Eurasian Podcasts

These are a collection of podcasts on the topics of Eurasia, Russia, geopolitics, and oil from the last few years.  They are done by various artists.  I think it is relevant since Eurasia is able to posit a number of alliances (Moscow, Yerevan, Tehran, Damascus) that can block the anglo-American banking elites.

Bill Engdahl’s site.  Decent interviews on how oil and banking elites have managed finance and war in America for the last century.

Seeds of Destruction.   I usually hesitate when people talk about modern medicine, genetic manipulation, and all that.  Too many kooks out there.  That said, when David Rockefeller openly states he wants to modify/wipe out certain segments of the population, and granting that he has the grants, funds, and connections to influence food producers to do that, well you have to take him seriously (btw, he did that).

The Gods of Money.

Russia’s Direction.   It took me a while to like Jeff Rense, but this podcasts discusses how Russia battled the New World Order, Khordorovsky, and the Oligarchs.

Armenian History II (discusses Armenian history and the Jewish/Rothschild connections to the Armenian Genocide).

Armenian History I (discusses Armenian church and society).

Venezeula and Syria against the New World Order.

Uzbekistan.

Putin’s Military.

 

We shall defeat them with our songs

The Regime will fall.  The New World Order will either be defeated by Holy Russia or by its own in-fighting (e.g., Germany will say its appropriate “F-U” to the EU, restructuring Western Europe around itself, depriving Brussels burecrats of jobs, and opening up to a nationalist Russia).  In the meanwhile, contributing to its defeat will be what Michael Hill calls “the Revenge of living well.”   Globalism will be defeated but it won’t be defeated by rallies in Washington, or electing the right representatives to the UN.  No, it will be defeated by local communities casting votes of “no-confidence” in globalist leaders.

How shall we do that?  By reclaiming our culture:  singing the old songs and celebrating the new ones.  The following songs exalt and rejoice in the rural American agrarian life (you expected videos on Serbia and Russia, didn’t you?  Good guess, but no).

 

When one isn’t “anti-American”

If one reads a lot of my criticisms of modern America, and my unashamed pro-Russian political views, one might conclude that I am “anti-American.”  I am not.  I am only anti-American when it comes to foreign policy, ideology, modern democracy, consumerism, gangster corporate capitalism, mass media, cheap T.V. culture, etc.

I am very American when it comes to fried chicken, hunting camps, country music, friday night football, family reunions, and the Celtic overtones of the South.

Neo-conservatism is not nationalism

I used to maintain it is.  A lot of theonomists, Ron Paulites, and others maintain that American interventionism across the world is a crass form of nationalism.   They say that both neocons (and presumably neolibs) and nationalists agree to “My Country Right or Wrong.”

While it may be true that one or two nationalists say something like this, given the literature on nationalism, most nationalists won’t make a claim like this.  Further, given the same literature on nationalism, which the above-said detractors never reference, neo-conservatives cannot be nationalists, plain and simple.

I realize defining nationalism is a futile task, given that each person has a different definition.  Still, given the flow of history and some common assumptions about how societies work, it can be done.  I am following Fr Raphael Johnson’s work on the subject.

  • ethnicity is the nation and exists in the realm of community and family.
  • the “state” is an outside imposition, usually unfortunate but not necessarily “evil.”
  • The “ethnos” is the cultural, Herderian core in the land; the “state” is the formal, if sometimes artificial framework placed on top of the ethnos.
  • Ideally, both ethnos and nation should coincide.  But are they the same thing?  This is hard to say.  I suppose one could say that when the ethnos acquires geographical boundaries, it becomes the “nation.”
  • But what makes the nation the state?

Fr Raphael states the case well,

Ethno-nationalism or ethno-communalism concerns the idea that human beings are defined, molded and shaped by institutions and ideas having developed in a specific cultural, that is, ethno-linguistic, context.

But we can demonstrate the differences in a simpler way.  Neocons, descending from Trotsky, seek the establishment of global markets, usually with American benefactors, at the expense of traditional communities (be they Christian, Islamic, or Asian).  The end-game is a global market, not national pride.  (Obviously, the above fits neo-liberalism as well).

Nationalists on the other hand, will usually say something like “Russia for the Russians.”  Nationalist societies, with the possible exception of Nazi Germany (and even that case isn’t simple) are not imperialistic for the sake of nationalism.   I realize that Tsarist Russia was an empire, but even men like Betrand Russelll pointed out that Russia had to expand to meet the expansion of the British Empire (the latter’s globalist, international banking connections in this context should not be forgotten).  So Russia’s expansion was seen as protecting Russians from British imperial designs, or sort of.

At the end of the day, a problem remains.  It’s hard to be an American nationalist.   While it shouldn’t be, the sad fact is that America is too often identified with the D.C. regime, which one cannot support.   Further, America doesn’t have a culture beyond that of mass consumerism.  Even defining America around an ethnos is problematic, except in the most general terms.  Technically, an American nationalist is almost an impossibility.

But Isn’t Nationalism an Idol?
It could be, but so could the market, family, ideology, the Constitution (!!!!!!!), and so on.

My (obligatory) post on Cablegate

I have nothing new to add to the phenomenon, save that it makes the news more interesting now, having usurped Lindsey Lohan’s battle with rehab as the top of the MSM’s priorities.   Still, a few words.

For the longest time I (and others) have been accusing the DC government as run by oligarchies, in cahoots with international banking cartels, openly subverts traditional societies, and in general guilty of all-around miscreant behavior.    And no doubt to some, I sounded like a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist.

With others, I doubt wikileaks will change anything important in terms of foreign policy.  Even the US’s European allies don’t really like us, thinking we think we have the right to play God all over the world.   Wikileaks won’t be a surprise to Putin or Berlusconi.

However, it does confirm everything I have ever said about the New World Order and the Oligarchs.  When I said the US and Israel were arming and financing Georgia to kill Ossetians for the sake of oil, I am now proven right.

I (and others) have said the US instigated internal revolutions in traditionally Orthodox Slavic countries for the sake of weakening Russia–I am correct.

Interestingly, it notes a close connection between Putin and Berlusconi.

I really don’t have anything to add that Anatoly hasn’t already admirably summarized.

Wikileaks is a mirror to the Western political soul.

EDIT:  The Regime becomes more explicit about the Putin-Berlusconi political alliance.   Every time a major leader threatens the Regime in any way, he risks major political dangers.    I quoted from the German newspapers Spiegel, but I don’t think the link is permanent, so I will quote major excerpts below.

This Russian-Italian axis does not suit the Americans at all. Because Berlusconi has negotiated generous conditions for the Italian oil and energy giant Eni with the Russian firm Gazprom, and because he generally supports Russian energy projects rather than those of Western countries, the Americans see their energy interests endangered.

US diplomats believe Berlusconi is immune to political influence. He generally makes decisions relating to Russia by himself, and Italian diplomats are seldom allowed to get involved…

But Washington appears interested in at least investigating the rumors. In January, the US State Department asked the US embassies in Rome and Moscow to assemble “any information on the personal relationship” between Putin and Berlusconi as well as information about “personal investments” that could influence their political policies. It was signed by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

 

Full Spectrum Dominance

This book by William Engdahl succinctly explains the neo-conservative, neo-liberal paranoia.  The thesis is simple and derives from Zbignew Brerezinski’s The Grand Chessboard.  Zbignew had taken this idea from British strategist Halford Mackinder.  Mackinder argued (quite rightly, if with somewhat devilish conclusions) that whoever controlled the Eurasian landmass would control the world’s pivot-point.  Zbigniew updated the thesis:  America should seek such dominance in Eurasia as to make Russia her vassal.  The unspoken conclusion (actually, Paul Wolfowitz was quite outspoken on this point):  if Russia does not wish to be a vassal, use a nuclear first-strike against her.

With those cheerful thoughts in mind, Engdahl offers us a very helpful hermeneutical grid per US geopolitics:  anytime America acts in Europe or Asia, she is doing so in order to 1) control key oil transits; 2) weaken China; and 3) weaken Russia.  In order to do this the Anglo-Americans must employ a number of strategies against ornery states like Russia, China, Serbia, Myanmar, and Iran.

The most successful of American strategies has been the “Color Revolutions.”  Drawing off of the psychology of both terrorism and rock concerts, CIA operatives were able to finance and delegitimize social nationalist regimes.  This worked in Serbia, Ukraine, and Georgia.

Understandably, this will not work with larger states.  In that case, just accuse them of human rights violations.  This is the primary goal with China.  W.E. does a good job explaining the geopolitical importance of Tibet (the Tibetan plateau is the source of the seven major rivers the give water to most of Asia), Myanmar (50% of Chinese oil imports pass through the Straits of Malacca).  Obviously, if America can sever Tibet from China and/or control Myanmar, it can deliver a crushing choke-hold on China from which it will likely not recover.  With the removal of China, American control over Eurasia is guaranteed.

W.E. then gives a disturbing analysis of American nuclear capabilities.  The technological specifics aside, keeping in line with the Zbigniew-Halford thesis, the goal of American nuclear capabilities is to maintain American dominance in the world.  We need to be very clear about the Wolfowitz doctrine:  America should pre-emptively destroy any country that could pose a threat to American political interests. This is the equivalent of killing some random guy on the street just so he can’t kill you some day.  I’m not making this up.  This is the morality and logic of the people in charge.

There are some limitations to this book, though the overall thrust is accurate.  W.E. is only focusing on the American infrastructure.  He doesn’t do the same kind of work as Joseph Farrell or Jim Marrs.

Things look bad, and W.E. doesn’t pull any punches.  But not all is lost.  The following is my own reflections and not necessarily those of W.E.

  1. If the Motivilov Prophecies are true, Russia will survive an American nuclear holocaust.
  2. Even the strongest armies can do little with a collapsed economy and infrastructure.  Contrary to popular opinion, the Red Army at the end of Afghanistan was super-elite, yet the USSR was broken.

Washington D. C. and Renaissance Magic

Not only was the Renaissance not a recovery of science and Aristotle from the dread medievals (the latter were quite familiar with science), but it also saw the rise, not of free-thinking, but of superstition, witchcraft, and magic. Alchemy has always been the Holy Grail of inquisitive individuals for ages. While the form practiced in the Renaissance is laughable by today’s standards, the goals are still the same.

Alchemy didn’t merely try to turn lead into gold. That’s nice, but that’s not the point. Renaissance scientists, like today’s, saw matter as essentially dead. Denying the notion of “substance,” the what-ness of a thing (whose base was spiritual, since matter points to a Form, and forms can be instantiated outside of matter–which is the spiritual realm; c.f. St Augustine).

However, if there is no “essence” to a thing, then it is merely dead matter; inert. If it is dead matter, it can be manipulated. While suggesting that lead turns into gold might be ridiculous, the overall argument of the alchemists won the day (and is the reigning ideology of the today’s economics, the Academy, and modern politics). If so, what are some examples of manipulating dead matter:

  • Capital can be manipulated. The fluidity of capital in itself is not evil. However, it is the prime weapon of Modernity. Take away technological capital’s highly liquid state and you rob modernity of it’s chief weapon.
  • People can be transformed from base metals (medievals) to gold (urbane moderns).
  • Worthless paper can be transformed into international currency (in many ways the FED is the primary example of alchemy; how else do you magically turn paper into “gold?”).

I refer you of course to Fr Johnson’s much better paper on http://www.rusjournal.com/Augustine.pdf