Game of Thrones; Or, The Enemy of My Enemy Is………?

Foseti brings up the strange history surrounding World War II again. Ayn Rand said- “There are no contradictions. Check your premises.” If a war by a coalition of democracies led to the extension of totalitarian dictatorship to hundreds of millions of more people, didn’t something have to go terribly wrong?

My era of conservatism was the Ronald Reagan era. Communism was opposed, but it was also taken as a given. Before that was an era where people witnessed the extension of the communist state from Russia and its possessions to Eastern Europe, China and much of Southeast Asia. Religious people were particularly traumatized by the official atheism of the new regimes and the oppression of religion.

Things need explanations, and they fell into two categories. The first, and the more popular, was incompetence. “Who lost China?” was a popular cry. Naive diplomats and people who trusted Uncle Joe. As we see in the current election, it is more comfortable to accuse your opponent of incompetence rather than malice. Accusations of malice were certainly made though, most famously by Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy. The State Department among other agencies were, he claimed, heavily infiltrated by communist agents. This was not politically acceptable to claim, and McCarthy was given the bum’s rush.

We know now since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the release of the Venona transcripts that McCarthy was right and essentially every person he accused of being a communist was in fact actually a communist. Problem solved, right? Case closed, right? There is such a thing as stopping to early, thinking you have things figured out. There is more to it.

Moldbug concluded that since communists operated openly and with the apparent endorsement of the very top of American society, that America is essentially a communist country, that communism is fundamentally something originating in America and spread outward. That’s a not unreasonable conclusion, but it doesn’t account for the European nature of communism and its differences with Anglospheric culture. The Anglospheric elite was not communist, is not communist and never wanted communism anywhere they had control. That did not mean communism could not serve their purposes in some cases.

Wedemeyer’s comparison of World War II to the Peloponnesian War is instructive. Sparta fought Athens but Persia was the real beneficiary, or a few years later Macedonia, or a little later Rome. To see this as a failure of Sparta is to misunderstand it’s motives. Sparta wanted to get rid of Athens, and they did. Sparta itself wanted to maintain unquestioned control of the Peloponnese, the southern part of Greece, but their failure to do so is mostly unrelated.

Paleoconservatives gripe endlessly about the neoconservative, and now Obama, policy of promoting democracy in the Moslem world, as if this was a new and idiotic idea. But reformers in Britain were promoting democracy various places in the 19th century, Greece and Italy among them I believe. Not in India, mind you, or any of their colonies. But if demanding democracy, or national or ethnic self-determination undermines potential adversaries, the sting of being accused of hypocrisy will harm you little.

Britain, or the Anglospheric elite, controlled a lot of the globe- all the oceans, North America, India, much of Africa, and had strong influence in Western Europe. It had commercial presence in China and South America, but little to no control. It could not hope to control Russia, which if it was able to extend its power south would make it a fearsome competitor.

Furthermore, all these places- Russia, Eastern Europe, China, and South America, had utterly alien cultures guilty of the crime of not being amenable to English Protestantism. They are Orthodox, Catholic or Buddhist. Somebody on the Occidental Observer noted with outrage that after Disraeli became prime minister, he cozied up to the Turks to the harm of Christians in Bulgaria, and this was clearly malign Jewish influence. But it would have made no difference had he been a Methodist. George W Bush is a Methodist, and how many Christians were killed in the Middle East on his watch?

To an English Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic Christians are not Christians, they are obscurantists at best and heretics at worst. These forms of worship are no more than empty cultural relics and their destruction is a good thing.

The establishment of communism in Eastern Europe and Asia and its attempted establishment in South America are bad things only if 1) you see those people as human beings with the right to establish their own destiny and 2) it might become powerful enough to threaten you. I think it’s quite clear the system, the master culture, the Anglospheric elite, the Cathedral, whatever you want to call it, does not regard #1 as the case.

As for #2, it turns out they were right. Communism never seriously threatened any English-speaking country, any Protestant country if you exclude East Germany, or any British colony. Like a plague or a forest fire, it wiped out cultures uncontrollable, unamenable or uncooperative to the English and the classes and castes that supported them. The hellish industrialism of 19th century Manchester has been established in China. Russia is a broken shell of a nation being looted by “Russian” billionaires and their KGB friends. Catholic and Orthodox Western Europe is being destroyed under a financial system established just after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Taking the long view, World War II and its aftermath worked out great for the people running Britain and America.

About thrasymachus33308

I like fast cars, fast women and southern-fried rock. I have an ongoing beef with George Orwell. I take my name from a character in Plato's "Republic" who was exasperated with the kind of turgid BS that passed for deep thought and political discourse in that time and place, just as I am today. The character, whose name means "fierce fighter" was based on a real person but nobody knows for sure what his actual political beliefs were. I take my pseudonym from a character in an Adam Sandler song who was a obnoxious jerk who pissed off everybody.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Game of Thrones; Or, The Enemy of My Enemy Is………?

  1. Similarly, why is Hugo Chavez such an intolerable figure? Of course it’s because he’s a loud mouthed, obnoxious, thug, and a dictator to boot, and not because he has nationalized a bunch of industries formerly controlled by foreigners.

    Not to say that Chavez isn’t as bad as the propaganda makes him out to be, but he’s being targeted for mercenary reason as opposed to genuine concern for the well being of Venezuela. It’s not as if anyone cares, or even knows, about the coup d’etats in Fiji. Cane sugar ain’t oil.

    I can’t find the passage offhand, but in C.V. Wedgewood’s history of the English Civil War, she mentions a utopian Puritan colonial venture in the Caribbean wherein drunkenness, gambling, etc. and sin in general are banned. A German minister is even sent straight home for the unpardonable offense of singing on the Sabbath. However, as only negroes are able to work in the sweltering heat, the colony falls apart, and then is only viable as a strategic base for plundering Spanish ships. Similarly, today’s ruling ideology (Judeo-Puritanism?) cares mostly about making money, and excises, changes, and/or adopts new principles as they accord with the will to power of an elite coterie. Chavez and tropical utopias are accepted or rejected depending on whether or not some fast talking Yid or scowling Cromwell stand to gain from it.

    The problem is that said elite coterie will enrich itself at the detriment of the whole. God forbid that they might have to skimp on marble counter tops if it meant paying someone the minimum wage to fold bed sheets or pick tomatoes. The Roman aristocracy during the Republic imported slaves to work their ever growing estates (presumably they also had tomatoes to pick). Tiberius Gracchus’s reformists efforts were met with a mob which beat him to death.

    The formation of an elite faction which seeks to enrich itself at the detriment of the whole isn’t a new phenomenon, although it may be more or less noxious depending on whether it’s Puritanism, Judaism, or the snobbery of Roman conservativism. The question is how a new regime might found itself so as to best prevent and mitigate harmful elite behavior, whether it’s of KGB oligarchs or simpleton Methodists. Even if the rise of a crop of bad elites is inevitable.

  2. Ryu says:

    Saint Joe McCarthy I’ve heard him described as. I tend to make things as simple as possible – Communism = Jews = eternal enemy of whites. Works in most cases.

    I don’t know who Moldberg is. Hear his name alot. What is he, some kind of pseudo-intellectual WN sympathizer? I never see him on any of the action sites. Is he pissed off and ready to bust some heads LOL? I’ve got him pinned as a conservative type right now who enjoys having facinating conversations for entertainment.

    • Mencius Moldbug is an atheist Jew as far as I know although Bruce Charlton recently claimed he is in the process of becoming a Latin Mass Catholic. He is basically anti-democracy and has written a lot of interesting, if very long-winded stuff about the history of democracy. If you have some time on your hands he’s worth skimming over.

      The trouble with Jews is that when you look and find trouble, you’ll usually find Jews, but you need to keep digging. Jews are almost always the stooges of somebody else.

      • Ian says:

        Are you of Jewish ancestry, Thrasymachus?

      • Ian says:

        OK. You do seem to be regularly insistent on Moldbug’s analysis that PC/progressivism/The Cathedral is a protestant invention, with Jews as mere dupes. This, to my eyes, is possible, but extremely unlikely, given the simple facts that vast swaths of PCness (the anti-apartheid movement, radical feminism/lesbianism, HBD-denying junk “science”, Bolsehvikism, Communist spying in the USA in the fifties, the Sparticist revolution in Germany in 1919, etc) were significantly, or entirely, Jewish in composition. This repeated analysis is my least favorite attribute of your otherwise uniformly enjoyable and admirable blog.

      • They aren’t dupes, they are followers, hangers-on, stooges. The more radical, revolutionary communist organizations were the most Jewish. They were very powerful in the Soviet Union, but not the shot-callers. If you look at the movements and philosophies overall, Jews tend to get involve after someone else has started them, and they look like good bets to succeed. Moldbug will place almost no blame on Jews, which is overcompensating in the other direction.

    • Ian says:

      I admit that it is possible that Jews have been the followers of Protestant trail-blazers/leaders in some areas. In some cases, it does indeed look ambiguous, and a case can certainly be made that this has been the case.

      I don’t believe it, however – it looks to my eyes like Jews have created, radicalized, lead, and instigated all sorts of extreme left-wing movements in the West, perhaps most of them.

      To pick one example – WASPy ladies may or may not have created the suffragette movement and other forms of early feminist movements, I do not know. But radical, caustic, strident, irrationally hateful, lesbian-ish modern feminism seems to me to be an almost entirely Jewish created, generated, shaped, and lead phenomenon. It’s astounding how, when one finds a man-hating asshole feminist spouting bizarrely strident demands, how certain one can be that she is Jewish: Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag, Gloria Steinem, Naomi Wolf, Eve Ensler, Andrea Dworkin, Susan Faludi, Susan Brownmiller, Adrianne Rich, Alice B. Toklas, Gertrude Stein, Carol Gilligan, Judith Butler, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Bella Abzug, Alice B. Toklas, Robin Morgan, Bettina Aptheker, Blu Greenberg, Heather Booth, Phyllis Chesler, Judy Chicago, Sonia Pressman Fuentes, Nancy Miriam Hawley, Alix Kates Shulman, Gisele Halimi, Elisabeth Badinter, Simone Veil, Bonnie Sherr Klein, Michele Landsberg, Wendy Doniger …. the only protestant woman I am aware of on the other side of the ledger is Catharine MacKinnon. Far from all these females being “followers, hangers-on, or stooges”, these ladies seem to me to be precisely the problem-creating element. And, it seems to me, all the Protestant (and Catholic, and otherwise) schoolgirls who spend a few years poisoning their families, friendships, and relationships with hate while under these Jewish ladies’ tutelage are the stooges.

      Radical, strident, asshole-y, trouble-making gay rights seems to be another clear-cut example: Tony Kushner, Harvey Fierstein, Larry Kramer, Harvey Milk, Arnie Kantrowitz, Mark Leno, Alan Klein (co-founder of ACT UP Queer Nation GLAAD and, Arnie Kantrowitz (co-founder GLAAD), Jonathan D. Katz (founded and chairs Harvey Milk Institute, co-founder of Queer Nation), Moisés Kaufman (wrote “The Laramie Project”), and Israel Fishman (founder of the Gay Liberation Caucus). I am not aware of a single gentile leader, theorist, or progenator of this movement.

      The indigenous “white” communist ANC-allied anti-apartheid movement seems to me to be another example of a movement that was completely, totally, and entirely Jewish created, motivated, and run: Johnny Clegg, Ronnie Kasrils, Arthur Chaskalson, Arthur Goldreich, Baron Joffe, Benjamin Pogrund, Bram Fischer, Denis Goldberg, Harold Hanson, Harold Rubin, Harry Schwarz, Helen Suzman, Joe Slovo, Joel Joffe, Lionel Bernstein, Louis Isaac Rabinowitz, Nadine Gordimer, Richard Goldstone, Ruth First, Shawn Slovo – any name I’ve seen associated with the movement, they all turn out to have been Jewish.

      I suppose that one could say that all these movements (and many others) were inspired by original English liberalism, and that the Jews could see which way the wind was blowing among the Anglophone elite, and aligned accordingly. But I think that such an analysis ignores the agency, originality, intentionality, and impact of the caustic left-wing social movements that Jews have largely, mostly, or completely generated in the West in the past two hundred years.

      • Ian says:

        (the analysis that “lets Jews off the hook” for PC-ness the most for me is to say that Jews are, on average, unusually smart, articulate, persuasive, industrious, and energetic. Therefore, whatever political or economic acts put their intention to do, they tend to make a disproportionate impact in – and that this has been true for right-wing politics as well as left-wing (among online writers I read and admire that I can think of, there’s Auster and many of his regular contributors, possibly Steve Sailer, Stanley Kurtz, Half Sigma, jewamongyou, Mencious Moldbug, the writers at FrontPageMag, Matt Drudge, Mark Levin, Unamused, and Bernard Goldberg). The thing of it is, I think that the impact of actions some Jews have made that may support and assist the “traditionalist” interests of white gentiles in the USA and elsewhere are vastly dwarfed by the impact of caustic left-wing actions that go against their (our) interests)

  3. Heil Hizzle Mein Nizzle says:

    “Somebody on the Occidental Observer noted with outrage that after Disraeli became prime minister, he cozied up to the Turks to the harm of Christians in Bulgaria, and this was clearly malign Jewish influence…”

    The irony is that the Teutons, the great Aryan Deutschland volk got cozier and abased themselves more to the old Ottomans than anyone else. Yes, they wanted the ‘sick man of Europe’ to join the Central Powers in order to sap Allied energy, but the Kaiser went the hole nine yards, switching his spiked helmet for a Turkish fez and talking about Mohammed the great Prophet, etc. And of course the Germans now have a massive Trojan horse in the form of the gastarbeiter in their midst, which brings me to the point that the rot in Britain and North America has gotten well past the point of devouring and destroying the white working class (as intended), and it is going to creep all the way to the top in the next couple of decades. Our masters better take their cue from Mitt (or the Southern Poverty Law Center) and move their fungibles into the Caymans, stat.

  4. Pingback: Randoms « Foseti

  5. Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You – Octoberish | Society of Amateur Gentlemen

  6. RS-prime says:

    > Britain, or the Anglospheric elite, controlled a lot of the globe- all the oceans, North America, India, much of Africa, and had strong influence in Western Europe. It had commercial presence in China and South America, but little to no control.

    Fascinating post as usu

    But the idea we (USA) didn’t generally control Latin America is borderline comedy to me. We created Panama. CIA did whatever it felt like in Latin affairs. We have generally considered the area our protectorate, and vassal. In my mind only the degree of control can be debated.

  7. RS-prime says:

    ‘Gunboat diplomacy’, decoded, means ‘semi-lassez-faire gunboat empire’.
    Elevating Panama to a country means ‘Colombia and Panama are my property at the end of the day’
    PBSUCCESS = ‘United Fruit is my company and Guatemala is my country’
    Killing off Allende = ‘Chile = mine’

    The sheer number of adventures down there during the 19th and the 20th is pretty amazing.

    • Allende was killed by the locals. The US decision was not to interfere, as they figured correctly there was nothing they could do. I don’t think US intervention has been decisive- Guatemala refused US military aid and the strings attached and fought its own war, probably much more violently than would have been the case with US participation.

      • RS-prime says:

        In a larger sense, what I’m saying doesn’t conflict with what you’re saying, anyway.

        I’m saying Anglojewish power was exercised over Latin America ; you’re saying something comparable (with less emphasis on Jews).

        I don’t think they really wanted communism in Latinland — because it was their ‘yard’. It does seem they wanted it in Russia and China, so we accord again.

        I don’t wish to imply Latin America got nothing in the bargain ; it was at least protected by USA from European power. I don’t know what all the costs imposed on the Latins were, but harsher imperium has no doubt been seen on the globe, for instance the Sovs in Afghanistan.

        I’m sure the Nico contra squads really were nasty, but so are a lot of commies, so basically cry me a river — or rather, cry me two rivers. A lot of the other stuff done by USA was ‘clean’ lordly brigandage — “fiat Panama”… “think you are declaring bankruptcy on this debt, no you fucking aren’t”… “think you are a sovereign who can nationalize foreign property, nope”.

        Of course, the Afghans are just hard as nails, in one light among the most admirable of human beings, which is one determinant of having their civvies wiped out en masse by USSR.

  8. Hail says:

    World War II and its aftermath worked out great for the people running Britain and America

    I cannot imagine a society in a worse relative position in 2012 vis-a-vis 1932 (say), than the UK. The ongoing pathetic decline of Britain has largely been a byproduct of that war, one way or another. The USA itself is also in worse shape today than it was, too.

    This is what is laughable about the ‘Moldbuggery‘ claiming “Protestant elites control the world”. Britain itself is in such bad shape, that the majority of births there may be of at least partial Nonwhite ancestry sometime in the middle part of this century. In the news recently, it is claimed that Protestantism has slipped into minority status in the USA for the first time ever.

    No ‘elite’ would be this irrational. Imagine if Jewish elites worked hard to make Israel majority Islamic and Christian.

  9. Hail says:

    World War II and its aftermath worked out great for….

    The clear winner of WWII (at the risk of sounding like Goebbels) was World Jewry. Compare its world position in 1932 with its position in 2012, 80 years later. They lost some population in the war era, as everyone east of the Rhine did, but they were not hardest hit — many ethnic groups of the USSR fared worse in population losses, but they got an ethno-state, they got the moral backing of the most powerful economies, they now have a tremendous amount of influence in the USA (i.e., it is inconceivable that the superpower turns against Israel today), and have gotten a sustained aid effort from us over the past 65 years equivalent to trillions of today’s dollars.

    Pound-for-pound, they are clearly, far and away, are the most powerful ethnic group in the world today. Curiously, some people remain duped into believing that they are poor Saintly Victims who can do no wrong (“hangers-on” to the nefarious White-Protestants, as a commenter above claims).
    Personally, I think the state-holding nation that fared worst in that era may have been Latvia (and Estonia fared not much better). Soviet terror and gulags killed off 10-15% of the people, a population exodus took away another 10-15%, Soviet annexation led to deep cultural pessimism and a cratering TFR, mass immigration of Soviet people who had the optimism all colonists do transformed society into a Soviet province. As far as I know, Latvia’s five largest cities still have Russian-speaking majorities. In the 1990s, Riga was two-thirds Russian-speaking. Latvia as a whole was something like 51% ethnic-Latvian, though it has recovered a bit now. A national disaster. The Latvian nation very nearly disappeared. [Full disclosure: I have no connection with Latvia, other than being a Lutheran, as ethnic-Latvians are. I am of Scandinavian and German ancestry].

  10. SOBL1 says:

    Can someone please state the correct historical sequence. Sparta took out Athens, then Thebes took out Sparta and established a short lived hegemony that really just wanted to be left alone.

  11. Fr. John+ says:

    “To an English Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic Christians are not Christians, they are obscurantists at best and heretics at worst. These forms of worship are no more than empty cultural relics and their destruction is a good thing.”

    This is both disingenuous and misleading. Disingenuous, in that the Anglicans (the very quintessence of what it meant to be an English ‘Protestant’) sought rapprochement with the [Eastern] Orthodox Fathers early on, after the Elizabethan compromise, and the Orthodox, in their turn (especially the Russians, in the person of Patriarch St. Tikhon Belavin) were most cordial and willing to consider the Anglicans ‘English Catholics’, up until his death at the hands of the Soviets. This paragraph above smacks of either Christophobia (hatred of Christianity) or merely Romeaphobia (fear of anything that smacks of Rome).

    The balance, actually, would be (as HW over at Occidental Dissent has noted, and I have concurred with) to find the true English Orthodoxy, that PREDATES either Rome, or protestantism, and return to the faith of the First Millennium. I found this column very interesting, until this ‘red herring’ of a paragraph.

    • thrasymachus33308 says:

      Your specifics may be true, but the historical record doesn’t show any general sympathy by English Protestants for non-Protestant Christians.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s