Featured Articles

On Russophobia and “Anti-Semitism”

/13 Comments/in , , /by

I first learned of the term “Russophobia” many years ago in Robert Wistrich’s 1991 book Antisemitism: The Longest Hatred. My initial impression was essentially that Russians on the “radical right” were attempting to turn the tables on Jews by accusing them of what is effectively the inverse of anti-Semitism (i.e., Russophobia). Of course, this was little more than a mere stratagem designed to obscure their true anti-Semitic intentions. Although not at all thuggish or violent, the proponents of Russophobia, according to Wistrich, were especially dangerous since they included many prominent writers and scholars and had viable connections within the Soviet power structure of the day. Wistrich saw through it all, and so should any right-thinking gentile.

Of the people decrying Russophobia, Wistrich writes:

They are in favor of patriotism, law and order, and traditional values blended with ecological concerns to preserve the Russian cultural heritage. What they claim to hate are the destructive influences of ‘liberals’ in Soviet life, the fads and so-called ‘Russophobes’ – those émigrés, dissidents and above all Jews who are quite falsely said to denigrate Russian history and mock the backwardness of Russian culture. [Igor] Shafarevich’s tract, entitled Russophobia (1989), can be taken as the Bible of this anti-Western, anti-Socialist and antisemitic gospel, driven by intellectual paranoia and an apocalyptic vision of the spiritual crisis confronting Soviet society.

This was essentially my baseline for Russophobia for many years prior to my conversion on the Jewish Question upon reading Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique. I again encountered Shafarevich’s name when researching Solzhenitsyn and the Right. Solzhenitsyn mentions Shafarevich quite often in his memoirs—always in a positive light—and included three of Shafarevich’s essays in his 1974 From Under the Rubble collection. One of these essays was the incipient version of Shafarevich’s famous work The Socialist Phenomenon.

Shararevich (who was one of the twentieth-century’s leading mathematicians and who died in 2017 at the age of 95.) distributed his long essay “Russophobia” as samizdat in the early 1980s, and published it in the Soviet periodical Nash Sovremennik in 1989. In 2002, he published an expanded version of this essay as Three-Thousand-Year-Old Enigma, a full-length treatise on Russo-Jewish relations, similar to Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together—but with greater emphasis on religion. Unfortunately, no English translation of this work exists as of yet.

What’s interesting about “Russophobia,” however, is not only its thoughtful and well-argued counter-Semitism, but the shallow and dishonest responses it engendered from Jewish writers, which tarnished much of Shafarevich’s reputation in the West after the fall of the Soviet Union. From the essay’s onset, Shafarevich expresses concern for the “spiritual life” of Russia. He notes that starting in the 1970s, a flood of anti-Russian literature was being produced which he saw as “the expression of the view of an established, cohesive school.” According to these writers, Russia is inherently despotic and oppressive due to the backward nature of the Russians themselves, which manifests itself mostly through violence, servility, and “messianism.”

Shafarevich counters such slander over several pages of historical discussion, for example, on Richard Pipes’ claim that Tsar Nicholas I served as the model for not only Soviet totalitarianism but for Hitler’s Third Reich as well. Shafarevich demonstrates clearly that totalitarianism was fully developed in the West prior to Nichols I, and so Tsarist Russia should be let off the hook for initiating “all of the 20th century’s antiliberal tendencies.” As for “Messianism,” Shafarevich deftly reminds his readers that the outlook which appoints a certain group as being “destined to determine the fate of humanity and become its savior” began not with the Russians but with the Jews thousands of years ago. And as for the claim that “the revolution in Russia was predetermined by the whole course of Russian history,” Shafarevich points out that socialism was already fully-developed in the West before gaining any kind of foothold in Russia in the nineteenth century. For evidence, he cites the lack of Russian proto-socialist authors of the stature of Thomas More or Tommaso Campanella, and how early Russian socialists such as Mikhail Bakunin and Alexander Herzen started their socialist endeavors only after they emigrated to the West. He concludes [emphasis in the original]:

Thus, many phenomena that the authors of the tendency we are examining proclaim to be typically Russian prove to be not only not typical of Russia but altogether non-Russian in origin, imported from the West: that was the payment, as it was, for Russia’s entry into the sphere of the new Western culture.

Now, by this point in the essay, the savvy reader will know where it’s going. Although Shafarevich had hardly used the J-word, the people he was skewering had names that echo into eternity—or if they don’t, they should. Grigory Pomerants, Richard Pipes, Boris Shragin, Alexander Yanov, Boris Khazanov, and others. Essentially, Shafarevich is accusing Jewish writers for being the nucleus of this Russophobia and imbuing it with Jewish nationalism. He’s not responding to these people as individuals. He’s responding to them, however politely, as Jews. And that is unacceptable to the same Jews who gleefully condemn Russians as Russians. See how that double standard works?

“Are these authors interested in the truth at all?” he asks. He later probes for ulterior motives:

And hatred for one nation is usually associated with a heightened sense of one’s belonging to another. Doesn’t this make it likely that our authors are under the influence of some sort of powerful force rooted in their national feelings?

In this passage, one can sense a precursor to the evolutionary struggles between populations as found in MacDonald’s Separations and its Discontents and The Culture of Critique.

Shafarevich borrows terms from historian Augustin Cochin, who divided the antagonists of the French Revolution into “Lesser people” and “Greater people.” The former group, an elite minority, lived in a spiritual and intellectual world at odds with the established order, as represented by the latter group. The Lesser People were bent on revolution and enforcing newfangled notions such as equality and freedom, while the Greater People insisted upon Catholicism, concepts such as honor and nobility, loyalty to the King, and taking pride in French history. These were the very things that the Lesser People considered dead weight and wished to remove, with maximum violence if necessary.

Shafarevich applies this duality to 1980s Soviet life by demonstrating how this Jewish school of Russophobia had the same motives and possessed the same hatred that Cochin’s Lesser People had for the Greater People. Their platforms were eerie similar. In both cases, the Lesser People stressed individualism over nationalism, a disconnect from history, and an utter contempt for the people.

He states that Yanov pushed the idea that

humanity is quantized ONLY INTO SEPARATE INVIDUALS, and not into nations. It is not a new viewpoint. Humanity dispersed (or “quantized”) into individual units that are totally unconnected to one another—such, evidently, is Yanov’s ideal. [emphasis in the original]

As for Russian history, it is complete “savagery, coarseness and failure;” nothing but “tyranny, slavery, and senseless, bloody convulsions.” Religion, according to Pomerants “has ceased to be a trait of the people.” Pomerants also declared that love for one’s people is more dangerous then love for animals and that Russians possess “a lackeyish mixture of malice, envy and worship of authority.” Watch how he advocates for genocide:

The peasant cannot be reborn except as a character in an opera. Peasant nations are hungry nations, and nations in which the peasantry has disappeared [sic!] are nations in which hunger has disappeared.

Andrei Amalrik, a non-Jewish ally, insults the Russian thusly:

And if language is the fullest expression of the spirit of the people, then who is more Russian—the “little Negro” Pushkin and the “little Jew” Mandelshtam, or the muzhik in the beer hall who, wiping his spittle across his unshaven cheeks, bellows: “I’m a Russian!”

Khazanov declares not only that he finds Russia repulsive but that “to be a member of the Russian intelligentsia at the present time inevitably means being a Jew.” Shragin proclaims that the Russians being treated worse than all other groups in prisons was “just and logical.” Furthermore, none—not a single one—of these authors apply similar criticisms to Jews—only to Russians. The authors simply presume Jewish innocence before going out to destroy the reputation of the Russian people. Such attitudes breed revolution and terrorism, as was demonstrated in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth, and culminated in the inhuman atrocities of the Bolsheviks (which, Shafarevich demonstrates, also contained a nucleus of Jews). Shafarevich recognizes that for the Greater People, this is essentially a recipe for death.

Shafarevich:

[a] people that assesses its own history IN THAT WAY cannot exist. We are dealing here with a phenomenon that vitally affects us inhabitants of this country. [emphasis in the original]

This sentence represents the essence of the current struggle of the White Dissident Right, and the core of “Russophobia.” We, as the Greater People elite, oppose the Lesser People elite—most of whom are Jews—not because we possess an a priori hatred of Jews but because we wish to survive as a people. Shafarevich demonstrates how adhering to the Lesser People’s platform will guarantee that we won’t survive as a people. Really, it’s either-or.

As expected, Jews everywhere accused Shafarevich of anti-Semitism. Walter Laqueur responded with a New Republic essay entitled “From Russia with Hate,” in which he straight-facedly asks if Shafarevich was an admirer of Hitler (despite how Shafarevich condemns the Nazis as totalitarians in “Russophobia”). Semyon Resnik nitpicked on minor factual inaccuracies regarding Shafarevich’s treatment of the murder of Tsar Nicholas II and his family. He also accused Shafarevich of perpetuating a blood libel by describing the murder as a “ritual act”—as if this undermines the main points of Shafarevich’s essay.

In his stunningly spiteful 1990 essay entitled “Russian History and Anti-Semitism of Igor Shafarevich,” Eliezer Rabinovich sets up a straw man by accusing Shafarevich of blaming solely the Jews for the Bolshevik Revolution (something Shafarevich explicitly does not do in section eight of his essay). He dodges the question of whether Jews were prominent among the Bolsheviks by declaring such Jews as Trotsky and Zinoviev as “anti-Jewish Jews.” He then disputes much of Shafarevich’s historical exegesis and harps on Russian flaws and Russian culpability for past atrocities. Fair enough. No people is without sin, and Shafarevich claims nothing of the sort with Russia. Further, Rabinovich’s arguments do not necessarily refute Shafarevich’s. It is possible for Russophobia and anti-Semitism as the authors describe them to exist simultaneously. Yet Rabinovich states flatly that “Jewish Russophobia simply does not exist,” while Russian anti-Semitism does. Talk about presumption of innocence! How can anyone take such a self-serving zealot seriously?

Josephine Woll in her Soviet Jewish Affairs essay entitled “Russians and ‘Russophobes’” smears Shafarevich as a radical slavophile. She then, quite superficially, attempts to employ logic against him.

Shafarevich argues inductively, from results to ’causes.’ There are demonstrations and strikes. Their causes cannot be objective circumstances (in any event, Shafarevich does not consider that possibility). Therefore they must be provoked. Who could benefit from provoking them? Those who hate Russia and wish to see her weak. Who feels such hatred for Russia? Jews. QED.

Note how Woll completely ignores the evidence Shafaravich presents to support his idea that Jewish nationalism is the driving force behind Russophobia. Do the quotes he presents not evince contempt for Russia? Are most of their authors not Jewish? Aren’t these authors attacking Russia and Russians while not simultaneously attacking Israel and Jews? How can one not detect enemy action in all of this?

And this brings us back to Wistrich and his ludicrous claim that certain Jews “are quite falsely said to denigrate Russian history and mock the backwardness of Russian culture.” Falsely, is it? Did he not read “Russophobia?” In his book, Wistrich didn’t even include “Russophobia” among his source material, only Woll’s article and others like it. Did Robert Wistrich lie out ignorance or knowing? And none of these writers make credible attempts to counter Shafaravich’s evidence or disprove his conclusions. For them, it’s enough to label such conclusions as anti-Semitic. Whether such conclusions adhere to the truth, like the existence of Russophobia itself, is a less pressing matter.

The Military Analysts and the Negative Coverage of the War

/21 Comments/in /by

I’ve written about the military people in Russia before, but it’s worth bringing up again.

There are, or rather, there were nationalist political groups in Russian politics, but they were either assimilated, like Dmitri Rogozin’s “Rodina” party, which basically faded into irrelevance once Rogozin himself was offered a position in the government, or they folded like the internet journal Sputnik & Pogrom.

You’ve probably heard of Rogozin — he got into a spat with Elon Musk recently:

Leading to this cryptic tweet:

I really don’t think Rogozin is going to assassinate Musk — but hey, it’s topical to mention it.

Anyway, there’s no real point in talking about nationalist groups in Russia unless it is to mention various weirdo Neo-Nazi groups who seem to only exist so that the FSB can roll up on them periodically, send them to penal colonies, and thereby justify their budget.

The only serious bloc of patriotic voices with right-wing views, organizations and any form of political activism in Russia are basically military organizations like veterans’ groups and the various other support communities built up around them like “Mothers of Soldiers” and the military people who run journals, host get-togethers, summer camps, choirs, rock concerts, parades or special remembrance days.

The people running the various military journals and blogs are serious and they are respected by civil society because the military as an institution is generally well-liked in any country by the masses. There was a poll floating around about two years ago that showed that in terms of respect, Putin came in second place in Russia when compared to the respect accorded to the military as an institution.

As a result, the FSB and the oligarchs and parts of the government are quite leery of them. This is a major fault-line running through Russian civil society that few people analyze or talk about. If it wasn’t clear before, then I’m going to spell it out now — I am unabashedly on team military/team patriot and hope that they gain a greater foothold in Russian politics as a result of the war.

That being said, it’s worth realizing that these people have a dog in the political fight and since they are the only ones providing serious in-depth analysis of the war from the Russian side, it’s going to factor into their coverage. You’ve probably seen a machine-translated article of theirs or two floating in the blogosphere by now.

Their official line is basically this: “the corrupt elements running many of the institutions in Russia now are fighting the war poorly and have proven that they need to be replaced.”

I largely agree with them, but I also generally take their analysis of the situation with a grain of salt. See, it’s in their interests to play up the mistakes of the Russian government in Ukraine (of which there are indeed many) because it fits with their political narrative. Again, I like their political narrative and am sympathetic to it. But, again, let’s acknowledge that they do have an incentive to take a pessimistic stance on the war and the way things are being run at home. So, that means that they spend a lot less time focusing on the victories and the successes on the military front and a lot more time talking about the mistakes. Like the Moskva sinking. Boy, oh boy did they have a field day with that.

Me, personally, I don’t really think it reflects poorly on the current war effort in Ukraine seeing as the Moskva was plagued with problems for years. It was supposed to be refitted in 2016 after its deployment to Syria, but it was clear that this wasn’t a priority as Russia was shifting to subs and lighter ships as part of its modernization efforts.

Bloggers like the Saker, were, at the time, praising the Moskva with its goofy ramp and rusted out hull and denouncing anyone who disagreed as being victims of Anglo-ZOG propaganda as I recall. But the boat was objectively old and clearly near obsolete. Sailors didn’t like serving on it and some military journals at the time had no problem calling it a “white elephant” that seemed to be kept around for its symbolic value instead of any real strategic importance.

The loss of the sailors was tragic, of course, but the loss of the boat itself? People who were calling for it to be sold to China or the North Koreans all of a sudden began using the Moskva debacle as a cudgel against the Kremlin.

Overall, I don’t really see any harm in their critical posturing as the situation stands now. Although, it has to be said, that people like Igor Strelkov, the hero rebel of Donbass, are routinely posted by Ukrainian propaganda channels because of his constant criticism of the Russian government and the war effort.

Doomer Strelkov

To be fair, the Russian government did Strelkov dirty. He wanted to take all of Novorussia back in 2016 and he was right to call for a fast blitzkrieg. The Ukrainian Army was not ready, the cities weren’t fortified and the speed and success of the Crimean operation had them demoralized. Instead, the Russian government, the political class and people like Lavrov decided to go the Minsk I and II route. They seemed to believe that they could keep all of Ukraine by participating in the electoral process and negotiating with their “most-esteemed Western partners.”

Well, they were dead wrong and they never apologized for losing the entirety of Ukraine through their unprofessionalism and stupidity. Say it with me: Igor was right and did nothing wrong.

Anyway, the army fighting in the Ukraine is basically Putin’s private army. It is a professional, paid force, which is only a fraction of Russia’s actual full militarized might and it is mixed with ethnic auxiliaries called up by local tribal chieftains of the various periphery republics. It is not a Russian draftee army and so, does not necessarily need to be motivated by an ideal or patriotic propaganda to do its fighting. They’re fighting because they’re getting paid to fight and because they’re good at it. Sure, they’re generally pro-Russia and there are volunteers there who are clearly Russian revanchists who believe in the ‘Greater Russia’ ideal for sure, but these people would be down for a good scrap in any case. After all, they fought in the Donbass in the early days when the situation was far more dire for the pro-Russia side simply because of their commitment to Russian nationalism restorationism.

Believe me, if a general or even partial mobilization is announced, the military people will change their tune quick. At that point, the nature of the war changes and it becomes one’s patriotic duty to rah-rah-rah and not demoralize the war effort. We’re not there yet though, and it’s worth understanding that these people are engaging in political point-scoring and also in making the case that they would do a better job protecting Russia’s interests than the mystery-meat politicians running the show now.

They want the Russian government to call them in to fix the problem. They want general mobilization and total war against NATO. They see an opportunity for themselves and for Russia as a whole to move in the right direction.

Ukraine, in contrast, does not allow a single peep of criticism of their war effort. Videos of units complaining about being abandoned by their officers, sent to fight without equipment, not being paid and so on are suppressed and the soldiers who record them are charged with sedition and desertion by the secret police.

That, plus the power of Western propaganda creates a highly skewed perception of the war. One side appears to be uniformly positive and never admits to making mistakes or even losing a single battle, while the other is analyzing, debating and talking openly about what’s happening on the front.

But the squeaky wheel often gets the grease, and you have to give them credit where credit is due — the military people and their talking points are starting to take hold in Russia. People are starting to ask questions about the war effort and demand that the government do more. ‘Mobilization’ is a buzz word that’s gaining ground in the public arena.

Again, I’m biased, but if I were the Russian government, I’d just deal these people in, if only to get them to stop criticizing the “special operation.” But, you see, because these people are so popular, they represent a potential threat. The way I see it, the real story isn’t to be found in the trenches of Donbass, but in the politicking happening behind the scenes on the home front in Russia.

Balance of Power or Balance of Terror?

/24 Comments/in /by

I would like to share some perspectives on the Russia-US-Ukraine War, that may be helpful, or at least of interest.  They may not be popular and they could be construed as merely “pro-Russian;” however I simply report my perspectives and experience, and leave some of the implications to the reader’s judgement.  I have lived and worked throughout the FSU (Former Soviet Union) for a large multinational technology company, and on some occasions with the U.S. State Department and other US, European and Russian agencies in technical assistance programs.  I speak Russian, have a degree in Russian Language and Literature, and have written on Soviet science and technology, including in defense applications.  I have a graduate degree in business and have been a science and technology chief executive.  I have also worked in global aerospace and defense for the largest US defense management consultant.

I worked mostly in Moscow (Russia), Minsk (Belarus) and Kiev (Ukraine) beginning in 1990 right after the Berlin Wall episode, and during former Soviet leader Gorbachev’s “Perestroika” (“Rebuilding”) and “Glasnost” (“Openness”) programs.  I met Gorbachev personally.  I also had first-hand experience with the so-called US-designed “Shock Therapy” policy that was thought of then as a way of transitioning the former Soviet Union from a state-centered and planned economy into a market-based one.  It was modelled after programs previously used in Chile’s privatization programs, and championed by University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman, and then later in Russia, it was orchestrated and overseen especially by Columbia University’s Jeffrey Sachs.  I will return to the Shock Therapy question in a moment, as it provides very important context in the current Ukrainian conflict.  First, may I share some opinions on what is happening in the contentious conflict in Ukraine?  I’m not the first to broadcast some of these perspectives, but some aspects of my views and experiences, may provide some ways of seeing more of the linkages between Russian and U.S. behavior in foreign policy dimensions.

Certain foreign policy and international relations observers and researchers, including University of Chicago’s John Mearsheimer (author of “The Israel Lobby”), remain in a small minority, largely ignored or sidelined by major media, but who clearly lay out the historical missteps and provocations made by the US, toward Russia.  His view is that the U.S. all but guaranteed a Russian invasion into Ukraine.  Other observers including long-time Soviet media journalist Vladimir Posner made a coherent description of events, at a  talk at Yale University.  Others including consultant Samo Burja have spoken at length on Russia, as has former White House advisor Col. Douglas Macgregor who in my view stands apart from most of the “talking Generals” who sit on defense contractor Boards.

These alternative, in some cases, expert views, generally coalesce around three themes: one, that NATO expansion threatened (and threatens) Russia; two, that Russia has legitimate, current strategic interests in Ukraine including warm-water sea access; and three, that the US and EU are using Ukraine as a staging base, or proxy, for an unrelenting ideological war against Russia, including harboring the belief that the West can “defeat” Russia once and for all, and destroy is industrial base.  All three factors are correct.  But there is much more.

In my view it is no coincidence that Ukrainian-born US Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was at the center of the Trump impeachment operation, and alleged a legitimate impeachment cause of action, after he was listening in on a phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Zelenskyy.  Some have not unreasonably asserted that Vindman may be a “double agent” which drew immediate defensive posturing and reputational “whitewashing” from various quarters of the Washington, DC, establishment.  I think this is essentially a correct characterization, but he is more than a “double agent.”  He is part of an explicit cooperative operation between the US State Department (in part by Victoria Nuland) and Ukraine special interests, with Zelenskyy as their front spokesman, to pursue a mixed but ultimately mutually reinforcing policy of war profiteering, financial fraud, and US “Green New Deal” extremism that can be arranged under a war footing (oil and gas disruption, and demographic management by food shortages).  The war also provides a “blank check” for US pretextual and “false flag” operations, including cyber-attacks.  The assertion of a nuclear accident, exchange or other detonation, can also set the stage for the US administration’s shift into its next phase of public control and suppression—in part due to election engineering objectives—by declaring various states of emergency, including martial law.

Concerning the prior US policy of “Shock Therapy” that was orchestrated by Western economic advisors in the early 1990s as a way to turn Russia into a western-style commercial market economy, it not only failed—Russia had no history over a 500-year period, of any formal democracy, nor any critical legal, banking or management infrastructure whatsoever—but it turned Russia upside down in a cynical if cruel effort to exploit the country.  Putin witnessed it all.  I was in Moscow at the time. It was demoralizing to see the extent of suffering, confusion, and mass dislocation.  Princeton historian Stephen Cohen, with whom I have corresponded at length, and who recently passed, had been one of the few sane voices warning the West about such mendacious foreign policy.

In closing, I would like to underscore the utility of understanding Russian philosopher and government advisor (called by some, “Putin’s Brain”) Alexander Dugin, who presents an argument of Russian geopolitical, and other motivations that few in the West care to confront, although he has received significant media coverage.  Some, such as Canadian scholar Michael Millerman, give a  balanced context, with his paper, “Alexander Dugin on Eurasianism, the Geopolitics of Land and Sea, and a Russian Theory of Multipolarity” (Interview.)

As for Jewish Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, he is running a “war within a war” by attacking—militarily, psychologically, and economically—his own people (reported here by Canadian award-winning journalist Eva Bartlett in her asserted eyewitness testimony), and forcing mass panic, suffering and migration, largely in order to put on a “financial road show” by bilking the UK and US out of billions of dollars in cash, technical assistance and military hardware, much of which may end up going to NGOs favored by U.S. politicians. He may be a war criminal of the highest order, and the current incompetence of US leadership at nearly all levels, combined with special interests orchestrating the fraud within the US, makes for easy pickings, and one of the “heists of the century.”  Zelenskyy also recently passed an order banning opposition political parties.

Ms. Bartlett describes from her location in the Donbas, that Ukraine has for many years consistently terrorized Russian regions of Ukraine with shelling.  She reports of mid-day Ukrainian rocket attacks on civilian shopping areas, while also visiting areas of current Ukrainian-alleged Russian “war crimes” such as Bucha’s mass grave sites, where such evidence appears inconclusive or strangely arranged.  She is an experienced independent war correspondent, including in Syria and Palestine, and although she discloses some occasional journalism work for RT News, she appears largely outside mainstream media bias, and her work by them, ignored or suppressed.  Her very interesting WordPress website is here, where she reports on these issues, among others.

As for “winning” a war against Russia, the West, including the EU and NATO, do not realize that Russia may have effectively “won” the Eurasian land conquest, in part by its reserves of kinetic and other weaponry still held in abeyance, and by its alignment with China, India and Iran.  Putin may also be right that sanctions are hurting the U.S. more than Russia: For the US, in fact, the concept of “winning” isn’t actually the objective, as current US domestic policy wins by losing: losing the US, that is, by seeking to destabilize its industrial infrastructure and economy, in part as a tactic to cloak current government extremism, while carrying out its radical “re-set” ideology centered in Green extremism.

Here Are the Nutcases Who Believe in “Replacement”

/60 Comments/in , /by
HERE ARE THE NUTCASES WHO BELIEVE IN “REPLACEMENT”

The “Great Replacement Theory” (GRT) has taken the media by storm! It seems that the White racist who shot up a grocery store full of Black people last weekend cited GRT in his 180-page “manifesto.”

First of all, journalists need to understand that GRT is only a theory taught in advanced law school seminars. It is not something designed for indoctrination of mass audiences of young people.

So what is GRT? The New York Times describes it thus:

“[T]he notion that Western elites, sometimes manipulated by Jews, want to ‘replace’ and disempower white Americans.” (You want a conspiracy theory about a secretive cabal of Jews? Check out the Times’ series of articles on “neoconservatives” back in the early 2000s.)

But then — just as every argument about abortion suddenly becomes an argument about contraception — a few paragraphs later, the crackpot theory jumps from a Jewish cabal replacing whites with blacks … to the idea that Democrats are using immigration “for electoral gains.”

Wow, that is nuts! Where’d anybody get that idea?

Oh yeah — from liberals.

Here’s Democratic consultant Patrick Reddy in 1998:

“The 1965 Immigration Reform Act promoted by President Kennedy, drafted by Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and pushed through the Senate by Ted Kennedy has resulted in a wave of immigration from the Third World that should shift the nation in a more liberal direction within a generation. It will go down as the Kennedy family’s greatest gift to the Democratic Party.”

(Well, sure, if you want to totally overlook skirt-chasing and pill-popping.)

Then in 2002, Democrats Ruy Teixeira and John Judis wrote “The Emerging Democratic Majority,” arguing that demographic changes, mostly by immigration, were putting Democrats on a glide path to an insuperable majority. After Obama’s reelection in 2012, Teixeira crowed in The Atlantic (which was then a magazine that people read, as opposed to a billionaire widow’s charity) that “ten years farther down this road,” Obama lost the white vote outright, but won the election with the minority vote — African-Americans (93-6), Hispanics (71-27) and Asian-Americans (73-26).

A year later, the National Journal’s Ron Brownstein began touting the “Coalition of the Ascendant,” gloating that Democrats didn’t need blue-collar whites anymore. Woo hoo! Obama “lost more than three-fifths of noncollege whites and whites older than 45.” But who cares? He crushed with “minorities (a combined 80%).”

“Adios, Reagan Democrats,” he says gleefully.

Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg’s 2019 book, “RIP GOP,” explains the coming death of the Republican Party as a result of … sucking up to Wall Street? Pushing pointless wars? Endlessly cutting taxes? NO! The GOP’s demise would come from the fact that “our country is hurtling toward a New America that is ever more racially and culturally diverse … more immigrant and foreign born.”

And these were the genteel, nonthreatening descriptions of how immigration was consigning White voters to the Aztec graveyard of history.

On MSNBC, they’re constantly sneering about “old white men” and celebrating the “browning of America.” A group called Battleground Texas boasts about flipping that deep red state to the Democrats — simply by getting more Hispanics to vote. Blogs are giddily titled, “The Irrelevant South” (“the traditional white South — socially and economically conservative — is no longer relevant in national politics”). MSNBC’s Joy Ann Reid tweets that she is “giddy” watching “all the bitter old white guys” as Ketanji Brown Jackson “makes history.”

This week, the media’s leading expert on the crazies who believe in replacement theory is Tim Wise, popping up on both MSNBC and CNN to psychoanalyze the White “racists.” He’s been quoted, cited or praised dozens of times in The New York Times. This isn’t some fringe character, despite appearances.

In 2010, Wise wrote an “Open Letter to the White Right” that began:

“For all y’all rich folks, enjoy that champagne, or whatever fancy ass Scotch you drink.
“And for y’all a bit lower on the economic scale, enjoy your Pabst Blue Ribbon, or whatever shitty ass beer you favor …
“Because your time is limited.
“Real damned limited.”

Guess why! Wise explained:

“It is math.”

Wait, isn’t math racist? But moving on …

“Because you’re on the endangered list.
“And unlike, say, the bald eagle or some exotic species of muskrat, you are not worth saving.
“In 40 years or so, maybe fewer, there won’t be any more white people around who actually remember that Leave It to Beaver …”

Have you ever noticed how obsessed liberals are with “Leave It to Beaver”?

“It’s OK. Because in about 40 years, half the country will be black or brown. And there is nothing you can do about it.
“Nothing, Senor Tancredo.”

After several more paragraphs of mocking White people, Wise ended with this stirring conclusion:

“We just have to be patient.
“And wait for you to pass into that good night, first politically, and then, well …
“Do you hear it?
“The sound of your empire dying? Your nation, as you knew it, ending, permanently?
“Because I do, and the sound of its demise is beautiful.”

To Wise, the best way to kill the antisemitic trope of Jewish elites waging war against whites is to be a Jewish elite waging war against Whites.

I don’t know about the Jewish cabal version of GRT, but as for liberals using immigration to bring in more Democratic voters, as Maya Angelou said, “When people show you who they are, believe them.”

Speaking of theories involving Jewish cabals …

The New York Times on neoconservatives, Aug. 4, 2003:

“For the past few weeks, U.S. President George W. Bush has been surrounded by a secretive circle of advisers and public relations experts, giving rise to all kinds of conspiracy theories and debates. It’s been said that the group’s idol is German Jewish philosopher Leo Strauss.”

COPYRIGHT 2022 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION
1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106; 816-581-7500

Giles Corey: The Complete Sword of Christ

/52 Comments/in /by

Giles Corey’s book The Sword of Christ was published by Amazon in 2020 but then banned from the site. He writes, “Since it was banned by Amazon, I have been exceedingly busy. Though I do plan to release a second edition at some point in the future, I just don’t have the time to do it anytime soon. So I would send you the book as it was when you wrote the preface to it.”

The Sword of Christ is available here.

The Generational Divide in Eastern Europe — The Bariga Generation 

/29 Comments/in /by

We left off talking about the Soviet Generation last time. By the by, some commenters over on Unz got mad and accused me of promoting pro-Western talking points and being anti-Russian for being a bit harsh, admittedly, about the old-timers. Well, putting aside that some people seem incapable of seeing the world with any nuance and fall back on good vs. evil, black and white narratives, its also an amusing reaction when you consider that the Soviet Generation doesn’t really even see itself as Russian or Ukrainian or Belorussian for that matter. They see themselves as Soviets first and foremost and their allegiance and true love is for a dead political ideology and project, not for the country that they ended up in when the whole thing collapsed. There is even an entire movement of pro-Soviets that refuses to acknowledge that they are Russian and wave their Soviet passports around, saying that the USSR was never formally dissolved, therefore, they remain Soviets and not Russians. And just because these people are anti-Western because the West is supposedly an imperialist, capitalist, bourgeois project, doesn’t mean that they are Russian patriots. But whatever. Consider me what you will if you must, but I think my positions and worldview will become clearer as the blogging continues.

Some more qualifications and equivocating first though: generations are generally remembered and evaluated based on the culture and attitudes that they produce. That being said, there are always members of the generational cohort who do not participate in the defining culture of their time. Sometimes, they form a distinct sub-culture that is in opposition to the dominant culture of their time. Exceptions to the general rule, however, are just that. I realize that I am talking to dissident right-wingers for the most part, so please remember that we allow ourselves to generalize on other topics for good reason, and the same rules should apply to my generalizations here.

So, after the Soviets, we had the first “free” generation coming into mature adulthood while living in the ruins of the Soviet Union or spending their teenage years enjoying the free-for-all that was the 90s. These people are generally in their very late 30s and early 50s now. And if we were to compare the values and behavior of this post-Soviet generation with similar generations in the West, we’d have to look at Generation X as a useful template to compare and contrast to. On the one hand, both Gen X’er groups loved their angsty rock music and plunged headfirst into nihilistic self-harm, drug experimentation and a “burn it all down, man” sort of political platform. On the other, Eastern Gen X’ers were very pro-Capitalism and free markets and hustlin’ in a way that their drop-out Western counterparts were not, and this became the key defining driver of this generation and its values. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was this general idea in the heads of the youth that now was a golden opportunity to finally make some money. See, in the Soviet Union, there was no real path to making any money that didn’t include a party membership and a knack for embezzlement. Now though, there was a feeling that the looting was going to be democratized and the Eastern Gen X eagerly rubbed its hands and plunged in headfirst to eke out its share.

This is also why I, personally, refer to them as the Bariga Generation, which is a term worth a short explanation as well.

The term “bariga” is most often used to refer to dealers, but it’s also used for fast-talkers and scam artists. In contrast to the muscled, tattooed thug who simply beats money out of people, the bariga sweet-talks them out of it and generally does less physical forms of crime. Being a criminal, acting like a gangster, and getting rich or dying trying were the literal rallying cry of a large swath of this generation, helped along by Western ideals that they were so eager to adopt and mindlessly follow. Many died along the way, but a few succeeded in stealing a little something for themselves and their loved ones. To be fair, the whole FSU at that point was basically a carcass being looted by vultures and scavengers, and the social order largely collapsed once a faction of the ruling Party decided to chip in and help the West detonate what they had spent the better part of the century building up. So the Bariga generation was literally just monkey-seeing and monkey-doing and I’m not saying that they were metaphysically evil by dint of being born when they were or anything like that. But take racketeering, for example, which became a legitimate profession because, well, everyone from the KGB to the Georgian mafia to the Party Nomenklatura was doing it. Can we blame a significant part of the youth for trying to get in on the action as well?

Personally, I think it’s sort of understandable behavior in the post-apocalyptic wasteland that was the FSU.

But as part of their rebellion against the Soviet Union, they also went to war against their socially conservative Soviet family and their values. Dealing drugs, burning and reselling punk rock and gangster rap CDs, tricking a granny out of her apartment, sitting around all day in the staircase and eating sunflower seeds, smoking cheap cigarettes and throwing up on the walls, sneaking into a factory and stealing the copper wiring in the walls — all favorite pastimes of the rebellious youth that were then immortalized in song and verse by their punk rock and gangster rap bards.

Ever hear of “Gopniks” and the infamous “gop stop”?

The “GOP” part is an acronym that refers to government-subsidized housing quarters. Their residents began to be referred to as Gopniks and their favorite pastimes were accosting random pedestrians and demanding cigarettes or sunflower seeds from them. Handing over a cigarette or two was no guarantee of being left unmolested though. Usually, as urban legend holds, one had to reply in a certain coded way and one “correct” answer that you could give was that you didn’t smoke because you were a sportsman. I never tried this password myself and either way, it seems like one’s mileage could vary.

Context, context, context, though, I know.

It is hard to put into words just how demoralized the entire FSU was at the time. The Soviet Union had been locked in an ideological war with the Capitalist West that they had suddenly and unexpectedly lost without even putting up a fight. That meant that literally everything that was promoted yesterday became discredited today. The Soviet Generation, in particular, had a very hard time accepting that the Western bourgeois propaganda about the gulags and the actual, uncensored story of the Bolsheviks’ bloody rise to power had more than a kernel of truth to it. The youth, however, accepted it with zeal and became ardent anti-Sovoks to an extreme. This meant that they also eagerly lapped up everything else that the West had to share with the East simply because they were so thoroughly disenchanted with the ideals of their parents’ generation. They developed a mania for everything Western and that meant that no one critically assessed what was flowing into the country at the time — so long as it was Western, it was considered good. The lying, discredited Western news was accepted uncritically by them — after all, they were right about the crimes of the Soviet Union, weren’t they? That clearly meant they were the good guys and should be trusted about, say, the crimes of the Serbs against … well, whoever it was that they were being accused of being mean towards at the time. And this applied to all the pressing social, political and economic issues of the day. To this day, the Bariga generation harbors a fondness for America and the West, whom they see as liberators who freed them from the clutches of the USSR (and their parents’ stifling conservative values). While this has been changing (slightly) because of the events surrounding Crimea and now the war in Ukraine, many still remain hopelessly demoralized and supportive of whatever the West does and endlessly critical of “Rashka” — an insulting epithet hurled at their own country.

But you would be mistaken if you assumed that these people were entirely “liberal” in the same sense that we understand liberals in the West. While the Bariga generation generally wants to cargo-cult and import the West wholesale into the FSU, if not simply outright move there forever, that doesn’t mean that they are like modern SJWs who hate White people and Western culture. See, that’s the funny part — the Bariga generation, to their credit, are generally racists (or race-realists if you prefer) partly because of their rejection of the Soviet “Friendship Between Peoples” official propaganda platform and because of their lived experience with hostile, feral migrants from Central Asia and the Caucasus that were unleashed on an unsuspecting and prostrate Soviet population after the collapse of the USSR.

The film is a cult classic in Russia that depicts the bandit culture of the 90s well. 

What’s worse, the prisoners from the Soviet Union’s massive archipelago of camps were also suddenly released/let loose on an unsuspecting, law-abiding population as well. There were, to be fair, undoubtedly, “Zeks” (prisoners) who did not deserve to be incarcerated in the first place, but there were, also, undoubtedly hardcore criminals who either deserved their hard labor sentence or who had turned feral during their time in the prison system. These prisoners were already being let loose during Gorbachev’s short reign, but the trickle became a flood under Yeltsin, who, like all good revolutionaries, made sure to empty the prisons to inflict as much terror on the people as possible. This influx of Zeks into society significantly contributed to the rise of gangster culture in Russia and the poor behavior of Generation Bariga.

Many former Zeks drive “marche-routka” minivan public transportation in the FSU today. You can usually spot them because of the tell-tale tattoos on their hands and fingers. 

On the slightly less bleak side, compared to the younger generations, the Soviet generation is far less likely to be woke on the race/ethnicity question, because, thanks to the Soviet Union’s internal passport system, the non-White populations of the Soviet empire were kept segregated in their own republics. The only real contact that the average Soviet citizen had with swarth was with the exotic and quaint watermelon salesman at the bazaar or from the Soviet movies, where they were depicted as eccentric, but amicable enough fellows who took pride in providing hospitality for any Soviet guest that might visit them. As a result, Soviets prefer to remember race relations this way and stubbornly refuse to be “red-pilled by reality,” thinking that the crime and the predation will end as soon as Communism is re-instated and the various ethnicities forced to become race-less Soviets again.

A famous Soviet comedy called “The Caucasian Prisoner(ess)”

An interesting point worth mentioning: if you point out what the West actually stands for nowadays and highlight just how bleak the situation is for Western men who are basically openly hated on by their own companies, media, government, wives, and so on, you come up across a wall of denial that I have yet to ever break through with the generic West-obsessed Gen X’er. Any criticism of the West, even coming from a young man who lived there, comes off as yet another Sovok lie, which they, enlightened as they are, refuse to even consider for a moment.

See, the West is a utopia and Rashka is Mordor. End of discussion.

 

It’s funny to consider how, in the West, nationalists rally behind LOTR. But in Russia, it’s the Liberals who use LOTR in their propaganda. Bizarre.

The Bariga generation, however, is archetypically liberal in the sense that they believe that holding the right political views makes them morally superior to all other people and generations. Even though their parents’ generation (with all its faults, admittedly) generally possesses the traits that we associate with morally upright people, the Gen X’ers believe that hating Stalin and Brezhnev gives them a carte blanche to behave however they see fit and still claim the moral high ground.

A typical conversation with a Gen X’er goes something like this.

  • See these sneakers? Got ‘em from Poland. Can’t get them here. I know a buddy who got it for cheap there. Not like here in Rashka.

At that point, their parents overhear the conversation and butt in.

  • In the Soviet Union, we had wonderful shoes. We used to make everything in the Soviet Union. Now … everything is just foreign junk. What a bardak. I saw someone littering the other day in the park. People wouldn’t litter in the Soviet Union. They’d be sent to jail for littering! Or not paying their fare on the bus! A strong hand — that’s how you deal with crime!

This riles up the Gen X’er, who enjoys littering.

  • All you ever talk about is sending someone to prison. You Sovoks want to send us back into the dark ages. Shoes? Are you kidding me? We had to stand in line to get shoes. I remember you pulled some strings with your KGB friend back in the day to get some imported Italian shoes. What’s wrong? Was the Soviet shoe factory not good enough for you then?

This angers the Sovok, who denies the existence of lines as a rule.

  • The agricultural output of our region alone was 77 thousand tons of wheat and barley. We had a 17% increase in urazhai (harvest) in 1982 alone! How many hectares are even being plowed now? We import everything. Everything!

Now that food has been mentioned, the friendly debate is about to devolve into a full-blown argument. We’re in the danger zone, folks.

  • You remember Misha? He worked his whole life on a kolkhoz (collective farm) and you saw how he ended his life. Destitute. Drunk. At least they pay wages now. What you had before was slave labor. And you moved to the city and lived there your whole life which is why you can afford to romanticize the kolkhoz. You just filled your head with Soviet propaganda films and think this reflects reality. Wake up.

A hand slams on the table.

  • And is this any way to live life now? Have you seen the way that the girls dress? The youth on the buses and the metro go around with those devices glued to their ears. They don’t talk to anyone! No respect for their elders!

Now he’s done it.

  • Why don’t you just turn on the TV and fall asleep to Kremlin propaganda lullabies like you usually do. Me, I prefer living in the real world. Hold on, my ex-wife is calling. “Hello, yes? Stop yelling, Katya!” Ok gramps, gotta go. I’ll see you next New Year’s.

Touching, isn’t it?

But I suppose we’ve come to the part of the essay where, after having spent hundreds of words trashing an entire generation, I throw them a bone out of pity and to assuage the vengeful commenters who hound me so.

It is easy to just say that these people sold out their own inheritance to the West for a bowl of porridge in the form of blue jeans, Walkmans and sexual promiscuity, but…

Hmm…

Sorry, I lost my train of thought there. Where was I?

Oh yes, the Bariga generation sold out themselves and future generations for Western products and hide their greed and vanity with a narrative in which they are freedom-fighters and persecuted dissidents. They had few kids if they had any at all. The climbing divorce and abortion rate absolutely exploded as a result of their drunken end-of-the-world-party attitude. Times were tough, but no one held a gun to their heads and forced them to be degenerate. They could have borne their bad hand stoically. They could have found a compromise with their parents instead of violently lashing out. They can sober up at any time even now and realize that the dream of the 90s has died and that we now face a new reality.

What’s worse, to this day, many in this generation refuse to consider the fact that they might have gotten duped or trapped like a mouse in a trap going for the easy cheese. It’s much easier to consider themselves liberators and ardent anti-Communist political rebels fighting against the Stalin in their very own family who spends his days on the couch watching channel 1 and collecting his pension.

Much like their demographic counterpart in the West, there aren’t that many of these guys around and they have generally under-achieved as a generation, leaving their mark mostly in music and underground culture. Mentally, many of them remain trapped in the 90s, which they remember as a golden era of freedom, rebellion and financial opportunity that Putin, the Soviet scoundrel, snatched away from them.

After all, once upon a time, one could take a trip to Poland, buy some foreign sneakers and bring them back to Rashka where the other youths would nod with approval…

The Gen X’er lights up a cigarette and leans back with a drag and a sigh. “Ah, the good old days. Kids these days simply can’t understand. Don’t know how good they have it. If it weren’t for us, they’d still be living in the Soviet Union. We gave them punk rock and freedom.”

I have no problem admitting that many of their criticisms of the Soviet Union ring true. And an eccentric free-thinker like myself would no doubt have been thrown in the Gulag too. But how does blindly hating on one’s country and acting in a destructive manner benefit anyone other than the people who want you dead? They never seem to have an answer.

So, all I have to say to them at this point is: keep on fighting the good fight against mom and dad, Putin and the state, Soviet shoes, and the kolkhoz. History will no doubt look kindly on you and your generation.

Canada Under Globalist Control 

/33 Comments/in /by

Under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s federal regime, Canada has become a testbed or pilot program for the globalist experiment. Canada, like much of the Western World, has been under severe deconstructive challenge. All aspects of life have been subjected to a withering culture of critique. The new Canada that is emerging from the ruins of tradition is very much in line with the prototypical globalist program.

Klaus Schwab, the globalist founder of the World Economic Forum (WEF), essentially described the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution and The Great Reset as the events that will lead to the abolition of private property and the establishment of a new world order. Free market capitalism will be dispensed with in favor of stakeholder capitalism, a system in which governments and central banks, beholden to the WEF, will dictate to citizens and private businesses what they should think, how they should behave, and what their priorities should be. In this dark future “you won’t be allowed to own any private property and your only recourse will be to live in a state of permanent dependency on a small number of rich elitists who own everything.”

The WEF has come to the fore of late because of brazen public statements by Klaus Schwab. In 2017, Schwab boasted, for instance, that almost the entire Canadian Cabinet was under the sway of the WEF as a vast number of its current composition was made up of former WEF young leaders. He proudly states that the WEF has “infiltrated” governments all over the world. Schwab explicitly mentions Canada: “I have to say, when I mention now names, like Mrs. (Angela) Merkel and even Vladimir Putin, and so on, they all have been Young Global Leaders of the World Economic Forum. But what we are very proud of now is the young generation like Prime Minister (Justin) Trudeau. … We penetrate the cabinet. So yesterday I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau and I know that half of his cabinet, or even more than half of his cabinet, are actually Young Global Leaders.”

This raises some questions about how the WEF, an institution that citizens are not able to vote for, has had a disproportionate influence on the policies adopted by the Canadian government at every level. Although the WEF is but one of a vast constellation of globalist non-governmental organizations (NGOs), it is an insidious example of how globalist institutions, very much aligned with George Soros’ open borders ethos, can have a profound influence on the way we are governed.

A global system characterized by open borders, stakeholder capitalism, transhumanism, and a whole litany of other transformative measures as promoted by Mr. Schwab’s WEF, George Soros’ Open Society, and the Anglo-Jewish American ruling class, is already at work in the United States, Canada, Britain, the wider anglosphere—and throughout Europe. Scott Howard, in one of his meticulously substantiated articles, states that Mr. Schwab has been “at the nexus of much of the transhumanist-globalist Hivemind activity and its future direction, and it is worth looking more deeply at Schwab, the World Economic Forum, and the tentacle-like connections that span the globe with the aim of totally enveloping it.” Mr. Howard further states that the WEF’s partners and affiliates “include virtually every major player in not just the globalist agenda more broadly but who form the power nucleus of the dominant faction of transhumanists pushing the world in its current awful direction.”

Interestingly, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) seemingly endless eastward expansion brings with it the very same destructively transformative globalism. The current, ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine can be seen as the exemplification of a war between globalism and the nation-state. Globalists see “Putin as the symbol of white identity and populism in the world, and they want to knock Russia out of the world stage.” Incidentally, Larry Fink, CEO of the multi-trillion-dollar investment management corporation Blackrock, acknowledged Vladimir Putin’s Russia thwarting globalist designs. Mr. Fink stated that the Russian invasion of Ukraine “has put an end to the globalization we have experienced over the last three decades.”

It is telling and predictable, therefore, that Canada’s official stance vis-à-vis the Russia-Ukraine war is in lockstep with the globalist position: “Canada and Ukraine are steadfast partners and close friends. Alongside its international partners and allies, and in solidarity with the government and people of Ukraine, Canada unequivocally condemns Russia’s decision to recognize the independence of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions in Ukraine. Russia’s action constitutes a brazen violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence, and demonstrates a blatant disregard for international law.”

In his examination of the ideas of George Soros and his mentor, Karl Popper, Historian Ricardo Duchesne states that “opposition to European ‘tribalism’ and ‘nationalism’ is the single most important aim and function of the Open Society Foundations.”

The great impediment to the globalist open society is any form of self-assertion by nations or peoples, especially White Europeans. Author Michelle Malkin, in Open Borders Inc, writes “Remember: national self-determination is the pesky ‘obstacle’ in the path to Soros’s open society.” [Michelle Malkin, Open Borders Inc., (Washington D.C.: Regnery, 2019), p.51] And the scale of this self-determination does not seem to matter to our hostile elites: whether it is Canadian Truckers, American patriots, or the Russian state, they are all viewed with hostility. The weapons used against these enemies only vary in degree. Self-assertion by the White majority population in Canada is dealt with in a variety of ways including mass migration, financial pressure, censorship, unpunished mass criminality, miseducation, physical/political violence, and mass media.

Political theorist Alexander Dugin similarly states that one of the tactics used to bring about The Great Reset is the “widespread use of “demonization,” “de-platforming,” and network ostracism (cancel culture) against all those who hold views different from the globalist one (both abroad and in the U.S. itself).”

Karl Haemers, in his article entitled “The not-so-friendly folks at the World Economic Forum,” states quite rightly that Chrystia Freeland is not only a WEF Board member, she is also currently the deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister of Canada. As Mr. Haemers points out, she negotiated major global oligarchic control “free trade” agreements such as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with the European Union, and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement; Freeland also wrote a book entitled Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else.  

Miss Freeland’s status as a WEF board member has been written about in the Canadian mainstream press as well, albeit in a limited way. In an article appearing in the National Post in 2021, the writer emphasizes a glaring conflict of interest: Miss Freeland currently sits on the WEF board of trustees while still being deputy prime minister of Canada and minister of finance.

The WEF internal news has praised Canada’s generosity as far as refugee and immigrant acceptance is concerned. The utopian visions of refugees integrating seamlessly into Canada, however, is a deluded fantasy, a pipe dream. Many of those admitted at great cost to the Canadian taxpayer end up on the street, in shelters, and without the skills or means to enter the workforce. In a recent government report, it was shown that after 10 years of being in Canada 45 percent of refugees were on welfare.

In an article from 2018, the WEF praised Canada for its openness to international students from India: “With the US and the UK slowly shutting their doors, Canada has flung its open, and Indian students are rushing in. In 2017, Indian students who secured Canadian visas increased by almost 60% from a year ago, according to official data. In all, Indian students received 83,410 of the 317,110 Canadian study permits granted during the year.”

Both Mr. Trudeau and Ms. Freeland have mouthed WEF talking points while speaking publicly about how the Covid-19 pandemic has presented a tremendous opportunity to transform Canada. They are well on their way to ensuring perpetual electoral hegemony by importing a new electorate. There are many risks as screening safeguards were removed: those accused of terrorism, criminality, and other seditious offenses are able to maintain and even gain citizenship.

The media in Canada is also on the take: the mainstream media in Canada along with certain social media influencers have been bought and paid for. They operate as the mouthpiece for the current federal regime.

In its 2019 budget, the federal government rolled out nearly $600 million in subsidies for select media outlets that obtain the federal government’s approval. The latest $600 million cheque is meant to fill a blind spot in exerting government influence over the Canadian print and online media. … By handing nearly $600 million directly to select newspapers, the government isn’t doing anything new. It’s just extending the control that it had over other mediums, to traditional mainstream newspapers.

To dole out the cash, the Liberals created a handpicked panel, giving the bailout an appearance of distance from direct partisan intervention. Unsurprisingly, the panel was stacked with Liberal allies, some quite openly so.

Recently, high-level briefing notes for a WEF meeting about The Great Reset, that took place on 8 December 2020, were obtained through Access to Information by Rebel News. The documents were provided to Chrystia Freeland, who was minister of Global Affairs Canada at the time. Freeland co-chaired the meetings along with officials from Japan, the Netherlands, South Africa, Google, and Goldman Sachs. The documents euphemistically state the WEF’s aim to use COVID-19 pandemic instability to restructure society, cancel oil and gas development, and censor the Internet. Initiatives that are well underway in Canada under the WEF-Trudeau federal regime.

While this article has attempted to establish that Canada’s government has been infiltrated by WEF-aligned politicians and bureaucrats, it is by no means a fully comprehensive accounting. In subsequent pieces, the present author hopes to document how transnational globalist entities are pursuing policies that are anathema to the interests of the historic Canadian nation.

Gunnar Alfredsson describes himself as a “writer and researcher based in frozen totalitarian Canadia, some crassitude.”

By continuing to browse the site, you are legally agreeing to our use of cookies and general site statistics plugins.

CloseLearn more