Well, Let Me Hear Ya Say “Nyet”!

From Dmitri Orlov:

 

The way things are supposed to work on this planet is like this: in the United States, the power structures (public and private) decide what they want the rest of the world to do. They communicate their wishes through official and unofficial channels, expecting automatic cooperation. If cooperation is not immediately forthcoming, they apply political, financial and economic pressure. If that still doesn’t produce the intended effect, they attempt regime change through a color revolution or a military coup, or organize and finance an insurgency leading to terrorist attacks and civil war in the recalcitrant nation. If that still doesn’t work, they bomb the country back to the stone age. This is the way it worked in the 1990s and the 2000s, but as of late a new dynamic has emerged.

In the beginning it was centered on Russia, but the phenomenon has since spread around the world and is about to engulf the United States itself. It works like this: the United States decides what it wants Russia to do and communicates its wishes, expecting automatic cooperation. Russia says “Nyet.” The United States then runs through all of the above steps up to but not including the bombing campaign, from which it is deterred by Russia’s nuclear deterrent. The answer remains “Nyet.” One could perhaps imagine that some smart person within the US power structure would pipe up and say: “Based on the evidence before us, dictating our terms to Russia doesn’t work; let’s try negotiating with Russia in good faith as equals.” And then everybody else would slap their heads and say, “Wow! That’s brilliant! Why didn’t we think of that?” But instead that person would be fired that very same day because, you see, American global hegemony is nonnegotiable. And so what happens instead is that the Americans act baffled, regroup and try again, making for quite an amusing spectacle.

The whole Edward Snowden imbroglio was particularly fun to watch. The US demanded his extradition. The Russians said: “Nyet, our constitution forbids it.” And then, hilariously, some voices in the West demanded in response that Russia change its constitution! The response, requiring no translation, was “Xa-xa-xa-xa-xa!” Less funny is the impasse over Syria: the Americans have been continuously demanding that Russia go along with their plan to overthrow Bashar Assad. The unchanging Russian response has been: “Nyet, the Syrians get to decide on their leadership, not Russia, and not the US.” Each time they hear it, the Americans scratch their heads and… try again. John Kerry was just recently in Moscow, holding a marathon “negotiating session” with Putin and Lavrov. Above is a photo of Kerry talking to Putin and Lavrov in Moscow a week or so ago and their facial expressions are hard to misread. There’s Kerry, with his back to the camera, babbling away as per usual. Lavrov’s face says: “I can’t believe I have to sit here and listen to this nonsense again.” Putin’s face says: “Oh the poor idiot, he can’t bring himself to understand that we’re just going to say ‘nyet’ again.” Kerry flew home with yet another “nyet.”

What’s worse, other countries are now getting into the act. The Americans told the Brits exactly how to vote, and yet the Brits said “nyet” and voted for Brexit. The Americans told the Europeans to accept the horrendous corporate power grab that is the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and the French said “nyet, it shall not pass.” The US organized yet another military coup in Turkey to replace Erdo?an with somebody who won’t try to play nice with Russia, and the Turks said “nyet” to that too. And now, horror of horrors, there is Donald Trump saying “nyet” to all sorts of things—NATO, offshoring American jobs, letting in a flood of migrants, globalization, weapons for Ukrainian Nazis, free trade…

The corrosive psychological effect of “nyet” on the American hegemonic psyche cannot be underestimated. If you are supposed to think and act like a hegemon, but only the thinking part still works, then the result is cognitive dissonance. If your job is to bully nations around, and the nations can no longer be bullied, then your job becomes a joke, and you turn into a mental patient. The resulting madness has recently produced quite an interesting symptom: some number of US State Department staffers signed a letter, which was promptly leaked, calling for a bombing campaign against Syria in order to overthrow Bashar Assad. These are diplomats. Diplomacy is the art of avoiding war by talking. Diplomats who call for war are not being exactly… diplomatic. You could say that they are incompetent diplomats, but that wouldn’t go far enough (most of the competent diplomats left the service during the second Bush administration, many of them in disgust over having to lie about the rationale for the Iraq war). The truth is, they are sick, deranged non-diplomatic warmongers. Such is the power of this one simple Russian word that they have quite literally lost their minds.

But it would be unfair to single out the State Department. It is as if the entire American body politic has been infected by a putrid miasma. It permeates all things and makes life miserable. In spite of the mounting problems, most other things in the US are still somewhat manageable, but this one thing—the draining away of the ability to bully the whole world—ruins everything. It’s mid-summer, the nation is at the beach. The beach blanket is moth-eaten and threadbare, the beach umbrella has holes in it, the soft drinks in the cooler are laced with nasty chemicals and the summer reading is boring… and then there is a dead whale decomposing nearby, whose name is “Nyet.” It just ruins the whole ambiance!

The media chattering heads and the establishment politicos are at this point painfully aware of this problem, and their predictable reaction is to blame it on what they perceive as its ultimate source: Russia, conveniently personified by Putin. “If you aren’t voting for Clinton, you are voting for Putin” is one recently minted political trope. Another is that Trump is Putin’s agent. Any public figure that declines to take a pro-establishment stance is automatically labeled “Putin’s useful idiot.” Taken at face value, such claims are preposterous. But there is a deeper explanation for them: what ties them all together is the power of “nyet.” A vote for Sanders is a “nyet” vote: the Democratic establishment produced a candidate and told people to vote for her, and most of the young people said “nyet.” Same thing with Trump: the Republican establishment trotted out its Seven Dwarfs and told people to vote for any one of them, and yet most of the disenfranchised working-class white people said “nyet” and voted for Snow White the outsider.

It is a hopeful sign that people throughout the Washington-dominated world are discovering the power of “nyet.” The establishment may still look spiffy on the outside, but under the shiny new paint there hides a rotten hull, with water coming in though every open seam. A sufficiently resounding “nyet” will probably be enough to cause it to founder, suddenly making room for some very necessary changes. When that happens, please remember to thank Russia… or, if you insist, Putin.

Victimology: The White Feminist and The White Russian

(“Putin’s Russia has thrown down a real political gauntlet to the Western world of feminism and political correctness. More than the conflict over Ukraine or Syria, his ability to woo those disaffected by the pc/feminist world is providing a political leverage no mere battlefield victory could ever impose on the vanquished.”) 

              “When your opponent is suicidal, one need not ever fire a shot.” – anon

Feminism sustains itself on the presentation of the female gender as a victim of male oppression. Without that narrative, it cannot exist. But sustaining that oppressor/oppressed dynamic also forbids feminism from acting with responsible authority, because its (necessary) victimology ultimately rewards powerlessness. Feminism, when dissected, is not a vehicle for empowerment (except for the elite few at the top of its super-structure or in government) but is, instead, an idea which teaches women to embrace their inner victim.

Victimhood provides a moral license for feminism to operate, so it can’t just be let go. These days, if you haven’t suffered enough, or haven’t suffered for the right reasons… then you just ain’t suffered at all. Without the right skin and gender mix, you cannot quality for any suffering whatsoever. That is for the privileged members of the victimhood only.(*please note: some SWM-fellow travellers will be allowed, as long as terms and conditions are strictly adhered to: Apologies and self-deprecation will be demanded at regular intervals.)

Extending the status of oppressed victim to the white female (especially the white university educated female),however, is a difficult task. Whiteness implies guilt, so racial disqualification must be avoided by asserting victimhood on grounds of gender. Axiomatically, the white western university educated (f.) feminist, has identified the political means to hide her whiteness: the historic ‘culpability’ of the white western heterosexual male. In that historic configuration, the white world of terror and shame is one in which non-male/non-whites have no substantial role other than that of the ‘oppressed’, or the heroic resister to – the ‘patriarchy’. On the other side,  if you are white and male, you are part of the ‘oppressor’ class. Of course, one of the benefits of this is that it enables the privileged, white, university educated female to talk down to the white male minimum wage slob. Privilege indeed.

This oppressor/oppressed narrative dismisses and exonerates the white woman as part of the culture of western imperial/colonial oppression. Western culture, after all, is to be deplored, except for its ultimate expression in the trappings narcissistic consumerism: the world of handbags, shoes and expensive clothes – (ironically, often times made by female child labour remunerated at a pittance.)

But feminism does not really have global reach, because history (shock horror) doesn’t contain a continuous dynamic everywhere at once. The oppressor/oppressed dynamic which casts the white male in the lead role does not penetrate the slavic world in anything like the same manner it does in the west.

For feminism, fitting the white Russian slav into the anti-white male oppressed/oppressor dynamic is not an easy task.

The North American/Germanic/Scandinavian idea that men exist merely to oppress women fails in the Russo-Slavic world with the indelible cultural stamp of past warfare: namely, Stalingrad. It is not a dynamic that North American or even Scandinavian women know. It is the cement that holds the concept of male sacrifice in place in the Russian mind. Russian women know this. American women, having never had their lives and their culture on the line in the same way, simply don’t. The white western feminist morality is one of convenience. Indeed, the white western feminists, taking their battle as an a priori liberation from an assumed all-powerful ‘patriarchy’ are having a tough time crossing the Russian ‘frontier’, and that is promoting a backlash. Feminism has gone beyond revealing its civic impotence, as it did in Rotherham, Cologne … and as it continues to do all over Europe and Scandinavia. It has now having broad international effects.

One of the unforeseen consequences of Rotherham and Cologne has been the elevation of the slavic world, not only as the potential saviour of the white hetero-male and the growing anti-feminist movement, but as the social force that will act as a future repository for the remains of western culture, when it succumbs to the self-destructive disaster that political correctness and feminism have created. That wasn’t supposed to happen. Vilification of the white male was supposed to be universal and easy to establish. The political and moral ‘surrender’ of the white male that the white western feminist was supposed to relish in appears to have backfired.

Already feminism is causing a noteworthy cultural and intellectual defection of western men into the orbit of a Russian/Slavic social order. Vilification of Putin is failing while ‘Putin admiration’ in the west is hitting highs. Western political failure is causing a rupture of the Republican party, while seeing a concomitant surge in anti-establishment western parties. Compared to Trump, Geert Wilders, UKIP, Marie Le Pen and Alternative for Deutschland, Russia looks like a bastion of political calm and stability. Western culture asks itself, why do ‘we’ get the preening White House narcissists, while the evil Russians get the chess-master Putin? Why do we have to hate ourselves for being white when the Slavic world doesn’t? This is dangerous territory for the west. It raises the spectre of an internal political defection brought about by feminism.

Putin himself seems aware of this and is already moving to capitalise on it. After all, feminism has provided him with a perfect opening.

In a December 2015 speech, Putin laid out his vision of Russia as a haven for those disaffected with political correctness and tired of feeling guilty for merely being white. In it, he implied that the western world’s penchant for openness and tolerance was but a mask for what is really a slide into immorality.

“Too may nations are revising their moral values and ethical norms. … Society is now required not only to recognise everyone’s right to the freedom of consciousness… but also to accept without question, the equality of good and evil, strange as it seems, concepts that are opposite in meaning. There are more and more people in the world who support our position on defending traditional values,” Putin said.

Putin’s Russia has thrown down a real political gauntlet to the Western world of feminism and political correctness. More than the conflict over Ukraine or Syria, his ability to woo those disaffected by the pc/feminist world is providing a political leverage no mere battlefield victory could ever impose on the vanquished. Feminism’s maintenance of the oppressor/oppressed narrative is beginning to produce societal and security ramifications in the west far beyond those that the world of their righteous indignation have ever envisioned. In addition to creating the political bandwidth for the unrestrained foreign immigration which is destabilizing western Europe, feminism, in its insistence on female ‘victimhood’, is also beginning to destroy western society from within.