"Censorship and repression works. It simply works."
Finally someone said it. Trying to moralize, win an argument or "own the libs" is so stupid because in the end it's just whoever shouts the loudest and is most willing to use violence. One can only imagine if the FBI targeted the ADL, SPLC, etc. instead of the other way around.
It's kind of funny that the intelligence agencies exist to quash the rise of radical populists, but Hitler, who is seen as the arch-version of this type, started out as basically the German version of an FBI employee spying on right-wing orgs: "In July 1919 he was appointed Verbindungsmann (intelligence agent) of an Aufklärungskommando (reconnaissance unit) of the Reichswehr, assigned to influence other soldiers and to infiltrate the German Workers' Party (DAP)."
Also, while it appears quite difficult to organize effectively in this day and age for the reasons you mentioned, I'm not sure what comes first, the chicken (the organizing) or the egg (an increased public understanding of the metaphysical root of the problem, which your blog helps to educate on).
The European blogger Kynosarges has a similar argument where in 2019 he castigated the short-sightedness of right wing populism in Europe and America, which he believes has six major deficiencies:
"1. Right-wing populists have no awareness of the depth of the [societal] problem and the necessity of a massive social transformation.
2. Right-wing populists consider metapolitics irrelevant. They view our plight as strictly a matter of state policy, therefore solvable by the legislative and executive branches (which is understandable given point 1).
3. Right-wing populists do not command parliamentary majorities or sole governments – neither in the past nor in the present, nor likely in the future. They are always in opposition or dependent on coalition partners who are not right-wing populists.
4. The institutional corset of late liberalism narrows the factual scope for political action to such a degree that profound changes are impossible.
5. Right-wing populists offer no grand designs for solutions because they lack a positive alternative framework beyond “liberalism without foreigners” (which is closely linked to points 1 and 2).
6. Right-wing populists are objectively too slow even where they bring about changes. A critical comparison between the development of right-wing populism and demographics during recent decades clearly shows that this approach is impossible solely due to lack of time (ignoring points 1–5)…
[Right wing populists] have no concept of how to actively solve the problems of late modernity or liberalism. They offer no counter-culture that goes beyond reactionary ideas. They become almost apolitical when they merely retreat into their nation-state bunkers (typical for Poland or Slovakia). They lack a dynamic counter-ideal, and they are not at all equipped to propagate such an ideal to the furthest corners of the West (and beyond), as the chief enemy is (still) capable of doing.
The equation of our identity with the liberal state (e.g. the Federal Republic of Germany as the land of the Germans) inevitably leads to disappointments and at best to the realization that this state neither defends nor recognizes our identity, sometimes even destroys it. No Western constitution has a decidedly identitarian foundation, nor is there any trend in that direction. Anyway such a foundation would be incompatible with the self-concept of liberalism (universalism, egalitarianism, individualism) – the left is correct on that point! But right-wing populists believe that liberalism would only need a “right-wing” orientation to solve the problem, thanks to insufficient analysis….
Modernity can only be overcome with the experiences of modernity, not by an utterly impossible return to an earlier or pre-modern era. The profound change that is now necessary is not genuinely political but belongs to the cultural, metapolitical sphere. Such a counter-enlightenment or counter-culture requires – in contrast to the liberalist eclecticism of right-wing populists – a spiritual preparation for a new European myth that binds us to our oldest past and reconciles us with our future. Nothing less than such an attempt at European rebirth is our task and the most promising exit from political modernity."
Oh yeah, I know it's off topic but no one has answered by question about Putin's grandmother Shelomova/Shalomova & if this is evidence of ethnic neocon ancestry in our man, I won't keep asking this question, but I am curious to know (& yeah, I will sub Rolo, give me a minute to sort out my shit & you'll get $40, more in fact, that's a pledge). It doesn't disqualify Putin in my eyes, we all know Zhirinovsky/Eidelshtein thing, but it would explain how Putin came to power & maintained himself there. I think so at least.
Power is what counts in this world, & power ultimately means physical force - the western world figured this out so long ago, well, the Vikings always knew.... then they intellectualize it in the form of Max Weber or Hobbes before him in Leviathan (state power & its application). The Christian moralists could only be motivated by 3 separate items, 1. love thy neighbour nonsense that they truly bought into (but then why politically activate?), 2. liberal ideology has subconsciously infected them, or 3. agents, bought & paid. I don't see a fourth possibility. In our Slavic world, the Orthodox Slavic world, priests led outright military revolts & campaigns, Serbia's history is literally this, priests becoming military commanders & fighting Turks. As recent as WW2 we had a priest transform into a Chetnichki Vojvoda, Mochilo Djujich, who led the Dinarska Chetnichka Divizija against the Nazis & primarily Croatian Ustasha. He ended up exiled by commies in the US. Pacifism has no place in this struggle.
I sense the peasants here in the states are becoming restless. As this economic system is collapsed we'll see how many there are. Plenty of guns and ammo, but really all that's needed is a knife.
What's all this neocon and ethnic neocon talk that's infecting your recent commentaries? Neocon has a specific, more recent history that has nothing to do w/ Bolshevism, other than both are dominated by Jews. But they're not the same Jews. When one gets tired of writing Jews as the target group and wants an amusing variant, you've got a fertile mind. Globo Shlomo works nicely. Neocon doesn't fit the bill in many cases however. When the Judaic group under consideration proposes left-wing tactics and ideology, say transgender, neo-con is plain wrong as a descriptor.
We know at a higher tribal level that the dialectical ideologies give way to "what's good for the Jews" and the once apparent opponents give way to knowing their roles. One plays offense/attack while the other plays defense/cover up, in order that Team Shlomo wins. Not that the neocons win or the neolibs win. Example, leftist Chomsky gets quiet and defensive about Mossad assassinations and conspiracies but normally screeches about Palestinian rights or championing free speech and freeing dissidents. I think we all know this game. Why do good people fall for the latest of a never-ending language memes meant to muddy the waters?
There may be more good news coming: I read somewhere that Soros is not feeling too well lately.
But on institutions.... they are the natural habitat of the left. I don't think institutions can be permanently controlled to prevent a drift to the left.
Rolo, you should acknowledge that you are a Russian from Ukraine, not from Russia. Germans have several German countries : Germany, Austria, Switzerland. Likewise Russians have Russia, Ukraine, White Russia and even the 3 Baltic states. I know a few Russians from Moscow whose parents are from the Baltics : they have dual citizenship, travel often to the Baltics, and some even moved there for good after the start of the not-war. Yes, they are Russian and recognised as such both in Russia and in the Baltics.
You should get at peace with being Russian and that your country is Ukraine (or Little Russia) as much as (Great) Russia.
I subscribed long ago! I wish you could tailor your articles so that people who have subscribed don't get hit in the face with the suggestion that they don't think enough of your writing - you're the only one who has the Russian and Ukrainian connections and reports in excellent English - to reward you.
Now, back to "In particular, the self-professed Christians were the most vehement about the immorality of our proposed course of action."
Most alleged "Christians" are those who merely profess to be "Christians" but in reality are as earthly as any heathen. Nowhere in the Bible is there any instruction to be (1) stupid, (2) passive, and (3) ignorant. That bit about handing someone your extra cloak and carrying the shield and spear an extra mile does not apply to evil people. The only thing evil people get from Christians is prayer that God would sent the Holy Ghost to regenerate them so that they are no longer evil, i.e., willingly opposing the institution of God's Kingdom on earth which is Satan's goal. When God's Kingdom is established on earth there will be no more "civil government - an oxymoron by definition - collection of parasites attempting to fleece and control productive people and no sexual deviants, "queers" either. They will be stoned the moment they go public, which event is merely a tacit announcement that they consider ruining your children's future to be their right. Actually they know better, but as long as they can use "government" to push their satanic agenda as a "right" they will.
Rolo, thanks for the great posts about Russia. I would like to know your opinion about National Vanguard website and a certain Wolf Stoner, the Russian correspondent of NA.
"Censorship and repression works. It simply works."
Finally someone said it. Trying to moralize, win an argument or "own the libs" is so stupid because in the end it's just whoever shouts the loudest and is most willing to use violence. One can only imagine if the FBI targeted the ADL, SPLC, etc. instead of the other way around.
This is a piece of good news, thanks for sharing.
It's kind of funny that the intelligence agencies exist to quash the rise of radical populists, but Hitler, who is seen as the arch-version of this type, started out as basically the German version of an FBI employee spying on right-wing orgs: "In July 1919 he was appointed Verbindungsmann (intelligence agent) of an Aufklärungskommando (reconnaissance unit) of the Reichswehr, assigned to influence other soldiers and to infiltrate the German Workers' Party (DAP)."
Also, while it appears quite difficult to organize effectively in this day and age for the reasons you mentioned, I'm not sure what comes first, the chicken (the organizing) or the egg (an increased public understanding of the metaphysical root of the problem, which your blog helps to educate on).
The European blogger Kynosarges has a similar argument where in 2019 he castigated the short-sightedness of right wing populism in Europe and America, which he believes has six major deficiencies:
"1. Right-wing populists have no awareness of the depth of the [societal] problem and the necessity of a massive social transformation.
2. Right-wing populists consider metapolitics irrelevant. They view our plight as strictly a matter of state policy, therefore solvable by the legislative and executive branches (which is understandable given point 1).
3. Right-wing populists do not command parliamentary majorities or sole governments – neither in the past nor in the present, nor likely in the future. They are always in opposition or dependent on coalition partners who are not right-wing populists.
4. The institutional corset of late liberalism narrows the factual scope for political action to such a degree that profound changes are impossible.
5. Right-wing populists offer no grand designs for solutions because they lack a positive alternative framework beyond “liberalism without foreigners” (which is closely linked to points 1 and 2).
6. Right-wing populists are objectively too slow even where they bring about changes. A critical comparison between the development of right-wing populism and demographics during recent decades clearly shows that this approach is impossible solely due to lack of time (ignoring points 1–5)…
[Right wing populists] have no concept of how to actively solve the problems of late modernity or liberalism. They offer no counter-culture that goes beyond reactionary ideas. They become almost apolitical when they merely retreat into their nation-state bunkers (typical for Poland or Slovakia). They lack a dynamic counter-ideal, and they are not at all equipped to propagate such an ideal to the furthest corners of the West (and beyond), as the chief enemy is (still) capable of doing.
The equation of our identity with the liberal state (e.g. the Federal Republic of Germany as the land of the Germans) inevitably leads to disappointments and at best to the realization that this state neither defends nor recognizes our identity, sometimes even destroys it. No Western constitution has a decidedly identitarian foundation, nor is there any trend in that direction. Anyway such a foundation would be incompatible with the self-concept of liberalism (universalism, egalitarianism, individualism) – the left is correct on that point! But right-wing populists believe that liberalism would only need a “right-wing” orientation to solve the problem, thanks to insufficient analysis….
Modernity can only be overcome with the experiences of modernity, not by an utterly impossible return to an earlier or pre-modern era. The profound change that is now necessary is not genuinely political but belongs to the cultural, metapolitical sphere. Such a counter-enlightenment or counter-culture requires – in contrast to the liberalist eclecticism of right-wing populists – a spiritual preparation for a new European myth that binds us to our oldest past and reconciles us with our future. Nothing less than such an attempt at European rebirth is our task and the most promising exit from political modernity."
From: https://news.kynosarges.org/full-speed-into-the-void/
Oh yeah, I know it's off topic but no one has answered by question about Putin's grandmother Shelomova/Shalomova & if this is evidence of ethnic neocon ancestry in our man, I won't keep asking this question, but I am curious to know (& yeah, I will sub Rolo, give me a minute to sort out my shit & you'll get $40, more in fact, that's a pledge). It doesn't disqualify Putin in my eyes, we all know Zhirinovsky/Eidelshtein thing, but it would explain how Putin came to power & maintained himself there. I think so at least.
An excellent piece, Rolo. I look forward to the next few articles!
Hopefully Dees and Greenblatt get theirs. I won't hold my breath though.
Power is what counts in this world, & power ultimately means physical force - the western world figured this out so long ago, well, the Vikings always knew.... then they intellectualize it in the form of Max Weber or Hobbes before him in Leviathan (state power & its application). The Christian moralists could only be motivated by 3 separate items, 1. love thy neighbour nonsense that they truly bought into (but then why politically activate?), 2. liberal ideology has subconsciously infected them, or 3. agents, bought & paid. I don't see a fourth possibility. In our Slavic world, the Orthodox Slavic world, priests led outright military revolts & campaigns, Serbia's history is literally this, priests becoming military commanders & fighting Turks. As recent as WW2 we had a priest transform into a Chetnichki Vojvoda, Mochilo Djujich, who led the Dinarska Chetnichka Divizija against the Nazis & primarily Croatian Ustasha. He ended up exiled by commies in the US. Pacifism has no place in this struggle.
I sense the peasants here in the states are becoming restless. As this economic system is collapsed we'll see how many there are. Plenty of guns and ammo, but really all that's needed is a knife.
What's all this neocon and ethnic neocon talk that's infecting your recent commentaries? Neocon has a specific, more recent history that has nothing to do w/ Bolshevism, other than both are dominated by Jews. But they're not the same Jews. When one gets tired of writing Jews as the target group and wants an amusing variant, you've got a fertile mind. Globo Shlomo works nicely. Neocon doesn't fit the bill in many cases however. When the Judaic group under consideration proposes left-wing tactics and ideology, say transgender, neo-con is plain wrong as a descriptor.
We know at a higher tribal level that the dialectical ideologies give way to "what's good for the Jews" and the once apparent opponents give way to knowing their roles. One plays offense/attack while the other plays defense/cover up, in order that Team Shlomo wins. Not that the neocons win or the neolibs win. Example, leftist Chomsky gets quiet and defensive about Mossad assassinations and conspiracies but normally screeches about Palestinian rights or championing free speech and freeing dissidents. I think we all know this game. Why do good people fall for the latest of a never-ending language memes meant to muddy the waters?
Congrats to the Russian people!
There may be more good news coming: I read somewhere that Soros is not feeling too well lately.
But on institutions.... they are the natural habitat of the left. I don't think institutions can be permanently controlled to prevent a drift to the left.
Rolo, you should acknowledge that you are a Russian from Ukraine, not from Russia. Germans have several German countries : Germany, Austria, Switzerland. Likewise Russians have Russia, Ukraine, White Russia and even the 3 Baltic states. I know a few Russians from Moscow whose parents are from the Baltics : they have dual citizenship, travel often to the Baltics, and some even moved there for good after the start of the not-war. Yes, they are Russian and recognised as such both in Russia and in the Baltics.
You should get at peace with being Russian and that your country is Ukraine (or Little Russia) as much as (Great) Russia.
I subscribed long ago! I wish you could tailor your articles so that people who have subscribed don't get hit in the face with the suggestion that they don't think enough of your writing - you're the only one who has the Russian and Ukrainian connections and reports in excellent English - to reward you.
Now, back to "In particular, the self-professed Christians were the most vehement about the immorality of our proposed course of action."
Most alleged "Christians" are those who merely profess to be "Christians" but in reality are as earthly as any heathen. Nowhere in the Bible is there any instruction to be (1) stupid, (2) passive, and (3) ignorant. That bit about handing someone your extra cloak and carrying the shield and spear an extra mile does not apply to evil people. The only thing evil people get from Christians is prayer that God would sent the Holy Ghost to regenerate them so that they are no longer evil, i.e., willingly opposing the institution of God's Kingdom on earth which is Satan's goal. When God's Kingdom is established on earth there will be no more "civil government - an oxymoron by definition - collection of parasites attempting to fleece and control productive people and no sexual deviants, "queers" either. They will be stoned the moment they go public, which event is merely a tacit announcement that they consider ruining your children's future to be their right. Actually they know better, but as long as they can use "government" to push their satanic agenda as a "right" they will.
Rolo, thanks for the great posts about Russia. I would like to know your opinion about National Vanguard website and a certain Wolf Stoner, the Russian correspondent of NA.
:-O https://www.ushmm.org/antisemitism/podcast/voices-on-antisemitism/alexander-verkhovsky
"Just look at how thoroughly the FBI worked to infiltrate any and every politically-inclined group or organization within the US from the 90s onwards"
Except apparently Antifa.