The Non-reciprocity of Victimhood and Occult Logic

Let’s analyze the following statement: “Ukrainians cannot be Nazis because their president is a Jew.” That, on the face of it, is nonsensical. But if you try to pry some logic out of it, you inevitably end up with “A Jew cannot be a Nazi” and “If your president cannot be a Nazi, then neither can you.” While the latter statement allows for some wiggle room—well, some Ukrainians might be Nazis, but not all of them—the former statement seems more like a rule of logic. The key ingredient here is the Holocaust, during which Jews were victims of Nazis. If Jews were victims of Nazis then Jews cannot be Nazis, right? Why?

Never mind why, this is just an abstract rule. So what if over 150000 Jews (technically called “Mischlinge,” or half-breeds) served in the Wehrmacht (a safe place for Jews at the time), quite a few of them quite bravely, with hundreds of them earning the Iron Cross and 20 of them earning the highest decoration of the Third Reich—the Knight’s Cross (Ritterkreuz)? A rather famous example, endlessly lionized as a “perfect German soldier” in the Nazi press, was the tall, blond, blue-eyed, heroic-looking Werner Goldberg, whose father was Jewish. So, as a matter of fact, Jews certainly could be and were Nazis. Clearly, this is not a reality-based rule; but then what is it?

To find out the answer, click here.

War with Russia considered unlikely

On November 15 a couple of “Russian” rockets struck Poland close to the Ukrainian border, taking out a couple of people and a tractor. This caused professional hyperventilators to immediately start hyperventilating about World War III. But was this event ever the least bit likely to lead to a major escalation? Certainly not! Please let me explain.

2022: The Year the US lost All Respect

A couple of days ago there was a terrorist attack in the center of İstanbul, Turkey. The details are not important and I wouldn’t tell you about them in any case because I am not a media whore who empowers terrorists by giving them free advertising. What’s important is Turkey’s official reaction to American official condolences that were offered after the fact: Turkey refused to accept them. Head of Turkey’s foreign ministry Süleyman Soylu expressed this plainly enough: “We do not accept condolences of the American embassy.”

He said some other interesting things too. Turkey knows where the attack was coordinated: in the US. Who carried it out doesn’t matter; those were just “pawns.” And he characterized the US behavior in this matter as “the return of the murderer to the scene of the crime.” Is this respectful or polite? Yes it is; this is perfectly proper and diplomatic. But is this how one treats one’s lord and master? No, not at all! The inevitable conclusion is that the US no longer matters and you can call US officials terrorists and spit in their face in public. They’ll just take out their handkerchiefs, daintily dab the spittle that’s dripping off their faces and pretend that none of this has actually happened. Meanwhile, their pet journos will sheepishly look the other way.

And so most Americans won’t even know of this. And if told of this, most Americans would think, “Hmm. Turkey… oh yeah, Thanksgiving is just a week away, isn’t it? Delicious, juicy turkey…” and then just hum to themselves Homer Simpson-like, lost in an anticipatory tryptophan daze, thinking about stuffing and cranberry sauce and pumpkin pie and big, sweaty men running around and colliding on a field, ruining their knees and giving each other concussions, forever unable to agree on who owns a certain oblong leather object…

Perhaps it’s better not to tell them about this. There is an old saying: “Don’t pick up a happy baby.” Or a miserable baby. Or any sort of baby, unless it’s yours. And this is definitely not my baby. But since you are reading this, I’ll tell you.

Russia’s Retreat from Kherson: is it Tactical or Strategic?

Over the past couple of years an amazing transformation has taken place: a gigantic teeming mass of internet-based freelance virologists has spontaneously transformed itself into an equally teeming mass of geopolitical experts. And now, with equal suddenness, these geopoliticians have become military experts. Some of these newly hatched military experts are now opining that Russia’s decision, announced two days ago, to pull its troops out of a piece of land on the right bank of the Dniepr, on which sits the city of Kherson, is a strategic defeat. It is strategic because Russia’s strategy with regard to this region is—what? And it is a defeat because a retreat is the opposite of victory, which, in the context of Russia’s special operation in the former Ukraine, would be—what? They don’t know (being newly hatched), but “strategic defeat” sure sounds important and is meant to convince us that these virologists I mean military experts definitely know what they are talking about. And even if they don’t, just throw in some Deep State, a few Bilderbergers, a Schwab or two, season, toss, and you’ll have yourself a fine word salad.

If you prefer something beefier to sink your teeth into, here is some background. More…

The New Cuban Missile Crisis That Isn’t

The Cuban Missile Crisis is a malicious misnomer. Cuba never had any nuclear missiles; it temporarily played host to some Soviet ones. The crisis started when Americans put their intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Turkey that posed a new threat the Soviet Union, which responded by placing similar missiles in Cuba, evening the score. The Americans flew into a rage but eventually calmed down and withdrew their missiles from Turkey. The Soviets withdrew their missiles from Cuba and the crisis was over. And so it should be called the American Missile Crisis.

What’s happening now couldn’t be more different. Unless you spent the last few weeks hiding under a rock, you have probably heard that some sort of new nuclear crisis is underway because of “Putin’s nuclear blackmail” or some such. Some people have suffered nervous exhaustion as a result, neglecting their duties and generally letting themselves go. Take former British PM Liz Truss, for instance. The poor silly thing latched on to Putin’s words that “the wind rose can point in any direction” (a factual point about the utter uselessness of tactical nuclear weapons). She then allowed the British economy to go into free-fall while she obsessively tracked the wind direction over the Ukraine. It all ended badly for poor Liz. Don’t be like Liz.

I am here to tell you that there is nothing going on beyond the usual—the usual Western propaganda fakery, that is.

More…