouts with multiple dead and wounded). The overall situation is much worse than in Austro-Hungary of 1916.
When I worked with US DoD Europe in the 90’s we understood that there was an agreement.
I was on another side in the same years, 1990-1994, Karlshorst, Ost-Berlin, Western Group of Forces. I can surely said that Soviet officers, NOCs and many privates were very critical to Gorbachov and particularly to Yeltsin, who was simply hated after October, 1993, but we all were not hostile to the West at all. There were rumors that Gorbachov wanted to withdraw our Army from Germany in 10 years, but Yeltsin, because he did not have more money for the maintaining of forces, accelerated the withdrawing and did it in 4 years, without building the barracks for private soldiers and houses for officers in Russia for us.
When the wall came down my colleagues were running to Prague to buy out crystal shops at a fraction of western costs. Many Russian migrants ended up in the streets of Frankfurt, Rome, Torvaianica, and many other places selling everything they had to maintain a one room living space for their families in cheap pensiones / hotels.
“According to economics Professor George DeMartino, “With the fall of the Berlin wall, the overnight change in the political systems and policy reforms from socialism / communism to free market capitalism in Russia and the Warsaw pact nations in Eastern Europe, we saw an estimated increased death rate of ten million young men following this “liberation” of that economy. This demanded change was pushed through without calculating risk with the guidance of our government supported economists. Unlike other social science experts, Economists are held in higher regard by our government whose ethically unchecked economic council and advice is highly requested.” The danger is that this uncontrolled economic guidance can misdirect government policy causing more damage than repair, if these policies are adopted unchecked by the high officials who request them. Since politics plays into our economic philosophy, the priorities of high ranking corporate and industrial institutions would outweigh all other social interests. This can be exampled in the economic circumvention of ecological issues in the past century which are now proving disastrous, and ignoring the new factor of “ecological and natural resource Unsustainability” in our policies. The gentrification of Eastern Europe for the benefit of both east and west capitalist financiers is similar to our own gentrification of poor communities in America which dislodges the poor from their neighborhoods and then leaves them to their fate.”
I think Gorbachov was acclimatizing to progressive western ideas in good faith. As we knew and you noted, he did not have to agree to opening east Berlin, he had enough troops to maintain it and they would have been easier maintained where they were without moving them. He was considered a peacemaker until it was realized he was taken advantage of, no expanded peace, only an enormous expanse of defense contracts for our new neighbors.
I still respect Gorbachov and I am grateful to him. I disrespected and disrespect Yeltsin and Putin.
The Putin’s Russia is a USSR-2 project.
Maybe yes, but maybe not. It looks someway like the USSR-2, and the image of the Soviet Union is used in propaganda for older post-Soviet people with the pro-SU nostalgy, sometimes successfully.
But in reality their plans are much more reactionary. The ideological ideal of the Putin’s new empire lies not in the relatively moderate late Soviet times, but rather in the 16th century, with full feudal rule of new masters of life: FSB generals, loyal priests of all established religions, reactionary ideologues and journalists, with fully oppressed people, and with Caucasian police and paramilitary forces as new “oprichniki”. The Putinists do not like even the Russian Empire of Peter I or of German princes and princesses as Russian emperors after him, but they sympathize much more to something like the rule of Ivan the Terrible.
Under the Soviet hypocrisy at least the terms like freedom and democracy were seen as something positive, while now they are condemned as “Western and Jewish anti-Russian notions.” And, well, under Brezhnev such guys like Dugin or all this Jewish-Armenian propagandist clique would sit in psychiatric asylums. The USSR was bad, but what they want to build and to rule now is much worse.
US ballistic missiles
What are these? There are ballistic missiles on the nuclear submarines. And there are big missiles in the CONUS, like Minuteman, designed under Kennedy, which are not functioning and could not be used, because too obsolete.
“If the Soviet Union disappeared from the face of the earth, the US military industrial complex would quickly seek out new enemies to justify its existence.”
Well, the Russian imperialism was created and feed by Western Europe, just like the Red Chinese imperialism was created and feed by the USA.
The West, as always find wrong friends and get wrong enemies. “We slaughtered the wrong pig”, once again.
Benjamin Abelow
Just one more Jewish leftist?
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber 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.