5 December 2024 FT – US EU Propaganda in Tears

Deadline Ukraine: Two Lead Stories



“EU budget dispute threatens €50bn war lifeline for Ukraine”

The FT pulling out the stops: can not ignore the recent collapse in the EU’s attempts/procedures to provide budget support ‘macro-financial stability’, €20B in armaments; the collapse which reveal all promises as incompetent wishful thinkings, at best, and at worst mere propaganda designed to stage attitudes and actions that are devoid of reality and in fact non existent

1-The EU promise of €50B, plus plans for another €45B, is now a member country catfight (Hungary, the ‘far-right’ Dutch) and unlikely to pass vote at the EU summit mid December

2-The German Constitutional Court ruling outlawed the fiscal cheating that the German politicinas had relied upon to steal money from themselves (read- their people) to wash through the Ukraine laundromat

3-The considerable opposition in the US to the voting through of the proposed $60B, aka ‘congressional gridlock’

4-Last and least – UK accession negotiations look DOA

All this blissfully ignores the fact that it is in RF interest that the EU sop up the bill for Ukraine during the war, then bankrupt themselves once again with attempts at ‘reconstruction’ – and it appears that, so far at least, what RF wants RF gets



“US funding for Ukraine set to run out by end of the year, White House warns”

This headline sounds impressive, promises there’s some fight left in the President yet, until one reads that the ‘White House’ in question is in fact a lowly grunt, the White House budget director

The plea is textbook, includes the novel idea that war is profitable

It does contain this wonderful summing up of the situation ‘“If Ukraine’s economy collapses, they will not be able to keep fighting, full stop,”’ – in spite of the fact Ukraine’s economy has already collapsed, that’s why the US has to fund it

The FT is paid to present these stories in it’s role as the Businessman’s Newspaper : war is a wise investment, and is nothing but business with another means; bigbut - we can not rely on the politicinas to get the job done, look how disorganised they are: so- next stop, privatisation

Expand full comment

Biden said the war was in "investment" that would "bring prosperity to our children and grandchildren." Seldom have I been so grossed out.

Expand full comment

I wrote in August that it appeared that the West's stock of unsalable obsolete weapons was running out, and that support for the war would collapse when that happened. Hey hey!

Expand full comment

Response to Simplicius' "Subscriber Mailbag: Answers - 12/4/23 [Part 2]"

"Russia likely took all these build ups and provocations very seriously, and saw the writing on the wall that if it didn’t ‘cure’ the Ukrainian sickness once and for all, it would only escalate until Russia was totally surrounded by NATO aggression. "

I've long believed that it was this moment that started the invasion. In my view, the Russian General Staff had a Ukraine invasion CONTINGENCY plan in place since at least 2014-2015. In spring, 2021, I believe they upgraded it to an OPERATIONAL plan.

At the same time, Putin and Lavrov began working on what became the treaty proposals of December, 2021. Of course, Ukraine and the West rejected those proposals and then Zelensky visited the front, the Ukrainian army started increased shelling as a preparation for an assault, and in addition Zelensky came back from the Munich conference talking about Ukraine getting nuclear weapons. All that was the last straw.

I also believe that Putin and Lavrov were the ones who created the plan to "scare" Kiev into negotiations by the initial operations of the SMO. However, in my view this was an absurd concept, despite the alleged "agreement" Ukraine and Russia initialed in Turkey at the end of March and beginning of April, 2022. People who think this would have avoided the war are delusional (I'm looking at Alexander Mercouris in that regard, but there are many others.) The reality is that any such deal would have either 1) collapsed in further negotiations to iron out the details, or 2) would have been reneged on just like Minsk II.

But the Russian General Staff would have told Putin that he needed an alternative plan in case his initial invasion plan failed. And that's what the Russians have done ever since. The important point is that they didn't come up with the current plan on the fly after March, 2022. It was in place from the get-go. This is something people also don't seem to get. They assume the Russian General Staff laid all its hopes on the initial invasion moves and had to revamp the plan after. That's nonsense, in my view.

I also believe that the Russians have decided to end the issue of Ukraine - and further, to end the issue of the West frequently invading Russia - and that is what the end game of Russia is. This is going to involve taking out of Ukraine - right up to the Polish border and including western Ukraine - and then building a new Military District there which will be powerful enough to deter any NATO threats from decades to come. This will be in line with Russia's new Military Districts in northern Russia opposite Finland as well as its consolidation of efforts with Belarus.

In other words, Russia is going to build a new "Iron Curtain 2.0" which stretches from the Black Sea to the Arctic. If the West wants to threaten Russia in the future, it will have to resort to a nuclear attack - for which Russia is also prepared.

Expand full comment

No, Putin ordered some highly risky early manuouvres that ONLY had political/diplomatic aims. Militarily, they made little sense. His purpose was to show the "Red lines" had teeth behind them, and force a negotiated settlement from strength. The new 'Security Guarantees' would have explitly prevented the kind of NATO lead build-up and treatment of the Donbass and other regions, and fatally undermined the long term neocon plan to start wars in the region.

Putin did NOT want to go the extremely expensive route of military mobilisation, that he has now taken - more successully than he had expected, to his surprise. He had not banked on the terminal stupidity of the current Western leaders and their equally terminally stupid media, and the simply ludicrous levels of Russophobia - and how that would go down within Russia when it leaked through the media disinformation barriers erected.

It is quite possible the greatest help to the Russian State's narrative was not domestic censorship of Western media, but that Western medias managed to get through it. A delicious irony.

If what you say is true, then Russian forces would not have been withdrawn from Kiev so precipitously, as physically taking Kiev - a dificult but potentially possible undertaking at the time - would have been a key priority.

Expand full comment

The Russian state knew it was going to be a slog from the beginning, and knew there was no agreement to be had with the West.

The initial feint towards Kiev was designed to secure the land bridge to Crimea, Mariopal and the canal that provides water to the Crimean peninsula. There was never the possibility of taking Kiev.

Once Ukraine organized itself after Russia's initial foray Russia's forward deployed military assets had to be withdrawn or they would have been destroyed.

Expand full comment

That doesn't detract from my point. Those WERE highly risky, fast, and somewhat unsupported blitzkrieg moves. Primarily to showcase to Ukraine that Putin & Russia were very damn serious.

Russia was not the USSR, and the military was in no condition for a full-scale invasion. The main aim, I think, was to locally demonstrate to Ukraine the Russians had had enough of all the BS, force recognition of Crimea as Russian again, and hopefully bring the geriocracy of the US to something close to their senses. They ALMOST achieved the first aims too, and then Tory BloJo flew in. The latter was probably a lost cause, but still a hope.

Naturally, such early moves would also have had strategic aims, capturing airports, and essential resources/routes. Only Western generals send cannon-fodder into death carelessly.

Expand full comment

Ah, I see what your saying. Makes sense.

Expand full comment

Simp said before the large feint towards Kyiv was supposed to scare Zelensky out of his pants. Didn't work but it was worth a try, and they were about 2 blocks away from actually capturing him. The feint also distracted Zelensky from the main goal of the massive blitz: to seize time-sensitive items such as US bioweapon labs.

Expand full comment

And importantly - whatever the Russian Army ended up burying and removing at Chernobyl. I haven't seen any follow up on that in terms of new information or news.

Expand full comment

What I'm saying is that it was Putin and Lavorv who wanted to do it the way the SMO started because they were partial to a diplomatic ending. It was the General Staff who knew otherwise, that such a plan wouldn't work and would require an alternative when it failed and even if it succeeded it wouldn't solve the overall problem of dealing with the NATO Aegis Ashore installations in Poland and Romania.

And those installations were a major concern for Putin primarily because the General Staff knew they were a direct threat to Russia and told him so. Which is why he mentioned them repeatedly in speeches over the years since they were implemented. But it was only the General Staff who understood that the only real solution to them and to the overall NATO threat from the West was to take Ukraine off the board completely. And that this could not be done by diplomacy.

As for pulling back from Kiev, the Russian General Staff knew that actually taking Kiev at that point would be pointless, not to mention extremely difficult with the forces they had in position at the time. So they went back to the slow grinding war of attrition plan which was no doubt the plan they originally wanted, as opposed to the Putin-Lavrov plan. This is the plan that not only kept Russian casualties low, it enabled Putin to manage the impact on the Russian economy, the impact on and support of the Russian population, and to manage the reaction of NATO.

Bottom line: Putin is smart, but he's not a military genius. The Russian General Staff collectively are. Fortunately Putin is smart enough to recognize when a plan has failed and to turn to the experts who have provided him an alternative which has been completely successful.

Expand full comment

I suspect your timeline and analysis is somewhat correct. Putin was certainly hoping for more of a 'popular uprising' in support than actually happened.

I'd heard the head of the FSB at the time was soon arrested and replaced, although I've heard nothing about it since. Western media was gloating, naturally.

They're not gloating as much these days, lollol.

It is likely the military had a less cloak-and-dagger insight, and the loss of so many valuable assets and personnel would have hurt too.

But now they are all on the same page, it seems.

Expand full comment

Still, I don't think the plan failed. The push to Kiev almost certainly had more than one goal. And it certainly had the effect of forcing the AFU to keep troops and equipment in the north to protect their capital, while the Russian-backed LPR/DPR forces were able to move into Zaporozhye and attack Mariupol.

Expand full comment

Correct. It had other purposes other than just scaring Ukraine into negotiations. But the latter was part of the plan, I believe. That part failed and would have always failed, despite what everyone know believes that just the April agreement would have ended the conflict.

Expand full comment

Here's where you lost me:

"Its elite do not serve the people whatsoever, and in fact are a treasonous class of actual definitional traitors who serve other transnational interests first, particularly Israel."

The elite do not serve Israel. They know there is broad popular support for the Jewish state and they need to fund it. That is partly for their own geo-political concerns, especially vis-a-vis Iran. But they also fund UNRWA, a terrorist organization these days, and Gaza, which means Hamas gets the money.

Blinken and Austin are already trying to stop Israel from destroying Hamas, an utterly evil terrorist organization. So evil that Arab nations silently support Israel's efforts. Hamas did not attack military targets on October 6. They attacked woman and children. They raped and shot hundreds of young woman at a peace festival. Some of them shot their victims first and then raped them. They slashed open the wombs of pregnant woman and beheaded their unborn babies in Kibbutzim. If you are on board with that, good for you.

Expand full comment


Expand full comment

Put the bottle of kool-aid down, and back away slowly.

Hamas is a legitimate, elected Govt, responding to delibrate Israeli terrorism, over decades. Around 2005, when they entered the political process, as other MB organisationshave done, and won elections dramatically, they also renounced political violence, and tacitly accepted the state called "Israel"'s right to exist.

Hamas itself pretty much only attacked military targets. Most/ALL of those who died from large explosions/burned alive, were from the actions of the IDF itself, as Israeli media acknowledges. Hamas had small arms, not fking artillery, gunships and tanks. There were no rapes, there is not one single documented case of rape that has transpired to haveactually happened. If YOU have solid information to the contrary, rather than repeating casual media lies, you should get in touch with the IDF/Hasbara directly. You'll be able to retire on the proceeds.

The young folk at the Kibbutz-border rave were all military, as nearly all Israelis have to do military service, and many had arms with them. There was also a tank parked there, which you wouldn't see at Glastonbury or Rostock.

They harmed no babies, that is what the Israelis are doing.

IF all those events disturbed you, rather than who they were supposedly done TO, you will change your mind upon seeing countering evidence. However, I doubt that, and don't doubt you are cheering on those actions when perpertrated upon innocent Palestinians.

Which makes you a hypocrite as well as gullible.

Expand full comment

Thank you for the antidote to the poison

Expand full comment

You drink too much kool-aid.

Of the 1200 people slaughtered by Hamas, most were innocent civilians. A few military bases were attacked and the defenders killed. It was a surprise attack.

If Israelis at the Rave ware trained and armed, as you claim, then they would have defended themselves. Didn't happen. They got slaughtered, raped and eviscerated.

Hamas got elected ahead of the PLO. Hamas' charter explicitly says its goal is to exterminate Israel. Guess you didn't get the memo.

Since Hamas terrorists videoed their atrocities, what I claimed is well documented. Even the Nazis tried to hide the Holocaust; Hamas celebrated their version on video.

Expand full comment


Expand full comment
Dec 5, 2023·edited Dec 5, 2023

Hehe Pat, mental illness should be kept private.

Have you read Hamas' charter? Or just the lie repeated on MSM? Yes they want Israel gone, the nation state, not the individuals. This is the same distortion of factual statements that were levelled against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Anyway I do hope you seek help.

Expand full comment

The original Hamas charter directs the killing of Jews, drawing on a hadith (prophetic saying): “The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: ‘O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.’”

You should go to Gaza and help your compatriots rape and kill Jews.

Expand full comment
Dec 5, 2023·edited Dec 6, 2023

You bring history in, why not the history of Judaism? Eg. Descendants of Jacob fled to Egypt due to famine. However, there is a specific story in Genesis 25:29-34 in which Jacob obtains the birthright of Esau. Esau, after returning from the hunt, was very hungry, and Jacob offered him some lentil soup in exchange for his birthright. So the birthright is dismissed from brother who ate hunger!!! Says something about the founder!

400 years later, Moses, a descendant of Jacob, is commissioned by his god to return to Canaan. Just before arrival he dies and takes charge of Joshua who is ordered to kill all the inhabitants of Canaan, men, women, children and cattle..... Canaan was an agrarian community...Jozua 6-12

And so the cities of Jericho and Ai were destroyed. Why? Because they worshipped idols, gods such as Baal god of fertility and agriculture and Astarte goddess of fertility, love and sexuality Gods for life and land. Gods we should all love.

The promised land ran from the river to the sea Euphrates- sea.

The Palestinians are now blamed for that....


Expand full comment

"You should go to Gaza and help your compatriots rape and kill Jews."

Ok I'll heed your advice on two conditions. One, they must be female, and two, have athletic bodies. Sorry to seem sexist but they are my specifications for sexual partners.

Expand full comment

They toned down the original charter because it was too extreme even for their fellow Muslims. But their attack on Israel, in all its brutality, of which you obviously approve, reflects the original charter.

Expand full comment

Have you checked the Likud Party Charter? It does talk about "from the river to the sea"...

Expand full comment

Pat the jew loving rat won't care about facts.

Oh the brutal attack LOL. All military actions are brutal. In this case brutal and well deserved.

Expand full comment

"Of the 1200 people slaughtered by Hamas, most were innocent civilians. "

So Israel says. And Israel never lies, right? LOL

Then there are all the inconvenient stories about how Israeli Apache helicopters shot up homes and cars with Hamas fighters - AND Israelis - in them.

If you believe Hamas is evil and should be destroyed - go into Gaza on foot and fight it out to destroy them.

What is going on in Gaza is ethnic cleansing, plain and simple. The IDF had not even started trying to actually fight Hamas as opposed to bomb buildings and kill babies until this weekend - and it looks like the effort starting this weekend is not going well at all. Crooke mentions a single ambush where 60 IDF were killed by Hamas - so casualties are rising rapidly now that Israel has actually started the urban assault.

Expand full comment

Your problem is that the Hamas terrorists were so proud of their deeds, they recorded them. You can find these sick, perverted and atrocious videos if you seek them out. You've probably already enjoyed them.

Israel will flush out Hamas, literally. Tunnels don't have drains.

Expand full comment

I have never said Hamas did not do terrible, terroristic things on 10/7.

I have said that it is now quite clear that at least some of the atrocities attributed to Hamas were actually performed by Israelis in counterattacks.

And I say now that whatever evil Hamas did on 10/7 - Israel has now exceeded it at least 10 fold.

And that Israel's actions have started a chain of events which will result in an existential crisis for that nation in my and your lifetime.

So you can try and sit high on your chair of outrage, but ultimately the result won't be to your liking.

Expand full comment

You seem to be a sucker for Pallywood propaganda. You probably still believe that an Israeli missile hit a hospital in Gaza and killed hundreds of innocent people. The reality is that an Islamic Jihad rocket failed and landed in a parking lot in front of the hospital. Some people died but not hundreds.


Expand full comment

"If Israelis at the Rave ware trained and armed, as you claim, then they would have defended themselves. Didn't happen. They got slaughtered, raped and eviscerated."

Pretty much every Pashtun and Yemeni male is armed. That's why no Pashtun or Yemenis civilians were killed, right?

Expand full comment

And your point is?

Expand full comment

Weapons won't necessarily save you.

Expand full comment

Comments such as these, a rarity on this site, are from an aspiring member of the ynak governing class, one of the many displays such are required to make in order to demonstrate adherence/solidarity with the Party Line, hence to maintain a foothold/place in society

The simple language and aggrieved tone speaks of the Outer Party: Inner Party broadcasts, such as the FT, are slightly more sophisticated

Expand full comment

People in the US believe this shit. It's the crap they are fed from day 1. Israel good, Palestinians terrorists. Remember the holocaust, it justified the creation of Israel. Hell, back around 9/11, the line fed to the US public was that Muslims were indoctrinated into hating the US and Israel, which justified the regime change so as to ultimately stop the indoctrination.

All the while calling them haji or sand niggers.

Expand full comment

Generally, we in the US don't believe in attacking peaceful settlements, raping and killing young women, or vice versa, ripping babies out of wombs and beheading them before they kill the mother. I guess you think that's great if its the Jews being killed.

Jews had been in Israel for thousands of years. Before WW1, the region, which includes Jordan, was part of the Ottoman empire. Unfortunately, the Ottoman Turks sided with Germany in WW1. Their side lost and the empire was gone. The the British took control of the region. After WW2, the British, under the auspices of the UN, created a Jewish state - Israel - and an Arab state - Jordan in 1948. The Arab states expelled hundreds of thousands of Jews from their homes and many of them fled to Israel. The Arab states then launched a war against Israel. They told the Arabs living in Israel to leave until their armies had defeated Israel. These Arabs call themselves Palestinians, even though there never was a country called Palestine. Unfortunately for those Arabs, Israel won the war. The Palestinians were stuck in refugee camps and were exploited by the Arab states to continue a terrorist war against Israel. Two losing wars later, sane Arab states, such as Egypt and Jordan, signed lasing peace treaties with Israel,

That's probably too much history for you to digest.

Many Muslim countries are appalled by what Hamas did. Egypt and Jordan will have nothing to do with Hamas. They will not let anyone from Gaza enter their countries. Jordan expelled the PLO from its territory, after they tried to assassinate the King of Jordan, and they moved to Lebanon. The PLO called that event "Black September". It had nothing to do with Israel. Those same Black September terrorists attacked the Munich Olympics and killed Israeli competitors.

Israel never attacks. It always plays defense and then counterattacks. Most Middle Eastern countries accept that Israel is there to stay and the Abraham Accords negotiated by Trump recognized that. Unfortunately, Iran and its proxies - Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis - are continuing a terrorist war against Israel, and, ultimately the West.

Expand full comment

Jewish conquest and occupation of Palestine is the cause of nearly every problem in the Middle East in the past 70 years. Full stop.

Peddle your bullshit elsewhere.

Expand full comment

There never was a Palestine as an independent country. Prove me wrong. A map would be nice, but you can't produce one from 70 years ago. Learn history, not lies.

Expand full comment

> you should get in touch with the IDF/Hasbara directly.

> You'll be able to retire on the proceeds.

I'm not sure about that. The Jewish Internet Defense Force's 2020 Compensation guide ("Fighting Online Hate Speech in 2020, Appendix 2B") shows the following proceeds for engaging in hasbara activities:

Daily rate, from entry-level to coordinator: $15-$25

Contributions: new posts on any approved media channel, $0.27; post reply, $0.11; secondary reply, $0.06

Engagement: new post reply, $0.11, repy to reply, like, or share $0.06

Monthly bonus: 100+ average replies, $100; top 10% engagement, $600; 5,000 contributions, $400; 1,000 new posts, $400.

The Appendix provides a scenario of the monthly payout calculation of a top user. It includes 1,100 new posts, 2,500 replies, 1,400 secondary replies, 8,500 replies to other people's posts, 16,000 replies to replies, 11,000 likes, and 8,500 shares.

Total monthly payout for that level of work is $5,615. Hasbara pays very well, but you aren't going to get rich on it, and it's hard work. If Pat were paid for his posts (and who knows), he would have only netted a dollar or so for his effort here.

It's worth noting it's only the Jews that pay for internet trolling. All of the accusations of being paid Kremlin agents are false - posting pro-Russian content on western websites might buy a person a chit but no monetary remuneration.

Expand full comment

Sorry, but Blinken and Austin are absolutely NOT trying to stop Israel from destroying Hamas.

They are trying to stop Israel from destroying itself and the US by mobilizing the entire Muslim world against the US and Israel - and incidentally mobilizing Muslims in the US against Biden.

Expand full comment

It's kibbutzes, not kibbutzim. You're speaking English not Hebrew.

Also, do lay off the kool-aid, or drugs if you're using.

Expand full comment

Hamas got in with two main goals:

1. show that they can do it.

2. grab as many prisoners as possible, to exchange them for the thousands of Palestinians languishing in Israeli prisons, many of them without a conviction:


By now it has been throughly debunked the fact that Hamas went in the kibutzes to wantonly kill. Israeli pilots, tank operators, lucky civilans that have escaped alive tell all the same story: heavy firepower was used indiscriminately by the Israel's military, destroying homes, burning cars and passangers alike, as well as bombing their own military outposts. The Hannibal Doctrine was on full swing. Israel is shredding now about 1000 cars that bear the mark of hellfire missiles and heavy helicopter guns, cars that hold Israeli civilians in them.

The babies and the rapes are also a nice story that we have seen poping up consistently since the German Huns made a habit of bayoneting and roasting Belgian babies on the fire...

Expand full comment

Hi Kouros, do you have a link to the vehicle shredding?

If true it is an admission of guilt; destroying evidence, same as they did on 9/11 sending the scrap to China to be disposed of.

Expand full comment

Funny that you and your ilk have nothing to say of the released Palestinian female prisoners - many snatched off the streets as children by the IDF - and their consistent reports of sexual assault and beatings while in custody going back years. Or the torture meted out for decades to Palestinian children while in Israeli detention and held without trial.

You're a fucking shill who conveniently ignores one complete side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And Jewish supremacism in general. Israel is the new Nazi Germany.

Expand full comment
Dec 5, 2023·edited Dec 5, 2023

A31: Incorrect. In fact, the West's humanities depts have been largely mothballed and defunded, this has happened over the past 20 years. STEM rules - badly.

In fact, what has ACTUALLY happened is 'Academentia' - the taking over of Western universities by the anti-intellectual Corporate cultures. https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/07/28/academentia-the-organization-insanity-of-the-modern-university/

The Humanities - for all the silliness associated with "woke", also taught critical social awareness, incl political science, which the East has always been strong on, and which anchors a societal elite argually more than History's narratives.

This constantly seeing rightwing talking points as 'liberatory' creates stupidity. In some ways, Putin's 'traditional conservatism' is also 'traditional leftwingism'. He is raising living standards, wages, and benefits, and investing directly into the national economy to create growth. You can't get more 'traditional leftwing' than that. A similar program by the UK's Corbyn had all the Tory media baying about "Socialist revolution! Zomgz", although he got a standing ovation at the CBI - they all went out to vote Tory at the next election though, and watched the realword economy tank, because they are stupid and believe the same 'rightwing' narratives.

A22: Again contrarily, "Compound that with the rise of Right/conservative parties, which will then be peaking, and I think the scene is set for some major pushback against the elite agenda—maybe on a 3-5 year timescale." is mistaken. It IS rightwing parties, either traditional conservative, 3rd Way neolibs, or other US-funded and controlled rightwing parties, who are dominant in Europe. The few genuine Lefties such as Corbyn in the UK, or Fico in Slovakia, are the ones dead set against all these "adventures". I wouldn't trust the AfD on this either, I've heard claims they are a CIA 'controlled opposition', and not without evidence.

Your position on 'identity politics' doesn't make you a LEFTY - it determines your liberal position. They are an easy, highly cheap method for amoral neolibs (rightwingers BTW, see Thatcher, Reagan, Hayek) actors to undermine actual leftwing movements. The USA has ALWAYS been deeply hostile to genuine leftwing thought, but has no problems lying about its alleged committment to Democracy, Human Rights and development. All myths. Imperialism and genuine democracy are always opposed.

I agree that Kalingrad/Baltics/Poland will be the next initiated flashpoint, and that the vast reserve army is to ensure they don't get stupid ideas. Putin/Russian elites have wargamed all of this out, and without the wishfulk thinking that charatcerises Western 'elites'.

Expand full comment

Yep. I got to see this gutting of humanities first hand at the University I was attending in the late 90's complete with the total dissolution of the philosophy department.

I got to study everything from Clausewitz to Marx to Adam Smith to Heidigger with great courses in traditional logic. That was all replaced by programs centered around fundraising, community activism and how to be a cog in the capitalist/bureaucratic wheel, the works of the great thinkers completely removed from the curriculum. A very striking change in very short time.

Expand full comment

The phenonemal and little known early 90s Ch4 comedy 'A Very Peculiar Practice' was almost prophetlike in its laser-beam accuracy about this process to come. At the time I watched it as a oddball comedy - it has nuns, a fierce independent (and beautiful) Slavic lead, a former Doc Who, a Feminazi, a drunken Scot, a Thatcherite doctor, and Yankee Corporate Penetration and early Academentia of a UK university. Amazing stuff.

Little did I know it was the real future. :/

Expand full comment

Obviously Gygax also. ;-)

Expand full comment

I understand your reference to humanities as being of the traditional sense.

Not entirely clear to me that overall, "social sciences" of which humanities used to be part of, are declining given the rise of "environmental studies", "gender studies" and so forth.

Equally, STEM is a misnomer because it includes software "engineering". Software is not engineering, it is the humanities of engineering.

I was at a startup event late last week and met a guy who was trying to promote STEM among women. I asked him about software vs. actual engineering - his response was that he was just trying to "connect" women to mentors and each other and was not focused on any of the actual technical aspects of STEM. That's emblematic of STEM in the West today lol.

Expand full comment

Thanks, great comment! It's appalling to see how even well informed people throw around terms like "leftwing", "Fascism" or "Communism" that *nowadays* are almost completely empty of meaning.

The truth is any self-respecting European left- or right-winger from, say the 1950s, would be appalled by the current state of affairs. And my guess is that any of them would define the current crop of European satraps as "cosmopolitan antipatriotic liberals, vassals to American interests"

Expand full comment

Great comment back!

Expand full comment

The point I take most from your post is "left/right wing" is a stupid set of boxes to put people in. I'm "right wing" because I don't think giving government bureaucrats ever-increasing power is smart, or letting them run people's lives is reasonable. But in truth, I'm a far-left left liberal hippy: I support government pensions and don't want to see grandmas eating cat food; there at least being emergency room services available to everyone, no matter what; controls against people dumping used motor oil in the storm sewer; and a lot of other hippy-dippy things.

Expand full comment

Stalin would’ve executed a few generals with the turtle like pace of war in Ukraine and all this obsession about the details despite the pathetic pace!!

Expand full comment

Goes to show Putin is not Stalin, despite the media trying to frame him as an absolutist despot. Still, it is not necessarily a bad thing to do things Putin's way, as a Ukrainian defeat through political collapse preserves far more manpower, infrastructure, and costs less than a scorched wasteland.

Expand full comment

Double like

Expand full comment

Not the least bit sure why this is relevant.

Russia is not the Soviet Union.

Stalin furthermore did actually listen, at times but not all the time, to his generals much as Hitler also listened, mostly, to his generals.

Expand full comment

The 'how much' is always in question in both cases. Memoir writers embellish, and the Nazis felt the need to ingratiate themselves to their new overlords.

Unfortunately, the rant in Der Untergang is not inaccurate.

Expand full comment


The phrase "The winners write the history books" is wrong - the winners *and their new servants* write the history books is more correct.

Funny you reference the movie Downfall - whose original German name is the first part of Spenger's Decline (Downfall) of the West books (Original name: Der Untergang Des Aubenslandes).

Expand full comment
Dec 5, 2023·edited Dec 5, 2023

Fleshing out the 1st question, Jacques Baud (https://youtu.be/16o1ShT3TJ4?t=24114) notes that Zelensky signed into law a decree regarding the decolonisation of Crimea which occurred on the March 24 2021, a week or so later the Russians were at the border en masse.

Expand full comment

How on earth is that video from 27. five years old??? It is like it was made last week!

Expand full comment

I think that the most important point you have raised in today's explanations of the 'West's" behavior is 'elite capture'. The self-defeating and seemingly nonsensical actions of the West (e.g. the Sand Wars or historical and on-going manipulation in Ukraine) benefit a set of financial, economic, and political elites in various cross-national 'clubs'. These clubs do not always agree on the specifics of what to do in a particular situation, the exact priorities of action, or the division of resulting 'spoil's, etc but they do agree on a type of ever-expansionist, pro-war, pro-globalization, pro-migration, pro-centralization, pro big Tech, pro-financialization, pro-WEF type agendas that have been publicly advocated for since the early 1990s (and privately long before that).

Two criticisms I would make on your overall responses for today are that you hold too strongly to certain concepts like 'US Dollar Hegemony" and the Mackinder "World Island (Germany-Russia-China land island)" ideas. Both of those ideas (on the US dollar and on the need for the 'Atlanticists' to keep Germany-Russia-China apart) have merit, but if you 'buy into' those theories (ideologies) too much, you end us with an overly simplistic (even cartoonishly inaccurate) view of reality. Just as an extra-terrestrial might want to talk to a biologist, chemist, political scientist, theologian, sociologist to better understand humanity and the earth, we need to listen to, understand, and challenge a lot of viewpoints (beyond US Dollar and Mackinder) to figure out what is going on. Every theory or specialty only sees part of the picture and each viewpoint can get a bit carried away on how their specialty is 'really the key' to understanding such a complex set of interaction.

For example, when people talk about the role of the US dollar and its 'exorbitant privelege' , they often demonstrate a rather poor understanding of how the world-wide dollar system actually works, who benefits from it and why (e.g. it's not really the US dollar per se that is the basis for global trade and investment, it is really the Euro-dollar system that they are referring to -- which is associated with, but not the same as, the US dollar used in the domestic US economy). That is not to say that the United States (as a whole) or the elites in it (and worldwide) don't benefit from the US dollar / Eurodollar system -- they do, to varying degrees. There are also specific costs and tradeoffs to the US (as a whole) from that system (e.g. it is probably not a coincidence that the greatest period of US growth and rate of rise in prosperity occurred between the US Civil War up to World War 2 --- a period when the US dollar was most certainly not the world's reserve currency).

I have the same complaint with the comment you made that the West suppressed China's historical economic role so that it could benefit. There is some truth in that statement -- the Opium Wars etc gave the West benefit at China's expense, but the real result of China's relative economic decline (when measured as a percentage of world GDP) was not that the West 'suppressed' China -- it was that the West boomed (due to trade, technology, investment, population growth, political reform and stability, migration and colonization) and China did not. Historically, it was not that China's GDP was 100 in year 1500 and 50 in year 1900, it was that China's GDP was 100 in the year 1500 and STILL 100 in 1900. This Western growth versus Chinese stagnation has a lot more explanatory power than the typical 'anti-Western' trope that China (and the non-Western world) suffered entirely (or primarily) due to the West's piratical exploitation.

You write so well and make so many good point -- I just wish you would 'catch yourself' and not go 'full retard' (in the movie Tropic Thunder sense of that phrase) with unnecessary forays into areas or points of evidence that are 'not as well grounded' as some of your other stuff. I could theoretically write a lot of strong, compelling reasons on why Bill Gates is a dangerous, dishonest, and supremely self-dealing individual and there would be no need to actually claim he is a reptiloid (even if I think that might be the case!). Making the retiloid argument puts my earlier, better-grounded comments into question without really providing enough factual and logical firepower to make the former argument stick. Stick to your core points and KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid).

Expand full comment

Thank you for yet another insightful and comprehensive "mailbag" article.

A couple of notes:

1) Ireland - For many decades, Ireland was the impoverished "welfare recipient" of the EU and not a place many immigrants wanted to settle. Then Ireland devised its rather stupid "ultra low corporate taxes" policy and suddenly all the big corps (Google, Apple, et al) started relocating their corporate HQs there. On paper, this led to a massive surge in GDP for Ireland. In reality, few Irish people got any high-paying tech jobs BUT a surge in real estate "investing" led to massive increases in housing prices and housing scarcity.

This led to two things: Ireland's gov't started getting uppity and thinking it was rich a) so it could be generous to pay for refugees, invite massive number of migrants, etc, and b) starting getting involved in world geopolitics (basically) for the first time such as sending vast quantities of money to Ukraine, thus further wrecking the budget.

Meanwhile... the events of 2020 and 2021 saw a lot of Irish people, especially in Dublin, forced to stay home while all the "essential workers" (delivery drivers, especially) were now non-Irish. Look outside your window and now it's all black and brown people everywhere. And this explosive mix of a) an arrogant, globalist government b) lack of housing, especially low-cost/free housing for Irish c) an explosion in number of non-Irish people, including refugees and others getting benefits like housing d) drastic cuts in government services has led to a lot of very angry Irish people.

Even before the stabbings, there were already protests (some quite "fiery") against further immigration as well as all these other acts by the government.

2) PMR - Let's review here. Moldova is, in effect, now a dictatorship. The "pro-EU" (actually pro-USA) government is ruling by emergency decree (which gets "temporarily extended" every 6 months) even though they have a majority in parliament. All opposition TV channels have been illegally shut down. Two opposition parties have been declared illegal. The gov't also refuses to accept the legitimacy of the Gagauz (which have their own parliament and other constitutional benefits of autonomy) administration. And Moldova has been inviting NATO in for "exercises" while taking in a rather large quantity of (donated) armored vehicles and equipment from Germany.

On paper, this looks like a perfect chance for Moldova to steamroll PMR and end the "separatist state" once and for all. And that's exactly what the UK government has been urging.

However.... Moldova's constitution strictly calls for military neutrality, and this sentiment is backed by easily 90% or more of the people. Likewise, the vast majority of Moldovans speak Russian, engage in Russian culture (including by going off to study in Russian universities), and have ZERO fascist tendencies towards stuff like "ethnic purity." Furthermore, Moldova's army is TINY (roughly 5k total personnel), partly because nobody in Moldova really wants to fight anyone and partly because the pay is abysmal (working at a food truck pays better, and the barracks/facilities in the army are outdated and in horrible shape). To wit, there are more something like 3 times more cops in Moldova than soldiers.

Furthermore, the border between PMR and Moldova is extremely porous (you don't even need a passport and it takes 5 minutes or less). People have families and friends on both sides and cross ALL the time for all kinds of reasons, including simple stuff like buying their preferred medicines (some folks favor Russian-made pills/meds that can't be found in the west, while Moldova gets certain meds/pills from Romania that are unique and not available in PMR or even most of the EU). Some people even move to PMR just for the winter because the heating bills are lower. So there is almost ZERO public appetite in Moldova for any kind of use of force against PMR. And plenty of folks remember the shitstorm of 1992 in which something like 60k people became (temporarily) refugees due to the fighting in Bendery/Tighina.

Last but certainly not least, people are free to speak Moldovan in PMR and Russian in Moldova and every other local language as well (Gagauz, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, etc). There is no institutional apathy, hatred, or aggression taught on either side against the other side. Most Moldovans think of PMR as their territory, but 99% of them are completely opposed to KILLING someone to regain what would be, at most, an expansion of Moldovan bureaucracy into their lives. And few people in Moldova have ever been enamored of their government.

So yeah, in terms of guns and tanks, it'd take only a few days or weeks for an invading force to conquer PMR. But there's basically nobody willing to do it, except for the British ambassador and that crowd (including Zelensky). And let's not forget that well over HALF of the PMR population has either a Moldovan passport or a Ukrainian one (or both), so there's that to consider as well. Yes, Russian is the language of day-to-day life in PMR, but ethnic Russians are in the MINORITY in PMR, and so there's no "easy" route to genocide and war along ethnic lines. And next to zero fascism in Moldovan institutions in order to cultivate a "hybrid" war either.

Expand full comment

Very informative comment

This looks like two small countries, both on the EU periphery, where the governing class sold out to the USEU dominant capitalist globalist class, contrary to the interests concerns and livelihoods of the majority of the people, and have lost any sense of reality and consequence in their servile obediance to their masters' commands

Almost identical to those small Baltic states on the EU periphery - or are there significant differences?

Expand full comment

I agree that there are many similarities to what went on in Ireland and with other EU states (where the 'dominant globalist class' sells out the 'interests, concerns, and livelihoods of the majority of the people' as you say).

As for a potential difference between the Baltics and Ireland, I would suggest that the pre-existing 'fracture' of the Baltics (ethnically, culturally, linguistically, politically) prior to and post independence in 1991 makes the Baltics different than Ireland in some fundamental ways.

When the the Republic of Ireland joined the EU (or more accurately its predecessor, the EEC) in 1973, the Republic was a coherent, internally consistent nationstate with a common culture, history, language, and identity. The Republic was not technically 100% united, because it had ties and claims to Northern Ireland in the UK, but it was still a comparatively homogenous and united society within the republican borders. It had same ethnic background (Irish), was overwhelmingly Roman Catholic culturally and religiously, shared a long, common history. and possessed a large world-wide diaspora that was well-known, 'loud' and 'proud'. The Republic of Ireland in the 1990's was poor, but 'one people, one culture'.

The Baltics, in comparison, did not (and still do not) have these attributes. Large percentages of the Baltic's population are (or were) ethnically Russian, or spoke Russian as a primary language, or were Orthodox culturally or in religious practice, or had a somewhat (or very) pro-Soviet / pro-Russian perspective on history (e.g. the Great Patriotic War, etc). Many of these residents were ex-Soviet servicemen or part of the Soviet state apparatus or part of the old integrated Soviet industrial legacy. These 'pro-Russian' elements of the population were (are) in stark contrast to the ethnic Lithuanians, Letts, etc that dominate the cultural, political, academic, and economic spheres of post-Soviet Lithuanian, Estonia, and Latvia today. There were (and still are) significant cultural, historical, and political disagreements between these pro-West, pro-Russia groups (and that is putting it mildly). Therefore, with such deep divisions, the Baltics are more like Northern Ireland than the Republic of Ireland -- and the deep seated (and sometime bubbling over) tensions of these cultural and political divides might make 'surrender to the EU and the globalists' a bit more palatable for many in the Baltics (as opposed to in Ireland). For many in the Baltics, joining the EU and NATO and the capitalistic and NGO structures of the West puts a clean break on the Soviet (and Russian) past. Joining also provides certain economic, political, and military connections and guarantees that make returning to a more Russian centric worldview difficult (if not impossible). Therefore, it is possible that in the Baltics people might see a benefit to the EU (and the globalist West) that the Irish (in the Republic of Ireland) just don't experience.

In short, whereas the Irish might have joined the broader globalist order full force in the 1990's because they hoped to develop economically and gain greater access to travel, employment, and European-identity internationally, the Balts may have done so for those reasons AND because it meant ensuring that they would "win" their cultural struggle internally and guard against any return to a Russian-aligned state. Today, the Irish (as demonstrated by this month's Dublin riots) may be becoming disenchanted with this pro-Globalist choice (realizing that the elites have 'sold them out'). The Balts, on the other hand, may value the West's 'guarantees' so much that this economic / political rights betrayal is accepted as the 'lesser of two evils".

Not saying that all this is the Gospel truth, just one perspective to think about.

Expand full comment

Thank you for this information - this makes sense

Expand full comment

Sorry Ursule, but has been long established that Moldovan is not a distinct language. It is the Romanian language and Moldovans on both sides of the River Prut speak it.

Also, more than 900,000 Moldovans got Romanian passports, which is maybe 40% of the population. Why would they do that. And after 1990s, the move to study was towards Romania, not Russia, for better or worse.

Expand full comment

I’m having to ask here as I don’t think I have a way to contact him directly without being a paid subscriber so maybe someone else who follows him can help me out instead:

1. Does anyone here remember the name of the group he mentioned way back when that helped Americans immigrate into Russia? I’m sorry, I know that’s supremely vague but he mentioned it in one of his previous mailbags that “Americans are still immigrating into Russia and this person/group/agency is helping them do it”

2. Has anyone ever heard of using PayPal to become a subscriber or tip? Only because I have an IBAN/BIC card so I can’t use it here, and PayPal is the only third party method I have access to

Expand full comment

Here is what was written:

"the flowering of new expat run communities made specifically for English-speaking expats, like those of Tim Kirby and several others."

Expand full comment
Dec 5, 2023·edited Dec 5, 2023

I came across these relevant links:

Jobs in Russia - Tim Kirby video: https://rumble.com/v3m6s01-russian-it-giant-wants-to-hire-foreigners-watch-for-details.html

How to Legally Immigrate to Russia! 10 minute explanation:


Russian Immigration Lawyers: https://vista-immigration.ru/

Expand full comment

Russia is a dramatically different society than the West in general and the US in particular.

If you aren't married to a Russian or Russian speaking person, it is likely going to be very difficult.

If you have interest - I'd go and spend time there as a long duration tourist for a while before taking the plunge.

Yes, standards of living are far cheaper than the West but the same would be true for Mexico or many other countries.

The Russian people are mostly super nice but that doesn't help if you cannot communicate with them in their (very difficult for Americans) language.

Expand full comment

"Ever since the unification of Germany in 1871, the chief vector of all great power politics revolved around keeping the naturally compatible and mutually advantageous German and Russian states from allying, as their union would represent the only combined power in the world that could dethrone the British Empire and its fledgling American accomplice from their place atop the Western world order, and by extension the entire world."

Not exactly...

First, British foreign policy has been dominated for centuries by the need to avoid a hegemonic power in Europe - be it Spain, France, Germany, or the USSR. Were it not for the German Empire's stupid decision to build a wholly unnecessary blue water navy, the UK would likely have stayed out of WW1 - there would, admittedly, likely have been a sequel between a German-dominated Europe and the British Empire, but that's way down the road of what-ifs. Remember, the UK & Germany (specifically Prussia) had been allies for a long time, and perfectly complimented one another: the Germans provided the soldiers, the British the navy (and money).

Second, Russia was a concern to the British only insofar as it was a rival in central Asia & China, or could upset the balance of power in the Mediterranean (ie hence the desire to prop up Turkey). Back in Nelson's day you had plenty of Royal Navy officers on half pay working for the Russian navy and the like.

Now obviously, a lot of this is obviously self-serving - a Europe in which there is no hegemonic power is obviously very good for Britain given its position as first-amongst-equals back then - but ALL foreign policy is, or should be (see: USA today) self-serving. A rising Germany wanted to advance its interests at the expense of Britain, France & Russia, and Putin today is acting to further the interests of Russia, as well he should. The Germans were no more right or wrong to want to advance their interests than the British were right or wrong to advance theirs.

However... one thing in favour of the British model is that a Europe without any hegemonic power is also one in which individual nations have a lot more independence than the model favoured by such humanitarians as Napoleon, Wilhelm III, Hitler, Stalin, FDR, and the like. The French governed France, the Germans governed Germany, and the Russians ruled Russia. Napoleon would see Europe run from Paris, Wilhelm III & Hitler would've seen it ruled from Berlin, Stalin from Moscow, and FDR from Washington DC. Which, funnily enough, seems to be exactly what happened thanks to the two world wars.

Obviously, the Pax Britannica had, shall we say, issues - just ask anyone who wasn't white - but I would say that even that, for all its flaws, was better than globohomo.


"But the problem is, the U.S. is a totally captured state. Its elite do not serve the people whatsoever, and in fact are a treasonous class of actual definitional traitors who serve other transnational interests first, particularly Israel."

I'm not sure it's actually *Israel* they're serving, though it makes for a very convenient cover.


"Ashkenazis probably have a pretty wide variance so it likely is correct to question that “all of them” are directly descended from Khazaria."

From what I've heard, they're mostly white, with in particular a fair bit of Italian and I think German heritage. Certainly they're less Semitic than, oh to pick a group completely at random, the Palestinians.


"However, we must note that not all Jews are in bed with Nazis because there are many who have, and continue to share, outrage at these inconvenient facts."

I think there's a very clear divide between ordinary people and the elites. Same thing in the USA - compare what the politicians do vs what the people want them to do. The only difference is the Jewish elites are active on a global scale rather than merely within one country.

Expand full comment

Read 'Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War' by Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor. It blows the usual myths about Germany's culpability in WWI out of the water.

Expand full comment

I don't see there's any need to go all-in and blame Germany for starting WW1. The proximate cause is, after all, the Austro-Hungarian response to their Archduke's assassination. Russia could have left Serbia to its fate, Germany could have left Austria-Hungary to deal with Russia & Serbia alone, and for that matter France could have declined to help Russia (and Britain decline to protect Belgium).

That said, it *was* the German decision to get involved that made things as bad as they got: without Germany you don't get the Western Front *at all*, nor do you get the Russian Revolution, nor do you get a war that lasts as long as it did - though this last point also applies to the UK, as I rather doubt France would have lasted until November 1918 - let alone won - without the British.

Me, I just like to bash Churchill - had he not been so stupid as to support fighting the Germans on land, almost three quarters of a million of my fellow Brits would not have perished, and a naval blockade (including in the Baltic) would likely have won the day.

1914: the year peak human civilisation picked up a revolver and shot itself in the head.

Expand full comment

If you read my comment again, it says 'it blows the usual myths about German's culpability...out of the water'. That is, I'm saying that Germany does not deserve the blame, or at least not to the extent that has become the norm.

Expand full comment


Expand full comment

Having Ukraine immolate itself on the Russian fortifications was ideal for Russia. Russia will keep that going as long as possible. They will continue to advance slowly so that Ukraine suffers an endless series of demoralizing defeats. Ukraine going into a defensive stance makes no sense : all that death with no possible gain. The only reason to continue the war in that way is to keep the corruption going.


Why Russia Doesn't Want To Conquer Ukraine

Expand full comment

Just a tiny very tangential comment re. question 25, which I've always found very funny: when people speaks of high-speed trains, they always mention Germany, China or France, but no one speaks about Spain, which is the country with more high-speed rail kilometers only after China.

Expand full comment

Very distant 2nd place...

Expand full comment

2005 West to China "haha stupid chinks trying to make high speed trains!", 2015, "Oh you have more high speed rail track miles than the rest of the world". Currently. "haha stupid chinks trying to make leading edge micro-processors!".

Expand full comment

A31: “I find the assertion that Putin is ‘no friend of universities’ a little strange as I’ve never heard of such a thing.” - I agree. One point can be made here is the Russian withdrawal from The Bologna Process and the European Higher Education disaster, I would say. The point is to pay more attention to education.

Expand full comment

Wow! I just want to thank you, Simplicius, for your answer to my question! I need to have a sense of the bigger picture, or the chaos just gets overwhelming. I'd rather know what's going on and be appalled by it, than not know and wait to be told what to think like a frightened sheep. There is just too much pontificating going on right now on all sides. Your perspective (backed up by facts and actual statements of the people involved) is invaluable!

Expand full comment

The majority of the UK do not want to return to the EU. The politician's & media do & are pushing it. But the pushback is far greater than it was during the original vote

Expand full comment