The West is a cult

I’ve been thinking about something for the last few days: it’s incredible how the people in the West make counterproductive moves because they start from bad premises, and when the evidence starts showing their errors, they stubbornly insist on their original course, and use their own lies and fallacies as inputs “proving” how they are right, and dismiss facts and evidence as “enemy propaganda”, and all the “official authorities” spew ideological nonsense that is completely out of touch with any kind of reality perceivable “on the ground”. I’ve seen that mentality before, in the Soviet Union. They fought reality with ideology, and when ideology produced disasters, they attributed that to “sabotage” by “foreign agents” and “counter-revoutionary forces”, because their ideology was unquestionable, it was axiomatically assumed so the problem must, obviously, lie elsewhere. Interestingly, I also saw this mentality in various religious cults, where it’s obvious to the impartial observer that their problems follow from faulty ideology that doesn’t interpret facts and reality properly, and then they have problems which they don’t acknowledge and handle properly, and instead of that they double down on their ideology which of course is correct and is the answer to all of world’s problems, which in turn increases their problem until everything falls apart.

Basically, the West is a cult, and it lives in a similar kind of a false narrative that we find ridiculous in North Korea, but are completely oblivious to the one we live in, because we don’t know the actual facts, and instead we work with the false facts created by the cult we live in.

I will need to illustrate this by concrete examples. You see, people underestimate how much progress was actually made during the Russian Empire; they think it was a feudalist backwater, and then the communists came and industrialized it all, but unfortunately this process had a high cost in human lives, yada yada. That’s not how it was, at least not during the late imperial era. The joke is, even I believed the official Stalinist narrative, until I found out several facts:

  • The Trans-Siberian Railroad was envisioned, designed and completed during the Russian Empire; the construction started in 1891 simultaneously from Moscow and Vladivostok, and it was completed in 1901, with an additional route to avoid Manchuria completed in 1916. I thought it was all done during the Soviet times, which was completely wrong.
  • The agrarian reform from the serfdom model to the capitalist enterpreneurial model was implemented in the imperial times, where the serfs were liberated and were given land, and the more successful ones (later known as the kulaks) bought land from and employed the less successful ones as labor. This increased the effectiveness of agricultural production greatly, but also introduced great differerences in wealth between people working in agriculture, which the communists exploited to forment envy and hatred of the successful ones. The communists actually re-introduced the serfdom model, disowning all the peasants (“dekulakization“) and converting them from the modern and successful capitalist model to a state-feudalism “Kolhoz/Sovhoz” model, which resulted in mass starvation later known as “holodomor”.
  • One of the main causes of the first world war was the worry within the Prussian elites that the imperial Russia is industrializing at such a magnificent pace, that it will overrun Europe within a century if they are not stopped. Obiviously, ther had to be great progress for such a concern to arise.
  • Rocket and aircraft engineering, as well as other magnificant feats of science and technology started in the imperial era, and were merely grudgingly adopted in the Soviet era, if not outright suppressed by purges and Stalin’s lunacy. For instance, Sikorsky had to emigrate to America in order to continue his work on helicopters, and Korolev was imprisoned in a gulag because his attempts to work on rocketry were deemed “sabotage of military technology”. The foundations of rocket technology later developed in the Soviet Union were made during the imperial era by Tsiolkovsky. All the great Russian literary and music work were done during the imperial era. Rachmaninoff, Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Musorgsky, Dostoievsky, Tolstoy and many others, all from the imperial era. Also, Mikhail Dobrovolsky devised the three-phase alternating current system independently from Tesla, and the Russians actually had the world’s first alternating current power plant, in 1891.

I never knew any of this until I did independent digging; this information is obviously suppressed by the mass-indoctrination and disinformation industry also known as “education” and “information” in the West. Because of this, Russia is seen as a primitive backwater, and its undeniable achievements as accidents and glitches. In reality, they are only peaks on a huge mountain range of achievement that is intentionally underestimated in the West. The socialists in the West tried to indoctrinate us into believing that Russia was a primitive feudalist shithole and then Lenin brought the light of communism and in a few decades Russia became a nuclear superpower with human spaceflight and other wonders. In reality, the communist revolution stunted Russian development by at least half a century if not more. If there were no communism in Russia, and no disasters of two world wars and a fratricidal civil war in between, and imperial Russia had the chance of progressing at its own pace linearly, it would have colonies on Mars and the moons of Jupiter by now. This is a shocking statement, I know, but imagine the shock and disbelief the Germans experienced during the WW2 when they had to deal with the fact that the Russian tanks were technologically superior to their own. Apparently, they consumed their own propaganda thinking it was fact, and when reality reasserted itself the results were unpleasant.

We are dealing with something similar now. You see, I’m very tired of listening to Western analysts explaining how Russian GDP is the size of Italy and how America spends 10x more on weapons and so is 10x stronger. If something here sounds strange and contrary to experience, then congratulations, your brain is working. You see, those numbers are the result of Western economic pressure against Russia, which prevented it from being a debt-based economy, unlike literally every single country in the West, and most countries in the world, with the notable exception of China. Being debt-based functions like this: the American-controlled credit rating assessment firms assign a rating to a country’s bonds. If the rating is good, a country can go into debt cheaply, and finance its industry and spending cheaply. If the rating is poor, the opposite happens – debt is expensive, and going into debt is avoided since it’s almost impossible to pay it at huge interest. This forces most countries to be stunted in their development, because they can’t finance growth easily, and have to actually earn money in order to invest it, which takes time. However, since they have almost no debt, they are completely resistent to credit rating manipulations and pressures, which the Americans use to control their vassals – if you’re a bad boy, your credit rating gets degraded and your country can no longer refinance its debt to go into more debt, which collapses your debt-addicted economy. Be a good boy, and your credit rating stays “investment grade”, and you can continue to keep your Ponzi scheme economy afloat. The fact that Russia had to finance its economic growth by selling commodities, such as oil, gas, metal and food, made it essentially the only commodity-based economy in the world. Translated, an economy running a gold standard for its currency is commodity-based, because gold is a commodity. A petrodollar is theoretically a commodity-based currency because you need the dollar to buy oil, but in reality it’s backed by military force and blackmail – start selling oil for something that’s not dollar, end up like Saddam or Gaddafi. Continue selling oil only for dollars and American military will continue “protecting” your country. After all, it would be a shame if something happened to it.

So, basically, what this means is that there are only two commodity-backed currencies in the world, namely the US Dollar and the Russian Ruble, and only two commodity-backed economies in the world, namely Russia and China. The weakness of the Russian economy is its reliance on foreign exchange with fiat currencies, which used to make Ruble weak due to forex manipulations by America, and the weakness of Chinese economy is its reliance on export. The sanctions imposed against Russia essentially removed its main weaknesses, the forex market and foreign credit, leaving it completely commodity-based and with no vulnerabilities, which is why it has recently been the best performing currency in the world.

Of course, you won’t hear this interpretation in the Western press, because you live in a cult, and this interpretation would make you question “facts”. One of those “facts” is that Russia is economically weak, and the slightest whiff of sanctions will make it collapse, and the West is economically strong and can sanction and bully other nations. It’s actually the other way around, because the entirety of all Western economies is based on the credit-rating dependent Ponzi scheme, which created enormous financial bubbles that show good GDP numbers, but when you calculate the actual purchasing power, and when you factor in what would happen if a country couldn’t refinance its Ponzi economy, you would get a very disturbing reality, which is starting to become visible now: the West is actually completely dependent on buying commodities cheaply, at suppressed prices compared to the prices of “intellectual property” and other bullshitful constructions that form the inflated prices of their retail products, and they are addicted to selling those bullshitful products at inflated prices back to the exporters of commodities, and that’s how they keep financing their Ponzi economies that are geared to constantly work in a bubble. What the sanctions did was compromise access to cheap commodities, and prohibit their own export of inflated bullshit, thus compromising their own ability to refinance their internal Ponzi scheme, bringing their entire socioeconomic system to the brink of collapse, with very poor short-term prognosis.

When you ignore the Western fake numbers, you are left with the following realities:

  • Everybody needs energy, and Russia is a major exporter of energy, meaning it has super cheap energy to power its own economy, with enough to spare to power its currency. This includes electricity, nuclear fuel and fossil fuels.
  • Everybody needs food, and food production is dependent on two things: the Haber-Bosch method of producing fertilizers, and diesel fuel for agricultural machinery. Russia is a major producer of both natural gas used for producing fertilizers, petroleum products for powering heavy machinery, and agricultural products.
  • In order to have a modern society you need to have industry capable of producing technological artifacts, such as aircrafts, automobiles, ships, tanks and so on. Russia produces basically everything, from tractors to human spaceflight, and what it doesn’t produce currently, such as semiconductor foundries, it is in the process of building. As far as the industrial and technological basis, Russia is probably the closest to total autarky, of all the countries in the world.
  • Russia has almost no debt. Attempts to collapse its economy by making debt refinancing expensive or inaccessible would necessarily fail because Russia has been under American financial pressure for so long, it had to find ways to finance itself that are alternative to the debt bubble used to finance Western economies. However, all the Western economies are extremely vulnerable to this type of a threat, which is how America keeps them all in check.
  • The major weakness of Russia prior to the sanctions was its love affair with the West. The West made sure to make Russians realize how much the West hates and despises tem, turning the pro-Western Russians into patriots.
  • As a result of sanctioning Russia, the Western countries now have expensive and insufficient energy, shortages on the domestic market, price hikes on the domestic markets, reduction of purchasing power on the domestic market, and they already inflated their currency in response to the 2008 economic crisis. Also, they now have reduced access to foreign markets for their exports. Economic prognosis for the West is dire in the short term.
  • Euro, Yen and other currencies are falling compared to the US Dollar. The US Dollar is falling compared to the Russian Ruble.
  • Russian weapons aren’t 10x cheaper than the US equivalents because they are worse. They are actually better. The reason why they are cheaper is because the Russian weapons industry is orders of magnitude more efficient, because the American model is based on state corruption. The Russians make weapons in order to defend their country, the Americans make their weapons in order to line the pockets of the weapons industry oligarchs. The Russian model requires weapons to be as good as possible and as cheap for the state as possible. The American model requires weapons to be as expensive as possible in order to transfer money from the tax payers to the oligarchs, and quality doesn’t matter.

As for Russia, yeah, you let them know how much you hate them and think they are subhuman. You pissed them off and now they are urging Putin to nuke you, and he’s actually holding them all back. The only thing the sanctions did is clear their domestic market of imported overpriced garbage which used to finance your economic bubbles, so they are now forced to buy cheap, superior domestically produced goods. I heard a guy who lives in America, but visits Russia occasionally, say that he bought shoes in Russia and they were the best shoes he ever had. That tells you something about the terrible fate the Russians are destined to without your Gucci and Prada bullshit. They will buy better shoes for less money, eat better food for less money, fill their cars up for less money, and they will colonize Moon and Mars together with China while you learn how to eat trash out of dumpsters, thinking you’re sticking it to Putin.

What’s the actual, objective magnitude of Russian economy? This is very hard to assess, because it’s relative to circumstances and pressures. For instance, a sudden currency/credit collapse would produce a world where Russia would be the absolute No1 superpower, with China dependent on symbiosis with Russia to survive, and America and EU reduced to post-apocalyptic dumpster-fire shitholes. This is because so far Russia has been sailing against the wind, against the current and with enemies boring holes in the ship, and the West has been producing hot air to power its baloon economy. The Russian economy is closest to the physical reality, in the sense that it’s based on power plants, steel foundries, hydrocarbons, nuclear plants, and large-scale agriculture, and the West is increasingly based on the “service economy” and “intellectual property”, which are very fragile and ungrounded entities very sensitive to needles poking holes in baloons.

So, it doesn’t matter how big your baloon economy currently seems to be, and how small comparatively someone’s real economy is, if it only takes one needle to reduce your baloon to something that drops you from great height onto very hard rocks.

The upset totalitarians

From RT:

Organizations funded by European governments and George Soros say Musk’s goal of free speech will “toxify” the internet

Some 26 NGOs, including ones funded by European governments and billionaire financier George Soros, have called on Twitter’s top advertisers to boycott the platform if Musk restores banned accounts and lifts its speech restrictions. Musk’s stated commitment to free speech, they argued, will lead to “disinformation, hate, and harassment.”

“Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter will further toxify our information ecosystem and be a direct threat to public safety, especially among those already most vulnerable and marginalized,” the groups wrote in a letter on Tuesday.

Praising Twitter’s content moderation policies, which critics have described as censorship, the liberal organizations warned that “Musk intends to steamroll those safeguards and provide a megaphone to extremists who traffic in disinformation, hate, and harassment.”

Musk himself has called on his Twitter followers to investigate these “organizations that want to control your access to information,” declaring “sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

I’m with Musk here; actually, I would go further and say that I don’t actually care about the law. The recently introduced speech restriction laws are totalitarian and I recommend completely disregarding them, and if the governments try to enforce them, it’s about time they get used to hearing the word “no”.

As for those “entities” advocating for restrictions of free speech, let me put it this way. If someone is afraid of actual evidence against vaccines, or against idiotic gender policies, or against government propaganda that tries to convince you that Ukraine nazis are the good guys so that they could take you to war with Russia, starve you of energy under the guise of “freedom gas” or some other bullshit, they are the problem, and if their argument is “but the poor trannies will cry if they hear nasty words on twitter”, my answer is that I don’t have a Twitter account or a Facebook account and I don’t miss it, and if someone is so mentally fucked up that they can be brought to the point of suicide because someone will tell them that men have penises and women have vaginas and no, men can’t menstruate and women don’t have penises, then they need psychiatric help, and no, turning the entire civilization into a mental institution to protect fragile mentally ill people who can’t face reality or criticism isn’t a solution. Also, banning criticism of bad ideas from public spaces is not a good idea, because it’s similar to ideologically pre-selecting political candidates before the election, because where did we see that? Oh, in totalitarian shitholes, that’s where.

Also, if Soros, who advocates for the so called “open society” is so afraid of an actual open society where his critics have a say, then one should ask themselves what’s actually going on there. I’m not even asking, because to me it’s obvious that the guy is trying to subvert any kind of societal structure that would stand in the way of his totalitarian control over society, achieved by money and psychobabble, and is, as such, an enemy of all free people everywhere.

Also, Bill Gates looks increasingly like someone who is trying to achieve totalitarian control over society in order to be able to implement his, possibly very unsavory, ideas and plans, in silence and darkness. Musk is apparently throwing a wrench in the plans of such totalitarian-minded oligarchs who are investing huge amounts of money with purpose of control over thoughtspace, and all voices in favor of censorship and totalitarianism should be put on some shit list – meaning, don’t vote for, don’t buy products from, oppose in every way when they try to push something.


Ukraine sitrep

First of all, let’s see Scott Ritter’s take:

Basically, the Russians structured the battlefield in a way where they have very little if any casualties as a function of time, the Ukrainians are sustaining huge casualties and material losses as a function of time, and now the Russians are basically doing to NATO what NATO was planning to do to them – they are bleeding the enemy and letting time do the work for them. NATO attempts to target Russia proper show desperation on the part of NATO – basically, they understand that they’re fucked and now they are trying to escalate things and change the setup so that the function of time doesn’t cause so much of a one-sided loss.

I would say that Russia will have their hands full with saboteurs, because some of the damage they’ve sustained is internally caused.

Economically speaking, the EU is sustaining the worst damage, and the gas is still flowing. When that changes, time will start running out for the “united Europe”.

The statements made by NATO countries are getting more and more, should I say, nervous? in ways that are diplomatically ill-advised unless you want to get nuked. This behaviour seems to be caused by the fact that they are losing Ukraine, in ways they didn’t predict. What they predicted was a quick war where Russia takes Ukraine but then they have a long-term guerrilla warfare on their hands, basically a second Afghanistan, where the West will keep feeding the slow fire that will bleed Russia into bankruptcy and social unrest, causing the second 1990s that will lead to the country’s breakup and destruction. What they got is prolonged “hot” warfare in which Russia keeps destroying the ammo and weapons the West keeps sending about as fast as it arrives, they neutralised the Ukrainian army to the point of a rat hunt, Russia is having less economic difficulties with the sanctions regime than the West, Ruble is actually above the pre-war levels, the Russians keep testing and improving their tactics and weapons, Putin is more popular than ever, and the West is less popular in Russia than probably at any time since the late 1980s. Also, NATO had to increase the support to Ukraine to the point where America, Britain, Poland, Romania and Germany, to name a few prominent ones, are in de facto open war with Russia, and the only thing missing is the official acknowledgment of this fact by Russia, followed by hypersonic missiles (nuclear-tipped or not) hitting the NATO bases. Putin already warned of such an outcome:

Russian president Vladimir Putin has warned outside forces against interfering in the Ukrainian conflict, promising a “lightning-speed” response to such actions, with the use of Moscow’s most advanced weaponry.

“If someone decides to intervene in the ongoing events from the outside and create unacceptable strategic threats to us, they should know that our response to those oncoming blows will be swift, lightning-fast,” Putin said in an address to lawmakers on Wednesday.

“We have all the tools to do this. Tools that no one except us can brag about. But we’re not going to brag. We’ll use them if such a need arises,” the president said, without specifying which tools could be deployed.

Russian authorities have already made all necessary decisions to prepare for such a response, he added.

Also, I would expect the strikes on Russian territory to be answered soon, and not necessarily in ways one would expect.

Edit: American troops are moving to the Romania-Moldova border:

My interpretation is that the Americans will try to militarily seize Transnistria in order to prevent the connection of the Russian forces in Ukraine, on the Odessa side, with Transnistria, which would greatly improve Russian position and make any attempt of Ukraine to achieve exit to the Black Sea very difficult. The problem with this idea is that the Russians are very unlikely to allow it.

Legitimacy of deep strikes

I just found this:

“It is completely legitimate for Ukraine to be targeting in Russia’s depth in order to disrupt the logistics that if they weren’t disrupted would directly contribute to death and carnage on Ukrainian soil,” Heappey told Times Radio.

Let’s enter slight reciprocal corrections, shall we?

“It is completely legitimate for Russia to be targeting in NATO countries’ depth in order to disrupt the logistics that if they weren’t disrupted would directly contribute to death and carnage on Ukrainian soil”

I can’t say I would disagree with that. It’s obvious that NATO is the actual party at war with Russia, providing logistics and weaponry to Ukraine.

Besides, America already stated that they are at war with Russia:

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin told reporters after a trip to Kyiv that “we want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.” The new US goal is “to defeat Russia on the battlefield so decisively that it will refrain from any new attacks.”

It’s obvious that they are pissing on Russia, and Russia is trying to keep the pretence that it’s raining.

About deterrence and genocide

Paul Craig Roberts wrote an article in which he expresses a viewpoint that the Russian gradual and slow approach to the Ukraine war will only encourage American war hawks, giving them the false impression that Russia is weaker than it is, and that attacking them in a nuclear war might actually be a good idea. He thinks it would’ve been better if Russia ran over Ukraine with overwhelming force and simply killed everybody. That would supposedly give Americans pause.

Dmitry Orlov responded on the Saker blog with an emotional article that accuses Roberts of advocating for genocide of Ukrainians, accuses Roberts of pontificating to Russia, and argues that Russian approach will flood the Europe with Western Ukrainian refugees which is good because it will harm Europe, free Ukraine of people who hate Russia, and so on.

I think both sides are under a misapprehension of some kind; Roberts thinks that the nuclear war is preventable. I don’t think it is, because the clique in America that holds literally ALL the power sees such a war as a necessary part of re-arranging the world so that America can have its collapse and emerge as the dominant force decades later. Whatever Russia does or doesn’t do, the outcome will be the same, because it isn’t about how weak they think you are, it’s about what they actually want to do. What they want to do is degrade all possible competition to a position worse than their own for at least the duration of their collapse and presumed recovery.

Orlov, on the other hand, is working under a misapprehension that the amount of killing that would in present circumstances be called genocide matters in the large scale of things. I don’t think it does; even the most strong-armed approach by Russia would probably only increase the speed of killing, not change the ultimate outcome, if Mariupol is any indication, and I believe it is. Basically, with more troops and bombs you end up with the same level of destruction in the timeframe of days instead of weeks, which might actually reduce the time civilians spend in basements starving or risking their lives looking for food and water. Also, he is thinking emotionally and not strategically, and that’s good if you’re taking care of individual people, but it’s not good if you’re trying to come up with some kind of a stable and livable scenario. For instance, let’s say Russia spares the West Ukraine. There’s no bombing, no civilians killed there. It leaves them in a better position to attack Russia later, and they have no personal experience that would advise them against this course. This results in postponed bloodshed, where Russia still has to run them over, but likely more people die, and, more importantly, more Russians die, because I don’t really care that much about the Banderites, considering how they are likely the worst people in the world.

So, the real question isn’t genocide or not. There’s going to be genocide regardless. The Ukrops are going to kill all Russian speaking Ukrainians after this. Unless they are killed, they will make a hell on Earth. Deaths and suffering are inevitable, it’s just a matter of who dies, in what way and order, and how quickly. Also, having in mind that the nuclear war is inevitable, leaving a country full of vile indoctrinated Russia-haters at your doorstep, leaving it intact and with no worry other than how to harm you more when you’re down, is a very bad idea. I agree with Roberts that Ukraine would be best completely wiped out; it would be perfectly unwise to leave them sufficiently intact and able to form a threat in the quite probable near future. However, the fact is that both Russian people and their political leadership are incredibly unwilling to have a nuclear war with the West, and their “weak” approach reflects this unwillingness. It is also the fact that the Americans see this as encouragement and proof of their supremacy, which is a grave mistake, because Russia is actually stronger militarily. However, I wargamed a very large pool of options and the only situation where there isn’t a nuclear war is if something disrupts everything out of the blue, to the point where it makes American plans obsolete – a supervolcanic eruption in America, a huge asteroid strike, a gigantic solar flare that wipes out the technosphere and so on. In any normal scenario, it doesn’t really matter what Russia or China do, because they are not the ones trying to have a nuclear war; they are playing with black figures, so to speak, and America doesn’t really have a de-escalation mode in their political scene.