Regime Change in Italy Then and Now, Nikole Hannah-Jones and the Power of Narrative, Berlin LGBT Daycare, Are Americans a 'People'?, Blue-Eyed Anti-British Irish Monk of 1901 Rangoon
We the Americans haven’t, academia and the elites have, not surprisingly as they rule Americans as a sort of Global East India company with a Marxist patina.
We know who and what we are , that we are quiet is our nature.
Time? It also took legal and social equality, mass education that was explicitly enthusiastic about the civil values of the US and economic opportunity for any of it to work. Americanisation will indeed take place, but the civil status of the children of the migrants will depend on their ability to claim the privileges of affirmative action, preferential contracting and equity policy. And a fair proportion of the population of the interior will, over time, resemble the Tamils of Malaysia or the whites of South Africa.
Americanisation is certainly inevitable, but I suspect that its future results will be more complicated and uneven than they were in the past.
I like the analogy. Whereas the East India Company fostered trade and tax-farming for the benefit of shareholders back home, Turbo America has taken it all to a new level: full spectrum extractive commerce (the commercialisation of everything from the human genome to enetertainment) applied to the entire planet with the onetime homeland subjected to equality with the colonies and the elites of client states fully integrated into the Turbo American oligarchy.
Liberty and property! England was liberal from 1688. It became democratic (albeit a limited one) in the mid 19th c. and more thoroughly democratic with the extension of the franchise to the entire male population. The tension between liberal political practice and democracy was resolved in favour of the latter by Asquith, but now the democratic aspect is weakening and almost exhausted. The political choices of the masses are constrained by the administrative and corporate elites which have taken the political place once occupied by the aristocracy.
Hit the like button and use the share button to share this across social media. Leave a comment if the mood strikes you (be nice!), and don't forget to subscribe if you haven't already done so.
Congratulations, both on the milestone and the phenomenal growth of your subscriber base. I shall raise a vodka to your further success later in the day.
Have a bottle of vodka presented to my wife in Moscow some years ago, on business. Oleg said it was the best, made from Lake Baikal water, with a map of the lake etched on the bottle. Is this true? If so will raise a glass to the Ban of Craotia, Niccolo.
I resent your January post claiming the alternatives would be ''liberal democracy'' and ''autocracy''. What even are those in the end? Liberal democracy today is anything except a democracy. You correctly coined the NGO-state term. Power is elsewhere, elections are meaningless and parliaments a scam. It's a supranational plutocratic kleptocracy. I look at Italy, Italian oligarchs are hardly Italian anymore. They have double-citizenship (American, Dutch, Swiss, British are popular) for tax purposes and do not spend more than the necessary time in Italy anymore. Speaking of Italy, if you really want something spicy maybe look up Enrico Mattei. The one that created the Italian energy monopoly, secured non-American controlled resources and was able to balance well socialists and Christian Democrats to avoid turning Italy into a vassal of the Soviet Union or the US. He died ''in an accident''.
Back to my main criticism, it is mainly towards a conservative tendency to accept liberal premises, languages and narrative. This has been particularly catastrophic with the Wuhan Coronavirus and the NATO occupation of Ukraine. You accept the liberal narrative, their rules and then wonder why you keep losing. WTF is autocracy anyway? Is Hungary an autocracy? It's far more democratic than any so called liberal democracy. It's just not liberal and it does just fine.
I LOOOOL all the time at the zombie-like worship of "muh democracy" by these activists-journalists and the childless white middle class women in their 30s and 40s + the scrawny post teen virginal nerds (both eternally looking for a purpose to a boring, empty life) that make up the bulk of the liberal coalition.
"Democracy"TM by ITSELF hasnt pulled out India or Latin america (in many cases, democracies for decades) out of poverty or 3rd world status
In fact, id say the equation --- Democracy = economic development" is as true as 2+2 = 5
The country that has grown economically the fastest in the last 40 years?
A VERY AUTHORITARIAN China,,, the horror !!
Also. i'd add that many confuse,,things
MOST Western countries became rich and developed FIRST waaaay before becoming democracies (18th-19th centuries)
with iconic countries like France and Germany becoming democracies in some modern sense only around 1870 and 1950, respectively.
So, NO evidence at all that DemocracyTM gives us economic development
The accepted line in the West is that it is capitalism that has pulled much of the world out of poverty, but these types insist that only liberal democracy can do this.
Alexios, you get it. Today the contrast between 'liberal democracy' and 'autocracy' is worse than absurd. The contrast is designed to mislead.
Autocrats can function as an essential enabler of democracy. The best example of this is Putin's Russia. The Russian presidency is a very powerful executive position that can (and is) used to constrain oligarchic power, thereby enabling the masses to exercise meaningful political agency via contested elections in which they can chose between political parties that are anything but interchangeable.
In the West, which defines itself as 'liberal democratic' autocracy is reviled precisely because it is a threat to oligarchic power. Autocrats function as the modern equivalent of the Crown in Parliament established by the Glorious Revolution in 1688: the Crown balanced the competing forces of the land-owning aristocracy and the common people (represented by the property owning non-aristocrats).
Readers familiar with Curtis Yarvin's thinking about a CEO saviour-president will appreciate all this.
Finally, we need to recuperate the language. The term 'autocrat'...it derives from 'autocratos'...one who rules by himself, i.e. has no equal. It was about accountability and responsibility, not unconstrained power. 'Democracy' refers to the situation where the many rule...in modern terms where the masses have genuine political agency. The 'liberal democracies' are not remotely democratic...attempts to establish any political agency for working class people is demonised as 'populism' and is widely misunderstood as a form of fascism.
PS Congrats for mentioning Enrico Mattei...his life and death illustrate the realities underlying 'liberal democratic' empire.
Conservatives need to be able to offer a narrative and language that rejects the ever-mutating liberal one. No conservative should ever use ''undocumented migrant'' to refer to illegal immigrants. No conservative should ever say ''Kyiv''. No conservative should ever say ''gender affirming healthcare''.
Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The regime and its supporters use neuro-linguistic programming to shape the political environment and to psychically castrate the conservatives (which in the US simply means anyone not cheerfully enthusiastic about the social engineering of the regime). All opportunities for debate or the broadcast of opinion become humiliation rituals for conservatives once they buy into the language of the regime. There will be no real progress until the dissenters and dissidents start using language properly and thereby redirect the focus back onto reality.
The weakness and cowardice of the self-proclaimed 'conservatives' disgusts potential voters and rightly so. This helps demobilise the constituencies that could be used to contest the regime's policies.
Correcting this will allow the dissenters to wield microaggressions against the constituencies of the regime. This is essential for meaningful politics. Instead of "gender affirming healthcare" they need to talk about grooming, mental illness and castration. And illegal immigrants are "illegals" and "criminals" who form a replacement population based on the ruin of the rule of law and the annihilation of citizenship.
Its not even a questions of liberals or conservatives. Concepts, especially political ones, need to be well defined. If we lose sight of that all discussion is worthless.
People who play fast and loose with historical concepts should not engaged with in any form.
I disagree. Some people may need a second chance. The standard of discussion is so low that many people of goodwill simply do not understand how it is done and may be making mistakes unwittingly. Remarkably few people today have any exposure to the rigorous use of language. There is a reason that Leviathan/Cthulhu has dumbed down education and culture!
I'd say that we should engage with everyone, without prejudice, provided that they are civil. IMO it is dangerous to evade discussion, to go hors de combat as it were, because that leaves regime apologists in an uncontested position and that is the greatest danger of all. The best response to a bad idea is a good one and the experience of debating those who argue in bad faith is to expose them. It works.
Those who think for themselves need experience taking on the regime. Hiding in intellectual ghettoes (the favourite past-time of generations of 'conservatives') is a recipe for failure. I have long thought that we need more organised training in debate, including both formal logic, classical rhetoric and a bit of the latest psychology/neuroscience (because logic only works on one dimension).
The value of polemic (practiced properly) is that it fortifies the confidence and capacity of the dissenters. We stand to secure the gains from this, not just by ensuring that heterodox ideas remain current in public, but by retaining space or visibility in the public sphere. The demonstration effect will apply and encourage others to either come forward or at least send a message of comfort to those who can't or won't come forward just yet.
And nothing beats real-world experience...today's 'conservatives' are disgusting and vile creatures, happy to waffle on inside their sectarian ghettoes where transparent nonsense can pass for self-evident truths and (being full of self-pity in the best hyper-feminine manner) whine about the Left. They are not called polemics for nothing... πολεμικός means 'warlike'...this is indeed war by other means. The regime's supporters are hostile for a reason, the regime defines itself politically by enmity towards dissenters. Silence is unconditional surrender. And I'd rather be damned for what I have said or written than for being suspected of thought-crime.
Very good comment. I agree with everything you said. Just want to mention that autocracy is a real and well defined political form. Basically it defines a regime where all power is concentrated on a single individual or entity.
Really it is quite a common political form and there are various examples of autocratic regimes like Ataturk's Turkey or even Napoleonic France.
The people who recoil at the mere utterance of the word are conceptually literate and prefer to live in their delusional alternate reality. I would put many of Americas elites in this category.
That is the regime's game: normalise confusion by means of behaviourist psychology...train people like Pavlov's dogs so that they fear anything that is not regime-compliant propaganda.
Saw a wonderful movie in Italian (wife translated) Il Divo, by Sorrentino, based on Giulio Andreotti, the legendary survivor of Italian politics (until he wasn't). Clearly implies the CD party was not unhappy that Aldo Moro was killed.
Not unhappy? I bet they gave a sigh of relief. Moro's death remains a scandal. One of the bastards in the Brigata Rosa (Antonio Negri) was sheltered for years by the French (presumably as a favour for the right people) and returned to Italy to serve an extraordinarily modest sentence. IMHO this is as good as a confession that the Italian Deep State and their friends were compromised. At the time Moro was held in captivity, Negri rang Moro's wife and taunted her on the phone that her husband was going to die.
There is no way the best (in the classical sense) ever go easy on anybody involved, however obliquely, in the murder of a professional politician (still less a head of government) unless the murder served their purposes. They are thugs at heart...and shameless. Mattei, Moro, Pasolini and so many others...they (the best and their friends) have the blood of innocents on their hands. The same was true elsewhere in the 70s and 80s especially.
IL DIVO is a great movie...I have seen portions of it and a friend born in Rome is a very great fan of it indeed. Andreotti was a sphinx with manners that would shame a gentleman...the politicians of today are guttersnipes compared to that monster.
Philip, a student of corruption in politics like you would love Il Divo. That slow dawning on Andreotti that this time around HE is the mark is extraordinary. Once Wall came down, West dumped all those people like him, the egregoius Craxi and co. Hard to explain to young folks that Berlinguer in Italy, Marchais in France were major political figures in Europe.
I must get a copy and watch it in full. The real Il Divo was way too serious and capable to enjoy the support of Turbo America on a permanent basis. The US tolerates capable clients only when they have to but when free to do so they purge them and replace them with dross.
They were not stupid or callous enough to neglect their people. Corruption is tolerable so long as it is kept within limits and balanced by a regard for the welfare of the whole. The current blend of selfishness, smugness and depraved indifference is going to prove explosive.
"Back to my main criticism, it is mainly towards a conservative tendency to accept liberal premises, languages and narrative."
----------
Love Niccolo, but he has done this on a number of occasions-- and gets me riled-up each time -- referencing (if not buying into) this notion that there's some White Nationalism movement in the USA. No such thing exists except for in the MDM-MSM (Misinformation, Malinformation, & Disinformation -- Main Stream Media).
What DOES exist is an Anti-White GloboHomo movement intent on criminalizing & destroying conservatism & Christianity, if not mere whiteness itself.
Nic is 3000000000000000000000% correct when he says white nationalism is a loser's crusade. It's weak ideologically, tarnished beyond repair and infiltrated at all levels. The fact that many white nationalists today side with the GAE against Russia is just the nail in the coffin for something that is completely delusional and hopeless.
Founding fathers of the U.S talked about Americans as a separate and new people. I prefer Roman history to American mostly because huge amounts of American history are fake/propaganda, but I vaguely recall that the overwhelming focus on the individual over all else is a product of the late 19th century progressives rather than the founders. Although maybe that’s fake too?
After reading the bit on German orphans, I’m Surprised Germany doesn’t have its own gary plauche.
I’ll quickly add since it’s this Monday, the revolt against Columbus Day, and Columbus in general, is a perfect example of how fake American history is.
Thanks, Niccolo. In my view , the term "liberal democracy" is just shorthand for "loyal vassal state of the GAE". So, in regard to Britain, it will stay a liberal democracy. The British ruling class are obsessed with making Britain a part of something larger so that we may "have influence". Influence upon whom and for what end is never mentioned or discussed. Now that we are no longer part of the EU, our rulers will cleave ever more loyally and closely to Washington. It's the one thing that everyone in the UK agrees upon.
If the USA can be characterised as a spoiled, rich high-school 'mean girl', then Britain is her little yappy dog.
The British ruling class want a share of the loot. The 'influence' is theirs alone, it is not held in common with the people and is essentially utilised for seeking personal and corporate advantage.
IMO the UK is a straightforward satrapy. The ruling class are Quislings, they run things for Turbo America.
By chance in earliesh 2019, I bought a book called "Slavery and Social Death" by Orlando Patterson. As I later found out, it may be the finest synoptic study of slavery there is. What fascinated me were the pages and pages of meticulously documented tables showing where slavery has existed......the African tables were especially eye-opening.
In August of 2019, I opened the NYTimes and started reading the lead essay of something called the "1619 Project" with anticipation. But a few sentences in, I started to sense something wrong. Mellifluously written, that lead essay, for which Hannah-Jones would win the Pulitzer for commentary (not history), described a ship coming into an American port. The passage seemed insular and the ship itself reminded me of the ship in Wagner's "Flying Dutchman". And yes, I got suspicious.
A bit further down in the same essay was a sentence about who first got the franchise when the US was established. As I remember from high school history, it was land owning white males. But Hannah-Jones wrote the sentence in a way to erase the fact that non-land owning white males could not vote. It was as if she could not attribute "victimhood" to white men as it would sully her intersectional antipodes. At that point, in my mind, I sensed we were in Pravda land.
The critique of "1619" was vast and, to me, finer than the "1619 Project" itself. The "right-wing" backlash was critically minor. The main repository became the extraordinary commentary and interviews carried out by the Worldwide Socialist Website, which clearly understood that identity was burying class:
Repeatedly being cancelled by my Gen z kids for saying that you can only call yourself a woman if you menstruate/can conceive and give birth to a child. And they aren’t being raised in the west/with western values - American cultural hegemony is dangerous to every culture, identity, and belief system in the world
Just signed up for the yearly subscription a first for me I don’t Twitter so I’m commenting here. Your articles are very well written and I feel smarter for reading them I do feel bad for John Carter though for he is the one that recommended your Substack and I only have his on the free( loader) subscription program but that could change ( I’m on a fixed income) sorry John.
Don’t feel bad this will mean I’ll be reading John’s work with renewed enthusiasm and you both inspire me to read more and think more about the world than we inhabit! Great job both of you!
Why is it for this author to report news of this nature: an honest explication of events? (For more check out Leighton Woodhouse’s substack.)
Why does mainstream media never come close to this level of content? Why does our ruling class through the auspices of MSM work so assiduouslyagainst the wishes of the electorate? Why: what conclusion shall we derive from this state of deception, this, the indisputable evidence of coercion?
What does this portend? 
Soldo said no civil war until a meaningful number of elites join the dispossessed. Soldo, further said the American polity is badly atrophied and getting worse but that the American empire is thriving: “turbo America”.
What shall come of this? Does history have any lessons as regards elite abandonment of their peoples self interest?
I suspect the second amendment will have significant implications as we wrestle with these increasingly urgent questions. Or maybe I’m wrong, there’s no urgency, they will simply turn America into Venezuela. 
And the Italian job referenced - its likely enough PCI would have as so many other Communist parties had before bought in the Hard Left as muscle ala Spain, Cuba, etc. In any case the Italians decided otherwise- and The Red Brigades started shooting. Young men waiting their chances to shoot are going to shoot. Regardless. Having a compromised government in power at the time doesn’t help.
Those who don’t remember it are getting a refresher now, mind you its NATO playing at aggression.
The Soviets were as serious about war in Europe then as we are now - its ideologues getting off the leash and being indulged by Brezhnev types who see it as the lesser danger- in the present that would be the Biden Clinton Obama types pointing the American Left and NeoTrots at THE RUSSIANS! In short a dangerous game to point dangerous people in a safer direction.
There was good reason to fear the Communists of the PCI once in power would make the same choices or mistakes made in Spain, Cuba, Chile etc.
Now that in 2022 we have a DC government making similar mistakes with deadly consequences perhaps the Cold War comes into focus? At present we have Putin playing Nixon you know- a cool customer. That was the real Nixon.
By that stage the USSR was not interested in exporting revolution to Europe. At various times the USSR had excellent diplomatic relations and co-operated with pre-war liberal-democratic Czechoslovakia and monarchist Yugoslavia and with post-war Gaullist France. Indeed, De Gaulle had much better relations with Moscow than he ever did with either Westminster or Washington and the pro-Moscow French commies backed de Gaulle publicly when the 'revolution' of 68 (the prototype colour revolution) was launched by Washington's useful idiots, the anti-Soviet Left (which was very heavily infiltrated and supported by the usual suspects in Langley).
Italian anti-communism was in large part a great money-spinner for the Democristiani who raked in abundant financial and political support from the Yanks. In many ways the Europeans pioneered the rackets used by the Afghan leaders who go rich off GWOT.
We the Americans haven’t, academia and the elites have, not surprisingly as they rule Americans as a sort of Global East India company with a Marxist patina.
We know who and what we are , that we are quiet is our nature.
Also talking is over.
I know a bit about NYC.
Once you go over the river, more importantly once the newbies go over the river they'll Americanize. Don't lose heart.
I mean truth be told how many Manhattanites born here multigenerational 'assimilate'?
By the way if Jerzey is too much for them try the non-gentrified Brooklyn or Queens, also a River of course and they will , will with time get it.
I could say America starts at Staten Island as well. Even Long Island. The non rich parts.
It takes time.
Time? It also took legal and social equality, mass education that was explicitly enthusiastic about the civil values of the US and economic opportunity for any of it to work. Americanisation will indeed take place, but the civil status of the children of the migrants will depend on their ability to claim the privileges of affirmative action, preferential contracting and equity policy. And a fair proportion of the population of the interior will, over time, resemble the Tamils of Malaysia or the whites of South Africa.
Americanisation is certainly inevitable, but I suspect that its future results will be more complicated and uneven than they were in the past.
I like the analogy. Whereas the East India Company fostered trade and tax-farming for the benefit of shareholders back home, Turbo America has taken it all to a new level: full spectrum extractive commerce (the commercialisation of everything from the human genome to enetertainment) applied to the entire planet with the onetime homeland subjected to equality with the colonies and the elites of client states fully integrated into the Turbo American oligarchy.
Honestly I’m reading Lenin more lately lol
Or that over invoked Austrian “Of course something must be done for the workers.”
HARDCORE
Liberty and property! England was liberal from 1688. It became democratic (albeit a limited one) in the mid 19th c. and more thoroughly democratic with the extension of the franchise to the entire male population. The tension between liberal political practice and democracy was resolved in favour of the latter by Asquith, but now the democratic aspect is weakening and almost exhausted. The political choices of the masses are constrained by the administrative and corporate elites which have taken the political place once occupied by the aristocracy.
100!!!!!!
Hit the like button and use the share button to share this across social media. Leave a comment if the mood strikes you (be nice!), and don't forget to subscribe if you haven't already done so.
Congratulations, both on the milestone and the phenomenal growth of your subscriber base. I shall raise a vodka to your further success later in the day.
Merci beaucoup, John! Got a lot of support from you and your Substack. I appreciate it.
Have a bottle of vodka presented to my wife in Moscow some years ago, on business. Oleg said it was the best, made from Lake Baikal water, with a map of the lake etched on the bottle. Is this true? If so will raise a glass to the Ban of Craotia, Niccolo.
The Shwedagon Pagoda is amazing. I want to go back to Burma. Too unstable though now. I gotta read their book.
Can I get some discount cigarettes?
I resent your January post claiming the alternatives would be ''liberal democracy'' and ''autocracy''. What even are those in the end? Liberal democracy today is anything except a democracy. You correctly coined the NGO-state term. Power is elsewhere, elections are meaningless and parliaments a scam. It's a supranational plutocratic kleptocracy. I look at Italy, Italian oligarchs are hardly Italian anymore. They have double-citizenship (American, Dutch, Swiss, British are popular) for tax purposes and do not spend more than the necessary time in Italy anymore. Speaking of Italy, if you really want something spicy maybe look up Enrico Mattei. The one that created the Italian energy monopoly, secured non-American controlled resources and was able to balance well socialists and Christian Democrats to avoid turning Italy into a vassal of the Soviet Union or the US. He died ''in an accident''.
Back to my main criticism, it is mainly towards a conservative tendency to accept liberal premises, languages and narrative. This has been particularly catastrophic with the Wuhan Coronavirus and the NATO occupation of Ukraine. You accept the liberal narrative, their rules and then wonder why you keep losing. WTF is autocracy anyway? Is Hungary an autocracy? It's far more democratic than any so called liberal democracy. It's just not liberal and it does just fine.
Yes, liberal democracy is no longer democratic. I've written at length on this here on this Substack.
Re: autocracy - I'm fine with this term as I don't see it as inherently negative, even though it is supposed to be to western ears.
"liberal democracy is no longer democratic." Nor is it "liberal"... not here in the US; it is stridently and proudly "illiberal". Doublespeak.
Definitely.
I am aware and I give you credit for it.
I LOOOOL all the time at the zombie-like worship of "muh democracy" by these activists-journalists and the childless white middle class women in their 30s and 40s + the scrawny post teen virginal nerds (both eternally looking for a purpose to a boring, empty life) that make up the bulk of the liberal coalition.
"Democracy"TM by ITSELF hasnt pulled out India or Latin america (in many cases, democracies for decades) out of poverty or 3rd world status
In fact, id say the equation --- Democracy = economic development" is as true as 2+2 = 5
The country that has grown economically the fastest in the last 40 years?
A VERY AUTHORITARIAN China,,, the horror !!
Also. i'd add that many confuse,,things
MOST Western countries became rich and developed FIRST waaaay before becoming democracies (18th-19th centuries)
with iconic countries like France and Germany becoming democracies in some modern sense only around 1870 and 1950, respectively.
So, NO evidence at all that DemocracyTM gives us economic development
The accepted line in the West is that it is capitalism that has pulled much of the world out of poverty, but these types insist that only liberal democracy can do this.
Alexios, you get it. Today the contrast between 'liberal democracy' and 'autocracy' is worse than absurd. The contrast is designed to mislead.
Autocrats can function as an essential enabler of democracy. The best example of this is Putin's Russia. The Russian presidency is a very powerful executive position that can (and is) used to constrain oligarchic power, thereby enabling the masses to exercise meaningful political agency via contested elections in which they can chose between political parties that are anything but interchangeable.
In the West, which defines itself as 'liberal democratic' autocracy is reviled precisely because it is a threat to oligarchic power. Autocrats function as the modern equivalent of the Crown in Parliament established by the Glorious Revolution in 1688: the Crown balanced the competing forces of the land-owning aristocracy and the common people (represented by the property owning non-aristocrats).
Readers familiar with Curtis Yarvin's thinking about a CEO saviour-president will appreciate all this.
Finally, we need to recuperate the language. The term 'autocrat'...it derives from 'autocratos'...one who rules by himself, i.e. has no equal. It was about accountability and responsibility, not unconstrained power. 'Democracy' refers to the situation where the many rule...in modern terms where the masses have genuine political agency. The 'liberal democracies' are not remotely democratic...attempts to establish any political agency for working class people is demonised as 'populism' and is widely misunderstood as a form of fascism.
PS Congrats for mentioning Enrico Mattei...his life and death illustrate the realities underlying 'liberal democratic' empire.
Conservatives need to be able to offer a narrative and language that rejects the ever-mutating liberal one. No conservative should ever use ''undocumented migrant'' to refer to illegal immigrants. No conservative should ever say ''Kyiv''. No conservative should ever say ''gender affirming healthcare''.
Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The regime and its supporters use neuro-linguistic programming to shape the political environment and to psychically castrate the conservatives (which in the US simply means anyone not cheerfully enthusiastic about the social engineering of the regime). All opportunities for debate or the broadcast of opinion become humiliation rituals for conservatives once they buy into the language of the regime. There will be no real progress until the dissenters and dissidents start using language properly and thereby redirect the focus back onto reality.
The weakness and cowardice of the self-proclaimed 'conservatives' disgusts potential voters and rightly so. This helps demobilise the constituencies that could be used to contest the regime's policies.
Correcting this will allow the dissenters to wield microaggressions against the constituencies of the regime. This is essential for meaningful politics. Instead of "gender affirming healthcare" they need to talk about grooming, mental illness and castration. And illegal immigrants are "illegals" and "criminals" who form a replacement population based on the ruin of the rule of law and the annihilation of citizenship.
Its not even a questions of liberals or conservatives. Concepts, especially political ones, need to be well defined. If we lose sight of that all discussion is worthless.
People who play fast and loose with historical concepts should not engaged with in any form.
I disagree. Some people may need a second chance. The standard of discussion is so low that many people of goodwill simply do not understand how it is done and may be making mistakes unwittingly. Remarkably few people today have any exposure to the rigorous use of language. There is a reason that Leviathan/Cthulhu has dumbed down education and culture!
I'd say that we should engage with everyone, without prejudice, provided that they are civil. IMO it is dangerous to evade discussion, to go hors de combat as it were, because that leaves regime apologists in an uncontested position and that is the greatest danger of all. The best response to a bad idea is a good one and the experience of debating those who argue in bad faith is to expose them. It works.
Those who think for themselves need experience taking on the regime. Hiding in intellectual ghettoes (the favourite past-time of generations of 'conservatives') is a recipe for failure. I have long thought that we need more organised training in debate, including both formal logic, classical rhetoric and a bit of the latest psychology/neuroscience (because logic only works on one dimension).
Yes you are actually correct. I think i was to uncharitable in my last comment.
Ultimately polemics will will always have their value especially in this modern age.
The value of polemic (practiced properly) is that it fortifies the confidence and capacity of the dissenters. We stand to secure the gains from this, not just by ensuring that heterodox ideas remain current in public, but by retaining space or visibility in the public sphere. The demonstration effect will apply and encourage others to either come forward or at least send a message of comfort to those who can't or won't come forward just yet.
And nothing beats real-world experience...today's 'conservatives' are disgusting and vile creatures, happy to waffle on inside their sectarian ghettoes where transparent nonsense can pass for self-evident truths and (being full of self-pity in the best hyper-feminine manner) whine about the Left. They are not called polemics for nothing... πολεμικός means 'warlike'...this is indeed war by other means. The regime's supporters are hostile for a reason, the regime defines itself politically by enmity towards dissenters. Silence is unconditional surrender. And I'd rather be damned for what I have said or written than for being suspected of thought-crime.
yes, lesson number 1, dont use the language of your foes
Very good comment. I agree with everything you said. Just want to mention that autocracy is a real and well defined political form. Basically it defines a regime where all power is concentrated on a single individual or entity.
Really it is quite a common political form and there are various examples of autocratic regimes like Ataturk's Turkey or even Napoleonic France.
The people who recoil at the mere utterance of the word are conceptually literate and prefer to live in their delusional alternate reality. I would put many of Americas elites in this category.
That is the regime's game: normalise confusion by means of behaviourist psychology...train people like Pavlov's dogs so that they fear anything that is not regime-compliant propaganda.
Saw a wonderful movie in Italian (wife translated) Il Divo, by Sorrentino, based on Giulio Andreotti, the legendary survivor of Italian politics (until he wasn't). Clearly implies the CD party was not unhappy that Aldo Moro was killed.
Not unhappy? I bet they gave a sigh of relief. Moro's death remains a scandal. One of the bastards in the Brigata Rosa (Antonio Negri) was sheltered for years by the French (presumably as a favour for the right people) and returned to Italy to serve an extraordinarily modest sentence. IMHO this is as good as a confession that the Italian Deep State and their friends were compromised. At the time Moro was held in captivity, Negri rang Moro's wife and taunted her on the phone that her husband was going to die.
There is no way the best (in the classical sense) ever go easy on anybody involved, however obliquely, in the murder of a professional politician (still less a head of government) unless the murder served their purposes. They are thugs at heart...and shameless. Mattei, Moro, Pasolini and so many others...they (the best and their friends) have the blood of innocents on their hands. The same was true elsewhere in the 70s and 80s especially.
IL DIVO is a great movie...I have seen portions of it and a friend born in Rome is a very great fan of it indeed. Andreotti was a sphinx with manners that would shame a gentleman...the politicians of today are guttersnipes compared to that monster.
Philip, a student of corruption in politics like you would love Il Divo. That slow dawning on Andreotti that this time around HE is the mark is extraordinary. Once Wall came down, West dumped all those people like him, the egregoius Craxi and co. Hard to explain to young folks that Berlinguer in Italy, Marchais in France were major political figures in Europe.
I must get a copy and watch it in full. The real Il Divo was way too serious and capable to enjoy the support of Turbo America on a permanent basis. The US tolerates capable clients only when they have to but when free to do so they purge them and replace them with dross.
They were corrupt, but at least they defended our interests. Unlike today's liberals who are corrupt and defend foreign oligarchs.
They were not stupid or callous enough to neglect their people. Corruption is tolerable so long as it is kept within limits and balanced by a regard for the welfare of the whole. The current blend of selfishness, smugness and depraved indifference is going to prove explosive.
"Back to my main criticism, it is mainly towards a conservative tendency to accept liberal premises, languages and narrative."
----------
Love Niccolo, but he has done this on a number of occasions-- and gets me riled-up each time -- referencing (if not buying into) this notion that there's some White Nationalism movement in the USA. No such thing exists except for in the MDM-MSM (Misinformation, Malinformation, & Disinformation -- Main Stream Media).
What DOES exist is an Anti-White GloboHomo movement intent on criminalizing & destroying conservatism & Christianity, if not mere whiteness itself.
Nic is 3000000000000000000000% correct when he says white nationalism is a loser's crusade. It's weak ideologically, tarnished beyond repair and infiltrated at all levels. The fact that many white nationalists today side with the GAE against Russia is just the nail in the coffin for something that is completely delusional and hopeless.
Founding fathers of the U.S talked about Americans as a separate and new people. I prefer Roman history to American mostly because huge amounts of American history are fake/propaganda, but I vaguely recall that the overwhelming focus on the individual over all else is a product of the late 19th century progressives rather than the founders. Although maybe that’s fake too?
After reading the bit on German orphans, I’m Surprised Germany doesn’t have its own gary plauche.
Excellent as always. Thank you.
You're welcome!
I’ll quickly add since it’s this Monday, the revolt against Columbus Day, and Columbus in general, is a perfect example of how fake American history is.
Forzo Niccolo - Good stuff bruv
Thanks, Niccolo. In my view , the term "liberal democracy" is just shorthand for "loyal vassal state of the GAE". So, in regard to Britain, it will stay a liberal democracy. The British ruling class are obsessed with making Britain a part of something larger so that we may "have influence". Influence upon whom and for what end is never mentioned or discussed. Now that we are no longer part of the EU, our rulers will cleave ever more loyally and closely to Washington. It's the one thing that everyone in the UK agrees upon.
If the USA can be characterised as a spoiled, rich high-school 'mean girl', then Britain is her little yappy dog.
The British ruling class want a share of the loot. The 'influence' is theirs alone, it is not held in common with the people and is essentially utilised for seeking personal and corporate advantage.
IMO the UK is a straightforward satrapy. The ruling class are Quislings, they run things for Turbo America.
By chance in earliesh 2019, I bought a book called "Slavery and Social Death" by Orlando Patterson. As I later found out, it may be the finest synoptic study of slavery there is. What fascinated me were the pages and pages of meticulously documented tables showing where slavery has existed......the African tables were especially eye-opening.
In August of 2019, I opened the NYTimes and started reading the lead essay of something called the "1619 Project" with anticipation. But a few sentences in, I started to sense something wrong. Mellifluously written, that lead essay, for which Hannah-Jones would win the Pulitzer for commentary (not history), described a ship coming into an American port. The passage seemed insular and the ship itself reminded me of the ship in Wagner's "Flying Dutchman". And yes, I got suspicious.
A bit further down in the same essay was a sentence about who first got the franchise when the US was established. As I remember from high school history, it was land owning white males. But Hannah-Jones wrote the sentence in a way to erase the fact that non-land owning white males could not vote. It was as if she could not attribute "victimhood" to white men as it would sully her intersectional antipodes. At that point, in my mind, I sensed we were in Pravda land.
The critique of "1619" was vast and, to me, finer than the "1619 Project" itself. The "right-wing" backlash was critically minor. The main repository became the extraordinary commentary and interviews carried out by the Worldwide Socialist Website, which clearly understood that identity was burying class:
https://www.wsws.org/en/topics/event/1619
There were also, to choose a couple, great critiques such as these:
https://www.opera-historica.com/artkey/oph-202101-0005_the-1619-project-and-living-in-truth.php
https://catalyst-journal.com/2021/12/what-the-1619-project-got-wrong
And also, the cataloguing of its editorial mischief and lying:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/06/1619-project-new-york-times-mistake-122248
Thanks for the links. Extra credit for use of the word synoptic!
Yeah, WSWS did great work in its critique.
500 - and 500 more Inshallah.
Repeatedly being cancelled by my Gen z kids for saying that you can only call yourself a woman if you menstruate/can conceive and give birth to a child. And they aren’t being raised in the west/with western values - American cultural hegemony is dangerous to every culture, identity, and belief system in the world
Just signed up for the yearly subscription a first for me I don’t Twitter so I’m commenting here. Your articles are very well written and I feel smarter for reading them I do feel bad for John Carter though for he is the one that recommended your Substack and I only have his on the free( loader) subscription program but that could change ( I’m on a fixed income) sorry John.
Oh man, now I feel bad! Welcome aboard, Kurt!
It's all good bro I don't even have a paid option yet lol (and you also made me very happy that my recommendation got Niccolo a sub!)
Don’t feel bad this will mean I’ll be reading John’s work with renewed enthusiasm and you both inspire me to read more and think more about the world than we inhabit! Great job both of you!
Why is it for this author to report news of this nature: an honest explication of events? (For more check out Leighton Woodhouse’s substack.)
Why does mainstream media never come close to this level of content? Why does our ruling class through the auspices of MSM work so assiduouslyagainst the wishes of the electorate? Why: what conclusion shall we derive from this state of deception, this, the indisputable evidence of coercion?
What does this portend? 
Soldo said no civil war until a meaningful number of elites join the dispossessed. Soldo, further said the American polity is badly atrophied and getting worse but that the American empire is thriving: “turbo America”.
What shall come of this? Does history have any lessons as regards elite abandonment of their peoples self interest?
I suspect the second amendment will have significant implications as we wrestle with these increasingly urgent questions. Or maybe I’m wrong, there’s no urgency, they will simply turn America into Venezuela. 
With regard to the Cold War.
And the Italian job referenced - its likely enough PCI would have as so many other Communist parties had before bought in the Hard Left as muscle ala Spain, Cuba, etc. In any case the Italians decided otherwise- and The Red Brigades started shooting. Young men waiting their chances to shoot are going to shoot. Regardless. Having a compromised government in power at the time doesn’t help.
Those who don’t remember it are getting a refresher now, mind you its NATO playing at aggression.
The Soviets were as serious about war in Europe then as we are now - its ideologues getting off the leash and being indulged by Brezhnev types who see it as the lesser danger- in the present that would be the Biden Clinton Obama types pointing the American Left and NeoTrots at THE RUSSIANS! In short a dangerous game to point dangerous people in a safer direction.
There was good reason to fear the Communists of the PCI once in power would make the same choices or mistakes made in Spain, Cuba, Chile etc.
Now that in 2022 we have a DC government making similar mistakes with deadly consequences perhaps the Cold War comes into focus? At present we have Putin playing Nixon you know- a cool customer. That was the real Nixon.
By that stage the USSR was not interested in exporting revolution to Europe. At various times the USSR had excellent diplomatic relations and co-operated with pre-war liberal-democratic Czechoslovakia and monarchist Yugoslavia and with post-war Gaullist France. Indeed, De Gaulle had much better relations with Moscow than he ever did with either Westminster or Washington and the pro-Moscow French commies backed de Gaulle publicly when the 'revolution' of 68 (the prototype colour revolution) was launched by Washington's useful idiots, the anti-Soviet Left (which was very heavily infiltrated and supported by the usual suspects in Langley).
Italian anti-communism was in large part a great money-spinner for the Democristiani who raked in abundant financial and political support from the Yanks. In many ways the Europeans pioneered the rackets used by the Afghan leaders who go rich off GWOT.