Who knows if any of this is actually true. All I know is Nato and the UN have a habit of perpetuating conflicts into a (inter)national crisis, for *checks notes* humanitarian reasons.

https://t.me/CIG_telegram/18537

For no particular reason, just thought I’d remind everyone of one of the stark facts of the 20th century

States will kill “their own” citizens. Sometimes in large numbers.

Might seem counter-intuitive. But it is well documented.

“And he said to them, “What is this conversation that you are holding with each other as you walk?” And they stood still, looking sad.”
Luke 24:17

What a striking moment: Jesus coming to just two people who are walking along the road to Emmaus sad, confused & hopeless.

Easter eggs, including eggs from our quail in the middle, surrounded by shells just collected last week by our 16yo daughter from a Texas beach on the Gulf of Mexico.

Pay no attention to central banks quietly buying up gold.

Thanks to Raging Mandrill.

https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/france-has-repatriated-all-its-monetary-gold

Interesting post from Joel Davis I want to respond to:

Bad first sentence. What people call themselves ideologically is barely any guide to what they are.

Then it gets better. 'Post-liberal' is indeed more accurate than 'liberal'.

Then it's mixed. There was a large degree of liberalism in the 19th century. Our rulers have gone very strongly against that since at least 1914, as Joel says in other words. The current era of 'minority rights', i.e. attacking nature and normality, and the use of feigned victimhood and critical theory, i.e. Jewish-led subversion, is not liberal in any sense (other than if subversive definitions are used) and doesn't continue from it. The aggression against ordinary people is, in my understanding, a ruling class reaction against liberalism and where our rulers dreaded it would lead, i.e. them or their descendants (as particular dynasties or as a class) ceasing to rule us.

"Liberalism therefore had to be redefined in terms of disempowering this potentially tyrannical majority..." - true apart from terminological differences.

The subsequent paragraph about anti-fascism is spot on. And Joel's remark about the use of the spectre of bourgeois liberalism to divert and restrain 'conservatives' (misnamed as they don't conserve the things they value) from naturally reacting against their enemies is true. But I think this is better termed anti-fascism, anti-racism or anti-whiteism rather than liberalism or victimary liberalism, and likewise the post-war era is best described as the anti-fascist era, not that of any kind of liberalism. The continuous use of the spectre of 'fascism', i.e. anything that can inhibit the dissolution of white societies, is the current means of terrorising and controlling the herd.

My understanding of liberalism is that it emerges largely from ordinary (Western) people reacting against the schemes of rulers and leftists to force herdlike or slavish ways of life upon them. Tactically-convenient conceptions of it can be used to manipulate people, but liberalism itself is not something imposed upon us by the powerful. It's the exact opposite, a terrible threat to them. Thus I see people who see liberalism as the primary enemy as having assumed the rulers' views and interests, as is reflected in their statist prescriptions.

https://t.me/joeldavisx/358

“By some estimates, control of the Ukrainian capital, Kiev, changed hands 16 times between 1918 and 1921.”

Sean McMeekin on over 100 years of Ukrainians getting screwed by all sides.

https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/blog/putin--russia--and-ukraine--historical-roots-of-a-tragedy/

“The [Neocons] have no reverse gear.”

Duran on how Neocons will push for Western troops in Ukraine (and we have to count on the Pentagon(!) and EU army to hold the line against WWIII.)

https://youtu.be/POs_pvp-YJs

How can any group of politicians or civil servants be trusted with it?

Corporate power is a problem, the state is part of that problem, and more state control is the opposite of a solution.

https://t.me/ahab88/8323

"The middle-class liberal NPC public will absorb this implication easily, because it corresponds with the assumption they already hold, and love to hold: everyone who doesn't share their liberal worldview is a violent, hateful maniac with low social skills."

– Millenial Woes

I recommend IRL meet ups with dissidents.

Yes, as Fróði and I discussed on his show, there are some weird people that tend to be drawn to dissident movements because weird people are drawn to fringe movements in general whether religious or secular as I have experienced throughout my life.

But there are many regular, sane folks who have just seen clearly what you are seeing. It is encouraging to realize that you're not alone and dissidents generally don't match the caricature of them.

I'll go further. I brought my wife in "cold" to a dissident right event in February. She was so impressed with the young folks there that she got up and spoke to them (not on the schedule!) to tell them how impressed she was.

These are people who care and don't want to just watch the world burn. That counts for a lot in my book.

https://t.me/millennialwoes/4938

Continuing to riff on this theme of egalitarianism that I discussed on Lambster on Saturday...

Let's look at how egalitarians approach solving the alienation problem (differences between people) and moving us towards being all merged together into the "Blob"...

• Race: Denial. "Race is a social construct". But also, races should be mixed together.

• Culture: Denial. No culture is better than another, all should be respected. Except for European culture of course.

• IQ: Denial, but also send everyone to college.

• Knowledge: Denial. All opinions are valid. But you must listen to the experts.

• Sex: Denial. "Gender" is a spectrum that you can slide around on at will.

• Health: Denial. Obesity is healthy!

• Religion: Denial, all religions are really the same underneath. But also, ecumenism. ("See the Catholic Church post-Vatican II pushing for a one-world, ecumenical, unitarian religion." - Man Among the Ruins)

• Art: Denial. All art is equally beautiful, meaningful and technically brilliant.

• Sports Performance: Denial. Participation trophies. Men in women's sports. Soon, fat acceptance movement starts pushing to eliminate weight classes in combat sports. (Thanks to Helmut Spargel.)

• Geography: Being in different places is unfair. Mass immigration will mix us all up.

• Class (classical Marxist approach): Eat the rich. We'll all be proles together.

• Class (new technocratic approach): Destroy the poor. Replace them with bots. Only the enlightened ones are needed anymore. (On this, see the prophetic That Hideous Strength by CS Lewis!)

What other differences are they going after that I've missed?

“[Twitter] used to be fun, funny, and a great tool for exchanging information. Now it feels like what the world would be if the eight most vile people in Brooklyn were put in charge of all human life, a giant, hyper-pretentious Thought-Starbucks”

– Matt Taibbi

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/twitters-chickens-come-home-to-roost?r=b7pl2&utm_medium=ios

Thanks for all the help on this!

I liked the final result so much I started a (free!) Substack just to have a place to publish this.

https://radicalliberation.substack.com/p/destroying-differences?s=w

20 years on the 20th!

Mrs. RadLib and I were married on April 20, 2002.

I knew back then that I had married well.

But, truth to tell, I only had an inkling.

The depth of her!

Really like Thomas777’s perspective on the US empire after 1989 as an empire with no purpose.

As an example he cites the occupation of Afghanistan, once al Qaeda left, as being military “make work”.

The Pointless Empire

On Pete Quinones's show:

https://freemanbeyondthewall.libsyn.com/episode-713

“And as history has always shewed, when you conquer and rule a foreign people, those people will ultimately come to conquer you. With such bold achievements abroad comes the unravelling and uprooting of civilisation at home.”

Invade the world, invite the world.

I marvel that people who oppose mass immigration would support imperialism. How could the connection between them be more obvious?

https://t.me/hvitgardr3/3658

“Pluralistic nationalism”.

Or the great Liberal principle of Self-Determination of Peoples.