Russia has abandoned Assad. Confirmed.
Hezbollah has abandoned Assad. Confirmed.
Iran is only sending in waves of Iraqi militia who are being slaughtered by A-10s from America. Confirmed.
The SAA can hardly stand. Confirmed.
And yet Iranian/Assad propagandists (who I used to watch) are spinning tall tales about a "glorious successful counteroffensive" in Hama.
With what? They have nothing left. Their allies have abandoned them. Those allies are the only reason they lasted this long.
For the love of God, please stop this. Stop lying. Save your people. Negotiate.
Iranians and Russians want the "stop the war(s)" chants to be in the West/Israel, but not in their own states. When they are in their own states, they beat those people to death.
I see it now. I was lied to. My empathy was taken advantage of. I feel sick.
The reality is that they are crumbling, and people are dying by the hundreds and by the thousands to maintain now easily deboooonked lies.
Fuck Khamenei, the betrayer.
Fuck Putin, the butcher.
They hate their own people.
Fuck them.
I know this is going to sound extremely ironic, almost satirical, but may God help the "FSA" to finish this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz8ex2H996E&ab_channel=WeebUnion
@Aldo2 I'm not quite sure exactly what you're talking about but I glean that you understand Putin is murdering countless people just so that he can get his dick wet basically, because he feels like his dick's not getting wet enough and he wants his dick to get more wet, so he's going to murder as many people as it takes and I think that's pretty fucked up, so good for you for seeing that too. I can't stand all the former freedom speechers, right-wingers, alt-right-y people sucking Putin's dick now, when when I was in the alt-right we fucking hateed Communists, we fucking hated Russia, etc, it's a shame to see what the fuck has happened ever since q fags have sucked off the q dick
@Jazzy_Butts the whole "anti-Western coalition" (minus China, which has always been on the sidelines) is breaking apart.
Their propaganda can no longer "keep it up", either for their own people, or the neutrals.
They are stalling or outright losing on the battlefield(s).
Their soldiers are realizing that what they are fighting for is not for their people or any wider noble "cause". They are just fighting for elite interests. The exact same thing they complain about from the West.
It was the opposite for me. I was chummy with the "alt-right" when they were pro-Russia. At the same time that Richard Spencer was interviewing Dugin haha
Spencer of course is now extremely anti-Russia/Putin. He's kinda seen it all. He can easily call out Russian propaganda because he was swimming in it for so long.
Qanon was literally outed as a CIA/NSA agent long ago, if I remember correctly.
Believe it or not, there was a time when Azov guys were training in military camps along with Russich guys (because "nationalists gotta stick together!"). Now those were wild times.
I don't like calling them (Russia) a turd world shithole. It may be somewhat true, but they have so much in terms of resources. They should be a first world state, based on that alone. It's part of the reason everyone in the modern-day wanted to invade them. Even a Ukrainian patriot I've been following points this out.
It's sad, and tragic.
All of Russian history is so tragic. I guess I should have seen this coming earlier, given historical trends.
I can only pray that some good-hearted Russian makes the decision to end Putin and save his narod and rodinu.
To add to this, I don't think Putin is that bad.
I'm pro-Uke simply because I am an actual nationalist instead of the pretend hipster nationalists on the internet, but I think this is a screwup not a career-ender.
The other options in Russia are probably worse, and Putin has kept stability for some time, absent the little Ukraine hiccup.
Yeah, fair enough, I guess having resources but not having organization makes sense.
"Russia is never as strong as they look. Russia is never as weak as they look"
I guess there is some merit to the argument of "decolonization" of Russia as a Federation/"Empire". Breaking it apart and going back to Novgorod (although Finland won't be happy with that), Moscovy and all the others. "Russian nationalism" is a misnomer. On the one hand, their power would be much smaller (good thing?), but on the other, with a smaller region to control, they'd, you know, have a better chance of actually controlling things and becoming more (I hate to say it) Democratic (in a Decembrists fashion). They may even become wealthy because of it (resources + smaller less diverse pop + smaller area to control = profit?)
I'm veering away from straight nationalism, I think. Even though I started my "dissident" journey as one (maybe as a "hipster nationalist" as you say). I see its problems now, more clearly than ever before. Nationalism exists when there's an outside enemy. European-style nationalism was a product of Napoleon's Empire and the enlightenment (one could argue it was brought about by Napoleon's failure to be sincere when he talked about "spreading the enlightenment"). Without an enemy, nationalism falters. And no one wants perpetual conflict, at least, not anymore (with the advent of the internet, mass-communiation and mass-migration).
I think Spencer and many on his side are grappling with this. He even went on a rant about Wifejack, saying "if this is the "right-wing", then I support White Genocide (TM)".
Hahaha "little Ukraine hiccup" is like the meme of "small Chinese conflict = 10 million dead".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWmhRSAcWkI&ab_channel=MasterofRoflness
In terms of history, ten million people getting snuffed is a really big deal for a decade then becomes a footnote.
The challenge to nationalism is having a positive goal. The variant that arose during the Napoleonic era was in response to liberalism rising and international political drama, but codified a feeling that was innate to people for millennia that is mentioned in older literature.
I think the feeling you describe is more localism.
In the same way that Bavarians considered (and still consider) themselves Bavarian, and not Prussian, or how Catalans view themselves, or how Scots view themselves etc...
Yes, I agree, the challenge is having a positive goal that is inward-looking rather than outward-looking.
Yes, exactly: each ethnic group has its own culture and genetics (including, ideally, religion).
Instead of standardizing everything, we let natural variation flourish.
For me the importance of culture has multiple levels. It is a joy in its own right, but it also keeps social order better than government, with more "freedom" and less neurosis, micromanagement, etc.
I want to preserve distinct ethnic groups by separation, so that they are not administrative bureaucracies.
As far as nationalism goes, it was always ethnic, at least in the arts and philosophy as well as early politics.
The Napoleons liberalized that into nation-state patriotism, and Hitler tried to dial it back to ethnic-nationalism, where Murkan neo-Nazis tried to make it into racial nationalism.
I mean, Hitler was a bit of a fucking dumbass (*understatement*), tbh.
His whole thing was basically the Germanic/"Aryan"/"Nordic" version of the Russkiy Mir.
And as we see in Ukraine, that is hardly "ethno-nationalism". That's "my nationalism is the only nationalism" nationalism because everyone is secretly "Germanic".
Not really. Nationalism has its roots in tribe identity and is ancient.
Hitler attempted to make a modern state out of an ancient idea, and not surprisingly failed.
Russia on the other hand has failed at everything since its inception, owing to (1) peasant origins and (2) miscegenation.
Germanics are a people of miscegenation too.
Italian Fascists at least recognized that, both regarding themselves as well as regarding the Germanics.
Hitler and Himmler genuinely believed their people were "pure" (no people are "pure", it just doesn't work that way).
Yeah, you can say they were "purer" than others, but that doesn't make them "pure".
@Aldo2 @amerika Welcome to the human race Aldo, even though I have had my own struggles with internalized racism and even externalized racism (not only hating myself for being mixed race but thinking others of different races were somehow not compatible with my existence, which was all wrong) but I now see that we are all a beautiful space colony on a ship called earth, and if we don't start working together and loving eachother and recognizing the pure laughter and humanity in others when they are filled with joy, the sounds are the same sounds, we all laugh the same, and cry the same. I thank the creator every day for people from the boomer generations like Gene Roddenberry and Mr. Rogers who spread brilliant and vibrant messages of interracial peace, unity, and appreciation of differences, we are shown through the works of brilliant storytellers like these that differences can be exciting in a pleasurable way, a thrilling way, and that we can love and be loved by those who are different.
I'm a Slav mutt.
High Slav (landed Czechslovak/Bohemian nobility who moved to Amerikkka) + low Slav (Serbian).
Throw some tiny Jewish admixture in there, just because you can't be a Slav nowadays without a tiny bit of Ashkenazi.
*My Czech ancestors were extremely antisemitic, just fyi.
Too untermensch for the Neezis, too bourgeois for the Commies.
Also, one of the crazy things about my family history is that my great-grandfathers probably fought on opposite sides during WW1.
WW2 they both fought for the "Allies".
Wild, isn't it?
Moving the goalposts to "pure" misses the point.
We have unbroken Western Europeans in the West and heavy trace admixture outside of it.
Even more, absent origins, each ethnic group has a center and commonality and preserving this preserves culture.
How is it missing the point when you're talking about "unbroken"? You're just using a different word. At least, that's how I'm interpreting what you're saying. Correct me if I'm wrong.
You say "we" and "the West", but I take it you live in America, and not Europe?
I'm not disagreeing with the main point you're making (there is a "center", Spengler would say there is a "spirit" of a people which distinguishes them from others).
My position is that if groups have some admixture, that's fine. Nothing inherently wrong with that.
Being "mixed" does not mean that you don't belong to an overarching "culture". It's just more nuanced than "I am only this one group". Being of only one ethnic group is pretty rare, even in Western Europe.
I live in a place where the "pure"/"unbroken" ("Aryan" naturally blonde + blue-eyed) people reside in a pretty much isolated province. Everyone else has admixture from somewhere or other (mostly from within Europe). Yet, of course, they're all part of the same overarching culture/"spirit".
"My position is that if groups have some admixture, that's fine."
Here's my take...
I've done this for three decades, and I've heard this delusional shit a lot of times.
Admixture is genocide.
100% of people advocating what you are want to create a symbolic whiteness so we can unify for the sake of Europe.
THIS ALWAYS FAILS.
Learn from history.
I would think countries in Europe have probably gone through similar events
IMG_2940.jpeg
Replacing Europeans with more Europeans is not the problem, but replacing Europeans with Semites, Africans, and Asians is... even if in trace amounts.
The group they replaced was possibly the same middle eastern group that migrated through Wales into Ireland and is responsible for the Semitic appearance of people there today.
No, they were a series of nomadic populations who cruised around Europe, Asia, and the middle east for tens of thousands of years.
Then people mixed some of them with foreign groups are for reasons unknown to sanity, are trying to argue that half-breeds are full-caste.
What you are arguing for is literally insane and illogical.
Let's put it another way.
You can marry a Norwegian, or a Norwegian with a Black or Chinese grandfather.
If you take option B, you have created a new ethnic group replacing the old.
Then there's the American experience, where you get people who are Irish-English-Italian-Polish-German-Swedish-Welsh-Spanish and have round faces, dark hair, dark eyes, etc.
Basically look nothing like the people in history books.
Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett would've thought they were Indians.
Then we look at our political system, and we see how many Italian, Irish, Spanish, Jewish, Arab, Slavic, and Irish names there are among the neurotics.
You yourself earlier were talking about some admixture being OK, as long as it doesn't upset the majority ethnic makeup (the center).
Ukrainians are not "pure", for example (well, maybe Western Ukrainians, but that's only a small part of Ukraine). Russo-Ukrainians are the ones doing the fighting and dying FOR Ukraine. You have the Crimean Tartars etc... that's not "ethno-nationalism", that's just patriotism.
The British are a mixture of Germanic, Gallic, Gaelic and Scandenavian.
You're ignoring reality.
"Admixture is genocide"
This is just the mirror image of the people pushing Chedder Man. The fact you can't see this is astounding, tbqh.
30 years? How successful have you been with this? I don't want to be an asshole, but I don't think very successful.
"Symbolic whiteness"
"THIS ALWAYS FAILS"
This is what Americans are arguing for. "White nationalism" is an American thing. You're projecting.
I'm not advocating for a unified Europe, or for "White nationalism" in Europe. Where have I said that? I'm arguing for coming to terms with reality and history.
"Learn from history"
Well, that's highly ironic...
Let's come to terms with reality:
1. Western Europeans are the germ of Europe
2. All other groups are admixed
3. The third world is admixed
4. The admixture nations are less prosperous and organized
Let's start there.
The #BRICS are still third world shitholes, especially Russia.