In Ukraine, the war of attrition is still no contest – Russian victory grows near, but what then?

The 2022 phase of the Ukraine war was deeply desired by the oligarchy behind NATO, which intended to bleed Russia dry before Balkanizing it. Many of us expected Russia to go in full force, which in retrospect would have played into Babylon’s hands. Instead, despite the wishful thinking behind the Anglo propaganda, Russia took a measured approach, committing a fraction of its troops, relying heavily on the Donbas militias, Wagner Group and cutting-edge stand-off weaponry. Russia prefers to sacrifice territory like Kherson and therefore PR victories to the NATO proxy rather than risk battles in which it may incur heavy losses, whether it wins them or not. RF forces across the Dniepr would have been in dire jeopardy if the enemy blew up the Kakhova Dam, the correct move was to ensure their preservation.

Rather, it is NATO that is now running out of materiel and fuel, having off-shored its heavy industry decades ago to defeat organized labor. Meanwhile, Ukraine is drafting old men and women while Russia has drafted only about 2% of its military-aged men.

Having defeated organized labor and its socialist dreams for the future, the western official dogma is that oligarchs like Elon Musk will bring us a brighter future on the wings of technology. In the war, besides the involvement of Musk’s Starlink and so on, this dogma has translated into faith that supposed American technological superiority would prove decisive with every new wonder weapon it sends to Ukraine. As Col. Douglas McGregor regularly notes, the American return on investment in arms is very poor, as the MIC / procurement system is designed primarily to heavily grease every palm along the way, rather than to achieve results in the zone of combat. Russia’s more pragmatic approach has given it a multi-generational lead in various key military technologies.

But why is Babylon relying on a private company to provide Starlink’s hard-to-shoot-down distributed satellite system? While the US and UK as states fall into a death spiral of debt, inflation, and moribund physical wealth creation, the private wealth of the oligarchy behind NATO vastly outweighs the respective national budgets. It is these interests for which Ukrainians are dying, and the infernal economics of the order they have created have impelled them to engage private capital in sustaining some semblance of competitive front-line key technology.

But despite the Ukrainian slave warriors hailing the impact of Starlink, even it is far short of decisive. The Ukrainian army is hanging on by a thread, and no amount of western tech or mercenaries will change that. Those calling the shots want to continue enjoying their obscene wealth, so nuclear escalation or even a NATO draft leading surely to mass unrest are not serious options. Meanwhile, military enlistment in the USA is way down. Half the country believes their recent elections have been stolen one way or another, everyone is deeply in debt, there is no social cohesion for various reasons, and practically every moral or other guiding principle that used to hold society together has, with the establishment’s eager coaxing, become a mere subject of mockery. So what is there to fight for other than an illusory and fading sense of privilege?

While Russia will win this war and the nation states constituting its adversaries are on the decline, the antagonistic oligarchy and most of its vast wealth will remain unless Russia and China take far more drastic action than they appear ready for. A major factor in Babylon’s defeat in Ukraine will have been its own oligarchic ethos, in which nothing whatsoever about the human experience is sacred except for capital accumulation. What remains to be seen is whether the oligarchy, with its all its incomparably formidable resources and shrewdness, is able to bend its defining ethos in such a way that would allow victory in the next war. Otherwise, it is unlikely to roll over and die, so what will become of it?

Update: An unusually worthwhile debate has taken place at a ‘school’ from which I have an MA. The MSM isn’t what it used to be, so follow my media guide on the Ukraine war.

Russian victory has never been in doubt

Borodino

I don’t see nuclear war as any more likely than it was at the start. As I was discussing with a Serbian friend,

the whole west thinks that Ukraine is winning, including all the non-western sycophants who believe everything they say, and around 15% of Russia even. Ukraine walked into a small area Russia was already leaving, there was very little fighting, but Ukraine still lost ten times the troops as Russia, meanwhile, Russia continues to occupy and annex 15% of Ukraine. And is advancing in the most heavily defended area… but somehow its losing.…

Outside the desperate western propaganda to undermine Russian societal commitment, everything is going great for Russia. Annexing 15% of Ukraine, giving themselves way more options to win the war in accordance with Russian law, by which conscripts can’t be sent abroad. Putin didn’t say ‘we will use nukes if we have to,’ he said they have those and various other new, formidable weapons at their disposal. Most of Ukraine’s best troops are dead. Russia thus far committed about 10% of its forces; it has barely begun to show what it can do with conventional, asymmetric, and cutting-edge weaponry. It has escalation dominance, Ukraine is an existential issue for Russia much more than for the anglo-beholden west and there is no credible western response to Sarmat, Poseidon, Avangard, Kinzhal, S-500, and those supercavitating torpedoes to take out carrier groups. US weapons are purely designed to line pockets and the rest of Nato just has parade armies, except Turkey. 

It’s wartime, which means truth is the first victim. Besides, journalism basically doesn’t exist as a profession anymore, it’s all pure PR. And social media is a bunch of self-important children who don’t know what they are talking about. This girl ‘killed’ in Iran was cooked up by the declining hegemon, as are many of these images from Russia’s borders. Some are running away, sure, the 15% noted above, but it’s inconsequential. The only good sources are retired intel people.  

http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/

https://www.moonofalabama.org/

sonar21.com

http://thesaker.is/ (posts by site-owner Andrei Rayevsky, not so much the other authors)

And maybe a couple hold overs from a different era

https://michael-hudson.com/

http://johnhelmer.net/

https://www.indianpunchline.com/

100 Days of War: How Russia is Winning in Ukraine

I started this blog after my first visit to Ukraine-held Novorossiya, the land of most of my ancestors, who were ‘Black Sea Germans. That was 2013, and my fixation on developments in the region got swept up by the geopolitical maschinations that immediately followed, the ‘revolution of dignity’ and its aftermath. After 8 years, all the insane depravity is coming to a head. Unlike most, my biases on the subject are not ones I was born into but ones I developed over an odd, globe-tramping life path. I believe that multiethnic polities have flourished deep into history and provide various benefits over the nation-state, primarily far less genocide. Nationalism is, as academia understands, a young, post-French-Revolution idea, a very violent one that I categorically oppose. Ukrainian nationalism is also very young, invented, promoted, and instrumentalized by Vienna, Warsaw, the Vatican, London, and Washington to oppose Russia. Without their funding and orchestration in different periods, there would be no Russian-Ukrainian animosity, as there is none between the former and Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Belarus, or say, Chuvashia.

But I have not set out to write an apologetic for my position. Like many astute, critical-minded observers, I had assumed that the talk of war was simply more angloid propaganda. When Lukashenko and Putin started speaking of red lines regarding NATO infrastructure in Ukraine in 2021, I knew they were serious, they never use such terminology lightly, but I could only wonder what they had planned.

The stated aims of the Special Operation are demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine. In this case, taking such stated aims seriously helps understand how the operation is unfolding. The former is self-explanatory and the latter is a serious issue. In the introduction to The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, W. L. Shirer notes that Hitler hated Slavs more than Jews as he blamed them for the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Generalplan Ost was to build a greater Germany on the bones of all Slavs west of the Urals. The angloids have convinced many Ukrainians, partly via the descendants of the Ukrainian SS officers and other collaborators spirited over to N. America post-war, that they are European ubermenschen casting off the yoke of Asiatic Russian hordes. This has been taken up by ‘battalions’ formed largely from skinhead football ultras like Azov, Aydar, Right Sector and others, which, post-Maidan, formed the Ukrainian National Guard and received the most western funding, equipment, and training, as they are by far the most motivated troops they have. An endless list of crimes against humanity visited upon Russian-speaking Ukrainians – disappearances, torture, assassination, are testament to this, as are the Nazi symbols they use and 8 years of comments, like boasting of feeding Russian childrens’ bones to their dogs.

Meanwhile, there is nothing democratic about Ukraine. The state is run by the US and the local oligarchs who suck it dry. Many politicians and journalists have been killed over the last eight years, or many of the former have been physically prevented from attending important votes. The anti-oligarch revolution of dignity resulted in an oligarch president. Many parties and media outlets have been banned. Dissenters are regularly disappeared, about which the nazi battalions openly boast. US official Nuland was recorded appointing the Ukrainian PM in 2014. Zelensky has hatched plots to kill even his one-time supporter, the popular Anatoly Shary. It’s no surprise that Ukrainians voted Lukashenko their favourite world politician in 2019, as Belarus is a stark contrast to the oligarchic makhnovschina of Ukraine.

The issue for Russia here is a pragmatic geopolitical one, that these angloid-backed nazis and much attendant propaganda are being used to create an Anti-Russia right in the middle of the greater-Russian heartland. Secretary of State Brzezinski’s intention, passed down to his HR Clinton/Obama acolytes, to do to Russia what the US did to Yugoslavia, is no secret, it has been published on public US government websites. In Russia’s view, Ukraine and its Ukro-Ustase was coming too close to playing Croatia’s role in tearing apart greater Serbia re- Russia. Zelensky started talking about acquiring nuclear dirty bombs and increased the constant artillery bombardment of the separatist Donbas urban, civilian areas exponentially in the days up to the Special Operation, back to 2014 levels. Russia didn’t start this war, it is trying to end it, as Ukraine had killed around 14,000 civilians over 8 years of conflict. Attempts to negotiate or effect the Minsk agreements failed over a very generously protracted period, so it has come to this.

Besides demilitarization and denazification, Putin also implied that Russia could teach Ukraine how to carry out the ‘decommunization’ that it had set out upon. This appears to reference the fact that half the country was given to Ukraine from Russia by Lenin in 1922 to weaken Russia within the internationalist order and placate the Ukrainian nationalists. It implies that those lands are to be retrieved. They include all the best black-earth farmland and industry.

Western anti-Russia propaganda has been at a fever-pitch since 2014, particularly during the Russiagate debacle, but has reached insane levels during the Special Operation, with fever-dream stories about Snake Island and the Ghost of Kiev receiving widespread western acceptance. Westerners believe Putin is a lunatic on his deathbed who launched the operation on a whim, with no planning or realistic expectations. He expected to win in a few days, for some reason, despite Ukraine having the next-biggest military in Europe, while every week since the beginning, Russia is ‘running out of missiles and troops’ and so on.

Such views are naive and pedestrian. Russia has a very professional general staff which has the best tradition of military planning. That means that there is no one plan, but a tree of contingencies, with each being prepared for. Even if Russia hoped for an early surrender or less resistance, that doesn’t mean they were not ready for worse. It was their duty to the civilians and their own troops to attempt to reach their goals with as light a hand as possible. Putin has noted himself that Ukraine is not sovereign and that the USA intends to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian.

The heaviest sanctions package in history is having no effect. The non-OECD world, where all the growth is, is not on-board and Russia is the world’s nation most capable of self-sufficiency anyway. The new world-beating, unstoppable Sarmat ICBMs require no foreign components. No European country could accomplish such a technical feat. Russia is also protected by a major lead in hypersonics, air defence, electronic warfare systems, and the Poseidon nuclear torpedo-drones. US weapons systems are designed to line pockets, while Russian ones are designed to win. And as for sanctions, the west is clearly harming itself more than Russia, with spiraling inflation, food prices, and a global food crisis.

The Russian withdrawal from North Ukraine and Ukrainian advance in Eastern Kharkov have been cited as evidence that the Ukraine is winning the war. But this is not a war for territory, but primarily for dimilitarization. Whatever is left of the Ukr military in the North is incapable of mounting an effective counteroffensive. They have already been pushed back in Kharkov. Taking Kiev would be long and bloody at this stage and would serve neither to demilitarize nor de-nazify the country. The Nazi battalions have shown insubordination to Zelensky in the past and would not agree to an order from him to surrender. While the west was sure that the capture of Kiev and Zelensky was Russia’s main goal, Russia established a secure land bridge to Crimea, opened the Dniepr-Crimea canal, wiped out Azov in its HQ of Mariupol, secured the whole Azov coast, established a secure bridgehead on the right bank of the Dniepr, and secured the largest nuclear power plant in Europe. Most of the Ukrainian military is in Donbas, the best of it, which is why it, not Kiev, is the focus of demilitarization.

Russia is committing less manpower than the Ukrainian army. Whatever you believe about Russian losses, it is keeping 90% of its troops back in case of any broader eventualities and has kept a force in Ukraine about a third the size of the Ukrainian military, the the ratio is changing as the latter is destroyed. Russia makes up for this with precision missile strikes and very heavy artillery bombardment. I underestimated how long the operation would take, but given these numbers, Russian commitment to minimizing civilian deaths, and the Ukrainian forces insistence on Daesh style use of human shields, the longer duration is inevitable. Western arms supplies also play a delaying role, but will not be decisive in the outcome.

From the Russian point of view, this is an existential conflict and they have no reason to back down. Just as they were supposed to run out of missiles in late March, their troop losses are nothing like what western sources would have you believe. They have clearly been preparing for this for years, with the establishment of the Russian National Guard, which is now used to secure liberated territory, the construction of the Crimean bridge to move in materiel up the isthmus, the construction of the Power of Siberia gas lines to China to compensate for sanctions.

Russia is winning and will win what it sees as an existential war. It has a robust real economy, more than enough domestic resources, popular support, and something called escalation dominance. Ukraine is a massive strategic issue for NATO, but not one to get nuked over. They have no leverage. Russia will grind down and expel the Ukrainian forces from Donbas. I predict, just for fun, with no great conviction, that they will then complete the liberation of Zaporozhye then Kharkov, and probably Dniepropetrovsk before Nikolaev and Odessa. Or perhaps securing the whole coastline is a bigger security priority. All these regions will be incorporated into Russia, but that will likely not mean the end of the operation, as leaving a rump state to be re-militarized and re-nazified is not an option. Perhaps other oblasts will also be annexed, but whatever is left will likely be turned into a new East Germany, run more like Belarus than Slovakia. Some western Oblasts may remain separate to carry Ukraine’s current mountain of debts and stew in their juices between Poland and the Russian world. Direct Russia-EU gas corridors may be useful in the future, and may be one Russian goal, hard to say.

There is no deadline for an existential war and, I repeat, no sanction or weapon delivery that could undermine Russian resolve. The Ukrainian army is already practically non-existent, and there are reports of western weapons deliveries being sold in the Middle East. We are entering a new, non-Eurocentric world.

Medvedev: Russia is more western than the west

I don’t get idealization of western civilization. To engage in this is to buy into its own self-supporting ideology. The pope turned Christianity into a power cult, the renaissance was built on the looting of wealth and talent from New Rome in the 4th crusade, and the American Revolution was mounted to overthrow restrictions an Amerindian genocide and treatment of slaves. The French revolution led to Thermidor, war, and the incestuous nation state, the concept of which has led to more genocide and death than anything else.

Russia retains a traditional Eurasian multi-ethnic state like Iran, Indonesia, India and others. If such countries went hard towards the western nation-state model, it would mean endless war and slaughter.

In terms of Christianity, Russia’s execution of the Great Commission has been far superior and in stark contrast to the brutality of the Catholics particularly. Christianity is a path toward becoming as much of a conduit for Christ as you can through communing with him through internal prayer, believing in him as you ‘believe in’ a friend, an experience that cannot be put into words and requires no rational proofs. Western scholastic theology, therefore, and over focus on the scriptural word over Christ the word, is a debasement of the whole point of the faith. Besides, thinking of the three hypostases of the trinity as personae, a mistranslation, paganizes, retrogrades it too. The Christian Roman Empire was very technologically advanced for its time, there was no concept of a contradiction between faith and science, nor should there be. It never had a dark age as it was in constant enlightenment until its mortal, treacherous blow in 1204. Through New Rome, Russia is the heir of something infinitely closer to the original message of Christianity than what passes in the west.

We have semi-rigid human nature unchanged over tens of thousands of years, murky psychological drives, and a powerful non-linear intuitive/subconscious thought capability. Great breakthroughs in physics for example are often sudden gifts from the subconscious rather than the direct product of conscious linear reason. Technology and reason are good, but ultimately technology and technique will not solve our eternal problems, they add as many as the solve, we and society are not perfectible, we will never be as thorough-goingly rational as we might pretend, a fantasy that will lead us to ruin, as will the idea that we are locked into a linear path to progress and greater liberty. In China, ‘the empire long divided must unite, long united must divide’, everything is cyclical. Liberty must be qualified to have any meaning, and does not appear in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in any form. In the west it is a metaphor for unrestrained greed, the freedom to effect addictive, pathological behavior.

Personally, I lived in China from age 18 to 25, and unexpectedly became deprogrammed from western ideology. Much of it claims to be based on universal values, and if those values are not actually universal, the system breaks down. I have since also lived in Russia, Saudi and elsewhere, and I find the idea that western values are universal to be adorably absurd. I didn’t become Chinese, but lost my ability to swim in western thought without seeing the ideological water. I have found that now, Russians are often the most relatable, realistic, normal people I meet. Not as ruthlessly Machiavellian as the Chinese nor as fantasy bound as the west, very down-to-earth though still somewhat whimsical.

The west believes that its sound institutions have created its wealth in a self-perpetuating dynamic. Really, it got wealthy through raping continents for the last few hundred years, and the institutions are basically luxuries built on that wealth. As a cluster of islands and peninsulas separated by mountains, it was highly probable that Europe would host separate communities competing to advance maritime and military technology. But the aforementioned the wealth it led to, especially in relative terms, is running out. Debt at the Sovereign, private and personal level is soaring in the key western economies, which are all dependent on money printing to maintain the illusion of stability. When I was studying the history of law in the USSR and post-USSR, the professor noted that, in Ukraine, as the wealth of the country got carpet-bagged, corruption and conflict rose, as elite factions became less satisfied with their share of the pie. It was beyond this august prof to see that the same thing was and is happening in the anglosphere.

Besides, you cannot say ‘all men are created equal’ then have slavery for another 100 years and Jim Crow laws for 100 more. France sent troops to crush the Haitian revolution that asked for just the same things that the French Revolution had. Mr Liberty T. Jefferson helped by blockading the island. This kind of disconnect between fact and self-image creates severe cognitive dissonance, which I believe we are all always aware of subconsciously. The west is lost in sophistry, in its own lies and gaslighting. And there is not some idealistic pro-liberty past to return to, the pure early west is slavery, lynchings and dickensianism. It was not Dickensian during the Cold War because they were afraid that the labor movement, inspired by the Bolsheviks, would kill the western elites and worse, appropriate their property, so they made social-democratic concessions. Great, they have made some scientific and technical breakthroughs, Newton, etc., which should also partly be credited to the colonized peoples who in blood and sweat provided the wealth and elite idle time that made such breakthroughs possible. There is absolutely nothing else to idealize about them.

Culture and its Absence

Many modern-minded people believe that traditions are just arbitrary rules which out-dated authorities force upon people through fear tactics. Better to free rational individuals to figure things out for themselves. But human beings can rationalize anything. Having lived in and laboured to understand many diverse cultures, the variation in human need and in the meaning to be found in human  is not great. There are outlying individuals due to developmental issues, trauma, how much love they got as children, emotional or psychological health, and some natural variation in things like personality. All sorts of addictive behaviour exists to outrun emotional pain and emptiness. Yet for the vast bulk of humanity, the variation in basic psychological or emotional needs and the expression of human nature is quite limited. True, sometimes we mistake an ephemeral abstract ideal or a malleable psychological state for ‘who we truly are.’

There is a third option besides slavish adherence to traditional rules and rational individual freedom. Consider that perhaps those seemingly arbitrary traditional rules have lasted so long because they are more often than not attempts to approximate human nature, the word of god, if you like, imprinted upon our hearts. Following them out of a sense duty is indeed folly. However, things like maternal instinct are sacred, you can rationalize your way around them, but you cheat yourself out of any sense of wholeness. In the same way, a squirrel doesn’t need to be taught how to bury nuts, and won’t get very far if he doesn’t follow this inherent compulsion. Just as linguists believe in a universal grammar, we are born with a universal framework of meaning. We do not experience the external material world directly, we experience it through this framework, which is expressed in narrative, in myth. Variations across cultures are mostly cosmetic. We project or transfer our internal tensions, desires and meanings onto the world around us and those in it. This experience of the world mediated by inborn tendencies of meaning is what is most real to us. To deny that costs us emotional growth, the richness of human experience, and ultimately our own psychological health.

The best option over following either dry rules or proud reason is to introspect, meditate, pray, sift out the fear and egoism, and follow your heart, which, if you let it, overflows with what some call Christ, the living word of God. You can pick another framework of interpretation if you like. Generally the more ancient it is, the more it captures the nuances of the human condition. Traditions like Christianity all enjoy different levels of analysis. Not everyone is ready or capable of the most nuanced interpretation. It may be argued that such traditions have their dark sides, having inspired atrocities of all sorts throughout the ages. Common knowledge of such traditions in no way represents the whole or highest level of nuance they offer. Also, atrocities are usually perpetrated in the name of the highest ideals of the day, expressed as religions, ‘isms’, or whatever else is ascendant at the time. Secular Liberal individualist ideals are no more free of this than any given religion. Simply survey the impact of the modern wars waged in their name.

Reason, scientific facts, and raw statistics from the natural sciences are fine, but they don’t tell us much about how to live a fulfilling, meaningful life as individuals or groups. The more that we try to use them to do so, the more such scientific knowledge becomes biased by various vested interests and emotionally charged matters of identity. Women often stay in abusive relationships that cost them dearly for much the same reason that ducklings can imprint on a farmer in the absence of their mother. They are born ready to become attached to something large which gives them food. Something is not right, but instinct tends to overpower facts or reason. Such people need help and it is not a simple problem.

I offer an unnamed culture as an example of what happens when the above is mostly denied. There is a huge focus on petty, jealous egoism over emotional health. They run around trying to satisfy their egos, sexually and in other ways, ignoring their emotional health in general. They think that if they just have their fun, don’t think about consequences and don’t feel anything, they have won and are perfectly healthy. This leads to a general superficiality because if they did introspect at all, what they found wouldn’t be comfortable. They don’t take emotional risks so they don’t grow or mature. It’s the Lord of the Flies, nine-year-olds with sex lives. In most cultures there are standards of maturity and emotional literacy you’re expected to exhibit, but here, being a egotistical child is acceptable. The people can seem fun because they are rowdy, carefree children, but at the end of the day this level of superficiality is just boring.

 

chPb3y_L-eA

 

A collection of high quality content

The following is a compilation of the best content from my VK account which I am in the process of closing.


The less you eat, drink, buy books, go to the theatre or to balls, or to the public house [ Br., pub], and the less you think, love, theorize, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you will be able to save and the greater will become your treasure which neither moth nor rust will corrupt — your capital. The less you are, the less you express your life, the more you have, the greater is your alienated life and the greater is the saving of your alienated being. Everything which the economist takes from you in the way of life and humanity, he restores to you in the form of money and wealth. And everything which you are unable to do, your money can do for you; it can eat, drink, go to the ball and to the theatre. It can acquire art, learning, historical treasures, political power; and it can travel. It can appropriate all these things for you, can purchase everything; it is the true opulence. But although it can do all this, it only desires to create itself, and to buy itself, for everything else is subservient to it. -Marx


Progress, unqualified liberty and equality are pillars of liberal ideology. Liberalism is the ideology of bourgeoisie power, established at the expense of the ancien regime; it is republicanism, parliamentary democracy, ‘private property über alles,’ industrialization, commercialization, bureaucratization, nihilism, quantification and commodification of all things. Its intellectual handmaidens are positivism, scientism, instrumental rationality, analytical philosophy, cognitive behavioural psychology, and postmodernism.
Liberalism overthrew the Hobbesian order thanks to the enormous bourgeois wealth brought by commercial colonial empire, the conquering of ‘virgin’ continents and particularly the flow of precious metals from the New World to Europe. Liberalism and the enlightenment are built on post-columbian prosperity in the same way the Renaissance was built on the rape and pillage of Byzantium. Liberal democracy thrives really only in those countries that profit(ed) most from colonial conquests, and those countries that the colonists powers choose to let thrive, via the Marshall Plan, for example. Democracy, rule of law, low corruption and sound institutions do not produce prosperity, they are a luxury built upon a foundation of (neo) colonial prosperity. Therefore the Liberal powers are obscenely disingenuous in pointing fingers at others for not following their norms, while extracting from them the wealth necessary to maintain those norms exclusively.
Despite being born in slavery and genocide from America to Africa to India, liberalism must constantly reaffirm its progressive and emancipatory credentials ad absurdum. For example, by promoting the idea of gender equality – actually a totally meaningless concept. On average, women necessarily have much harder lives than men and no amount of ‘equality’ on paper is going to change that. The best society wouldn’t be a feminist one, it would be a female supremacist one, in that men should find joy through fulfilling their duty to try to make women’s lives easier, more secure, and happier while infringements on women’s well-being should be punished disproportionately, indeed with the wrath of god. A healthy society would share decision-making between the genders, as Turkey’s HDP party promotes. A good argument could even be made for giving women precedence in decision making.
Other badges of emancipation of which liberals love to boast, like LGBT rights are little more than that; something in which they can find self-affirmation while, for example, the material prosperity of their society, including that of its sexual minorities (though all major studies show that fluidity of sexual orientation is fundamental in the human individual; sexual tribalism is a social construct), is predicated on the wage-slave labour of millions of largely teenage girls in Asia. Giving them rights would actually cost us access to cheap goods, establishing gay rights doesn’t really cost anything. It just makes us feel liberal.
As the post-Columbian wealth and hydrocarbon reserves are dissipated, the world will return to the mean in socio-political order, something resembling the Hobbesian/Confucian state, guided by stability and harmony rather than progress and ill-defined liberty. Liberalism and the 20th century reactions to it ask ‘what is the best way to engineer society (and everything else)?’ A better question might be, where is unqualified liberty on the hierarchy of needs really ? How rational and capable of engineering our environment, society and selves are we? How do the demands and limitations of human nature determine social organization? Human nature doesn’t progress, and technology will save us neither from fundamental resource exhaustion nor from our own caprice and hubris. Please, read some Dostoevsky.
Liberals’ self-righteous and totalitarian insistence that all must subscribe to their view is the very rot from within by which their stale mythology will collapse. They are barely aware that intelligent criticism of their worldview exists, let alone who composed it or what they wrote. Hyper-critical of all those who don’t subscribe to liberal hypocrisy, in contrast to whom they self-affirm and self-define, liberals are completely incapable of self-criticism, of questioning their childish idealism. They are tiresome.
This documentary describes how the mania for ‘progress’ has debased art.


Roman Dmowski’s prophecy on the Ukrainian question (Świat powojenny i Polska/The Postwar World and Poland, 1931)

—–
There is no human force capable of preventing Ukraine, separated from Russia and transformed into an independent state, from becoming a crowd of conmen from all over the world, who have been chafing in their own countries; capitalists and those seeking capital, organizers of industry, technicians and traders, speculators and schemers, thugs and organizers of any kind of prostitution: Germans, Frenchmen, Belgians, Italians, Englishmen and Americans would rush [into Ukraine] with the help of locals or nearby Russians, Poles, Armenians, Greeks… A peculiar League of Nations would gather here…
These elements, with the participation of smarter, more skilled in business Ukrainians would produce the guiding layer, the elite of the country. But it would be a special elite, probably because no country could boast such a rich collection of international scoundrels.
Ukraine would become a thorn in the flesh of Europe; people dreaming of cultural production, of a strong and healthy Ukrainian nation, maturing in their own country, would be convinced that rather than their own country, they have an international company, and instead of healthy development, rapid progress of decay and rot.
Whosoever thought that the geographic location of Ukraine and its area, that the state in which the Ukrainian element finds itself, with its spiritual and material resources, and finally, that the role which the Ukrainian question has in today’s economic and political position of the world could be otherwise – he does not have an ounce of imagination.
The Ukrainian question has various advocates, both in Ukraine itself and abroad. Among the latter especially, there are many who know very well what they are doing. There are those, however, who would solve this issue by separating Ukraine from Russia, which they present as very idyllic. Those who are so naïve would do well to keep their hands away from her.


The British Empire has been succeeded by the US, not much else has changed. Friederich List:

“in this country we are at liberty to judge a
man’s intention by his conduct, not according to the
pretexts he may invent to mask the true motives
of his actions. We are in the habit of finding out
at first a man’s aim : sometimes we consult history,
from which we learn that nations, during ages
and centuries, like individuals, are prosecuting
some one principal aim. Inquiring after the aim
of England, we find that it consists in raising her
manufacture, commerce, and naval power beyond
the competition of all other nations. For reaching
this aim we see her support at home liberal
principles ; play the conqueror in Asia, and use and
support their despotic powers ; whilst contenting
herself in the West Indian islands and Canada
with a paternal Government, mixed and sweetened
with some rights and some free institutions. We
see her give the republic of Genoa, her former ally,
to a monarch, and restore the Hanse Towns to their
former independence (in order to possess staple
places in Germany for her manufactures) : we see
her hire armies against the French Republic, and
manufacture a free constitution for Sicily : we
see her subsidize the armies of the European
monarchies to conquer France, and convert the
republic of Holland into a kingdom : we see her
suffer the destruction of a free constitution in
Spain, call a number of republics into existence in
South America, project a free constitution for
Portugal, defend it against the aggressions of the
fanatics, and treat with France for the evacuation
of Spain. When we judge this conduct by
principles, there is nothing but contradiction ; but
when we look at the aim of the country, there is
nothing but conformity. Her aim was always and
ever to raise her manufactories and commerce, and
thereby her navy and political power, beyond all
competition of other nations, and always she
accomplishes her conduct to circumstances using
at one time and in one place liberal principles, at
another, power or money either to raise freedom
or to depress it, as it suited her. Even her
measures against the slave trade are said to
have originated from her interest, and gave her a
pretext to prevent other nations’ colonies from
supplying themselves, whilst her own possessed
already the necessary quantity.”


Свобода не в том, чтоб не сдерживать себя, а в том, чтоб владеть собой.

Фёдор Достоевский


There is a true law, a right reason, conformable to nature, universal, unchangeable, eternal, whose commands urge us to duty, and whose prohibitions restrain us from evil. Whether it enjoins or forbids, the good respect its injunctions, and the wicked treat them with indifference. This law cannot be contradicted by any other law, and is not liable either to derogation or abrogation.

Neither the senate nor the people can give us any dispensation for not obeying this universal law of justice. It needs no other expositor and interpreter than our own conscience. It is not one thing at Rome and another at Athens; one thing today and another tomorrow; but in all times and nations this universal law must for ever reign, eternal and imperishable. It is the sovereign master and emperor of all beings. God himself is its author,—its promulgator,—its enforcer. He who obeys it not, flies from himself, and does violence to the very nature of man. For his crime he must endure the severest penalties hereafter, even if he avoid the usual misfortunes of the present life.

– Marcus Tullius Cicero


The European Union was originally dominated by Western European former colonial empires each with about half a millennia of intercontinental interaction, i.e. colonial enrichment (Other early members were the former fascist states who were completely reshaped by the allied powers under unconditional surrender. No domestic agents were able to contest or influence the Anglo-American-driven establishment of liberalism in Germany, Austria or Italy). New EU members in Eastern Europe have a completely different history and identity, one without transcontinental interaction or enrichment, the conditions under which liberalism developed ‘organically.’ Much of the rationale of the EU was to reconcile France and Germany after hundreds of years of animosity and brutal Nazi occupation of the former. Yet the EU tolerates and nurtures a similar animosity, which forms the dominant narrative of self-definition in many eastern European member states, usually vis a vis Russia. Defining a nation on a grudge, on fear and loathing is not healthy or sustainable. Allowing these member states to influence NATO and EU policy corrupts the basic original rationale of peace-building and reconciliation.
Admittedly, this happens in conjunction with western statesmen like Zbigniew Brzezinski, a long-time foreign policy guru, mentor to Obama. His father fought in the Polish-Soviet war, (which the Bolsheviks waged out of a socialist international rationale, not a Russian imperial one) entrenching a deep hate of all things Soviet and Russian in this highly influential policy maker. There are many similar examples, Carl Bildt, Ayn Rand, Biden, Soros, McCain and so on. This nexus of Cold Warriors and East European nationalist who refuse civilized reconciliation feel that they won the cold war, and to the victors should go the spoils.
The Soviet Union had overcome far worse crises than the stagnation of the 80s. The Nomenklatura decided to become oligarchs of its own accord, and expected grateful reconciliation for ending the cold war from the west. Putin was a close collaborator with Sobchak, mayor of Petersburg, and one of the most pro-west liberals of the period. Putin personally ensured that the hard-line Aug. ’91 Soviet coup plotters who wanted to reverse Gorbachev’s reforms failed to take control of Russia’s second city. In the 90s Gorbachev’s foreign minister is quoted as saying that ‘Russia has no interests separate from those of the US.’ The west not only wanted to spread liberal values, but follow Brzezinski and Wolfowitz’s plan of preventing the resurgence of any geopolitical competitor in Eurasia. They also wanted unfettered western corporate access to Russia’s natural resources, mainly oil. In this context a Harvard team was sent to help Gaidar et al reform Russia, but de facto helped rapidly turn the country into a lawless favela. When Putin put the reigns on this process, reintroducing the state’s monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, payment of salaries and core social services while slowing the flow of capital to London and Switzerland, the west decried the ‘threat to democracy.’ Russia is still one of the most brutally neoliberal economies in the world, but high finance doesn’t dictate the shape of ‘democracy’ there as it does in Europe and North America, and this is Putin’s true crime.
At the end of the war, highly skilled western statesmen were guided by a terror that liberalism might fail in return to great depression, fascism or the spread of communism. They carefully designed the post-war order to prevent this, mainly through social democratic policies and reconciliation. After the Cold War, elites who had been made soft on a few decades of prosperity (though cracks had begun to show in the oil crises of the 70s and rising sovereign debt levels) assumed that liberal consolidation was inevitable, allowing the lazy-minded chauvinistic cold war triumphalists listed above to ally with the east European anti-reconciliation nationalists to create an enemy where there needn’t be one, in Russia. The west constantly expects Russia to collapse at any moment out of its ‘unstable illiberalism,’ while happily cooperating with far less liberal China and Saudi Arabia with no such expectation. Arguably there can be no reconciliation as long as Russia has 7000 Nuclear weapons, making it the only country which could wipe out the west and indeed the entire world.
Either way, the west is not willing to cooperate on the basis of respect and equality, today high finance must manage all resources and policy decisions to ensure stable capital accumulation. It represents the invisible hand of the market, the ultimate good, all parochial national interest is either instrumentalized by it or are anathema. But I believe they would have been wiser to smother Russia in kindness, focusing on the big prize rather than antagonizing it with NATO expansion which offers the original members zero security benefit and which ultimately caused Saakashvili’s adventurism in South Ossetia and, via a clause on military cooperation in the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, the Ukraine crisis. Constantly bleating about your noble values is pointless if your actions are hubristic, unwise and counterproductive. The liberal order is now leading to war and instability in Eastern Europe, directly in contradiction to its self-proclaimed foundational rationale. And the anti-reconciliation nationalist nations will be the first to be soaked in blood.


It’s the hundredth anniversary of the Bolshevik coup d’etat. It would have been better if anarchists hadn’t assassinated Alexander II, giving more time to reform before his inept son and grandson took power in extremely challenging circumstances.

International Socialism failed with the abortive German Revolution, as Lenin recognised shortly before he died. Its replacement, Marxism-Leninism, had some great successes and some great tragedies, the tragedies no greater than those of nationalism with its holocausts or classical liberalism with its slavery, Amerindian genocide, ‘dark satanic mills,’ work houses and debtors prisons.

In fact, besides the accumulated wealth of colonialism, the only reason liberal Western countries have been desirable places to live is the challenge posed by the Bolshevik coup. Afraid that Western masses might be inspired to kill them and/or dispossess them of their property, Western elites made concessions which culminated in the post-war social democratic order envied worldwide. As noted by the President of the RF at Valdai, Without the bolshevik coup, Western countries would still be ‘dickensian,’ with no health care, weekends, 8 hour workdays, pensions, unemployment insurance, workplace injury compensation, maternity leave, sick leave, overtime pay, minimum wage, child labor laws, women’s suffrage, popular suffrage, progressive taxation, subsidised higher education, legal ethic equality, and more.

The geography of western Europe promotes division, competition, and innovation, but not necessarily social progress or justice. These things are never guaranteed, especially in the post- Cold War age of austerity, when the inspiration for them, the threat of organized masses overthrowing the order of private property, has been neutralized. At heart the West’s only values are private property and capital accumulation.

Marxism-Leninism and liberalism share the same flaw – excess faith in the ability of human reason to reshape the world and society in a predictable and desirable way. What we consider rational conscious thought is just the tip of the iceberg of our mental activity. It exists only to vet thoughts suitable for verbal communication. The important stuff that makes us who we are happens below the surface in the subconscious, beyond our ‘rational control.’ By sharing this over-estimation of human reason, liberalism is as doomed to fail as Marxism-Leninism.

A strong, IR-realist Russia is good for global order and stability. What Russia and Eurasia need is unity and reconciliation. Anyone who gives unqualified support for, or condemnation of, the legacy of the bolsheviks is, in my opinion, an agent of disorder. Engels (naively) wrote in the definitive summary of his and Marx’s thought, “Anti Düring,” that religion could only be defeated through education, not repression. The tragedies of Marxism-Leninism happened because things didn’t go according to plan (due to the fatal flaw mentioned above); the ‘dogma’ itself was fluid. You can’t say the same thing for the tragedies of nationalism- their tragedies and holocausts were completely intentional.


My good friends, things cannot go on well in England, nor ever will until everything shall be in common, when there shall be neither vassal nor lord, and all distinctions levelled; when the lords shall be no more masters than ourselves. How ill they have used us!… They have wines, spices and fine bread, when we have only rye and the refuse of fine straw; and if we drink, it must be water. They have handsome seats and manors, when we must brave the wind and rain in our labours in the field; but it is from our labour they have the wherewith to support their pomp.… Let us go to the king, who is young, and remonstrate with him on our servitude, telling him we must have it otherwise, or that we shall find a remedy for it ourselves.
-John Ball, English priest, 1338-1381


Enrichment of a president is corruption, but enrichment of a monarch is a price of his undying alignment of interest with ‘the greater good’ of the state and populous.

Human nature does not progress and is not perfectible. Graft and nepotism will always exist, monarchy is a way of taming and employing them for ‘the greater good.’ As the vast wealth from colonial empire, the industrial revolution and cheap oil fades into heavy state, corporate and private debt levels, corruption in ‘advanced western countries’ will increase. History moves in cycles of order and chaos, not in linear progress.

The left-right political spectrum is a harmful metaphor which only causes confusion, causing absurd polarization and preventing effective policy. The reductionism is not rectified by conceiving of it as a circle joined at the extreme ends. The liberal and radical liberal (socialist/communist) conceit that they have a monopoly on morality or humanity is a delusion. But their opponents define themselves in confused reaction to the ‘progressives,’ cobbling destructive and immoral modern ideas like nationalism and libertarianism together in various ways under the delusion that they are conservative or traditional. Both synthetic ‘sides,’ often manipulated by vested interest, neglect real tradition, the wisdom accumulated over millennia of human experience.

Equality, liberty and reason are all stupid concepts to organize a society on, or appeal to as highest arbiter. There is no equality. I’m not equal to a pedophile or to a hero of the Donbass resistance. The modern history of ‘equality’ is dark. It starts as slave owners demanding that the monarch is not superior to them and able to limit their treatment of their human property. Equality was later evoked to give corporations status as legal persons, allowing shareholders to remain anonymous and avoid culpability for rapacious methods of capital accumulation.

Unqualified liberty has no meaning. Liberty from slavery, serfdom or debt is a noble cause. Liberty from the ego and liberty from alienation from divine grace are equally important. Politically, elections don’t mean liberty, particularly in high debt societies or those where monetary policy doesn’t even fall under the pretense of being democratically managed. Liberty, democracy or elections don’t appear on Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. We do however, have an evident need for feeling that our life is made meaningful by contribution, sacrifice and belonging to a larger group or higher cause. Human nature also tends to prefer leadership to disorder. That’s not to suggest human nature is rigid; it is expressed differently in, for example, conditions of abundance and scarcity.

Reason is a slippery branch to cling to. Human motivations are murky and capricious, bubbling up from the depths of the subconscious. We then rationalize them to ourselves as both individuals and groups and claim reason is on our side. A mechanical, reductionistic way of thought where everything is quantified (and commodified) has become like a new god, at the expense of intuition, that is, almost all of the thought processes going on inside our heads, albeit subconsciously. Critiques of this regression in the western intellectual tradition have endured from Dostoevsky’s Notes from Underground, to Heidegger to Heller’s Catch-22 and A Clockwork Orange, yet it endures, particularly in the English-speaking world and its closest vassals.

Far better guiding stars than equality, liberty and reason are justice and nature. We can strive for perfection but only in the knowledge that it is unattainable.We can enjoy the benefits of technological progress if we recognize the dilemmas it brings in equal measure, and if we recognize the fact that our nature does not progress. No matter how we try, society will be mainly shaped by flawed people with their vested interests, delusions and lies. We’d make it easier on ourselves by trying to shape society in a way that recognizes our flawed, capricious humanity.


Racism is a uniquely modern, western idea, born of the early modern trans-Atlantic slave trade. In the Roman Empire, Germans and Africans were enslaved with equal readiness. There is nothing natural or traditional about racism. The logic of extractive western maritime slave empires was fundamentally different from the multi-ethnic continental empires like Russia, the Ottoman or Austro-Hungarian. The elites of any group conquered by Russia were granted noble status equal to that of the original Russian nobility, Tatars, Georgians, even Jews. Eastern European racism is a sad cry of people manipulated and controlled by the west to falsely believe they are inferior. Not only is racism a reaction to this feeling, it is an concession that western ideas of status, like race, are more valid than eastern ones, which is simply untrue. The west brags about its liberal moral progress because its early modern empires practiced exploitation and discrimination far worse than the eastern continental empires, which were, therefore, generally more stable and long-lasting. The east will prosper by casting off its subservience to western ideas of status and progress.


Konstantin Leontiev made several predictions that turned out to come true. He prophesied that in the 20th century, there would be a bloody revolution in Russia led by an “anti-Christ” that would be socialist and tyrannical in nature and whose rulers would wield even more power than their tsarist predecessors.

He also predicted that Germany would grow strong enough to make up to two wars against Russia and that China also would eventually threaten Russia’s power.


The Strange Case of Chrystia Freeland and the Failure of the super elite

Professor Katchanovskii’s visual reconstruction of Maidan shootings

The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists the Ukrainian Insurgent Army and the Nazi Genocide in Ukraine

Canada Admits Letting in 2000 Ukrainian SS Troopers

Tragedy and Hope: The interesting story of Carrol Quigley

Michael Hudson, Money Imperialism – How money and debt are used to control the world

The Death Of The Petrodollar, And What Comes After

Book Review: Putin and Rebuilding Great Russia

Book Review: the Hawks of War: Notes of the Russian Ambassador

Exiled Book Review: Another British Genocide

Mark Curtis holds Britain to account for millions of deaths in a rare interview. You won’t see this on the BBC

Tim Hayward’s guide to the Integrity Initiative, the British Government’s covert international cabal to spread hatred of Russia

Pre-revolutionary Russian minister of the interior predicts the entire 20th Century

BBC Acknowledges that over half of the Ukrainian military in Crimea in 2014 defected to Russia

Distributism: a primer for Orthodox Christians

Distributism From the East

I wrote: https://balkanist.net/moldova-crisis-a-problem-of-eu-making/

I wrote: http://www.eurasianaffairs.net/eurasian-integration-pursuing-stability-and-influence-in-an-uncertain-world/

I wrote: https://en.news-front.info/2015/11/14/glaziev-s-proposal-a-glimmer-of-sanity-in-a-mad-world/

I wrote: https://southfront.org/opinion-western-liberal-narrative-moves-towards-greater-russophobia/

I translated: https://southfront.org/s-500-weapon-system-acquires-the-faculty-of-invisibility/

I translated: https://southfront.org/china-descends-upon-turkey-and-germany-intrudes-into-armenia-whats-next/

Max Blumenthal: In 2007, the US’s Georgia proxies live-tested new American-designed LRAD weapons on pro-democracy protesters in Tblisi, who were demonstrating against Saakashvili’s authoritarian regime.

Artist Andrei Remnev

All world borders through history

Henri Bergson

Georges Sorel

Lev Shestov

Alexandre Kojève

Don’t forget Yuri Mamleev, DH Lawrence and Ha Joon Chang

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cultural capitalism chases its own tail and murders a manmade god

In the mid-twentieth century philosophers such as Derrida noted that there is no ultimately true interpretation of a given text or of the human condition. This is often misinterpreted as ‘since no interpretation is ultimately true, all interpretations are equal.’ This misinterpretation is often used as a justification for lazy thinking and intellectual escapism. We all live in interpretation and narrative. We all share the same human nature, instincts, intuitive capacity and subconscious thought. Our interpretations of our condition are not all equal in their account of nuance. Below we will explore two fashionable arguments within secular western liberal democracy, one from the liberal right and one from the liberal left. These are that cultural Marxism is ruining our culture and that religion, particularly Christianity, is an insufferable hindrance to progress and reason.

Background: development of the liberal cultural milieu

Let’s assume that the world around is neither rigidly deterministic nor chaotically random, but is best processed probabilistically, by ranking the probability of what is most true and most likely based on available information both rationally and intuitively. In this framework, it is actually probable, for example, that someone raised in or acculturated to the dominant Euro-American matrix of interpretations and narratives will overwhelmingly privilege rational thought over subconscious intuitive thought.

This prioritization of reason is easy enough to explain step by step, starting with a bit of geographical probabilism. Europe, particularly the Western half, is not a strictly defined continent so much as a cluster of islands and peninsulas divided by seas and mountains. After agriculture had spread from the fertile crescent to the similar enough climes of Europe, bringing with it civilization, the societies of these divided European regions developed shipping technologies in zero-sum competition with one another for military and economic supremacy. Their expertise in shipping was then used to establish extractive colonial empires. The resources therefrom were employed in the ongoing zero-sum competition between the naturally divided political entities in Western Europe.

However, a shift in power took place, as the merchant and banking classes (bourgeoisie) of the respective societies were able to accumulate wealth from colonial extraction that rivaled that of the traditional landed gentry. Economic power was translated into political power in a series of putsches including the American revolution, the French revolution, the Glorious Revolution in England, and Dutch independence from Spain. With political and economic hegemony came what Gramsci calls cultural hegemony. The dominant cultural values of the originally martial landed aristocracy were replaced by those of the bourgeoisie. Most highly developed pre-modern societies had emphatically endeavoured to restrain the ethos of the bourgeoisie. This class was seen as one characterized by moral vacancy, as success among this class was determined by letting nothing, no matter how sacred in whatever sense, impede the accumulation of capital.

The focus of this ethos is on the material and the quantifiable but most crucially, on the commodifiable. The world came increasingly to be looked upon with the mentality of a ledger keeper, with little regard for intuitive or subconscious thought, which tend to verge on what has often been experienced as spiritual. The religion itself of Western Europe was imbued with the rationalizing scholasticism of Aquinas and gradually worn away through the myriad schisms caused by competing interpretations of rationally to interpret religious truth. Meanwhile, folk-religious suspicion of wealth and injunction against usury were quietly buried. Proclamations of human liberty and equality upheld the right of the owners of human chattel to dispose with their property without the intervention of the monarchy. These proclamations rang out over roughly another hundred years of legal slavery. Other Dickensian manifestations of classical liberal hypocrisy, racial segregation, debtors’ prisons, workhouses, induced colonial famine and sterilization of the poor extended often into the mid to late 20th Century.

The unadorned rationality of the ledger keeper was employed in rationalizing government, law, and education with mixed and sometimes tragic-comic results. From the start of the liberal, bourgeois or oligarchic age, the New World wallowed in the quagmire of racial identity. In Europe, mass loyalty and self-identification moved from faith and the ruling dynasty toward the oligarchy’s post-1789 invention of the ethno-nation, with horrific costs in human life and diversity. In any time and in any place humans will appeal to the lofty values of the day as justification for the most base transgressions. Napoleon justified his invasions much as the Anglo-Saxon alliance justified its much later 21st-century invasion of Iraq, as the devout and pious spreading of liberty, equality, and fraternity.

As long as liberalism, the dictatorship of the oligarchy reigns, so shall the dark faith of reason, technology and property rights (under the thin mask of ‘liberty’) remain the one true faith. The undead idea that technology will save us in a narrative of linear upward progress has died a thousand deaths. Dostoevsky noted the ocean of Dickensian horrors in which the 1851 Great Exhibition of technological progress and promise was awash. Reason,  technology, and liberty were most famously discredited in the Great War, which the British oligarchy instigated to crush a rising Germany, and in which the new machines of war left Europe awash in a sea of blood. Again, these lofty idols were demystified by the rationalized death camps of Nazi Germany and shortly thereafter by the imminent threat of Nuclear winter. Today, the oceans are dying with alarming rapidity thanks to our digitized world, yet faith in rationalization and technology as Christ rather than Janus goose-steps on like a zombie Rasputin.

The bourgeois revolutions, particularly the French, exhibited a radical wing which fought not just for a free hand for the property owner, but for a more radical reordering of society and more literal interpretation of the self-proclaimed justifications of the revolution, couched as it was in the language of universal values. This was later realised in only an anaemic way through social democratic concessions which the elite conceded to the masses out of fear of violent, organised socialist overthrow. These include universal suffrage and healthcare. When the Soviet elite chose to become oligarchs and the western neo-liberals simultaneously crushed the trade union movement, the threat of violent overthrow abated and these concessions are now being gradually reversed.

The parliamentary systems born of the liberal revolutions embody the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, their interests, means, and goals. Like rationalisation, technology, and the nation, this democracy is worshipped and revered as self-evidently good, or at least the least bad among a myopic selection of recently practised social orders. To be fair, populism has very recently started to call this into question, but generally, the liberal mindset holds that we have a stark choice: parliamentary liberal democracy or totalitarianism. Parliamentary democracy may lead the polity into wars for oligarchic enrichment, debt, privatisation, offshoring, labour dumping and austerity policies overwhelmingly reviled by the electorate, but within the liberal mindset, it remains a sacred cow. Alternative forms of just social organisation such as workers’ cooperatives or Swiss-style highly localised direct democracy are rarely considered.

The bourgeois emphasis on the individual (particularly his property rights and profit drive, or simply, greed), rationalization and commodification tend toward vapidity in culture and the arts. Diversionary, shallow, unredemptive, profane and escapist cultural artifacts proliferate. Such content does not challenge us to improve, but rather often reassures us that to be selfish, petty, immature and venal is normal. This includes shows cynical comedy like Family Guy, South Park, Seinfeld, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Nirvana, the likes of Nicki Minaj, and most of Hollywood. The heroes are often rapacious– cowboys violently appropriating native American land, pirates, gangsters and so on. Reality tv and trap ‘music’ that amelodically chants brand names is the apotheosis of bourgeois culture, to say nothing of Duchamp and his children in the art world.

This ethos is ubiquitous and dominant, though not to the total exclusion of redemptive creative work. We remain human, and the PR firms and perception managers of our day understand that human stories sell. In my lifetime a clear reduction in the amount of creative work that openly challenges bourgeois cultural mores is evident. Consider that one tool of cultural hegemony is banalisation. For example, a Hollywood movie will sensationalize an obvious critique of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or its culture. Banalisation co-opts, neutralizes and even commodifies such critique. Examples are endless. Other trends are scientistic escapism, fantasies about an ideal rational scientistic world like Star Trek, psychologically vapid middle-class escapism like Lord of the Rings or a combination of the two like Star Wars. There is a long history of critique and commentary on the vapidity and conspicuous consumption of the bourgeoisie.

The historical narrative above and the sketch of the resultant culture are not deterministic nor rigid. It has involved a lot of conflict, resistance, exceptions, and nuance. From the starting point of geography and human nature, the probable lines of social development can be predicted. But, had, for example, the Mongol Empire extended further westward or Islam remained in Spain things might have developed differently. In retrospect, it was probable that a trader class would gain power and enrichment through extractive colonial empire (not to mention the Venetian or Hanseatic model this followed). It is probable that a certain occupation or social role is best served by a certain mode of thought or set of priorities. We can probabilistically determine what that is, especially with the benefit of hindsight. It is probable that the mentality of a dominant class will also become dominant in their respective society, though not necessarily entirely to the exclusion of, or synthesis with, other mentalities.

Let us assume that human nature dictates that a healthy individual necessarily interprets the world through a framework of narrative and as a member of a myth based community. As such narratives and myths are subjective and contingent, they are susceptible to cognitive dissonance. They tend to over-emphasise evidence which supports the narrative community in which they are emotionally invested while ignoring undermining evidence. Even if a belief is blatantly dysfunctional, facts have little to no influence on narrative reform. Occasionally, alternative narratives are adopted or syncretized, usually more out of economic or military power rather than reason. Liberalism is traditionally divided into a right and a left wing which contest arcane details of the liberal order within an Overton window which does not admit contestation of private property rights or the right of capital accumulation. Both sides exhibit beliefs that they see as self-evident, but which are contingent upon the liberal social order, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and its attendant narrative framework.

Scapegoating the Marxist other for capitalist culture

On the right, there is a common myth that sometime around 1968, ‘western culture’ became dominated by cultural Marxism thanks to the domination of followers of the Frankfurt School across academia. Cultural Marxism is obsessed with a revolutionary liberation from oppression. All history is a story of oppression and exploitation of one group by another and the struggle of the oppressed to be free. Crucially this struggle plays out in the culture, and the words we use in a culture war. From cultural Marxism we get an obsession on the left with identity politics, the demand of every definable identity group to be treated equally within the culture in the face of white Anglo-Saxon protestant heterosexual patriarchy.

For the righists who decry cultural Marxism, the fight for equality and liberty of the classical liberal property owners against Monarchic diktat was sublime, but this obsession with equality and liberty on the part of cultural Marxists, or social justice warriors, is some kind of infection, a lapse in cultural hygiene, an invasive decay spread from the great Cold War Marxist other. This is absurd partly in that the terminology which social justice warriors and Marx have in common were derived in both cases from the great liberal revolutionaries.

Marx did not invent socialism, leftism, communism, liberty or equality. Before Marx, there were utopian socialists such as Proudhon. In his book, The Philosophy of Poverty, Proudhon argued that we should choose to be moral to each other to build a better, socialist, society. Marx thought this was so pathetically naive that he wrote The Poverty of Philosophy to explain that the poor wage labourers could only liberate themselves from economic exploitation by realising their rational self-interest, disposing of the oligarchy and controlling their workplaces democratically. Emphatically, only economic exploitation mattered to Marx. It mattered that one was objectively economically exploited, not that people said mean things about the group one chose to self-identify as.

The ‘cultural Marxists’ have glaringly more in common with Proudhon than with Marx. This is not to say that they are actually utopian socialists. Note that their calls for cultural reform take a Fukuyamaist view that the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is beyond reproach, it is the best we can hope for. All we need to do is make minor cultural adjustments and change the way we speak to and about any real or self-invented minority identity group. One thing social justice warriors or cultural Marxists rarely if ever do is challenge objective political or economic power. They eagerly support the incumbent patronage hierarchy, no matter how corrupt and warmongering, simply because Trump says mean things. These are not cultural Marxists but simply cultural capitalists. They keep alive the myth that liberal society is guided by a deeply held value of liberty, rather than simply the right to property and accumulation, at no material cost to the SJWs or to oligarchy.

Christ as the straw man

Neither side of the internal liberal left versus right Punch and Judy show is immune from grotesque reductionism of their perceived enemies. Self-proclaimed progressives have experienced a trend of evangelical atheism in recent years. This movement has been zealously anti-religious, particularly anti-Christian and anti-Islamic. At the same time, Western Christianity has been suffering deep decline beginning long before the emergence of the evangelical atheist movement. None of this should be surprising.

Western Christianity developed over the last millennium particularly based on mistranslations from Biblical Greek to the Latin Vulgate and one bare-faced heresy built on top of another. It is hard to entirely blame the atheists for vociferously repudiating the only forms of Christianity with which they are familiar. The church had been split prior to the Great Schism a millennium ago. First, there was likely some form of a split between the strictly Jewish Jesus movement and the more syncretic, cosmopolitan world religion championed by Saint Paul. There was also the tragic split between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox churches in 451. Jewish Christianity did not survive Roman repression and the inter-orthodox division has in more recent times been officially declared to be merely a semantic dispute. Papal supremacy, however, is clearly a power grab based on twisted rationalisation of scripture. In the pre-denominational orthodox tradition, all bishops are formally equal. Church doctrine is formulated only to address any controversy that arises and only by a consensus at a council of bishops.

Besides these technicalities, the atheists’ arguments have little to no bearing on Orthodox Christianity. The highest authority in Christianity is the word of God. The word of God is Christ, the eternal Logos or word of God accessible to all through prayer, a form of introspection and recognition of forces within oneself greater than your rational consciousness, inner monologue or stream of thought. Orthodox theology believes in a Godhead that is an unknowable ultimate creative principle, not a bearded man in the sky. In support of this, orthodoxy prioritises apophatic theology, description of what God is not, as nothing descriptive of him can possibly be said. The Latin Vulgate mistakenly translated the hypostases of the Trinity as personae, giving rise to a cruder theology. The church fathers such as Gregory of Nyssa or John of Damascus wrote of the absurdity of a strictly literal reading of the Bible, even what they considered literal would be considered allegorical today.

Christianity is not a religion of a vengeful Old-Testament quasi-Zeus figure who had a son whose death paid for our transgressions against a set of laws and who we should follow because he said so. Christianity is a religion of flawed people, fishermen, carpenters, slaves, thieves, and whores, struggling together to follow a path toward personal wholeness or realisation of the Logos within. Sin in Greek means ‘missing the mark’ or straying from this path, not transgressing a law. A key, or the key, to following the path is constant prayer, exemplified in the tradition of hesychasm. Liturgy is best seen as an aid to this pursuit. Hell is a personal choice to forego God’s love. There is no inherited original sin, rather we are born in a fallen world where the tendency to sin is pervasive. Even the immaculate conception of Mary is not an Orthodox doctrine.

Give that the scripture is treated by the highest Christian authorities as allegorical and that the Godhead is not a King-like arbiter above but the ineffable ultimate creative principle, there is little to no conflict between Christianity, sans heretical translation errors, and science. Orthodox Christianity is not something you reason about or rationalize, it is something you endeavour to experience above and beyond your rational train of thought. In this process, you may come to realise a oneness with Christ, the eternal Logos, a higher self than the ego-driven, pedestrian, rational chatter and tiresome partisanship of the mind. A glimmer or hint of this can be found even in the great breakthroughs of theoretical physicists. The greatest of these breakthroughs are rarely reached by rational deduction, but rather the physicists report that they were suddenly struck by insight while brewing tea or staring out the window. I’m not saying this is a divine inspiration in the superstitious sense, but that it is an indication that there is more to ourselves than our ego-driven rationality. This is corroborated by the most highly refined religious traditions the world over, particularly in the Vedic. As the priest who helped guide my chrismation noted, other traditions have some of the light, but Orthodox Christianity has the whole light.

The Latin-Western tradition of theology is dominated by the Scholasticism of such as Aquinas, a method of critical thought. It is a pastiche of Christianity as a parochial set of rational conclusions. This position is naturally open to contestation, leading to the plethora of protestant denominations and the revisionist upheaval of Vatican II. Besides the fact that Orthodox priests must be married prior to ordination, treating faith as belief in a rationalised conclusion rather than as faith in a personally, internally experienced higher redemptive power cuts the western tradition off from the sacred. The western tradition is one of parochial personal rationalised ego, that of the Pope and that of the priest, leading to the greatest evil being inflicted on their flock.

Orthodoxy is not perfect. The pan-Orthodox synod of 1872 identified phyletist nationalism as a modern heresy and a danger to the church. The rise of nationalism, as a function of the dictatorship of the oligarchy, has led many of the contemporary nominally Orthodox to identify primarily with their nation and to view Orthodox traditions as mere adornments of that national identity. Great religions tend to exhibit some gulf between their philosophical and folk traditions, but this instrumentalization of Orthodoxy by nationalist interests is a dire threat to true faith, and has been responsible for the most un-Christ-like incidents such as pogroms in the late Russian imperial period. Another major challenge facing Orthodoxy is the influence of the Western tradition. Since the fourth crusade in 1204, half a millennium of Ottoman domination and Marxist-Leninist antagonism of Orthodoxy, the Western tradition, as flawed as it is, has been dominant in objective economic and political power within Christianity. This has led to undue influence of western heresy upon Orthodoxy. Certainly other flaws can be found, though often from heretical positions such as sola scriptura.

Conclusion

The liberal progressive western movement is right to eschew the heresies of the western theological tradition, but they are part of that tradition and follow the same destructive egoism. The flaw of liberalism is the same as the flaw of prescriptive Marxism (a very narrow portion of Marx’s work), excess faith in human reason to objectively understand and reorder the world around them with intended consequences, socially and technologically. The phantom triumphalism over ‘cultural Marxism’ and Christianity are exemplary of this. Humanity is guided less by reason than rationalised egoism as individuals and as groups. We are social animals, our nature is elastic to a limited extent, balancing cooperation and self-interest partly according to economic conditions. Scientistic, secular liberalism is a world view and mode of social organisation as much as Byzantine Christianity. Turning the lens of probabilism to the future, the false triumphalisms of liberal reason explored above contributes, along with the ecological holocaust and bonfire of the liberal democratic order labelled populism, that this world view will not last nearly as long as the thousand years of the Byzantines.

The Collapse of Western Liberalism, Quelle Surprise

In my experience, zealously liberal intellectual elites decry any form of determinism, championing the idea that individuals have the power to shape the world around them at will. Individualism is of course the crux of liberal ideology, individual property rights particularly, betraying the vested interest behind this ideology. For them however liberalism has nothing to do with socio-economic contingency, class interest, shifting concrete economic power under mercantilist empire and industrialization and so on. For them Liberalism is the product of noble ideas, progress and man’s quest for freedom.

For this to make any sense much of history must be ignored. First, liberalism as we know it, that is as something other than a Dickensian Nightmare, is entirely endebted to the Bolshevik Revolution and the threat of organized western labour to replay it at home by disposessing powerful ‘free individuals’ of their property and lives en masse. This threat, regardless of the actual outcomes of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, is the overwhelming factor that convinced capital to make the series of compromises which took us from Dickensian to Social Democratic. Despite window dressing these compromises as noble and value driven, they implement them kicking and screaming, reversing them as soon as strategies like offshoring emmasculated the threat of organized labour. Self-righteous smear campaigns were launched early on to permanently bury the threat of labour. Revolutions are always profoundly traumatic and best avoided by basic attention to justice in the broadest sense. As with other revolutions many died in terror and famines after the Bolshevik one, though less than half of early liberal estimates such as those of Robert Conquest. The liberal imagination has abandoned proportion or objectivity in assessing these tragedies. More died in the Nazi attempt to wipe out the Jews and Slavs and spread Germany to the Urals. Far more again died under classical liberal slavery and amerindian genocide. Any ideology which claims human reason as its authority is bound to fail, whether liberalism or communism. The tragedies of communism were as much a product of personal dictat, the deep trauma of the Great War and the logic of revolution, whether Bolshevik, Jacobin or Iranian as anything else. They are not a unique ideologically driven tragedy.

One reason the hegemonic liberal power of the USA experiences school shootings and similar tragedies while others do not is its insistence on a rationalized, ideological concept of the good, couched in liberation. This makes no reference to human nature or say, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Liberalism coaxes its young to judge their elites and society on what they say rather than what they do. Unqualified liberation of the individual, implitictly to own property, but explicitly ambiguous, is raised as a higher good than justice or love. What is the individual? Our stream of consciousness, our urges and desires? Any civilization worth its salt concluded long ago that the only true liberation is not of the self but from the self, found in service, sacrifice, quieting the conscious stream and pull of desire.

Subconsciously we all know something is wrong. We all operate on the same human nature which hasn’t evolved since long before the rise of civilization, giving us a framework to operate in society of sentient animals with emphases on competition and cooperation varying based on conditions, primarly the availability of vital resources. Subconsicously we know that putting the self first doesn’t work. We know that parents who put their urges, desires, lifestyle choices, self realization before the welfare of their family are disfunctional. We know that leaders with no vested interest in the long-term well-being of society, who treat their position of power as a cash and carry opportunity for self-enrichment are not real leaders. We know that the basic values and priorities of society, liberty and idolization of greed, vapidity, distraction, fadishness, are not real values and priorities. But to function in liberal society and belong, we must assume the emperor is wearing clothes.

It’s becoming more and more difficult to deny that he isn’t. Poland, Hungary, Turkey, Ukraine and others are slipping away from liberalism despite all the best efforts of the EU and west at large. Never mind Trump and Brexit. It can’t be flaws and hypocricy within the liberal order, we say we are noble so we are. It’s all Russia’s fault.

Why isn’t Russia liberal? It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the West screwed it up. Geoffery Sachs and his Harvard Team coordinated shock therapy with ‘reformsts’ like of Gaidar, concentrating wealth in about fifteen pairs of hands while creating apocalyptic ‘living’ conditions for 200 million more. Meanwhile, the liberal media waxed hagiographical about this many spleandored ‘transition to democracy.’ There was no basic social order, gangs tied to banks murdered each other in the streets on a daily basis, while those banks and their oligrach bosses appropriated the people’s property leaving the masses without means to live, or even believe in the value of life. This is still looked back on as the ‘glory days’ of Russian democracy in the west, before the tragic return of the state monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, not to mention basic social services, during Putin’s first term.

The west actively rape and celebrate the rape of Russian society under ‘democracy,’ with much of the oligarch’s blood-soaked gains arriving in the UK, Switzerland or other western areas with sound rule of law. But not only that, they took credit for a ‘cold war victory’ for which they had almost no part in. The Soviet Union had overcome far bigger crises than the economic woes of the 80s in the past, and various forms of reform may have been possible. President Bush was not in favour of the chaos a collapse of the USSR may cause. It was in fact the nomenclatura, long used to enriching themselves and making the economy work through ‘informal’ or even criminal means, that decided it was time to become wealthy, comfortable oligarchs rather than austere cadres. There never had been a ‘communist’ system, only supposed progress toward one. Eager for reform and cooperation, Yeltsin’s foreign minister once said ‘Russia has no interests separate from US interests.’ All they asked for was respect for their basic national interests, including the non-expansion of NATO in exchange for German unification. But they overestimated the West’s civility, and capacity for strategic thinking. It proved far more alluring to bask in cold war triumphalism that the west was handed rather than having earned than to deal with the complexity and challenges of the new world. Again, it doesn’t take a genius to understand Russian thinking. Years of Soviet ideology, or maybe something deeper, has led Eurasian people to make judgements on actions far more than on words. Facing an obstacle to property accumulation in Russia via Putin and his restraining of the most pro-Western Oligarchs, the liberal elite decided to spread NATO across the Former Warsaw Pact and even into the Baltics, while mounting a constant informational campaign against Russia. This reached a couple of peaks when Saakashvili attacked South Ossetia, prompting a Russian peacekeeping response, and in the Maidan in which Ukrainian nationalist manipulated anti-corruption, pro-EU protests to seize powers disporportional to their popular support. The leader they overthrew had been democratically elected and was neither pro-Russian nor pro-European but was simpley pro-money. Nevertheless, it proved easier to demonize a Russia which didn’t virtue signal the way the west and its new vassals did, expecting it’s constant implosion as an inherently disfunctional and inept people, rather than try to treat Russia with respect and build on that original deep willingness to cooperate and become a part of the west. Obviously, policymakers in the west were spoiled on three decades of wealth and comfort which made their way of life look uncontingent and natural. Statesmen forged in the threat of great depression, fascism and spread of communism as those of the immediate post-war era were likeley would have handled things differently.

It’s not like the liberal west has been morally above working with less than pristinely democratic regimes elsewhere. Indeed, when surveying the current deep and comprehensive crisis of western liberalism, besides noting that the balance of forces between capital and organized labour which made it possible no longer exist, some blame must lie on the west’s active support for other illiberal regimes. Nixon famously went to China to build some kind of anti-Soviet alliance. Long ago in Stalin’s great retreat the Soviet Union had given up global revolution, but for a fanciful US elite, they were a threat to their most sacred individual property rights wherever they manifest. This US-China collaboration eventually led to deep US support for China’s ‘capitalism with asian characterists’- a social contract of constant growth and a better future under a competitive econonmy would allow the party to indefinately continue a now basically fascistic rule. The howls of indignation from the west over this lack of democracy are hardly audible over those against Russia, which at least carries out regular elections, has no death penalty and doesn’t institute cultural genocide against its minorities. Is this consent for Chinese illiberal capitalism, fasicsm basically, constituting now the second most powerful economy in the world, not problematic for liberal democracy? What happened to the beautiful values?

But an even more key international relationship for the global economy is that between the US and another anti-Soiet ally, Saudi Arabia. Deeply opposed to Soviet atheism, the KSA was happy to accept american defense guanantees in exchange for selling oil only in dollars, and re-investing those dollars almost entirely through Wall Street. This allowed the US dollar to become the global reserve currency and medium of trade. Meanwhile, this absolute, head-chopping monarchy guided by a fascistic and fanatical interpretation of its religion, funded, trained and spread terrorism throughout the world, most usefully for the US, in Afghanistan against the Soviets. But then there was 9/11 and the recent wave of attacks in Europe. Not to mention Boko Haram, Al Shabab, Al Qaeda, the Taliban and so on. For some reason, the liberal West with 500 years of experience with colonialism expects their ‘co-Europeans’ to accept their trans-continental multiculturalism as easily as they do, but without the benefit of half a millenia of practice, particularly in a climate where many of the migrants are at high risk of ascribing to the wahabbi terrorist ideology of our Saudi allies.

This is to say nothing of the myriad democratically elected leaders the west has overthrown, from Mossadegh to Arbenz to Sukharno to Allende. Are we really surprised that liberalism is in crisis? Would it have been so difficult to wine and dine Russia when they had the chance rather than turning it into a pariah, bound to fail, while our own debt levels and demographics more glaringly indicate the same for us?

It’s baffling how people sustain their mental narratives within this hypocrisy. Liberalism is clearly a religion, with all the same rituals of acceptance, sacred texts, biases, creeds of faith and so on as any other. Those of us who have long since given up on it just out of a sense of self-preservation eschew this religious way of thinking where we believe, support and pursue the set of values we believe to be most good. We are pragmatists, we don’t care how ‘good’ it is if it doesn’t function, if it isn’t sustainable. We analyze what is actually working, what is realistic and practical, what is going to be stable enough to stake our future on, and liberalism isn’t it, sorry.

In my experience, zealously liberal intellectual elites decry any form of determinism, championing the idea that individuals have the power to shape the world around them at will. Individualism is of course the crux of liberal ideology, individual property rights particularly, betraying the vested interest behind this ideology. For them however liberalism has nothing to do with socio-economic contingency, class interest, shifting concrete economic power under mercantilist empire and industrialization and so on. For them Liberalism is the product of noble ideas, progress and man’s quest for freedom.

For this to make any sense much of history must be ignored. First, liberalism as we know it, that is as something other than a Dickensian Nightmare, is entirely endebted to the Bolshevik Revolution and the threat of organized western labour to replay it at home by disposessing powerful ‘free individuals’ of their property and lives en masse. This threat, regardless of the actual outcomes of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, is the overwhelming factor that convinced capital to make the series of compromises which took us from Dickensian to Social Democratic. Despite window dressing these compromises as noble and value driven, they implement them kicking and screaming, reversing them as soon as strategies like offshoring emmasculated the threat of organized labour. Self-righteous smear campaigns were launched early on to permanently bury the threat of labour. Revolutions are always profoundly traumatic and best avoided by basic attention to justice in the broadest sense. As with other revolutions many died in terror and famines after the Bolshevik one, though less than half of early liberal estimates such as those of Robert Conquest. The liberal imagination has abandoned proportion or objectivity in assessing these tragedies. More died in the Nazi attempt to wipe out the Jews and Slavs and spread Germany to the Urals. Far more again died under classical liberal slavery and amerindian genocide. Any ideology which claims human reason as its authority is bound to fail, whether liberalism or communism. The tragedies of communism were as much a product of personal dictat, the deep trauma of the Great War and the logic of revolution, whether Bolshevik, Jacobin or Iranian as anything else. They are not a unique ideologically driven tragedy.

One reason the hegemonic liberal power of the USA experiences school shootings and similar tragedies while others do not is its insistence on a rationalized, ideological concept of the good, couched in liberation. This makes no reference to human nature or say, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Liberalism coaxes its young to judge their elites and society on what they say rather than what they do. Unqualified liberation of the individual, implitictly to own property, but explicitly ambiguous, is raised as a higher good than justice or love. What is the individual? Our stream of consciousness, our urges and desires? Any civilization worth its salt concluded long ago that the only true liberation is not of the self but from the self, found in service, sacrifice, quieting the conscious stream and pull of desire.

Subconsciously we all know something is wrong. We all operate on the same human nature which hasn’t evolved since long before the rise of civilization, giving us a framework to operate in a society of sentient animals with emphases on competition and cooperation varying based on conditions, primarly the availability of vital resources. Subconsicously we know that putting the self first doesn’t work. We know that parents who put their urges, desires, lifestyle choices, self realization before the welfare of their family are disfunctional. We know that leaders with no vested interest in the long-term well-being of society, who treat their position of power as a cash and carry opportunity for self-enrichment are not real leaders. We know that the basic values and priorities of society, liberty and idolization of greed, vapidity, distraction, fadishness, are not real values and priorities. But to function in liberal society and belong, we must assume the emperor is wearing clothes.

It’s becoming more and more difficult to deny that he isn’t. Poland, Hungary, Turkey, Ukraine and others are slipping away from liberalism despite all the best efforts of the EU and west at large. Never mind Trump and Brexit. It can’t be flaws and hypocricy within the liberal order, we say we are noble so we are. It’s all Russia’s fault.

Why isn’t Russia liberal? It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that this is a failure of Western policy. Geoffery Sachs and his Harvard Team coordinated shock therapy with ‘reformsts’ like of Gaidar, concentrating wealth in about fifteen pairs of hands while creating apocalyptic ‘living’ conditions for 200 million more. Meanwhile, the liberal media waxed hagiographical about this many spleandored ‘transition to democracy.’ There was no basic social order, gangs tied to banks murdered each other in the streets on a daily basis, while those banks and their oligrach bosses appropriated the people’s property leaving the masses without means to live, or even believe in the value of life. This is still looked back on as the ‘glory days’ of Russian democracy in the west, before the tragic return of the state monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, not to mention basic social services, during Putin’s first term.

The west actively rape and celebrate the rape of Russian society under ‘democracy,’ with much of the oligarch’s blood-soaked gains arriving in the UK, Switzerland or other western arenas with sound rule of law. But not only that, they took credit for a ‘cold war victory’ for which they had almost no part in. The Soviet Union had overcome far bigger crises than the economic woes of the 80s in the past, and various forms of reform may have been possible. President Bush was not in favour of the chaos a collapse of the USSR may cause. It was in fact the nomenclatura, long used to enriching themselves and making the economy work through ‘informal’ or even criminal means, that decided it was time to become wealthy, comfortable oligarchs rather than austere cadres. There never had been a ‘communist’ system, only supposed progress toward one. Eager for reform and cooperation, Yeltsin’s foreign minister once said ‘Russia has no interests separate from US interests.’ All they asked for was respect for their basic national interests, including the non-expansion of NATO in exchange for German unification. But they overestimated the West’s civility, and capacity for strategic thinking. It proved far more alluring to bask in cold war triumphalism that the west was handed rather than having earned than to deal with the complexity and challenges of the new world. Again, it doesn’t take a genius to understand Russian thinking. Years of Soviet ideology, or maybe something deeper, has led Eurasian people to make judgements on actions far more than on words. Facing an obstacle to property accumulation in Russia via Putin and his restraining of the most pro-Western Oligarchs, the liberal elite decided to spread NATO across the Former Warsaw Pact and even into the Baltics, while mounting a constant informational campaign against Russia. This reached a couple of peaks when Saakashvili attacked South Ossetia, prompting a Russian peacekeeping response, and in the Maidan in which Ukrainian nationalist manipulated anti-corruption, pro-EU protests to seize powers disporportional to their popular support. The leader they overthrew had been democratically elected and was neither pro-Russian nor pro-European but was simpley pro-money. Russia openly upported Timoshenko, not Yanukovych in the 2010 election. Nevertheless, it proved easier to demonize a Russia which didn’t virtue signal the way the west and its new vassals did, expecting Russia’s constant implosion as an inherently disfunctional and inept people, rather than try to treat Russia with respect and build on that original, eally 90s deep willingness to cooperate and become a part of the west. Obviously, policymakers in the west were spoiled on three decades of wealth and comfort which made their way of life look uncontingent and natural. Statesmen forged in the threat of great depression, fascism and spread of communism as those of the immediate post-war era were likeley would have handled things differently.

It’s not like the liberal west has been morally above working with less than pristinely democratic regimes elsewhere. Indeed, when surveying the current deep and comprehensive crisis of western liberalism, besides noting that the balance of forces between capital and organized labour which made it possible no longer exist, some blame must lie on the west’s active support for other illiberal regimes. Nixon famously went to China to build some kind of anti-Soviet alliance. Long ago in Stalin’s great retreat the Soviet Union had given up global revolution, but for a fanciful US elite, they were a threat to their most sacred individual property rights wherever they manifest, leading Nixon to ally with China. This US-China collaboration eventually led to deep US support for China’s ‘capitalism with asian characterists’- a social contract of constant growth and a better future under a competitive econonmy would allow the party to indefinately continue a now basically fascistic rule. The howls of indignation from the west over this lack of democracy are hardly audible over those against Russia, which at least carries out regular elections, has no death penalty and doesn’t institute cultural genocide against its minorities. Is this consent for Chinese illiberal capitalism, fasicsm basically, constituting now the second most powerful economy in the world, not problematic for liberal democracy? What happened to the beautiful values?

But an even more key international relationship for the global economy is that between the US and another anti-Soviet ally, Saudi Arabia. Deeply opposed to Soviet atheism, the KSA was happy to accept american defense guanantees in exchange for selling oil only in dollars, and re-investing those dollars almost entirely through Wall Street. This allowed the US dollar to become the global reserve currency and medium of trade. Meanwhile, this absolute, head-chopping monarchy guided by a fascistic and fanatical interpretation of its religion, funded, trained and spread terrorism throughout the world, most usefully for the US, in Afghanistan against the Soviets. But then there was 9/11 and the recent wave of attacks in Europe. Not to mention Boko Haram, Al Shabab, Al Qaeda, the Taliban and so on. For some reason, the liberal West with 500 years of experience with colonialism expects their never colonial Eastern ‘co-Europeans’ to accept their trans-continental multiculturalism as easily as they do, but without the benefit of half a millenia of practie.

This is to say nothing of the myriad democratically elected leaders the west has overthrown, from Mossadegh to Arbenz to Sukharno to Allende. Are we really surprised that liberalism is in crisis?

Would it have been so difficult to wine and dine Russia when they had the chance rather than turning it into a pariah, bound to fail, while our own debt levels and demographics more glaringly indicate the same for us?

It’s baffling how people sustain their mental narratives within this hypocrisy. Liberalism is clearly a religion, with all the same rituals of acceptance, sacred texts, biases, creeds of faith and so on as any other. Those of us who have long since given up on it just out of a sense of self-preservation eschew this religious way of thinking where we believe, support and pursue the set of values we believe to be most good. We are pragmatists, we don’t care how ‘good’ it is if it doesn’t function, if it isn’t sustainable. We analyze what is actually working, what is realistic and practical, what is going to be stable enough to stake our future on, and liberalism isn’t it, sorry.

 

Ukraine’s Neo-Nazi Battalions Bending Government Policy to their Will

In Ukraine an alliance of far-right parties has used their private armies to coerce the government into adopting their economic and trading blockade of separatist-held territory as official state policy. The threat of force has allowed them to gain influence despite low electoral support, imposing a policy which presents serious risks for the Ukrainian economy.

The release of a USD$1 billion tranche of aid by the IMF was delayed from March 19 to April 3 in order to analyse the effects of the economic blockade. Despite a go-ahead by the IMF, a Reuters poll of analysts predicts Ukraine’s industrial output growth to slow from 2016’s 2.8% to 1.8% in 2017. Industry accounts for about a third of Ukraine’s GDP. In February, the blockade caused output to fall by 4.6% after having grown 5.8% in January. Overall economic growth should fall to 2% from a previously predicted 2.5%. Ukraine’s balance of trade is expected to fall by USD$ 2 billion. The government has yet to lift the state of emergency declared on February 15 over the loss of coal supplies from the separatist-held territories to the nation’s power stations.

While the world remains fixated on accusations  of Russia’s meddling abroad, far-right neo-Nazi groups with their own private armies have broken the state’s monopoly on violence and blackmailed it to follow their agenda. Their growing power threatens to sideline the electoral process and establish far right rule by dictat, undermining the pro-Western reforms sought by the Maidan revolution and posing serious danger to ethnic minorities in Ukraine.

According to Professor Ivan Katchanovski at the University of Ottawa, “The government cannot use force against the far right. The far right in in alliance with oligarchic Maidan parties had a crucial role in the violent overthrow of Yanukovych. My study found that the special armed Maidan companies were involved in the Maidan massacre of the police and the protesters. Now the far right has ability to overthrow the Maidan government.”

Professor Katchanovski is the author of a study on the shootings of protesters on February 20th, 2014 during Kiev’s Maidan protests. Widely blamed on the police, the shootings led to the immediate overthrow of President Yanukovich, abandoning a recently negotiated settlement between Yanukovich and the protesters for early elections and reduced presidential power. Katchanovski’s study found that the protesters were shot from the rear, from buildings controlled by activists from the Right Sector and Svoboda, two far-right parties involved in the subsequent overthrow. Katchanovski’s findings are gaining increasing credence in the ongoing trial of police officers for the shootings, due to reconvene April 18th. The Right Sector has repeatedly disrupted the trial.

Right Sector, Svoboda, and a third party, the Azov National Corps, which was formed shortly after the overthrow of Yanukovich, each control their own volunteer battalions. More highly motivated and better equipped than the regular military, these have formed Ukraine’s spearhead in the conflict with Russia-backed separatists in the Donbass region. In January these battalions, their veterans and volunteers imposed a blockade on the separatist-held territory, preventing coal and steel from reaching power stations and factories in the rest of Ukraine. Until that point, Ukraine had benefited from trade and taxation from heavy industry in the separatist-held territory, little impeded by the conflict. On March 1 the separatists began nationalizing the heavy industry under their control after Kiev failed to respond to the separatists’ ultimatum to dismantle the blockade by that date. Most of the nationalized factories belonged to Ukraine’s richest man, Rinat Akhmetov, who has lost an estimated USD$1 billion in assets in the process. Unwilling to take on the volunteer battalions with the demoralized national army, Poroshenko adopted the blockade as state policy on March 17.

The far right parties involved in the blockade trace their roots back to the early days of Ukraine’s independence. The Svoboda party was founded in 1991 as the Social-National Party of Ukraine by current Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Andrii Parubiy and Oleh Tyahnybok, ranked by the Simon Wiesenthal Center as one of the world’s top anti-Semites. In 2004 they changed their name and abandoned their Nazi SS wolfsangel logo in order to appeal to a broader audience. Yet as recently as January, the Simon Wiesenthal Center has condemned Svoboda’s participation in an antisemitic torchlight march.

Former close associate of the Social-National Party Andrii Biletsky carried on the unambiguous terminolgy and SS wolfsangel symbolism as leader of the Social-National Assembly. In the years leading up to the Maidan protests, Biletsky built ties with the Governor of Kharkiv Region, Arsen Avakov through far-right football fan groups, used during the Maidan protests to subdue local Russia-sympathizers. Also during the protests, the Right Sector were formed out of members of these and other far-right organizations. In the wake of the Overthrow of Yanukovych, Biletsky formed the Azov Battalion from remaining members of the Social-National Assembly to fight the separatists. The battalion received support from Avakov who was appointed Minister of the Interior, and remains in office to this day. Chief Rabbi of Ukraine Yaaakev Bleich has condemned Avakov’s appointment of “neo-Nazi” Azov Battalion deputy commander Vadim Troyan as Kiev police chief. Troyan was removed and made Deputy Interior Minister. Azov leader Biletsky carries the nickname “white chief,” and promotes a medieval prince Svyatoslav, conqueror of the Jewish Khazar Empire, as Ukraine’s national hero. In opposing funding for training the Azov Battalion in June 2015, US Congressman John “Conyers called representatives of Azov “repulsive neo-Nazis,” stressing that they are described this way by a number of American and international media: Foreign Policy MagazineReutersThe TelegraphThe Washington Post” Euromaidan Press reported.

Svoboda, Right Sector and the Azov National Corps signed a joint manifesto on March 16. Artem Skoropadsky, speaking in broken English on behalf of the alliance, noted that the allied parties refuse to make any compromise with the separatists and demand Donbass and Crimea be reunited with Ukraine unconditionally. They believe in a military solution rather than negotiations. The alliance doesn’t support President Poroshenko, Skoropadsky says, “because he is a Liberal, and we are for a Social-National Ukraine.” But when asked if they plan to get rid of Poroshenko, Skoropadsky expressed faith in a positive outcome in the next elections. The manifesto also calls for a Union of East European states separate from the EU and Ukraine to open a nuclear weapons program. Skoropadsky claims the alliance has no major financial backers, garnering mainly grassroots support.

Dr. Efraim Zuroff, Director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center – Israel office and Eastern European Affairs offers the following statement:

“Simon Wiesenthal Center has consistently spoken out about the dangers posed to Ukrainian democracy and the well-being of the minorities in the country posed by right-wing extremists such as Svoboda, Right Sector and the Azov Brigade. These groups, whose fascist ideology is reminiscent of regimes which collaborated with the Nazis and which is racist, xenophobic and oblivious to minority rights have in the past threatened the government and continue to wield undue power and influence in Ukraine politics, which they did not achieve legitimately in democratic elections, where they have consistently failed to garner significant public support. We urge the government to refrain from adopting the policies of such groups and making all the necessary efforts to safeguard democracy and equal rights for all residents of Ukraine.”

With this far right alliance already too powerful for the government to challenge, unless something is done soon, Ukraine’s revolution of dignity is set to take on a very ominous overtone.

2022 update:  Bernhard Horstmann blogs, with verifiable quotes, on how these far right groups have blackmailed Zelensky and the Ukrainian state into developing nuclear weapons, of which Ukraine has the capability, on threat of death. Details are emerging that at the time Russia launched its “special operation”, Ukraine’s nuclear program was starting to bear fruit.

Dmowski’s prophetic diagnosis of Ukrainian Independence, 1931

Roman Dmowski from Świat powojenny i Polska/The Postwar World and Poland, 1931 translated by Alex Foster:
There is no human force capable of preventing Ukraine, separated from Russia and transformed into an independent state, from becoming a crowd of conmen from all over the world, who have been chafing in their own countries; capitalists and those seeking capital, organizers of industry, technicians and traders, speculators and schemers, thugs and organizers of any kind of prostitution: Germans, Frenchmen, Belgians, Italians, Englishmen and Americans would rush [into Ukraine] with the help of locals or nearby Russians, Poles, Armenians, Greeks… A peculiar League of Nations would gather here…
These elements, with the participation of smarter, more skilled in business Ukrainians would produce the guiding layer, the elite of the country. But it would be a special elite, probably because no country could boast such a rich collection of international scoundrels.
Ukraine would become a thorn in the flesh of Europe; people dreaming of cultural production, of a strong and healthy Ukrainian nation, maturing in their own country, would be convinced that rather than their own country, they have an international company, and instead of healthy development, rapid progress of decay and rot.
Whosoever thought that the geographic location of Ukraine and its area, that the state in which the Ukrainian element finds itself, with its spiritual and material resources, and finally, that the role which the Ukrainian question has in today’s economic and political position of the world could be otherwise – he does not have an ounce of imagination.
The Ukrainian question has various advocates, both in Ukraine itself and abroad. Among the latter especially, there are many who know very well what they are doing. There are those, however, who would solve this issue by separating Ukraine from Russia, which they present as very idyllic. Those who are so naïve would do well to keep their hands away from her.