The general horizon of the era is communist. And this communism will have to be constructed on the basis of society’s self-organizing capacities….

Bruno Bosteels, “The Actuality of Communism”

As far as the communist idea is concerned, anybody who forgets that there are two truths in communism is likely to be deceived. The first ‘esoteric’ truth has a dogmatic and immutable character; it corresponds to the basic tenets of the revolution and is formulated in the writings and in the directives of the early Bolshevik period. The second is a changeable and ‘realistic’ truth, which is forged case by case, often in apparent contrast with the first truth, and characterized by eventual compromises with the ideas of the ‘bourgeois’ world…. The varieties of this second truth are usually set aside as soon as they have achieved their tactical objective; they are mere instruments at the service of the first truth. Therefore, those who would fall into this trap and believe that Bolshevism is a thing of the past, that it has evolved and that it is going to take on normal forms of government and international relations, are indeed extremely naive.

Julius Evola, “Revolt From the Modern World”

My Interview With Jean Robin

This is the first in a series exploring the history of communism in Europe and where things are headed.

My Interview with Jean Robin

Quarterly Subscription (to support the site)


The Lies We Believe in

223 thoughts on “Macron and Marxism in France: A Discussion with Jean Robin

  1. If a Rotchild’s guy is a communist are the Rotchilds also communists according to you? The fact is, the very top cosmopolitan bourgeoise embrace seemingly marxist talking points against the national bourgeoise, doesn’t make them communist.

    I can agree on De Gaulle though, he was friendly to communists for nationalists reasons.

    1. Schumpeter said Marxism is a religion. It is about underlying beliefs. But it is also about actual organizations. Not all believers agree. Not all really believe. But do they belong? Do they collaborate? Communism turns out to be a very bourgeois thing. Are the Rothschilds communists? No. They are bankers. Can a Rothschilds become an agent of communism? Yes. We know that one did work for the KGB decades ago. There are people of this kind everywhere. Even in the White House, in the CIA and big business. Is that a problem for you? No. It is a problem for me. Do I think everyone who helps the communists is a communist? No.

      1. Great question, great idea. I think it’s more complicated. Globalism was a capitalist liberal idea from the 19th century the communists have hijacked.

      2. Agreed, though that being said, I disagree with Schumpeter regarding calling Marxism a religion. They’re atheists, they don’t believe in deities, either God or gods, and they don’t even believe in any supernatural elements at all, and they don’t believe in an afterlife either. Believing in a deity, or multiple deities, believing in various supernatural elements and abilities, believing in an afterlife are key components to religion. The most they can claim is they have a philosophical outlook.

        BTW, I think we need more articles directly connecting Marxism with the French Revolution, since that’s actually scarce right now, barely even known. Karl Marx made it very clear that when he formed his Communist League, it was specifically to not only rehash the Reign of Terror, but also make it even more of a bloodbath. Right now, most people are so clueless about the French Revolution’s direct ties to Marxism that they are if anything believing that it was a good thing and acting like it was somehow “different” from Marx, having people who otherwise are staunch anti-Communists being die-hard fans of the Jacobins. Even claim that it’s one and the same with the American Minutemen.

        Darn shame to hear that de Gaulle was a Crypto-Communist, though. Especially considering they used a Christian symbol for the Resistance. Oh well, guess I’ll have to settle with just the American Minutemen from here on out.

      3. Otnesse: You defined “religion” according to form, and the form you chose is not a form with which everyone agrees.

        Another way to look at “religion”, and all of life for that matter, is to recognize its function in the individual and society. This is how to reconcile all the different forms of religions that they are all religions, from atheistic Mahayana Buddhism to polytheistic Shinto. In that regard, Marxism functions as a religion, hence is a religion.

        This was a depressing interview, to learn how deeply communism and socialist ideas have infiltrated French society and politics. One almost wonders if French society can be saved. Like Otnesse, I agree that much of the influences that aid this infiltration have their roots in the French Revolution. Yet to learn that what de Gaulle and his followers did was treason for the best interests of France was a real disappointment.

        One way to compare the French Revolution with the Minutemen is to compare the societies that resulted from those two different actions. Do I even need to point out the differences?

      4. Don’t worry about France, our country is 2000 years old, under the protection of Jesus. We will survive and even thrive through this crisis. God will punish whomever He pleases to, in this life and the next. As an American Patriot take care of your country, and rely on the French patriots to take care of ours and support you, as we expect you to support us.

      5. R.O.: Even Mahayana Buddhism had Buddha reaching Enlightenment by entering a struggle with a Demon King and his daughters, even killing a shadow of himself as a final test, so there were still some supernatural elements in there, hence it still qualified as a religion even if it didn’t technically believe in gods per-se. Then there’s the whole reincarnation bit which still qualifies to some extent as religious due to adhering to some degree of an afterlife. Atheism doesn’t believe in any form of afterlife, not even reincarnation. They believe once you’re dead, that’s it, you cease to exist, period. And they certainly don’t believe in any supernatural elements at all, never mind deities. So no, it’s not even a “form”, it’s literally the entire structure behind religion as a whole. Atheism of any sort, including Marxism, is simply not a religion.

        Jean Robin: I agree, but on the other hand, I can’t help but think the whole situation with Socialism/Communism, including France inventing it, was ultimately our fault. Especially when the Cordeliers Club, which if Conservapedia is to be believed is even MORE radical than the Jacobins, directly used America’s founding documents as a basis for their radical ideals. So even speaking as an American patriot who naturally needs to look over America first, I think I need to focus a bit on France and the others. And that’s not even getting to how China going Red was also ultimately our fault as well thanks to Marshall, FDR, and Vinegar Joe.

      6. Otnesse: I won’t argue religion with you, someone who contradicts the professors (plural) at the state university with whom I studied. Secondly your answer shows you neglect the common practice of syncretism among the common people.

        Marxism, like other atheistic religions, functions as a religion, therefore is a religion.

        Therefore I agree with Schumpeter.

        Any further discussion is off topic.

      7. Otnesse, Atheism is a religion. It fulfills the definitions of a religion. Frankly, there is no such thing as a non-religious person, and that includes atheists. Recall, as one example, Buddhism is a non-theistic religion.

      8. I’m only replying to OhEngineer since R.O. is out of the discussion by choice.

        Religion, last I checked, has as key requirements not just worship of a deity, but also the firm belief in supernatural elements/creatures and an afterlife. Atheism has neither of those, wholly rejecting the supernatural or anything that even remotely implies life after death (whether an afterlife or even reincarnation), so it’s NOT a religion, period. It’s a belief system at most. A Comic Book Superhero is more likely to BE a religion than atheism is, at least comic book superheroes have actual supernatural powers in their stories.

        I know people like to use Buddhism to point against the deity requirement for a religion, but even THAT still has two-thirds of what constitutes a religion, significantly more than atheism. For example, it has supernatural elements due to Buddha entering a struggle with a Demon King and his daughters, even destroying his own shadow as his final test of enlightenment. And demons are of the supernatural, last I checked. Not to mention Buddhism, similar to Hinduism, believes in the concept of reincarnation, which while not an afterlife still covers the question of life after death, a key component of religion. It needs to match at least one of the three if not all three to qualify. And Atheism doesn’t match any of them, so no, it’s no religion at all. Especially not when atheists, especially Marxists, make it VERY clear they want to wipe out ALL religion, calling it spiritual booze.

      9. No less a philosopher than Eric Voegelin described Marxism as a religion. He said it was a form of Gnosticism. The Marxists themselves often refer to their belief system as a “political religion.” I see this in Marxist texts all the time. I am presently reading Bosteel’s book on Marxism, and the book is peppered with such references. I take the Marxists at their own word. It is a religion. It is the New Religion of our time, attempting to replace Christianity in the West.

      10. All I can say on the matter is that supernatural elements and an afterlife/concept of life after death (never mind a deity) forms the very structure of religion. It’s literally the entire point behind it. There’s no such thing as a “political religion” (except for theocracies such as Christendom or even Iran right now). Otherwise, Democrat and Republican would be political religions as well. The entire POINT behind religion is the supernatural, spirit, and especially the concept of an afterlife. Atheists don’t believe in ANYTHING that is supernatural, whether it be god, supernatural beings [not even gods per se, just mythological creatures or even superpowered beings capable of, say, generating fire at will or altering the weather via will and not machinery], or for that matter, the idea that there’s even life after death, whether an afterlife or even reincarnation.

      11. You may disagree with Schumpeter and Voegelin, of course. But they know more than I do, and language is metaphorical at bottom. What you refuse to see, otnesse, is that Marxism functions as a religion. It is an attempt to replace religion. Man’s salvation is to be worked out through politics. So, it is a political religion opposed to supernaturalism. But not always. The communists are deeply involved in parapsychological research. Doesn’t that count? It fits your necessary criteria. How do you argue now?

      12. Psychic abilities are more of a gray area, unfortunately, since that generally tends to be classified as separate from outright supernatural elements. They tended to classify that more under “scientific” aspects under scientism (another form of atheism).

        I’m still doubtful about Marxists being religious, though, since, psychic research aside (since, again, psychic abilities are more of a gray area than firmly supernatural), they tended to denounce the whole point of religion, which is supernatural elements. And without supernatural elements, you simply can’t have a religion. It’s that simple. Islam’s far closer to an actual political religion, and even THAT believes in the supernatural and afterlife at least, if not God. I guess the closest they’ve got to religion might be gnosticism or Satanism (there’s been some evidence of Marx at least dabbling in Satanism going by Marx and Satan), though even gnosticism at least is a gray area since it seems more like self-worship, which hardly religious at all (Satanism, unfortunately, is VERY much a religion, one that definitely deserves to be wiped out per God’s demands, but a religion nevertheless). Besides, why would they declare, among other things, “Religion is the opiate of the masses” or “Religion is a spiritual booze” and try to make clear they want all religion destroyed in the Marxist Manifesto if they were themselves religious? Not even Martin Luther made those claims when he rebelled against Catholicism.

      13. The reason I don’t want to debate Otnesse on religion and atheism is because he merely spouts boilerplate from some of those militant atheist websites while dismissing what other, more thoughtful (and better educated?) atheists teach about their beliefs. Yes, they are beliefs. Other atheists admit that there’s no such thing as a person bereft of a religion, and yes, they admit their beliefs are a religion.

        • All religions start with presuppositions that have to be taken on faith. Atheism is no different.
        • All religions deal with the basic questions of origins, ontology and purpose in life, atheism deals with is the same.

        These two features alone are enough to make atheism a religion. Because Marxism is a branch of atheism, it too is a religion.

      14. Atheists are ALWAYS militant. The more “thoughtful” ones, like Sartre for example, or Foucault, or Queen Catherine, or Joseph Campbell for that matter, are simply the types to try and subvert it more indirectly (in Campbell’s case, reducing religion to a mere academic hobby without meaning or purpose) rather than the more overt pushing like with Marx or Voltaire. That’s the problem. And there’s more to religion than just beliefs. It’s a starting point, but not the whole framework. Otherwise, we might as well call adherents to the Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian party as religious affiliation as well despite most of the adherents adhering to a religion or church (not atheistic) separate from those parties.

        No, what’s separates religion from belief systems is the belief in, if not a deity, then at the very least supernatural elements (powers, creatures, you name it), and also an afterlife.

        To use examples of what I’m getting at, besides Christianity, Judaism, Islam, we’ve got Greek and Roman mythologies that qualify as religions. Same goes for Egyptian mythology, Babylonian mythology, also Hinduism, Shintoism, Taoism, and even Buddhism (sure, Buddhism may not have a god per-se unless you count Buddha himself, but it DOES have have Buddha fighting against a Demon King and his daughters as a key part of its mythology, and also believing in reincarnation).

      15. Not only did my professors not know anything about a demon king and his daughters when teaching about Buddhism, but also an ex-Buddhist I knew who often spoke against Buddhism never mentioned such a myth. How do we know that Otnesse didn’t just make up that story? Is Otnesse just trolling us?

        A third feature of all religions, including atheism, is that the belief system is the center of one’s life. It is the source of his values and ethics. According to Lenin, as mentioned by others on this thread, Marxism forms the basis of values and ethics to the true believers in Marxism. Therefore Marxism is a religion.

      16. Eric Metaxas wrote a wonderful book titled Atheism is Dead. In it, he describes how Jean Paul Sartres converted to Christianity at the end of his life. Such an amazing story. Even famous atheists end up seeing the light.

        Anyways, as far as the debate over whether Atheism is a religion, is it a question of semantics? If the Marxists say Atheism is a form of religion, and Otnesse says they are not correct because religion requires a belief in God, a theology that explains life’s purpose and defines an afterlife, all of which contradicts the definition of Atheism, then Atheism is not a religion in the sense Otnesse has defined it. If we check a dictionary, we should come to a reasoned conclusion. Why would we want to use the Marxist definition anyway? Letting them get away with redefining words is a victory to them. To me the best answer is to go to the original congressional debates regarding our first amendment. The first amendment is now under attack in many respects but most particularly because of the woeful ignorance of the “free exercise of religion” clause. IMHO we need to use the 1828 definition in Noah Webster’s dictionary. We have to know what the words actually meant when they were used. I own this dictionary, but it is at my city house. I will look it up and post it tomorrow.

        To Jeff’s point that we have to understand our enemy from his perspective, I agree, but we can’t let them redefine our language, and I believe Otnesse has an accurate traditional definition of religion. What’s more important for the us in the USA is how our Founders defined religion.

        In contrast, Bill Clinton got the IRS to approve scientology as a church. I think that was a mistake. Anything that attempts to legitimize crimes like harassment, fraud, or God forbid child or animal sacrifice, or multiple wives cannot be sanctioned. And practitioners of such crimes need to be prosecuted. Clinton completely departed from the traditional definition of religion and paved a path of perdition. I wish Scalia were still alive. He preached original intent. So does Justice Thomas. Would they believe atheism is a religion? I think not.

        To sum up, let me offer a comparison. The Quakers believe in avoiding rituals. They take great pride in the simplicity of the building and having no art or symbols in the meetinghouse. There is no pastor and the worship starts in silence. They have no cross, no baptism, no communion so no traditional Christian rituals. These practices, some could say, are Quaker rituals because they do it the same way every time, but that would change the definition of ritual in the traditional sense. In the same way, atheism is not a religion but it can be a philosophy. And when the Soviets say atheism is their religion, that puts all of us in peril.

      17. Sorry to disappoint you but Sartre never converted to christianity at the end of his life, it’s pure fake news. You can throw away the whole book in my opinion.

      18. Just a note: Schumpeter (and Voegelin) did not say that atheism was a religion. Schumpeter said Marxism was a religion. Voegelin defined that religion as a form of what he called “gnosticism,” using a special definition. The famous Whittaker Chambers said that communism was “man’s second oldest religion,” which was given by the snake to Eve in the Garden of Eden, “Ye shall be as gods.”

      19. Apropos Redshield: Allan Dulles refers to that banking house in his Tradecraft book, “some of the best intelligence networks of the war did not belong to countries, but private concerns [Redshield as example].” — A very minor paraphrase, and I imagine Hjalmar Schact’s City of London contacts counted among them,

        “one has to wonder if there is some dirty secret quietly being circulated in central bankdom and various national capitals about the New York Fed that we do not know about, for every time I encounter this gold repatriation story or hear of yet another nation joining it, I am reminded of what I called the “Hjalmar Schacht-New York Fed incident.” Hjalmar Schacht was the interwar president of the German Reichsbank, and it was Hjalmar Schacht who put an end to the German hyper-inflation and currency speculation, stabilizing the German economy long before the Nazis took power. It was also Hjalmar Schacht who, along with Benjamin Strong (head of the NY Fed) and Montague Norman (head of the Bank of England), came up with the basic idea for the Bank of International Settlements. Again, it was Hjalmar Schacht who was, for a brief period, Hitler’s Reichsbank chief, and at Nuremberg, Schacht received a suspiciously light sentence, only to resurface after the war involved in a number of shady projects around the world, that have connections to what I’ve called the post-war Nazi International.
        But in 1928, Schacht visited the New York Federal Reserve Bank and his friend Benjamin Strong, and toured the vaults. What followed was related in Schacht’s own memoirs: When he asked to see the Reichsbank’s gold, the staff of the bank came back to Strong and Schacht, and nervously reported that they could not find it. Schacht, rather than become upset that Germany’s gold reserves in the USA seemed to have gone inexplicably missing, merely smiled and told Mr. Strong word to the effect “that’s ok, I know you’re good for it.”

        Marx’s London exile ought’ve elicited more suspicion in the International, then again the likes of Lenin and Trotsky wouldn’t have had those Lord Milner millions to bailout the Red Army later on. Who knows.

      20. One has to be careful analyzing such materials. All interpretations, or indulgences that stretch facts to fit, are grounded in one theory or another. And people get very attached to pet theories. In fact, pet theories can be used to manipulate people. In this case, conspiracy theory since 1920 has formed a parallel track to Leninism, naming the same capitalist set of malefactors (conspirators against human prosperity and progress). Yet, objectively considering the unprecedented prosperity of the twentieth century, these same malefactors must be credited with generating that same unprecedented prosperity. Here is the telltale. A contradiction and problem arises with conspiracy theory, which turns out to be Marxist-Leninist in its conclusions. This cannot be a coincidence. Social psychology is at work here, or such theories are the epiphenomena of Marxist-Leninist strategy. To restate what is plainly observable: right-wing conspiracy theories (of whatever variety) come to the same basic conclusion as Marxist structuralism. And it does so in a very knee-jerk fashion. One might call it the stupid man’s structuralism. This must raise the suspicion that both theories derive from a common source, X. Cui bono is the best way to determine source X. My opposition to conspiracy theory lies here, in the way conspiracy theory drives the right into the arms of the left — and drives them, also, into the arms of crypto-communists like Putin. Such theories even align them with Beijing. Only most people are strategic illiterates and cannot see it. Everything here requires a multi-disciplinary approach. But one must never forget we are in a war. Know who your enemy is. Know that your enemy is trying to turn your flank intellectually. And the communists are doing this. They are succeeding despite their battlefield defeats. In history, the reds lose many battles in the field. As in Vietnam, they win the war intellectually. They overtake their enemy within their enemy’s own mind.

      21. LADYFROMLIBERTYGARAGE: Languages change. Words change meaning also apart from communist influences. So the legal definitions need to go back to what words meant when the U.S. Constitution was written, even though today’s street definition may have changed.

        Look at the Second Amendment—both “regulated” and “militia” have meanings that differ from when the Constitution was written. Therefore the legal definitions are not the definitions found in news reports today.

        So likewise, “religion” as used by the Founders was restricted to those belief systems that have a strong moral code. By their use, even Islam would be excluded as a religion because of its practices of taqiyya and dhimmitude. Atheists and agnostics were tolerated as long as they followed the Judeo-Christian moral code.

        By modern definitions, both atheism and Marxism are religions. The change in definition has little to no thanks to communist influences, though they now have taken on the modern definition.

      22. I do not think Marxism is a religion because of its atheism. Dialectical materialism (aka scientific socialism) is a grandiose philosophy, a cosmological view, and pretends to answer all questions about life and society, about the future and the past. It is not simply the denial of God’s existence. It is much more. As an all-embracing interpretation it performs the same function in the individual as a religion; that is, it orients the individual — offering man his overall place in the world. In Christianity the person is a creature made by God, the Creator of the Universe. In Marxism man is in the process of becoming a god. This is a very subtle thing in Marxism, but as Voegelin and Whittaker Chambers show, it is there. It provides a kind of religious motiviation to the Marxist believer, however sublimated. Schumpeter approached this question more cynically, saying that most Christians have a hedonistic motive; that is, they want to get into Heaven because it will be the more pleasurable place to be. This is what religion is to many people, and Marxists are no different. Only Marxists believe in bringing about Heaven on Earth. This, of course, is the kind of analysis one would expect from an economist.

  2. He sounds like an Ango-American agent, which is not unusual for an European journalist, yet calling true patriots traitors.

    What is his view on yellow vests?

      1. Good Morning, Folks

        A forum link for Infj’s persons, if there are any such wandering in these pages, a solution too little and too late for some, – infiltrate the mental environment of Infj’s, as a long-range project.

        Have them introduced to Jeff’s viewpoints.

        Not selling any material object, and posting is free…..
        but being upfront…. I hope it costs you your life.

        As in consider this quotation

        “To destroy communism we must be willing to risk our lives. If we are unwilling to do this, then we won’t survive. The Red Dictatorship will triumph. Cruelty, war, famine and distress will rule the earth. Then, truly, would come the end of history – and a world where The Gulag Archipelago sings its woeful tune, like some broken record, through all posterity.”

        “Origin’s of the Fourth World War”

        I don’t know if you’ll get a “403 forbidden” security warning for clicking this link,
        you might, but don’t worry, proboards is a long established provider.

        Take care out there, and thanks for the work.

        P.S. A criminal-type doing business as a politician would want you to abandon all long-range projects of all sorts, one of the uses of fear I can suppose.

    1. French journalists are almost all anti-American, except if America is led by an anti-American such as Biden.
      The yellow vests were supported right from the start by communists Melenchon, Onfray, Soral, and the rest. It’s a communist movement, joined after a while by antifa. All the yellow vests leaders are photographed with communist leaders such as Olivier Besancenot. Some even sing the International, the communist anthem. They wanted to create chaos in France, and they did, helped by RT France which gave them a big media impact. Nothing positive in this movement.

      1. Pro-Biden European journalists are American agents too. Everyone in mainstream media.

    2. Second try
      French journalists are almost all anti-American, except if America is led by an anti-American such as Biden.
      The yellow vests were supported right from the start by communists Melenchon, Onfray, Soral, and the rest. It’s a communist movement, joined after a while by antifa. All the yellow vests leaders are photographed with communist leaders such as Olivier Besancenot. Some even sing the International, the communist anthem. They wanted to create chaos in France, and they did, helped by RT France which gave them a big media impact. Nothing positive in this movement.

  3. Also, the term communist becomes meaningless when you call the French Third Republic, a prime example of imperialist financial oligarchy according to Lenin, communist. Who are communists according to you if not followers of Lenin?

    1. You may have a point there. I do not understand how he can say “all” are Marxists. Is that true? But then, look around at our institutions today.

      1. I can understand someone can believe that post-WW2 France has been co-opted by communists. But the Third Republic (1870-) was exactly the kind of imperialist power the founders of the communist movement opposed.

      1. Even Karl Marx made it clear that Communism was essentially created by the Jacobins and similar groups during the French Revolution.

      2. France also had always a fascination for Islam in the 19th century. The Suni Kalifate system was very well liked by the French. Still to this day the communists love the Suni islamists in Africa and everywhere else as a means to stick it to the West and prevent any kind of relationship with locals there. Funnily enough, one could argue that Marx did not invent anything, ie that the general cynicism, propaganda and demagoguery was invented on an industrial level by the Kalifate.

    2. I think France is a dangerous form of Menshevism and obsessed with centralism and socialism (they have an absolute despise for federalism, State balance of power against the Federal, let alone confederalism in the Girondain sense. Their motto in that sense might as well be “All powers to the Soviets” as well as “to the state”, because a mere maid of a government building with a Central government badge and Union subscription believing in Darwin will feel more authoritative than an actual local medical doctor who happens to be religious). They simply cannot do without it. Bolshevism is a form of progressism which mocks and disrespects the past, and it also is completely hardware materials based. The French Menshevism as seen in the works of Marcel Pagnol mix a sort of love , if not, at least respect and nostalgia for the past and yet a definite proud move away from it with its usual trials of morality not unlike seen in American sitcoms. It reminds me of the US equally deceptively conservative but actual communist show The Little House in the Prairie, a show which was extremely popular in France too. It is a place of a strange family-state-socialism partnership organization, but the core culture is definitely Marxist and the family is merely transformed into something benefiting and protected by it than central in maintaining health and support.

      The proof of it is in the “psychoanalytic” and medical pudding as a means of colonization and progressism. Just look at how the Covid crisis became a mean for China to colonize by furnishing vaccines to Brazile. This is the exact same pattern and mean the French left used in the colonies to wreck havoc on African intellectual and cultural wealth with progressist ideas on medicine, completely dismissing on an ideological basis what formed the heritage, heir-line’s and religious-aristocratic forms of the Babba father figure protector of the African tribe. Freud was very much mentored in that method by Charcot who became famous for turning women away from confession and to his psychiatric offices, isolating them there. For all the accusations that religion was rendering women neurotic or hysterical due to guilt or “unnatural” awkward approaches to the complexity of woman, Charcot literally threw women in his offices under lock and key and made them feel completely guilty about their inherent constitution. What hope that the Church at least provided women in speaking about their ailments or eventually being forgiven for their difficulties, the materialist darwinist psychoanalysis deriving from Charcot’s psychiatry simply completely isolated them in eternal condemnation and self isolation. Woman was no longer called a common sinner discussing with other sinners, but a hysteric that only medicine could fix if she ironically accepted her full and total guilt as an isolated individual.

      And yet, you see many communists in the third world having been trained right there in French schools, agents of French colonization and destruction of local cultures, portraying themselves as a defense against western “capitalist” exploitation. China is a big example of that. Things like acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine wealth etc has been completely destroyed by French progressism and yet the Chinese often come to Paris as tourists to be fascinated and in love with it. The dangerous French patronizing of the Chinese never ceases to amaze me.

      1. I agree on everything, except the last part. Chinese traditional medicine is a tool of the CCP to influence foreign countries, and France is very open to this kind of “medicine”, unfortunately. French elites are totally kowtowing to the CCP, they are their running dogs. I know of no exception.

      2. I took a class in, Alternative Medicine; a special Summer course, by a professor who is a Chinese national by birth, as well as being a licensed, Natural Path, Acupuncturist, Audiologist, and Psychologist. He taught the distinction between, Classical Chinese Medicine, and Traditional Chinese Medicine.

        Traditional Chinese Medicine, is a combination of, Classical Chinese Medicine, and modern, Western, Allopathic Medicine. Traditional Chinese Medicine, is what’s most widely taught in college’s of Chinese medicine, in the United States. The connection with Chinese Communist Party, I can only surmise, but I doubt that the curriculum is imported from Taoist monks who live in the isolation of the Pine Martin, abode.

      3. Traditional Chinese Medicine, is the medicine provided by physicians in China, today.

      4. I was referring to the issue of Mao completely wrecking Chinese traditional medicine and the only remnants being found in places amongst the diaspora in Canada, for example. That now a sort of neo fake traditional medicine emanating from the mainland would not surprise me, much like Purin pretending he is Russian Orthodox.

  4. Always felt the uneasiness and arrogant jingoism in France. It is a cesspool. By the way, the french left has been at the forefront of “civilizing” Africa with colonization, all the while blaming money for it. It really is a cesspool-bubble of circular group think.

  5. @Jean Robin: Thank you for your research, which is incredibly interesting. Love reading many of your tweets on Twitter.
    One question, how do you see Nicolas Sarcozy? He has brought France back into NATO.
    As far as I understand, Georges Pompidou was an exception (see also Golitsyn)
    I already knew that Jacques Attali determines pretty much in background. But I was not aware of the numerous connections to China.

    I found something interesting about Macron:
    “Mon conseil à la jeunesse : lire Karl Marx.» Cette recommandation d’Emmanuel Macron a été entendue au-delà de toutes espérances.”
    Translation “Advice to youth: read Karl Marx.” This recommendation of Emmanuel Macron was heard beyond all expectations. …

    It is obvious that Karl Marx is increasingly becoming the basis for the Western (global) system. Even former Swiss president Moritz Leuenberger addressed the WEF participants (2001), quoting Karl Marx …. and referring to the father of the I. International as an early representative of globalization and forefather of the WEF.–karl-marx-als-urahne/1857952

    1. Sarkozy played both sides, but French people tend to forget what he did against the West. Like forbidding Ukraine to enter NATO (together with Merkel). Like receiving Boa’o Forum (CCP Davos equivalent) in Paris in 2011. Like transferring the P4 to China. Like having his prime minister Fillon close to China and Russia, who joined Rosneft once he was not Prime minister anymore.

      1. Jacques Attali is certainly the mastermind of the French elite in recent decades. I think following article by him is so important to understand what motivations the Western elite in general is now acting upon (from his website some very interesting quotes):

        “… One can start with the superb ‘The Communist Manifesto,’ which in one week will have been written 170 years ago. And before taking on the colossal ‘Capital’, there are many others. …
        … And other subjects as well, which he had recognized the importance, such as the plundering of nature, migratory movements and the damage caused by individualism. In fact, when we want to make the effort to delve into his work, we tend to understand current events: Marx is one of the first thinkers of globalization. He remains a guide for whomever wants to study it seriously. And for those who want to understand that socialism is not to be built instead of capitalism, but rather it comes after capitalism. …”

        The idea of Marxism has unfortunately become deeply entrenched worldwide. As an example, the current German Minister of Health, Karl Lauterbach, should be mentioned here. A hardliner in Corona politics and the main responsible for one of the toughest Corona rules (after China). His statements contradict each other again and again and he seems partly totally insane.
        A nice quote on Twitter from him on the 200th birthday of Karl Marx:
        “Happy Birthday, Karl. Your Reader and Fan: Karl”

    2. “It is obvious that Karl Marx is increasingly becoming the basis for the Western (global) system. Even former Swiss president Moritz Leuenberger addressed the WEF participants (2001), quoting Karl Marx …. and referring to the father of the I. International as an early representative of globalization and forefather of the WEF.–karl-marx-als-urahne/1857952

      Very interesting link you shared, thank you.

  6. Yes, this was an informative interview. Enjoyed it a lot. Thanks, Jean and Jeff, and other commenters also.

    Re US alternative media. Will it still exist after the midterms? I don’t think so, and I avoid MSM which to me is just brainwashing. And one psychologist says that if you’re aware that you’re being brainwashed, the brainwashing is even more durable.

    Someone said that the globalists will fail because you can’t harness chaos, and life is chaos. That’s the extent of my personal optimism.

  7. Karl Marx himself called Gracchus Babeuf (french revolutionary activist) who attempt a coup with his comrades “the first communist militant”

  8. JRNyquist says “Globalism was a capitalist liberal idea from the 19th century the communists have hijacked.”

    Communists have never claimed to be globalist. Internationalism means cooperation between nations, not liquidation of nations. Communists have never practiced anything similar to free trade or free movement of people. Trade among COMECON countries was on bilateral basis, each two members had to have balanced trade relation.

    People in the west are mistaking marxism-leninism for liberalism and cosmopolitanism, it is the opposite in most regards.

    Liberalism is a product of masonic bourgeoise revolutions (American and French), the very system Marxism-Leninism attempts to overthrow.

    I can believe there are communist agents in bourgeoise structures. But there are definitely much more bourgeoise and zionist agents and useful idiots among western so-called (neo)marxists intentionally misinterpreting marxism so it serves bourgeoise interests.

    1. “Liberalism is a product of masonic bourgeoise revolutions (American and French), the very system Marxism-Leninism attempts to overthrow.”

      American, perhaps, but Lenin, the guy who founded Marxism-Leninism was well known to be a huge fan of the French system, aka the Jacobins. He specifically compared his Bolsheviks to the Jacobins, explicitly wanted to honor the French Revolution’s Reign of Terror with his Red of Terror, and he even made monumental propaganda specifically dedicated to French Revolution founders. So no, if anything, Marxist-Leninists wanted to ADVANCE French Liberalism, not overthrow it.

      1. Judging those revolutions by the immediate effects is undialectical thinking. The revolutions overthrew feudalism and allowed capitalism to develop. Marx has never claimed that capitalism meant immediate improvement of living conditions of the masses, but was necessary stage to develop material basis for socialism. He has seen the revolutions as positive developments in this regard. On the terror, the few thousands of victims back then would be irrelevant if they were peasants.

      2. Marx had, however, made clear he wanted a bloodbath to rival that of Robespierre’s Reign of Terror. These were from his own words, BTW:

        “There is only one way of shortening, simplifying, and concentrating the bloodthirsty death-throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new–revolutionary terror. . . . […] Once we are at the helm, we shall be obliged to reenact the year 1793. […] We are pitiless and we ask no pity from you. When our time comes, we shall not conceal terrorism with hypocritical phrases. . . The vengeance of the people will break forth with such ferocity that not even the year 1793 enables us to envisage it. . . .”

        The entire POINT of socialism, to put it another way, is what the Joker pulled in the ending to Injustice 2:

        And either way, that doesn’t change what Lenin himself advocated. And revolutions like those are only positives because he loved bloodshed. He was a bloodthirsty psychopath as even his few friends acknowledged.

      3. Nothing outrageous on the few thousand victims of 1793 in the context of the era except their class background.

      4. Actually, according to Fidelity Magazine, peasants actually were composed of more Guillotine victims than actual members of the aristocracy (30% and 8%, respectively), so if anything, the French Revolution and Reign of Terror was even LESS friendly to Peasants despite the PR, and that’s not even getting into Vendee where peasants definitely were the target purely because they refused to reject God and the Crown. And it was MORE than just 1793, we also have to factor in the September Massacres and the Bastille storming as well.

        And the overall death toll of the French Revolution, going by New American, was closer to 300,000, with 297,000 of them being either low-class or middle-class. A lot more than a few thousand in other words, more like a few hundred thousand. There was even evidence to suggest that Robespierre was planning to kill as many as 15 million people: And again, going by Operation Parricide, the Fidelity Magazine article I alluded to earlier, they planned to wipe out the Alsace region purely because they spoke German.

        Oh, and they even slaughtered their own allies purely for bloodlust, at least during the time of the Vendee Massacres. Don’t take it from me, read what General Grignon had to say on that matter: « Mes camarades, nous entrons dans le pays insurgé, je vous donne l’ordre exprès de livrer aux flammes tout ce qui sera susceptible d’être brûlé et de passer au fil de la baïonnette tout ce que vous rencontrerez d’habitants sur votre passage. Je sais qu’il peut y avoir quelques patriotes dans ce pays ; c’est égal, nous devons tout sacrifier » (Translation: ” My comrades, we enter the insurgent country, I give you the express order to deliver to the flames all that will be likely to be burned and to pass over the bayonet all that you meet of inhabitants on your way. I know there may be some patriots in this country; it is the same, we must sacrifice everything “). And apparently, he issued that speech at least twice.

      5. Commit: “On the terror, the few thousands of victims back then would be irrelevant if they were peasants.” It’s not just “back then”.

        You have just shown that you are a monster, a blood thirsty mass murderer, no different from Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Putin, etc. The statement above shows you have no love for the people. The only thing that you have different is that you don’t have power to carry out what you support.

    2. Commit: You do not understand your own side. Marx and his followers saw free trade as a vehicle to advance their own cause. And so did the USSR and China. Furthermore, Piggy-backing and hijacking ideas and movements that are not communist is intrinsic to communist strategy. Communism can only advance by combination — by joining with others in a united front. And Lenin said, in fact, “There is no Marxist dogma. Marxism is the scientific management of human affairs.” It is not our mistake, thinking that Marxism-Leninism is liberalism. It is your mistake, failing to see that liberalism has become, in part, a mask for advancing communist ideas. Surely you know that Marxist wolves are walking around in liberal sheep’s clothing.

      1. “Free trade” fetishism needs to be debrided from “free enterprise”. Much Fake Conservative “Beautiful Loser Syndrome” flows from this para-libertarian position, e.g. “Big Tech can censor whomever they like, they’re a private company!” despite flagrantly abrogating section 230 with some of the biggest surveillance apparatuses in the history of the world. Reciprocal tariffs so as not to be taken advantage of shouldn’t be controversial.

    3. Red continental hard liners (invariably tanking their own economies and societies)
      Pinko Fabian Socialists (profiting from the above, ratcheting toward synthetic solutions)

      American Liberalism didn’t countenance “one man one vote” mob rule. What goes under the moniker today follows the PFS above. If there’s to be any restoration of natural order and political liberty compatible with it, the Them must be pinned down: “It’s communism, stupid.”

  9. As always, this was so eye opening. I’ve been following this blog for maybe 10 months. The more I learn here, thru both the postings and the comment section, the more I realize how little I actually grasp and know about Communism thru the decades, not to mention a lot of basic history too! Had no idea the roots of Communism came out of France– if I understood that right. Thank you, to you both, for the interview. And I will be expectantly waiting for the rest in this series, focusing on Europe.

  10. > “France also had always a fascination for Islam in the 19th century. The Suni Kalifate system was very well liked by the French. Still to this day the communists love the Suni islamists in Africa and everywhere else as a means to stick it to the West and prevent any kind of relationship with locals there. Funnily enough, one could argue that Marx did not invent anything, ie that the general cynicism, propaganda and demagoguery was invented on an industrial level by the Kalifate.”

    In theory, both Christians and Muslims should oppose usury and compradorism.

    There are corrupted Christians and there are corrupted Muslims. The ones who run UAE for example have been corrupted by British colonizers long ago, attracting usurious capital to places like Dubai.

    Catholic Church has been corrupted by Italian bankers since middle ages. Most Protestants go even further, worshiping usurious profits.

  11. True the Vote Issues Statement Regarding the Arrest of Konnech CEO Eugene Yu

    True the Vote is honored to have played a small role in what must have been a wide ranging and complex investigation. The organization is profoundly grateful to the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office for their thorough work and rapid action in this matter.

    True the Vote was sued last month by Konnech to try to silence our organization, including obtaining an ex-parte TRO, conducted in secret so that True the Vote had no opportunity to contest it. This TRO limited True the Vote’s ability to speak on the litigation. Today Konnech CEO Eugene Yu was arrested based on alleged evidence of the very activities he and his organization attempted to suppress. Konnech was assisted by many reporters who unblinkingly accepted their now discredited claims as fact, and simply repeated them.

    According to True the Vote Founder Catherine Engelbrecht, “Election integrity should not be a partisan issue, nor should media try to suppress all conversation about it in a way that benefits one party. We will continue to report evidence of threats to our election process and work with law enforcement to ensure our elections are a secure space for all American voters.”

    https://www.truethevote .org


    Stuart A. Thompson
    Oct. 4, 2022

    The top executive of an elections technology company that has been the focus of attention among election deniers was arrested by Los Angeles County officials in connection with an investigation into the possible theft of personal information about poll workers, the county said on Tuesday.

    Eugene Yu, the founder and chief executive of Konnech, the technology company, was taken into custody on suspicion of theft, the Los Angeles County district attorney, George Gascón, said in a statement.

    Konnech, which is based in Michigan, develops software to manage election logistics, like scheduling poll workers. Los Angeles County is among its customers.

    The company has been accused by groups challenging the validity of the 2020 presidential election with storing information about poll workers on servers in China. The company has repeatedly denied keeping data outside the United States, including in recent statements to The New York Times.

    Mr. Gascón’s office said its investigators had found data stored in China. Holding the data there would violate Konnech’s contract with the county.

    https://www.nytimes .com/2022/10/04/technology/election-software-arrested.html


    October 4, 2022:
    Head of Election Worker Management Company Arrested in Connection with
    Theft of Personal Data
    Media Relations Division
    (213) 257-2000

    https://da.lacounty .gov/media/news/head-election-worker-management-company-arrested-connection-theft-personal-data

  12. Very interesting interview, thank you very much.
    I had not heard about Monsieur Robin before. The french Wikipedia seems to be at least as bad as the german version, as they depict him – in typical communist manner – as “facho” (fascist).
    One can read about the communist infiltration of France, Italy and other european countries in:
    Hidden Hand: Exposing How the Chinese Communist Party is Reshaping the World, by Clive Hamilton and Mareike Ohlberg.

    I hope you will have a follow up where Mr Robin talks about Golitsyn in France, where Golitsyn had a deep impact (Mr Robin seems to have translated his work into french).

      1. yes indeed, also we can talk about Jospin, prime minister in 1997-2002, minister of education under Mitterrand, who was revealed to be a trostkyste mole in the socialist party.
        Also, to answer your question about chinese medicine, please check the long chapter on the subject in this report made by the french army :
        However, please take notice that the 2 co-authors stated they are not anti-CCP. According to me, this report is done to make people think the french State is not on CCP’s side.

  13. Commit has shown himself openly by his denigration of those who suffered under the Jacobins, true sons of Satan to be of the same ilk & does so without fear of punishment. This proves that western liberal societies are doomed. Liberalism is a manifestation of a collective death wish. The idea of freedom of speech is a good example of this; there is no right to blaspheme or disseminate porno or teach atheism or a thousand other things, evil has no rights. Yet the Liberal vehemently maintains that it does. What is the result of this? The nauseating open sewer of utter depravity that we get to live in now. It is as if a town were to suffer an outbreak of rabies among its animals & instead of exterminating those that had been infected as quickly as possible the authorities instead decided that rabid beasts have a right to go about their business as much as anyone else.

    Pure lunacy. The only answer is a dictatorship like that of General Franco in Spain. The General did not consider that anyone in his country had a “right” to carry out subversive activities. His cure for those who insisted upon doing so was nine grams of lead. While he ruled Spain was a splendid country. There were no Communist agitators ruining society, there was no porno, perversion or widespread addiction to drugs; families with more than a certain number of children were given a medal by the state.

    Now contraception is universal & the Spanish race will wither & die because the women there have taken advantage of the “liberty” of liberalism & become vile degenerate treacherous (the divorce rate is astronomical, the divorce as in most countries is generally sought by the woman, because she found another man with more money or was bored &c.) whores. When he died & the accursed system of Liberalism with its disgusting “freedom” to be depraved was brought in it turned into a worthless s—hole filled with degeneracy of every kind. At this point it might be better if the Arabs & Berbers who are immigrating into the country in massive numbers take over again; at least they still follow the natural law to some extent.

    1. > “families with more than a certain number of children were given a medal by the state.”

      This was the case in Stalin’s USSR as well.

      1. I don’t understand your position. You can’t fight the malthusian establishment politicaly, they understand only violence. Extinction is what you deserve if you are afraid of violence.

      2. Yes, Comrade Stalin also forbade & punished unnatural vice. His son fought against the Germans & was captured; Stalin refused to treat his case differently from any other Soviet soldier & he ended up being killed attempting to escape. I must say that evil as he was he was much more of a man than your average western poltroon politician who demands of others things that he would never allow his own family to suffer.

        You yourself have chosen the side of Anti-Christ, but at least you think things out according to your system & live according to it unlike the average western trousered ape who finds thinking of any kind hateful & whose be all & end all of existence is ball games & the satisfaction of his myriad vices with ceaseless bouts of debauchery. This is why I believe that unless the nations return to the Holy Faith of their forefathers, Communism will certainly prevail as it is organized, disciplined & vigorous & as such will inevitably overcome that which is ill or unorganized & enervated.

      3. Re:
        [ commit says:
        October 5, 2022 at 7:20 pm

        “…afraid of violence.” ]

        I don’t know where you’re from, Commit, but Americans won’t be goaded into acting like Useful Idiots, rioting in the streets. Antifa and The Proud Boys and the BLM, agent provocateurs, all, are un-American. It’s not that Americans are all necessarily afraid of violence. Have you ever watched American television? Baseball is not the American pastime; no, rather watching televised football, is. True, American football is girly stuff compared to Rugby, but American football ought not to be played by minors. This isn’t to say that Americans are totally just couch potatoes. Americans like to sit in front of the TV, drink whiskey, and actively, polish their guns. Sometimes we go to the movies, to watch a Quentin Tarantino FLICK.

        Man won’t be the end of, Mankind. Vengeance is Mine, sayeth the Lord.

  14. Fascinating, and many thanks to Jean Robin for this interview, and for undertaking the first French translation of Golitsyn’s New Lies for Old (Des mensonges pas si nouveaux) just after Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. I’m impressed that you somehow managed to arrange for translations to be made in Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, German, Dutch, Swedish and Danish so quickly afterwards (all available on Kindle).

    I recommend Jean’s presentation “J’accuse” on Patreon:

    – if you can’t follow Jean’s very clear French, the flowcharts in the video are still very informative.

    I was also glad to hear you call out Orbán – this man has had enormous success in fooling conservatives worldwide, as a kind of entry-level soft drug that leads them on to support for Putin and Xi.

    1. Yes indeed, it was difficult because Orban calls himself a calvinist. But facts don’t care about feelings, as Shapiro says.

  15. This is slightly off topic but Glenn Beck just did an entire episode on the message of Yuri Besmenov,a KGB defector, who gave a lecture in 1983 about how the KGB would undermine the USA in 4 stages. It is quite prophetic. Jeff, did you ever interview Besmenov? Apparently in Russia, people thought Besmenov was a “journalist” all the while working as a KGB agent.
    I found a compilation of Besmenov lectures here.

  16. It’s really confusing for me: two people I greatly respect, Jeff and Tucker, taking completely different positions on Ukraine. Both of them seem to make sense in their arguments, but both of them can’t be right. This video from Tucker Carlson tonight is an example of Tucker’s common sense: he asks the obvious questions about the pipeline.

    If Tucker is wrong and Jeff is right, then all of the people we know to be scoundrels in our government just happen to be on the side of truth and goodness where Ukraine is concerned. I find it very hard to feel alignment with such people, on anything.

    1. This brings to mind some of the responses given in the comments section of a previous article:

      For example, from commenter “VISITOR”:

      “It is possible both to recognize the strategic importance of Ukraine perseverance/resilience – and to understand that our compromised leadership is using a policy of support for Ukraine as cover for taking measures that actually weaken the United States and the West, e.g., shutting down our own energy production while “banning” Russian oil and fertilizer (which ignores the inherent value of those commodities and the economic/geopolitical boomerang effect of a ban); sending massive amounts and cash and weapons with no accountability, with reports it will take years to build up weapons stocks – who knows where it really all goes? The states policy must be measures against actions taken, always with the question, cui bono. Are measures making us stronger or weaker? Are measures making the enemy stronger or weaker?

      Think about Afghanistan. One can think it was terrible policy to wage war there so long, and believe it was time to come home – and realize our administration aided the enemy (China/Russia) and weakened America by abandoning a massive strategic base and leaving other assets, intel, etc., not to mentioning abandoning U.S. citizens and other friends to the murderous hands of the Taliban.

      That’s how I see the current administration, aided by Congressional power centers in both parties. They do what may seem as ostensibly the “right thing” in ways that weaken us while benefitting our enemies.”

      1. To add to what Anthony Lu just wrote, there are reports coming out of Russia of not only of activating 300,000 reservists, but a partial mobilization for war involving over a million conscripts. Then if Russia conscripts another million in January so that when they reopen the battle in March, about when we have largely run out of weapons to send to the brave Ukrainians, over 2 million new Russian soldiers will appear on the battlefield. The sheer numbers will have a quality all its own.

        I’m reminded of Thermopylae, though the Greeks fought well, the mere fact that they were outnumbered by more than 1000 to 1 sealed their fate. Or again in Korea, there are reports that American troops had to retreat after the barrels of their machine guns melted while mowing down Chinese human wave attacks. There are reports from within China that over 5 million Chinese died in that war. How many more examples can we cite?

        Yes, the Ukrainians have the advantage in superior weapons and higher morale, but will they be able to withstand a massive increase in numbers of Russians, especially when their supply of superior weapons runs low? How about the rest of NATO which is still not waking up? Are Biben and company disarming America, weakening our military, in anticipation of direct attacks against the U.S. by Russia and China? And doing so in such a way that it looks as if we are helping the Ukrainians?

      2. Russia seems to be failing in its efforts to raise new forces. You cannot simply throw untrained men at the problem. You have to create, from scratch strong military units.

      3. R.O. we will have to wait and see. As things stand, Putin has to feed into the meat grinder what he can to try to hold things together. His new conscripts are not being properly equipped, trained or fed. The Russian economy can not support the sort of war effort that would have to demand to get what he wants. The Russian population can’t support it either. He simply does not have the bodies to choke the Ukrainians on Russian blood as Stalin did with the Finns and Germans. He may try it, but he is destroying his country in the bargain.

      4. Ohengineer: “He simply does not have the bodies to choke the Ukrainians on Russian blood as Stalin did with the Finns and Germans. He may try it, but he is destroying his country in the bargain.” This is why he will turn to nukes. There’s no way he can win without them.

        This is also why I say this war is a make or break effort—either Russia will win to loot other countries, or they will cease to be a major country.

      5. If Putin uses nukes he will use them in tandem with China. A single strike on Kiev and/or Lviv would ruin him. He must make himself the victim, not the perp. General nuclear war is the only game, and how can he win?

      6. Putin is already setting up the victim status. By annexing eastern Ukraine even as Ukrainian forces are liberating them, he now can claim that these are “attacks on mother Russia”. Because the Ukrainians are receiving aid from NATO in their “attack on mother Russia”, NATO countries and especially the U.S. are fair game to be on the receiving end of those nuclear weapons.

        What we are hearing from different sources is that attack will be “a nuclear Pearly Harbor” with no warning, unexpected with devastating results. Followed by the invasion.

      7. Yes. They have a scenario for nuclear war. All they need now is for China to agree. And if this is what happened behind the scenes at Samarkand, we are going to have a colder winter than Germany.

    2. Tucker has become a propaganda channel for Putin. He’s not merely wrong, but dead and stupidly so. I doubt the pipeline was sabotaged with explosives, given the Russians incompetence in maintenance and operation. Russia has had a problem with the operation of pipelines in the past and there was more then sufficient energy available to set off a seismograph without using explosives.

      I find it hard agreeing with the Bidenov administration about anything. Still, they are right about Ukraine, and supporting them in their defense against Putin is the right thing to do. Tucker Carlson, OTOH, is simply an idiot when it comes to Ukraine. Ukraine is corrupt, but they have tried to cut the corruption down. Putin, OTOH, is the pinnacle of Russian corruption and demands a piece of all the action. It is why he is fabulously wealthy. He and his cronies are simply looting Russia. Corrupt regimes find themselves in the position of looking for more people to loot as they have to do so when their own population is playing out. Russia was in trouble economically before the invasion.

      1. I do not know what happened to the pipeline, but hope solid evidence will emerge. Spoke with a guy connected to the Pentagon. He does not believe America did it. “Maybe Britian,” he said. But he did not know. We wait and learn.

      2. If Ukraine lies about their assanation of Dugan’s daughter, then why can’t they be lying about sabotaging the pipelines, and lying about attacking ethnic Russians in the Donbas?

      3. Lanyard: We do not know who did these things. Are we capable of suspending judgment, or must we always conclude what suits our prejudice? Repeat after me: We do not know who did these things. When we know, then we can lay blame if there is any. Until then, let’s lay off.

    3. Tucker is hopelessly naive about the Communist threat – I would go so far as to say he does not even understand the full scope of it or knows it exists.

      1. Like me Tucker grew up in California in the 80s. I have come to wonder if CA was ground zero Communist propaganda. The more I pull threads I realize how much from an early age everything I learned was tainted by disguised Communism. “Disguised” is key, because even as I was learning at age 10 about the catastrophes caused by unrestrained capitalism, I also was learning that Communism was some historical relic that only paranoid people ranted about. I got the leftwing propaganda, maybe Tucker got the rightwing version.

        If you listen to Tucker now compared to the early 2000s, he’s someone who actually absorbs worldview-challenging information. This happened re his view of the Iraq War. All of us hear, or have access to, challenging information before it sinks in (or at least many of us). I think Carlson is a few realizations away from getting it, and when he does, his trajectory so far suggests he’ll go all in. He’s actually courageous, even if he’s currently missing the boat. I haven’t written him off.

        Here’s a perhaps controversial view – what about someone like Frank Gaffney? Who’s correctly watched and sounded the alarm on China for years, and who knows and respects Nyquist; yet often when I listen to him, he shies away from stating the full threat, and instead, like Steve Bannon, focuses on Taiwan. Unlike Bannon, Gaffney will quietly point toward the possibility that Taiwan might only be the beginning. But based on his knowledge, it seems like Gaffney should sound more like Nyquist. I’m not disparaging his character, maybe there are sensible calculations or pragmatics for his posture. Maybe his assessment truly IS that China’s primarily focused on Taiwan.

        But if we’re comparing here – Tucker’s not an expert. He’s more a political observer. There are a number of China experts who should seem to know better, and maybe do, but don’t articulate the threat in the pointed way we get from Nyquist. Gaffney’s actually one of the good guys, I don’t mean to cast aspersions. Just making an observation.

      2. I agree. Gaffney is close to Bannon, and that’s a problem. He regularly appears on his show War Room Pandemic, which is a trap for catching chinese dissidents (and fooling Americans in making them think Ukraine is not a country).

      3. It is strange, it’s hard to believe he is this naive, he has the viewership without going in this direction too.

    4. When I listen to Tucker the following thoughts come to mind. The mistake in his analysis is very basic. He has accepted a Russian propaganda version of what happened in Ukraine from 2013-14. For him, the Ukrainian people did nothing. Corrupt gangsters and the CIA did everything. It was a coup, not a genuine expression of Ukrainian feeling, of wanting the government to respect the people of Ukraine; and wanting true independence from Moscow and Moscow’s stooges in the government. For Tucker Carlson, the Ukrainian people are nothing. They have no agency. They have no desire for freedom and did nothing on their own behalf. It was a Nazi gang paid by the Americans. That is all. This is demonstrably false, of course, and Tucker ought to know this. But he is too busy to check his premises. The Ukrainians are not the corrupt puppets of wicked Western interests. They stood up by the millions, on their own, making great personal sacrifices. And they are standing up now, in the war. No Western propaganda could have accomplished this. After talking to many Ukrainians over the last fifteen years, and reading extensively, I can see the Russian disinformation that was at work back in 2004 and 2010 and 2014. It was the classic divide and conquer tactic employed by a colonizing power, and I can see that those tactics failed because the Ukrainian people would not accept a divisive argument from class envy, pitting the blue collar East Ukraine vs. white collar West Ukraine, pitting Russian speakers against Ukrainian speakers. All the lies about Ukrainians killing Russian children are mere inventions. Blatant untruths for anyone who cares to investigate. Besides this, the idea that the inept CIA could outmanevuer the KGB in a former Soviet republic, on their home ground, without Ukrainians desperately wanting independence from Moscow, is absurd on its face. Equally ridiculous is the idea that America, under Obama, wanted Ukraine to break with Russia. Obama was always subservient to Moscow. His CIA was not going against Putin. He would not have dared. In fact, Obama’s minions did everything they could to interfere with the new Ukrainian political process. This interference, in my opinion, was to help Moscow get Ukraine back under its thumb. Look at Biden’s threats against Kiev, to stop a prosecutor from investigating his son’s corrupt company. This does not show Obama’s people fighting corruption in Ukraine, but helping to protect it! Tucker Carlson has not thought this through. Given Obama’s own communsit past, being mentored by a Communist Party operative (Frank Marshall Davis), Obama would not have crossed Putin. His anti-Russian stance was never genuine, and not heart-felt. Go back and read the very honest account of Obama’s Russia expert, Michael McFaul. Here is a leftist of the sincere type, by no means a Russian shill. As ambassador to Russia he became the butt of Russia’s most cruel jokes, and Obama left him in the lurch, without truly supporting him against the Kremlin’s campaign of vilification. In terms of the Revolution of Dignity, there is no doubt that the Ukrainians were the primary actors, and their intelligence services suffered an internal split as a result of the people’s rising against Moscow’s puppet government. Many officials have fled to Moscow over the last 8 years. Many have been arrested during the war. The Ukrainian people made the 2014 Revolution, in my opinion, just as their passionate desire for independence from Moscow inspired a firm determination to fight. Look at the morale on both sides in this war. Russia is the superior military power, and they are falling apart. As many as 700,000 Russians have fled Russia to escape military service. This is hardly an endorsement of Russia’s just cause. Meanwhile, Ukraine has suffered massive bombardments, including bombardment from thermobaric weapons. And the Ukrainians still fight. They did not run away. They held Kiev against encirclement. They held Nikolaev in the south. They have pushed the invader back. Ukraine has stood up to this blistering assault. Cities were leveled, tens of thousands killed. Ukraine is no proxy — any more than George Washington was a proxy of France in the American Revolution. This is my view, and I hope to write more about this in detail.

      1. Where do we see Ukrainians standing up by the millions? I see Ukrainian refugees, fleeing their country.

      2. Lanyard, your comparison of Ukraine and Russia is inept. Here is why: Ukrainian women and children are seeking refuge by fleeing abroad to escape death at Russian hands. But on the other side, Russian men of fighting age are fleeing abroad to avoid military service. The two instances speak volumes about the contending sides.

      3. Excellent explanation, and I look forward to reading more on this subject. Dispelling these myths regarding Ukraine, the Maidan Revolution, and Russia/NATO’s roles, appears to be a critical point of contention at this moment.

      4. I would add that another area of contention I have encountered is the relationship between the World Economic Forum and Russia/China. There are great number of people who imagine that the principle malign entity in this story is the WEF, and that they stand in opposition to Russia/China instead of being their tool. This leads to the erroneous conclusion that the latter deserve our support, when nothing could be further from the truth.

      5. Pretty much agreed. Actually, it’s largely because of the lies Putin’s Russia’s pushing and too many people believing them that ultimately had me quit Conservapedia, especially when it became a Putin propaganda channel. I joined Conservapedia to get away from leftist brainwashing, and now they’re pushing leftist brainwashing in a different sort, in a huge betrayal not just to me, but to Conservativism as a whole and even to Donald Trump, who BTW actually DID repeatedly condemn Putin both during his presidency and AFTER he left office. Even my mom’s being swayed slightly by the pro-Putin angle, at the very least she’s skeptical about the Ukraine news, and she’s agreeing that Putin’s a bad man ultimately. I specifically blame Rob Smith for this, and it didn’t help that he implied when he was talking about the Deep State and JFK’s assassination being tied to them that the USSR was against weapons proliferation and that the Capitalists forced them to do it, meaning he was a pro-Soviet propagandist posing as an anti-Deep Stater (left me with a lot of distrust towards anti-Deep Staters as a result).

        And yeah, good job mentioning Obama kow-towing to Putin. Let’s not forget the hot mike incident, especially when Conservapedia clearly forgot about it while claiming Obama somehow tried to subvert Putin’s Russia in 2014, despite said incident occurring two years before then.

  17. Jean, nice interview with Jeff Nyquist, just wanting to ask if you are interested on doing a stream or interview possibly with Jeff and the Hong Kong Independence Party members discussing about Hong Kong and controlled opposition

  18. You call the degenerated late stage capitalism, that Lenin called imperialism, communism. And you also call all its opponents communists. You end up calling everyone in contemporary world communist. Your ideal feudal societies all either modernized or fell to imperialism.

    1. Lenin also engaged in imperialism as well. Or have you forgotten the Polish-Soviet War where Lenin invaded Europe, giving a taste as to Communism’s true brutal nature to everyone involved (and Poland wasn’t even the target, Germany was, as he wanted to aid the German communists in overthrowing the Kaiser. Poland was in the way).

      1. Poland was integral part of Russia pre-WW1, many bolsheviks were Poles. One can argue Poland is economically colonized and imperialized nation nowadays under the EU, when foreigners own most of its economy and extract huge amounts of wealth in form of dividends and rents, wasn’t the case back then.

      2. Commit: This argument about Poland is not honest. Poland has chosen which side it wants to be on. And it did so against a subversive power (Russia). You use the word “colonized” in the same dishonest way all Marxists use it. Your mind is clouded by communist lies.

      3. If that were truly the case, why did Poland stand in the way of the Soviets and try to stop their advance even back then? If they were truly an integral part of the Bolsheviks, they’d just let them invade Germany per the Bolsheviks’ agenda.

      4. It’s natural that nations aspire for independence for other reasons than economical. I am not arguing against Polish independence, but their position was not unusual, there were many multinational entities in Europe before WW1. Often culturally oppressed nations were more industrialy developed than the oppressor.

      5. I’m not even talking economics, I’m talking politics and alliances if anything, treaties, that kind of thing.

    2. Commit: You need to read more carefully. I am quoting Bosteel, a Marxist, who says we are now in a communist era. And it is not liberal capitalism that produces feudalism. It is communist practice that produces a new form of feudalism — as we see in Russia and China and North Korea today. Communist thought now pervades the elites in the West. This is indisputable. Communist thought also pervades the elites of China and (at the highest level) the Russian elite. The two forms of communism are outwardly different, due to differing historical circumstances. One is spoiled by having total power, being unencumbered by democratic ideology; the other is theoretical and intellectual, with tentacles in the bureaucratic state (and with a clandestine element working for structures under Moscow and Beijing’s influence). This is not to say everyone is a communist. Yet the New Religion is winning the intellectual battle, overtaking society through its dominance of corporate and government bureaucracies. You only need to go into a university, or a government department, to understand what is happening. Anyone who is trained can see the communist influence pervading policy. Everything is being moved toward convergence — global communist convergence. Global warming science. Socialized medicine. Government controls along the lines of a future socialist and managed economy. You are blind, Commit, to the reality of communism’s successful advance in the West. Look at South America. When Bolsonaro falls from power, the entire continent will be under communist leaders. Venezuela was merely the first to succumb. what countries now remain?

    1. I think you are misrepresenting the article, though it is hard to read because of the faded type. This is one tiny country — Slovakia, where communism had the greatest hold. This does not represent the opinion in all “Ukraine’s western neighbors.”

  19. Regarding the discussion of Marxism as a religion or the contrary — This definition of matter in the context of dialectical materialism is taken from the writings of Alexander Spirkin, Soviet philosopher and psychologist. It is interesting to me not so much because of what it has to say about matter as because of its throwaway reference to consciousnss:

    “Matter is everything that surrounds us, that exists outside our consciousness, that does not depend on our consciousness, and that is or may be reflected directly or indirectly in consciousness. All the sciences study certain properties and relations of specific forms of matter, but not matter in its most general sense. The philosophical understanding of matter retains its significance whatever the discoveries of natural science. The concept of matter does not epistemologically mean anything except objective reality existing independently of human consciousness. Moreover, matter is the only existing objective reality: the cause, foundation, content and substance of all the diversity of the world.”

    Consciousness is not a supernatural phenomenon but it certainly is not material. Spirkin ignores it, at least in this paragraph, and non(anti) religious philosophers have been grappling with it, trying to “materialize” it, for decades.

    1. Deborah: The quote from Spirkin is typical for materialists and Marxists, and for positivists. Spirit and consciousness are considered “non-objective” and epiphenomenal. Matter is considered objective and primary. Of course, as Plato and other ancient philosophers suggested, this is a false view. In fact, the world of matter is the ever-changing, unstable, epiphenomenal, realm. That which is true forever, and eternal, is found only in the spirit, which is primary: The foundational reality. God is the the Creator Mind who made and sustains the universe. Human beings, said Plato, live in the Metaxy; that is, they dwell in-between matter and spirit. One foot in the material world, one foot in the spiritual world. Here is the metaphysical dualism that Carl Jung confessed to in his book on “Flying Saucers a Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies.”

      1. Agreed, of course. My point is that materialists don’t really know what to do with consciousness and other “non-objective” phenomena, let alone the aeviternal realm. They can’t claim that consciousness and related phenomena don’t exist, because thinking truly exists, in fact they do it themselves. If they reductively declare, “You’re just imagining that you’re thinking” they’ve backed themselves one step further into the hole…. And incongruously, as C.S. Lewis once remarked, I think in his book Miracles, atheists are among the most superstitious people in the world.

    2. Materialists do have a way of dealing with “consciousness” – they see it as contingent upon or a product of the material, really the mirror image of Hegelian dialectic whose teleology envisions the material as a projection of “consciousness” evolving to Absolute undifferentiated knowing or Spirit. Both reduce supernatural mystery to the rational unfolding of history. Hegel is where you find “the death of God.” Marx inverted Hegel to champion a materialist dialectical view of history, ironically still governed by an invisible “spirit” of history, ie, the unstoppable march of progress. Consciousness definitely factors into Marxism. First, the spiritual or supernatural is collapsed to mere human “consciousness” (same with Hegel); second mere human consciousness is defined solely in terms of subjectivity and pitted against objectivity, which is posited (echoing Kant) as the possibility of knowing a thing in-itself, thus the material replaces God (or the supernatural) as the “beyond human” realm that we humans might only hope to approach but by definition can never grasp.

  20. A bit off topic, but acutely pertinent. Eric Metaxis says it straight up.

    Prof Mattias Desmet, as well, has been another clarian voice that we must keep speaking the truth, even when it’s hard and it costs us. “History has shown us that it is when the dissident voices stop speaking out in the public space, that the masses start to commit atrocities.”
    Full interview below player.
    Sharing this because he talks of France’s roll in first weaponizing/organizing of propaganda by Napoleon’s government.
    I haven’t heard him share some of the things he does in the above interview before. It’s a bit different from the usual. Some may disagree as he seems to focus on our western elites. Principles apply, however.

    At the heart, this global totalitarian movement/mindset is rooted in a deep spiritual issue– whether you have a Judeo-Christian worldview or another.

  21. I thought this was sent already, but my phone powered down apparently. When it came back on, it appears it was not sent. My apologies if this was sent twice.

    A bit off topic, but pertinent. Eric Metaxis says it straight up.

    Prof Mattias Desmet, as well, has been another clarian voice that we must keep speaking the truth, even when it’s hard and it costs us. “History has shown us that it is when the dissident voices stop speaking out in the public space, that the masses start to commit atrocities.”
    Sharing this because Desmet talks of France’s roll in first weaponizing/organizing of propaganda by Napoleon’s government.
    I haven’t heard him share some of the things he does in the above interview before. It’s a bit different from the usual. Some may disagree as he seems to focus on our western elites. Principles apply, however.

    At the heart, this global totalitarian movement/mindset is rooted in a deep spiritual issue– whether you have a Judeo-Christian worldview or another. Desmet addresses the “mechanistic” worldview vs the materialistic discussed above. Not sure the fine differences there.

    1. “Prof Mattias Desmet, as well, has been another clarian voice that we must keep speaking the truth, even when it’s hard and it costs us. “History has shown us that it is when the dissident voices stop speaking out in the public space, that the masses start to commit atrocities.”

      Dr. Peter Breggin, M.D., a psychiatrist, reacted angrily to Desmet’s specific idea about a “mass formation psychosis”. He says it dangerously removes blame from the very groups and individuals that are supposed to provide checks and balances and instead are lying in coordination to the American people. He may have implied that Desmet is a part of a controlled opposition.

      1. I have heard Desmet correct people several times. He only speaks of “mass formation”. He has not added psychosis, ever. He does not want it associated with mental illness. It is not. It is a human phenomenon/tendency to go along with totalitarian group-think on a whole new level (national or global in scope) when there are the four preexisting conditions working within a culture or people group.
        1)People are socially isolated, have lack of social bonds.
        2)Lack of a sense of meaning
        3)Free floating anxiety
        4)Free floating discontent

        My understanding is he is addressing the complexities of a human soul, and how it has come into agreement/submission with tyrannical deceptions at certain times in history, even unto its own and other’s harm. However, I have never heard him imply that does not make one responsible for the actions and choices one makes when operating within a mass formation. Whether in mass formation or not, one is still accountable. Condoning or committing murder, hatred, gossip, slander, lying, betrayal etc is still condoning or committing murder, hatred, gossip, slander, lying and betrayal — whether one was deceived or not.

        When he first came out, the point was to fight the global mass formation by encouraging people to start directly connecting with one another again, in a meaning way. Step out of the Covid isolation, for instance. Start reversing the 4 preexisting criteria and start reconnecting the culture relationally. He also stressed the importance of the minority people not in the mass formation, to keep speaking out the truth. Those are the key elements that have the potential to create enough disconnance in the culture to shift/break the hypnotic-like state people in a totalitarian mass formation exhibit.

  22. Off topic but very interesting:

    US Buying $290M Worth Of Anti-Radiation Drugs for Use In “Nuclear Emergency”

    As part of long-standing, ongoing efforts to be better prepared to save lives following radiological and nuclear emergencies, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is purchasing a supply of the drug Nplate from Amgen USA Inc; Nplate is approved to treat blood cell injuries that accompany acute radiation syndrome in adult and pediatric patients (ARS).

  23. > “Useful Idiots, rioting in the streets. Antifa and The Proud Boys and the BLM, agent provocateurs, all, are un-American.”

    I agree on this, both are brownshirts of the imperialist establishment. Harmless. Notice that the so called Proud Boys care more about upholding imperialism and Zionism than own nation.

    Only a mass movement that includes elements of military and law enforcement class can achieve anything.

    1. Ah yes, Antifa and BLM, both Communist organizations operated by the Marxist Left, are working for “imperialists”.

      Your propaganda is truly embarrassing.

      1. Modern “Antifa” are anarchists at best, mostly just clueless idiots, paid by monopolist money to harass communists and all other working class and anti-imperialist movements on gatherings and elsewhere.

        If they were anti-fascist, they would turn against those who feed them.

  24. With the recent naval formation off the Alaskan coast and this North Korean air formation, the Communists are trying to increase their feints as much as possible so they can get as close as possible to what would simulate an actual strike so that we become normalized and desensitized.

    The South Koreans say they have never seen this many planes (12 total, 8 fighter jets, 4 bombers) approach their border.

    Clearly the Communists want to simulate an actual attack on us, pull back and claim it’s an “exercise”, do it again, pull back, until one of them is the real thing.

    Incredibly dangerous stuff.

      1. Jeff, is there any particular reason you allow this paid Cheka propagandist to spew his filth here?

      2. If I am not mistaken, Commit is expressing a Marxist-Leninist point of view. The great fault of anti-communists is their ignorance of communism. Here is your chance to ask questions and learn. Why does he think the way he does? How does he see liberalism? How does he view Western socialists? Many keys Marxist concepts are shown. If you want to defeat communism you will have to learn it. Those who do not know their enemy will suffer defeats.

      3. I can see the logic behind letting him speak in order to show what Marxist-Leninist views entail. But I also see it tremendously backfiring on us, like King Louis’s strategy of simply letting Voltaire and his Encyclopedists speak and even throw out the Jesuits from France on their behalf instead of having him and his ilk executed only resulted in the Reign of Terror and Louis’s demise.

        And I know Lenin was the guy who said Marxism had no dogma, but on the other hand, Lenin was also the one who said in “What Is to Be Done?” ““The only choice is: either the bourgeois or the socialist ideology. There is no middle course (for humanity has not created a ‘third’ ideology, and, moreover, in a society torn by class antagonisms there can never be a non-class or above-class ideology). Hence to belittle the socialist ideology in any way, to turn away from it in the slightest degree, means to strengthen bourgeois ideology. […] Every solution that offers a middle path is a deception . . . or an expression of the dull-wittedness of the petty-bourgeois democrats.””, which does seem to imply dogma ultimately, at least in the sense of “my way or the highway.” (Obviously, it won’t be dogma regarding standards or consistency, as Lenin made clear they are not to have standards or consistency at all. In fact, rule-followers even of their views tended to have the highest execution rate).

      4. How is letting him post here going to backfire on us? Marxists dominate every information channel already. Everyone here knows his ideas are wrong. What is he going to do, convert YOU to Marxism? Is that what you fear? If you’re that easy you are going to join the reds anyway.

      5. “How is letting him post here going to backfire on us? Marxists dominate every information channel already. Everyone here knows his ideas are wrong.”

        Several people also thought Voltaire’s works were wrong as well back in the day (heck, the Jesuits and various Catholic priests even tried to stop their publishing to no avail), yet they still got published, and we got the Jacobins and the French Revolution out of it that destroyed Christendom. Heck, most people even viewed Marx as an egotistical crackpot, and he died with a small funeral, showing just how little people thought of his ideas. Despite that, Lenin managed to introduce it to Russia, and then to the Eastern Bloc. If most people know their ideas were wrong, those guys would have been permanently silenced, mocked to death, and treated as the crackpot theories they truly are rather than accepted to the masses in even the slightest manner.

        “What is he going to do, convert YOU to Marxism? Is that what you fear? If you’re that easy you are going to join the reds anyway.”

        I have NO intention of joining the reds after what they did to Christians. Heck, I’m not even willing to join Voltaire’s sect, either. If anything, I’d rather exterminate the reds, leave them extinct, and leave everyone too afraid to follow the reds example. But I also realize that people can STILL be easily swayed by their talk. Hillary Clinton, for example, used to be a die-hard Goldwater Republican. All it took was her local priest introducing her to Saul Alinsky to turn her into a radical leftist. And let’s not forget how Voltaire managed to easily subvert the National Academy of France, at the time the most prestigeous literary school, despite not even being allowed to teach due to his notorious reputation as a die-hard atheist/anti-Christian, which Timothy Dwight, Edmund Burke, and Abbe Barruell gave a direct link to the French Revolution (and apparently may have even influenced Karl Marx in turn, as his own father read him Voltaire’s Candide as bedtime stories, which obviously influenced Marx while growing up). King Louis and his court clearly underestimated him, and they paid the price.

    1. I think a wise policy is, if it looks like an attack, go ahead and treat it as an attack. Don’t sit and do nothing as if they are bluffing.

      If someone is coming at me or a loved one as if they are going to harm them, I’m going to neutralize the threat, whether or not they were actually going to carry it through. Because I’m not waiting until it’s too late to find out.

  25. The Ukrainian government denied any involvement with the death of Alexander Dugin’s daughter,

    “Ukraine, of course, has nothing to do with yesterday’s explosion,” advisor Mykhailo Podolyak said.

    “We are not a criminal state, unlike Russia, and definitely not a terrorist state.”

    On Wednesday, U.S. intelligence agencies believed that Darya Dugina’s assassination last August was authorized by elements of the Ukrainian government, according to the New York Times.

    The United States took no part in the attack, either by providing intelligence or other assistance, officials said. U.S. officials also said they were not aware of the operation ahead of time and would have opposed the killing had they been consulted. Afterward, U.S. officials admonished Ukrainian officials over the assassination, they said.

    1. Intelligence sources also said Trump was a Russian puppet. One cannot take such reports at face value, even if they are repeated by the New York Times. Especially if they are repeated by the New York Times. But then, nobody knows who planted that bomb in Dugin’s car. We may never know. But whoever did it, was morally wrong. The act should be condemned.

      1. So only now, after Biden gives Zelensky missiles which can reach, far across the border from Ukraine, deep, into Russia, we hear that Ukraine lies about it’s engagement in war crimes. Or does the US blame Ukraine for an assassination that the CIA actually executed? After all, a fine, upstanding, respectable Democracy such as Ukraine, which conducts elections more honestly than does the United States, commit war crimes, then lie about that?

      2. I delete most of what you write, Lanyard. But it is worth knocking down another of your many toothless lies. Biden has not given Zelensky missiles that can reach deep into Russia. And you must realize your soul is imperiled by these lies you spread, and your hatred of the innocent. You are shameless.

      3. NATO must make it impossible for Russia to use nuclear weapons – Zelensky

        President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky believes that “NATO should make it impossible for Russia to use nuclear weapons.”

        “Preemptive strikes are needed so that they know what awaits them if they use nuclear weapons. Not the other way around, waiting for Russia’s nuclear strikes and then saying, ‘oh, you’ve done that, then get this,'” he said on Thursday, speaking via video link at Australia’s think tank, the Lowy Institute.

        NATO, Zelensky said, “should reconsider how it uses its pressure.”


        A special address by the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy

      4. Zelensky spoke of the difficulties of deterrence. He said, in context, “There is a need to review this procedure.” He did not talk of “preemptive nuclear strikes,” but “preventive strikes” of unspecified kind. This is vague. What has been said elsewhere by Ukrainians is that U.S. satellites can detect Russian strike preparations in progress. Why let these go forward? Conventional strikes could prevent nuclear strikes. It is a suggestion I have heard from American military experts as well. Obviously, Zelensky would like to think his country will be protected by the USA. No doubt many in Ukraine are scared of what will happen next and this way of talking reassures them. In other words, Zekensky may be trying to dampen fears. His statement was followed by his stated belief that Putin will not use nuclear weapons because Putin values his own life. Another attempt to dampen fear, to be sure. Zelensky will be criticized for these answers despite the fact that Putin has implied that he will now nuke Ukraine after annexing the four territories which are being actively liberated by the Ukrainian Army. I think Zelensky, under the circumstances, is fighting a war and is not looking at things with the usual trust in deterrence. For his country, deterrence has already failed.

      5. Who could have done it? Russia? The United States? Ukraine? Outer Mongolia?

        Maybe the United States, finally now leaks that Ukraine assassinated Darya Dugan, in order to divert from the fact that Biden stated that if Russia were to invade Ukraine, that he would eliminate the Nord Stream Pipeline, and make US think that Zelensky did all that?

      6. Yes. And Biden recently attempted to introduce a dead woman to the microphone, thinking she was present. His staff had to explain to him that she was dead. This is not a person who knows what he is saying.

      7. Sept 25 (Reuters) – President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said in an interview broadcast on Sunday that Ukraine had received sophisticated air defence systems from the United States.

        It was the first acknowledgment that Ukraine had received the National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS), long sought by Kyiv and whose shipment was approved by Washington late last month.

        Radius of engagement for each of 12 missile launchers per battery for (NASAMS 2) is 30km and for (NASAMS 3 / AMRAAM-ER) is 50km. Radar detection and engagement range = 120 km

      8. Russians living in areas near the Ukrainian border are voicing growing concern as Kyiv’s counteroffensive around the northeastern city of Kharkiv has brought Ukrainian forces to Russia’s doorstep, according to posts on local social media groups.

        “I’d like to find out how secure the residents of Shebekino are as a result of recent events? We’re scared,” posted Olga Podtyolkova, who lives in the town of Shebekino about five kilometers from a border crossing with Ukraine.

        “They are firing within earshot. Are we already getting bombed?” Natalia Lyovina, a resident of Valuyki, a village some 15 kilometers from Ukraine

      9. Zelensky, has repeatedly called for nuclear war. Now, he has missiles which can attack 18 to 31 miles, across the border into Russia. You would be less ignorant if you would get your facts straight before calling your fans, liars, Jeff, but then as long as you can delete comments, maybe you can do that faster than most can read?

      10. 18 to 30 miles is not “deep into Russia.” You have no common sense. Stop posting here. I am tired of responding to your endless stupidities.

  26. Hello :

    Just a comment. It was very interesting to hear Jean mention the Freemasons. It is my opinion that the Freemasons have been a force for bad since their inception. In the war of Russia / China armies vs. the U.S army they are not relevant. But in the battle of good vs. evil they are very relevant.

    Off and on they have even been influential in politics and even revolutions. ( Portugal at the time of Fatima, France, the Cristero war, etc. ). It is not that I feel a need to prove that they are influential. If one reads Catholic literature it is very often that the Freemasons appear, opposing the Catholic Church. And these are not shadowy accusations. But people with names that were known to be Masons and were bad actors. Whether a person would agree that they have influenced history, I would submit that their ideas themselves are very bad.

    Some ideas I feel are harmful ( similar / identical to New Age ) :

    1) Indifferentism – That it does not matter what religion you believe. ( Of course it matters. There is a moral difference between fundamental Islam or pagan worship and good Christianity or orthodox Judaism ( or some benign Asian philosophies ).

    2) They say that you have to believe in a god to be a mason – but don’t believe it too much or criticize others’ religion. It is almost as if they ignore agnostics – they don’t need to be opposed or their faith corrupted. But focus on those who actually believe in God and practice it. Then encourage a belief that , in form, states a belief in God – but is emptied of all content. And by all means try to compromise your enemies if possible. ( As Fr. Ripperger says : the Communists are pickpocket # 1. He says stick-em-up and takes your wallet and threatens or does violence. In his explanation, the Masons are pickpocket #2. Standing behind you and taking your wallet while #1 is doing his thing. His explanation is an allusion to pickpockets in a certain part of Italy. I take it that the Masons are trying to steal your soul.

    3) It is said that Mazzini and Lenin had communications. It seems that they both agreed that there should be a revolution. But Mazzini was oddly silent about what should come after. Almost as if the revolution and mayhem was a goal in itself. Lenin had plans about what to do after.

    4) New Age magazine ( no longer published ) ( put out by Scottish Rite Freemasonry ) openly suggested that masons should work to change laws – in a direction that most conservatives would find too “progressive” and harmful.

    5) Militant secularism – A burning hatred of true religion as burst forth in the French revolution.

    So if a politician is a high-ranking Mason, I would be suspicious of him.

    Also I do find it offensive if people say that my assertion of the Masonic ” conspiracy” is Anti-Semitic. It is not on my radar. Although some Jews are Masons. Last time I checked, Pike, Mazzini, Manly Hall, Crowley were not Jewish. Although Jews can be used as a cloak to protect Masons from criticism.

    Anyhow, feel free to delete this as it may be off topic or a hornet’s nest of distraction from your important points.

    All the best.

      1. I am in no way an expert on Freemasonry, but I once met a Master Mason who knew about Golitsyn and agreed with him. He told me that the French Masons (Grand Orient) are the problem. The letters of George Washington with various people indicate to me that the American Masons were indeed a different creed than the French Jacobin Masons.

      2. Yes, french masons of the Grand Orient de France dominate in France since the 3rd Republic and have banned any mention to God, in any shape or form (Great architect of the universe in particular).

      3. The Catholic Church, prohibits Catholics from joining the Masons, including the Knights Of Columbus. This according to the pre Vatican II, ‘Handbook Of Catholic Practices’.

      4. “Yes, french masons of the Grand Orient de France dominate in France since the 3rd Republic and have banned any mention to God, in any shape or form (Great architect of the universe in particular).”

        I wouldn’t even be surprised if the Grand Orient de France dominated France dominated France since the FIRST republic, since Voltaire was a member of that group, and there’s evidence to suggest that Voltaire subverted that group to be even more radically anti-God than before. Certainly Abbe Barruell speculated that was the case.

    1. Re: Fabio Boss on French Rite being the problem

      Comports with Germans making a beeline for their archives in Paris (subsequently falling into Soviet hands where a young Dugin could peruse them). I am aware of at least one letter in the George Washington correspondence querying him directly regarding the Adam Weishaupt trial and lodges being compromised by his ilk, to which he replied, “No, not to my knowledge.” more or less (the man was French).

      1. Maybe Mr Russell?

        “I believe notwithstanding, that none of the Lodges in this Country are contaminated with the principles ascribed to the Society of the Illuminati.”

        There is also this interesting letter:

        “It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am.

        The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies , endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of seperation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder , or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a seperation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned.”

      2. There was a real struggle in early U.S. history over the French Revolution. You had Washington and Adams on one side, Jefferson and his Party on the other. The Federalists did not prevail in the end, yet Jefferson admitted in old age, in a letter to Adams, that Adams had been right.

  27. “Commit: Surely, as a communist, you believe in the “withering away of the state.” One might call you an anarchist, too. Right?”

    Not really I don’t believe anything close. Strong state is necessary, who believes society can self-organize is an idiot. Read Marx’s “On Authority”.

    1. Didn’t the Manifesto make clear that under Communism, the state would fade away? So how are you going to get a strong state if it fades away from existence per what Marx stated, presumably leaving behind in its place the same kind of thing Vendee went through during the Reign of Terror under Grignon?

      1. When Lenin and Marx talked about the withering away of the state, they meant having it turn out like 1793 where everyone destroyed the state and then engaged in lawless debauchery, even destroying the church.

      1. I think it is misinterpretation of Lenin. He talks about state as a tool of enforcing discipline. Not as a unit of organization, which always will be needed in one form or other.

        In a distant utopist future, when people become sufficiently selfless and self disciplined, state will gradually wither, but not sooner, according to Lenin. Definitely not in lifetime of living people.

        I think it is naive thinking and cannot be fully achieved.

        But it is a beautiful ideal, to which society can aspire to converge. I think it is closer to human nature than the capitalist model promoting selfishness and personal gains at the expense of others.

      2. I didn’t say the withering away would happen quickly. The state will eventually either. However long it takes. So you just admitted my point.

      3. > “When Lenin and Marx talked about the withering away of the state, they meant having it turn out like 1793 where everyone destroyed the state and then engaged in lawless debauchery”

        They talked about replacing bourgeoise state with proletariat dictatorship, which is nothing like lawless debauchery. After a generation or two, when old class resentments disappear, replacing proletarian state with a meritocratic state of all people.

      4. “They talked about replacing bourgeoise state with proletariat dictatorship, which is nothing like lawless debauchery. After a generation or two, when old class resentments disappear, replacing proletarian state with a meritocratic state of all people.”

        You’ve got it all wrong. Marx and Lenin specifically used as their template Robespierre’s Reign of Terror, which if you read Operation Parricide, or even Jacobin Memoirs by Abbe Barruell, did in fact have lawless debauchery as the main aspects. Heck, Lenin himself even tried to get RID of law. I’ll even quote Leninthink by Gary Saul Morson for you regarding that bit:

        “A special logic governs the Leninist approach to morality, legality, and rights. In his famous address to the Youth Leagues, Lenin complains that bourgeois thinkers have slanderously denied that Bolsheviks have any ethics. In fact,

        We reject any morality based on extra-human and extra-class concepts. We say that this is a deception . . . . We say that morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the proletariat’s class struggle. . . . That is why we say that to us there is no such thing as a morality that stands outside human society; that is a fraud. To us morality is subordinated to the interests of the proletariat’s class struggle.

        When people tell us about morality, we say: to a Communist all morality lies in this united discipline and conscious mass struggle against the exploiters.

        In short, Bolshevik morality holds that whatever contributes to Bolshevik success is moral, whatever hinders it is immoral.

        Imagine someone saying: “my detractors claim I have no morals, but that is sheer slander. On the contrary, I have a very strict moral code, from which I never deviate: look out for number 1.” We might reply: the whole point of a moral code is to restrain you from acting only out of self-interest. Morality begins with number 2. A moral code that says you must do what you regard as your self-interest is no moral code at all. The same is true for a code that says the Communist Party is morally bound to do whatever it regards as in its interest.

        Rabelais’s pleasure-seeking utopia, the Abbey of Thélème, was governed, like all abbeys, by a rule. In this case, however, the rule was an anti-rule: Fay çe que vouldras, “Do as you wish!” People were to be restrained from yielding to any restraints. Ever since, such self-canceling imperatives have been called Thelemite commands.

        Bolshevik legality was also Thelemite. If by law one means a code that binds the state as well as the individual, specifies what is and is not permitted, and eliminates arbitrariness, then Lenin entirely rejected law as “bourgeois.” He expressed utter contempt for the principles “no crime without law” and “no punishment without a crime.” Recall that he defined the dictatorship of the proletariat as rule based entirely on force absolutely unrestrained by any law. His more naïve followers imagined that rule by sheer terror would cease when Bolshevik hold on power was secure, or when the New Economic Policy relaxed restrictions on trade, but Lenin made a point of disillusioning them. “It is the biggest mistake to think that nep will put an end to the terror. We shall return to the terror, and to economic terror,” he wrote. When D. I. Kursky, People’s Commissariat of Justice, was formulating the first Soviet legal code, Lenin demanded that terror and arbitrary use of power be written into the code itself! “The law should not abolish terror,” he insisted. “It should be substantiated and legalized in principle, without evasion or embellishment.”

        So far as I know, never before had the law prescribed lawlessness. Do as you wish, or else. Lenin had ascribed the fall of the Paris Commune to the failure to eliminate all law, and so the Soviet state was absolutely forbidden from exercising any restraint on arbitrary use of power. Indeed, officials were punished for such restraint, which Lenin called impermissible slackness and Stalin would deem lack of vigilance.

        The same logic applied to rights. On paper, the Soviet Constitution of 1936 guaranteed more rights than any other state in the world. I recall a Soviet citizen telling me that people in the ussr had absolute freedom of speech—so long as they did not lie. I recalled this curious concept of freedom when a student defended complete freedom of speech except for hate speech—and hate speech included anything he disagreed with. Whatever did not seem hateful was actually a “dog-whistle.”

        As far back as 1919, Soviet parlance distinguished between purely formal law and what was called “the material determination of the crime.” A crime was not an action or omission specified in the formal code, because every “socially dangerous” act (or omission) was automatically criminal. Article 1 of the Civil Code of October 31, 1922 laid down that civil rights “are protected by the law unless they are exercised in contradiction to their social and economic purposes.” Like the “material” definition of crime, the concept of “purposefulness” (tselesoobraznost’) created a system of Thelemite rights: the state was absolutely prohibited from interfering with your rights unless it wanted to.”

      5. Re:
        [ commit says:
        October 6, 2022 at 4:12 pm

        “…closer to human nature than the capitalist model … ]

        You make a false dichotomy, Commit.

        Capitalism is doing business that benefits both buyer and seller, so that everybody wins. Perhaps you are thinking of, Mercantilism?

      6. @L Lanyard To be fair, I fail to see much of a difference between Capitalism and Mercantilism, and if anything, unlike the Marxist-Leninist user Commit, I support BOTH Capitalism and Mercantilism.

      7. Re:
        [ OTNESSE says:
        OCTOBER 6, 2022 AT 10:37 PM
        “…Capitalism and Mercantilism… ]

        Prior to the advent of corporations, there were trusts, that have an expiration date; corporations do not. There was much effort to prevent the legalization which instituted, corporations, but those against, failed to stop the crooked legislators. Then, under martial law, the 14th Amendment was implemented without a proper Constitutional quorum, granting corporations the same privileges as a person. This is what has led to the formation of labor unions, and other stop gap measures to defend from monopolistic tendencies of ruthless cutthroats in business.

  28. The truth and reality of every situation is what Gods word says about it, His word which is true, forever, eternal and never fails. The word is God (John 1:1). God is the word, the word became human and made his home among us (John 1:14).
    Gods word never changes. Gods truth never changes. God never changes. Gods truth is the standard to which all things must conform. His word created the world and the world is sustained by His word, whether the majority agrees with it or not. Humans thoughts, opinions and traditions have negative consequences and we reap what we sow more than we know (Gal 6:7). The truth brings clarity and victory and the absence of it leads to confusion and defeat. Humans are finite beings with limited knowledge and deceitful hearts (Jer 17:19). God is not a man, so he does not lie.
    He is not a human, so He does not change His mind. Has He ever spoken and failed to act? Has He ever promised and not carried through? (Numbers 23:19).

    We live with a battle going on inside us against the spirit and the flesh. As we train ourselves to walk by the spirit (Gal 5:22) we learn to overcome the flesh. “The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the spirit is life and peace (Rom 8:6). We are to renew are minds in the word everyday to have the mind of Christ (Phil 2:5, Rom 12:2).

    The Devil reigns where Christ does not, a man is in the enemies kingdom and under his power when not in Christ’s. In Christ we are to live and move and have our being. The Lord will hand us over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so our spirit may be saved on the day the Lord returns (1 cor 5:5).

    There is only one way, one truth and one life. America has been led astray because it has let its thinking go astray and so it’s heart and mind have become darkened and God has given us over to a deprived mind, that does what it shouldn’t do. (Rom 1:21-31).
    America is in a crisis of ignorance, unbelief and lack of true knowledge and for this we will be destroyed? His word has the power to heal us and deliver us from destruction (Ps 107:20).

    Thank you Jeff for keeping on! Don’t ever give up!

    1. “The truth and reality of every situation is what Gods word says about it, His word which is true, forever, eternal and never fails. The word is God (John 1:1). God is the word, the word became human and made his home among us (John 1:14).
      Gods word never changes. Gods truth never changes. God never changes. Gods truth is the standard to which all things must conform. His word created the world and the world is sustained by His word, whether the majority agrees with it or not.”

      Pretty much agreed, God’s in charge, so he deserves to rule over us.

      “God is not a man, so he does not lie. He is not a human, so He does not change His mind. Has He ever spoken and failed to act? Has He ever promised and not carried through?”

      There actually WAS one instance where God DID promise something and didn’t carry it out, or at the very least change his mind. The Golden Calf reading. He promised to destroy the recently evacuated Israelites over their depravity in creating the Golden Calf, but then backed out of it after Moses talked him out of it. If he was the type to NEVER back out of promises, he’d ignore Moses and wipe them out (heck, maybe even wipe them out without even giving Moses a chance at talking him out of it), and if anything make sure Moses himself was wiped out with them for not siding with him absolutely like a robot.

      And then there’s the Sodom and Gomorrah bit, where God entered a barter game with Abraham, DESPITE his being omniscient and thus knowing since before even creating Adam that there were no innocents in the city except for Lot and his family. Lying means to willfully and knowingly deceive, and when God enters a barter game with someone despite knowing full well his opponent loses, he effectively is lying since he gave them false hopes that there even WAS a way to save Sodom and Gomorrah. If I were in God’s position during that time, if I were fully omniscient, and Abraham tried to even ask, what I’d instead do as a full demonstration of honesty is furiously denounce him for even thinking of doing a barter game with an omniscient being like me, fully eviscerate him by making clear that no matter what number he narrows it down to, there are no innocents outside of Lot and his family, even proceed to effectively Penance Stare him into submission, before sending the angels out to slaughter them, and then take pride in my omniscience outright breaking Abraham, even spending the time gloating about I’m omnibenevolent, and humanity is destined for the scrap heap, before offering a token of mercy by warping Lot and his family (save for his wife) out of Sodom and Gomorrah. The reason I’d do that is because I’d know full well to enter a barter game with Abraham WOULD in effect be lying to him, period, due to my omniscience. Basically, I see omniscience the same way as fatalism, like, I don’t know, how Bahamut acted in the reject fate ending of Final Fantasy XV: I guess another way of putting God’s omniscience is “Everything that has transpired has done so according to my design.” or “Your plans have been invalidated, even before execution.” Or even “Their fate was decided centuries ago, as is the fate of this world.” And bear in mind, Bahamut clearly isn’t a man either, not human or anything, he’s an Astral.

      “There is only one way, one truth and one life. America has been led astray because it has let its thinking go astray and so it’s heart and mind have become darkened and God has given us over to a deprived mind, that does what it shouldn’t do. (Rom 1:21-31).
      America is in a crisis of ignorance, unbelief and lack of true knowledge and for this we will be destroyed? His word has the power to heal us and deliver us from destruction (Ps 107:20).”

      We definitely have crises of ignorance and lacking true knowledge, that much I’ll agree with. However, I will NOT say that we are lacking in belief. We still have various churches open, and still have people going to church to worship. Heck, we even still had churches open even DURING COVID. Let’s just hope that we get the world, including America, firmly under God’s totalitarian control (and yes, God ultimately desires totalitarian control over his creation).

      1. Otness: If God wanted totalitarian control, as you insist, he would have it; and the smell of your smoldering carcass would be an immediate warning against your kind of subversive impertinence to all and sundry.

      2. I’ll take being a smoldering carcass if it ensures God goes to town with his powers, not hold back. But I’m NOT a subversive. Like you, I want Communism dead due to its trying to destroy Christianity in particular, and I also want to ensure God rules everyone, period, no more split ups between religions. In fact, I HAVE to ensure God’s will or else he will destroy me.

        Also like you, I want the various stuff God wants gone, gone. LGBT promotion, gone. Anything that goes against God’s commands, gone. Atheism, gone. I guess my view of God is close to Jonathan Edwards’ sermon.

  29. “The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much!” Abraham was a great example of how earnestly we should be praying for our families and country to be saved from destruction. Abraham may have failed in not praying for everyone but he did personally know and trust in an all powerful God and knew nothing is impossible for Him.

    God doesn’t have to give us answers, we are just to submit to Him. Does the clay say to the potter, “why are you doing this?” Does the ax raise itself above the person who is sawing it? Who are we to talk back against God? “Woe to him who quarrels with his maker” (Isa 10:15, Rom 9:20, Isa 45:9).

    When I don’t understand something I pray and ask God to reveal it to me and He usually points at me…it is my thinking and perspective that was wrong. Human reasoning gets us into trouble. Trusting God brings freedom.

    We can say we believe and go to church but only God knows who is truly saved. We need sound doctrine in the churches for strong families. As the family goes so goes a nation.

    We are saved by grace and those that are saved must thank God only and those who perish must blame themselves only.
    God doesn’t send people to hell, they send themselves.

    Communicate with your maker, and be patient, He will respond.

    1. As an addendum, I actually pray before I eat and before I sleep. I even pray when hearing of someone in need. So don’t assume I don’t pray.

  30. > “Brezhnev, eh?”

    Maybe I am wrong with terminology, by the meritocratic system I mean what Soviets called socialism

    the socialist constitution from 1936 formally introduced a meritocratic system.

    It stated

    “The principle applied in the U.S.S.R. is that of socialism : “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.””

    In Czechoslovakia similar principle was formalized with 1960 constitution, since then, in theory, pre-revolution class background should not matter. According to many communists nowadays this was premature.

    I think it correlated with completion of collectivisation of agriculture.

    It is possible that in the USSR this principle was partly abandoned under Khruscev with his wage narrowing policies and later returned with Brezhnev and Andropov.

    1. In Czechoslovakia the term proletarian dictatorship is used for the period before 1960 and socialism for the period after. Maybe I am wrong about the Soviet terminology. Seems state of all people and socialism is not the same in English. I can’t read Russian sources so really can’t tell.

  31. Biden is once again, courting Venezuela for oil. Saudi Arabia with the Prince now officially, in charge, favors Russia. Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Russia, are all members of OPEC. I don’t see Venezuela breaking the pact. OPEC is cutting oil production as Biden depletes the US oil reserves.

    This might explain why Biden is tossing Zelensky under the bus, accusing him of murdering Darya Dugan. Blame the pipeline sabotage as well as the shelling of the nuclear plants, and busting the dams below Chernobyl, along with manufacturing biological weapons, not to mention palling around with Hunter Biden, and you’ve got Zelensky as one, perfectly made to order scapegoat so that Putin can save face, and sell Europe the energy it so desperately needs, and whatever the price.

    1. Biden will simply announce that in consideration of the recent elections, Russian’s have accepted Russia’s expansion. Who can argue? All anyone has to do is to visit this blog site, and see that Jeff repeatedly has proclaimed that elections in Ukraine are free and fair. So, then, were the elections in Ukraine, or in Russia?

      1. I doubt any countries outside the communist bloc accept the referenda in Ukraine. Nobody reputable thinks Zelensky’s election in 2019 was fraudulent. Please cite a source or stop with this already.

      2. I’m speculating what Biden will do, in light of the oil shortage he created. Prove that the recent, Russian referenda in Ukraine, was fraudulent, instead of doubting what other countries might think. If Biden says that the US honors the Russian referenda in Ukraine, is Europe going to object, or are they ready to make a deal? Zelensky, is dispensable. Ukraine would still have infrastructure if Zelensky had spared the lives of his own people, and implemented autonomy for the Donbas, as the Ukraine Parliament voted in favor of, pursuant to Minsk II.

      3. Lanyard: This comment of yours has problems. First, Biden cannot do what you suggest without damaging himself politically and internationally. He must continue to pretend to be anti-Russian. He has no choice. This is the game that was decided on in 2012. I believe the Russians told the Democrat leaders — Hillary C., Obama, and Kerry — to follow this line (as a necessary alibi). There were private meetings, in 2012 and 2013, between Sergie Lavrov and Clinton, and Lavrov and Kerry, in which American translators were excluded. Meetings with no witnesses. These took place exactly when US policy began to pivot against Putin under Obama. You will find the details in Michael McFaul’s astounding autobiographical account — and much more. Furthermore, your comments on Zelenskiy and the Ukrainian people are off the mark. Zelenskiy is not sacrificing these people. They chose a comedian on purpose to lead them because comedians are inherently self-effacing. Ukrainians no longer trust politicians and their grandiose claims — even as we have stopped trusting them here in America. In fact, Zelenskiy failed as a politician in many ways. But his role as every comedian knows, is to bond with his audience, and reflect back their thoughts. It is not Zelenskiy who has effected all this change. It is the Ukrainians themselves. Zelenskiy has done in this war what he was expected to do — by the Ukrainians. It is the Ukrainian people who would oppose him if he tried to give their territory away. So he cannot go against THEM. The people of Ukraine — Russian speaking and Ukrainian speaking — violently oppose Russian annexation. Since you do not understand this it is clear that you understand nothing. The soldiers who volunteered to fight in Donbas, against the Russians, in 2014, were overwhelmingly Russian speakers. Zelenskiy himself is a Russian-speaking Ukrainian. Your head is so stuffed with Moscow’s propaganda myths you cannot see all the details you have missed.

      4. ONE DAY AGO

        The European Union on Thursday adopted a fresh round of sanctions on Russia in response to Moscow’s annexation of four Ukrainian territories, which was legally finalized by President Vladimir Putin this week.

        “This new sanctions package against Russia is proof of our determination to stop Putin’s war machine and respond to his latest escalation with fake ‘referenda’ and illegal annexation of Ukrainian territories,” the European Council’s press service quoted EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell as saying.

    1. I do not understand Ukraine and Brazil refraining from that vote. I suppose the Ukrainians are afraid of China retaliating on them by helping Russia. But they should not be afraid, as they tell everyone else. More disappointing is Brazil. I have met Bolsonaro a few years ago, and we both talked about China being bad. So this disappoints me.

      1. When I read this article, I was thinking something similar, feeling let down by Brazil in this situation. I have never met Mr. Bolsonaro, of course, but I had watched Tucker Carlson’s documentary “Tucker Carlson Originals: The China Takeover — Brazil”; Bolsonaro was interviewed for the show, and I had come away very impressed with him.

      2. > “I do not understand Ukraine and Brazil refraining from that vote.”

        maybe would be too hypocritical to support separatist movements in China and fighting them at home

  32. “Like me Tucker grew up in California in the 80s. I have come to wonder if CA was ground zero Communist propaganda. The more I pull threads I realize how much from an early age everything I learned was tainted by disguised Communism. “Disguised” is key, because even as I was learning at age 10 about the catastrophes caused by unrestrained capitalism, I also was learning that Communism was some historical relic that only paranoid people ranted about. I got the leftwing propaganda, maybe Tucker got the rightwing version.”

    I grew up in California in the 50’s and the discussions about communism on this blog have reawakened old memories.

    My father, studiously religious and inherently moral, was employed in the Mare Island Shipyards on San Francisco Bay during WWII. He later told me that there were communist organizers there and he characterized them as “liars”. I was very bookish and reclusive, and from time-to-time, he would remind me that he would not tolerate a communist in the family–including the time he saw me engrossed in a thick Lenin biography. One time we got on his 45 cubic-inch Harley and proceeded into the mountains. I wondered if I was about to meet my fate, but we finally skidded on an oil slick, totally lost control, and a sharply awakened sense of mortality fully broke the tension as we lay entangled on the roadway.

    When I was inducted into the Army during the Vietnam War, I had to sign a statement declaring that I wasn’t a member of the Communist Party. I remember wishing that my father could have seen the document.

Comments are now closed.