Category: Uncategorized

The True Goal of the WereWest

Simplicius answers questions about the NATO-Russian war in Ukraine:

Many people are wondering where is this all leading? Surely the West must know Ukraine stands no real chance of “winning” in any appreciable way, whether we define victory as completely destroying the Russian army or recapturing all the borders back to pre-2022 or even pre-1991 (Crimea).

I believe they do know this. Thus the ultimate goal is not to win kinetically or militarily, but rather to stretch out the conflict for as long as possible in order to create time and space for them to work the more subversive, under the surface war against the Russian public, elites, government, etc. In short, they want to increase the pressure on Russia’s political structures to maximize societal tension and eventually bring about some sort of political turmoil. A coup/maidan-style scenario would of course be ideal for them, even if it’s unlikely.

This is what economic sanctions were all about, as well. Not to mention the blocking of SWIFT, the destruction of Russian culture and repressions against their citizens all over the world—whether it’s bans from Olympics and other international competitions (chess, etc.), or restrictions like the ones just announced, where Russian cars are being banned from entering Europe, Russian people humiliated by customs inspections, etc.

All of this is meant to generate dissatisfaction and most importantly societal fatigue, such that the people will have “had enough” and begin to agitate against Putin and the elites. The Russian presidential election is coming up in March 2024. One ideal scenario for Western planners would have been for people to have gotten so fed up that they oust Putin by choosing a new candidate who promises to “bring an end to the pointless war, and restore Russia’s cherished economic relationships with the West.”

The problem is, all the sanctions failed, all the repressions and humiliations have only unified the Russian people with even more solidarity. New poll numbers just this week show Putin’s approval rating still sky high at 77% while new economic numbers show Russia again making record profits as oil prices have recently gone up, not to mention Russia began decreasing its ‘discounts’ to India and others.

So that was the true goal of the West—to make the war last long enough for them to demoralize Russian society into overthrowing or voting out Putin. Though it’s clearly failed, they likely believe that given enough time it can still succeed eventually, so they will probably keep trying.

When all Clown World has is a hammer, they have to assume the problem is a nail.

DISCUSS ON SG

YouTube Piles On

Despite him not having even been accused of streaming anything objectionable on YouTube, the social media giant has demonetized Russell Brand.

YouTube has stopped Russell Brand from being able to earn any money through his channel for ‘violating our Creator Responsibility policy’.

The 48-year-old produces around five videos a week for his 6.6million subscribers, earning him an estimated £1million a year.

Under the terms of his suspension Brand – whose net worth has been estimated at between £15m and £40m – will still be allowed to post videos on the platform but will not receive any of the advertising revenue.

YouTube said in a statement: ‘If a creator’s off-platform behaviour harms our users, employees or ecosystem, we take action to protect the community. This decision applies to all channels that may be owned or operated by Russell Brand.’

This is why it is so foolish for these public figures to prioritize reach over stability. What is the point of building up a massive social media following on a platform where it can, and will, be taken away from you overnight?

This is also why UATV, and other independent platforms with paid subscriptions, are the wave of the future. But it will probably require the collapse of YouTube before most creators are able to seriously consider those platforms, because the allure of YouTube fame and money is far too strong for them to resist despite the obvious risks.

JUST IN: “We will move to an economic model of a small monthly payment to use X.” – Elon Musk

Anyhow, YouTube’s action, in combination with the media blitz, does make it obvious that Brand’s cancellation is an organized, inorganic action.

DISCUSS ON SG

The US Will Lose the Next War

The US military of 2023 is not the US military of 1943. More to the point, the US military production infrastructure of 2023 is not the US military production infrastructure of 1939. The media is finally beginning to figure this out in the aftermath of Russia’s comprehensive defeat of NATO’s proxy army in Ukraine.

Our country could very well lose a large-scale war for lack of weapons and ammunition—but not because of aid to Ukraine. In a major conflict, the U.S. would run out of munitions in a few weeks, and in less than a week for some crucial categories. The quantity of weapons we are providing Ukraine is marginal compared with necessary weapons that we have not stocked… Nor can we rely on our allies to supply themselves or engineer a lend-lease program to send us weapons if we should be fighting but they are not. For instance, even before it began sending weapons to Ukraine, the British military was so poorly stocked that in a major war, it would have run out of ammunition in a week.

In 1942, Admiral Chester Nimitz fought on the Midway Islands with only three aircraft carriers at his disposal. Less than three years later, he commenced operations against the Marianas with 15 new, larger, and faster carriers to feed into the fight. China has built a defense industry capable of such rapid production—but today, the United States couldn’t pull it off.

No, the US Navy will lose an attrition war with China, even if it wins an initial battle or two. The situation is actually worse than the situation that Japan faced in 1941. The neoclowns thought there would be no need for peer-level warfare because history had ended in favor of liberal democracy, and everyone knows that nation-states that harbor McDonalds never go to war with each other. Hence their obsession with turning every Main Street from Albania to Vietnam into a clone of a mall circa 1989.

But both the Chinese and the Russians have been gearing up for full-scale conflict with the US military for more than 20 years. And they’re just about ready, if the recent decision to sanction two of the five US corporations still producing military vehicles is any guide.

China Daily: Lately the US has provided advanced weaponry to China’s Taiwan region through arms sales, military assistance and loans. China’s foreign ministry spokesperson said earlier that China would take strong measures to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity. I wonder if you have anything new on that?

Mao Ning: In disregard of China’s firm opposition, the US government deliberately supplies weapons to China’s Taiwan region. This seriously violates the one-China principle and the stipulations of the three China-US joint communiqués, contravenes international law and basic norms governing international relations, and undermines China’s sovereignty and security interests. The US is going further down the wrong and dangerous path of arming Taiwan.

Lockheed Martin Corporation, St. Louis, MO directly participated in the US arms sale to Taiwan announced on August 24 as the principal contractor. Northrop Grumman participated in several US arms sales to Taiwan. In accordance with the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law of the People’s Republic of China, China decides to impose sanctions on these two above-mentioned US defense corporations.

Let me stress, the Chinese government never wavers in its resolve of safeguarding national sovereignty and territorial integrity. We call on the US to earnestly abide by the one-China principle and the stipulations of the three China-US joint communiqués, stop arms sales to Taiwan, stop military collusion with Taiwan, and stop arming Taiwan, otherwise it will be met with China’s resolute response.

Even though it should, the US will not preemptively surrender on the issue of Taiwan. This means that war is coming to the West, probably sooner than most people expect. And it isn’t going to end well, because the rulers of the West are not Western in any way, nor do they care in the least for the people of the West over whom they presently rule.

DISCUSS ON SG

Two Thoughts About Fame

“If you’re a person that’s willing to change because of the attention, that means you’ve never had attention, and you ain’t built for this.” – Deion Sanders

“What is it about many of us, that we would rather praise and follow the words of a half-reformed, famous prodigal than someone who has been faithful and speaking truth all along?” – Sir Thermite (on SG)

DISCUSS ON SG

The Cancellation of Russell Brand

The Clown signal has gone out and Russell Brand is being mass-swarmed in the media by women accusing him of rape, sexual assault, emotional abuse, and sinister behavior toward women:

TV bosses have been accused of offering to take female staff members off shows fronted by Russell Brand after concerns about his alleged behaviour were raised.

It comes amid reports that accusations about his ‘sinister’ behaviour towards women were an ‘open secret’ among TV and radio executives.

Some former staff members who worked with him during his time on Big Brother’s EFourum claimed they were ‘acting like pimps to Russell Brand’s needs’ as he demanded they get the numbers of girls from the audience for him.

Bosses at the BBC and Channel 4 are accused of turning a blind eye towards the entertainer’s behaviour while he worked for them as a presenter between 2006 and 2013.

The broadcasters have insisted they took all necessary steps deal with him, but executives could still be called before a Government select committee where MPs will grill them over what they knew.

The 48-year-old’s behaviour is alleged to have been common knowledge among female performers on the comedy circuit, who are said to have warned each other about him.

Brand has been accused of rape, sexual assault and emotional abuse by multiple women, including one who says she was 16 at the time.

I’m not defending Russell Brand. He’s an awful guy, a drug addict who was embraced by the Hellmouth and married to an Illuminati princess. He has eminently earned his cancellation, and the public discourse will not be harmed one iota by his public and permanent erasure from it. He does not have, and has never had, anything of substance to offer the stream of public consciousness.

That being said, it is interesting to ask why he is being cancelled at this late date and at this juncture. Is it because he is genuinely reformed and repentant, and therefore must be destroyed like any other ticket-taker who reneges on his contract pour encourager les autres? Is it part of a masquerade to set him up as a new gatekeeper in the mode of other fake-cancellations like Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate? Did he simply cross the wrong dark master at the wrong time? Or does he know something that Clown World is desperate to prevent him revealing to the rest of the planet?

Regardless of what the real reason is, never forget that neither cancellation nor opprobrium from Clown World makes an individual a hero, a good guy, a leader, or someone worthy of taking seriously.

UPDATE: It’s fascinating to see how celebrities are protected from every form of criticism and investigation, until they’re not.

Channel 4, BBC and the police have all launched probes into Russell Brand’s behaviour in light of rape and sexual assault allegations

DISCUSS ON SG

Some Doubts About Natural Rights

Paul Gottfried expresses his doubts about the Enlightenment concept of natural right defended by Michael Anton:

Michael Anton has reiterated his deep, passionate belief in “natural right” but (alas!) has still not convinced me that I must embrace this idea for the greater social good. I’m also not sure why American youth would find his belief more compelling than other commitments inherited from the past, for example, belief in the Bible as a divinely revealed document or in America’s constitutional foundations.

Supposedly something called “modernity” requires us to opt for Mr. Anton’s answer to social dissolution. The American conservative establishment and Republican talking heads seem to agree with him. They have placed so much rhetorical effort in pushing the idea of inborn individual rights that every time I flip on Fox News someone is solemnly proclaiming a “God-given right.” Whether this has been a wise investment of effort is doubtful, since our ascribed or claimed natural rights continue to multiply, but not always in a way that would please Mr. Anton. Some establishment conservative commentators have been lately characterizing gay marriage as an inborn individual right, and I’ve no doubt that this exercise of choice is already joining the laundry list of the conservative movement’s inalienable rights.

I fully understand the distinction Mr. Anton is drawing between natural right as something that is attached to us by an authority outside of ourselves and which we discover through investigation, and mere “rights” that we presumably invent for ourselves. But like traditional religion, his concept rests on a leap of faith, and its content, as I have already explained, is far from self-evident. Why should his tradition seem more convincing than other traditions that have fallen out of favor? I doubt that his metaphysic of natural right is more compelling to the American public than my invocation of history and tradition. The moral foundations of the American nation were in reality shaped by religion and custom, not by an Enlightenment contrivance.

Mr. Anton is correct that it’s highly unlikely that an early American political figure who invoked natural right would have included gay marriage among his list of inborn human rights. But a progressive today can legitimately argue from a natural right perspective that this may be attributable to our ancestors’ lack of imagination or to a failure to grasp the full implications of natural right thinking. In the present age, the notion of inborn individual rights has led more often in a progressive direction than a conservative one. Furthermore, the revulsion of the 18th-century American for the idea of gay marriage likely came from his biblical morality, not from declarations of natural rights in the political documents of the time. His morality had a deeper and, in the 18th century, more prevalent source independent of talk about natural rights.

I’m deeply skeptical about natural rights myself, due to the poison fruit that has observably grown from their Enlightenment seeds. But I’ll have to read all three pieces before I express my own opinion on the subject. Natural rights tend to strike me more as effective political rhetoric than a strong dialectic foundation for a political philosophy.

And where what Chesterton described as “the democracy of the dead” contradicts the various emanations and penumbras wafting off the stinking pile of natural rights, it’s now obvious that tradition, be it familial, ethnic, or religious, reliably trumps the philosophers’ meanderings.

DISCUSS ON SG

China Governs Its Own People

A civnat and imperial subject expresses his horror of a nation daring to govern its own nationals:

Beijing is obsessed with suppressing dissent among ethnic Chinese living in democracies and has no hesitation intimidating human-rights activists and dissidents in the West.

Beijing calls it, euphemistically, ‘persuade to return’ and thinks it legitimate because democracies will, by and large, not extradite people to dictatorships like China. Indeed, the European Court of Human Rights has effectively banned its member states (which include Britain) from extraditing to China anyone under their jurisdiction. Hence the ‘persuasion’.

China thinks it has a right to enforce this because, under Chinese law, its citizens are subject to Communist Party law wherever they live. And China’s National Intelligence Law requires its people and companies to assist Beijing’s spies whenever requested — and to keep that assistance secret.

The irony of paper citizens arguing that borders don’t exist and the economy is global, but that the Chinese people don’t have the right to govern Chinese people around the world, requires a degree of intellectual incoherence that is both impressive and historically ignorant.

Meanwhile, they have no problem with private corporations attempting to control the behavior of people of every nation, everywhere around the world.

Again, the incoherence is astounding. Especially when it wasn’t until November 1991 that the USA defined economic growth in terms of state-based Gross Domestic Product rather than the historical nation-based Gross National Product.

Finally, it’s more than a bit ironic that the article warns about China infiltrating and making use of the Five Eyes surveillance system used by Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States to spy on each other’s citizens.

DISCUSS ON SG

Friday Arktoons

三更战 Episode 2: 兄弟，滚！

ALICE IN WONDERLAND Episode 2: DRINK ME

CHATEAU GRIEF Episode 290: Oh the Human-itee

STONETOSS Episode 224: DragonballSea

TATTERS Episode 15: the day

CHUCK DIXON PRESENTS: ADVENTURE Episode 92: The Brigand

BEN GARRISON Episode 115: The Squatter in Your House

50 YEARS LATER Episode 7: Dark Escape

WOLFRAN THE KNIGHT AVENGER Episode 8: Purging the Winged Demons

THE SIEGE OF THE BLACK CITADEL Episode 12: The Great Ram

Faux Christian Nationalism

Douglas Wilson can’t give up his Boomer addiction to Enlightenment ideals:

A summary of Doug Wilson’s argument in “Mere Christendom” insisting that the Magistrate should not enforce blasphemy laws.;

As a theonomist Wilson believes in “the need to restore the Bible as the quarry from which to obtain the needed stone for our foundations of social order” (149), he strongly argues against state imposed punishment for blasphemy. He reminds us that “those who want the government to have the right to kill blasphemers are also asking for the government to have the right to kill those who rebuke their (the government’s) blasphemies” (157), and “When you give the state power to punish a blasphemer, you are giving the state the power to blaspheme with impunity” (171). Wilson argues that inherent protection of free speech by limiting the state’s power “is the theo-political genius of Christianity” (171). He argues that “The founding of our nation really was exceptional, because the men who drafted our Constitution knew that American politicians, taking one thing with another, would be every bit as sleazy as the same class of men from any other clime” (201).

There are political wolves in sheep’s clothing just as there are religious wolves in sheep’s clothing. Evil men are going to do what evil men do, regardless of what good Christian men do. We already know, we have a massive surfeit of knowledge, of what happens when Christian men do not enforce Christian societal norms.

What this reveals is that Wilson is more dedicated to his Enlightenment ideals than his Christian ideals. I have no doubt that he is also an ersatz nationalist, which is to say, a common Churchian civnat who makes positive noises about tribes and nations, but as with blasphemy, refuses to acknowledge the right of the state to enforce the nation’s will.

The protection of free speech has literally nothing to do with Christianity, much less represents its “theo-political genius”. That is pure bafflegarble worthy of Jordan Peterson his own babbling self. Free speech is just another false virtue no more worth of state protection than equality, diversity, anti-racism, or the free movement of peoples.

Iron Ink is correct in his dismissal of Wilson’s Churchian drivel. “Rev. Wilson’s operating principle at work here is: give no one the power for good if they can use it for evil. Which of course reaches beyond absurd into the zip code of Nutville.”

DISCUSS ON SG

Forecast: Light Posting

Posting will be light today and tomorrow. It’s a good time to get caught up on Arktoons and UATV. The most recent episode of THE SIEGE OF THE BLACK CITADEL now features illustrations from the 1.1 edition of the novel, and the most recent Darkstream offers some perspicacious advice on Deltas being Deltas.

It’s all good, no worries.

DISCUSS ON SG