Better late than never I suppose:
David Quinn wrote:It is becoming increasingly clear to me that this claim has a lot of merit. If we look at the posts of Diebert and jupiviv in this thread, for example, we can see that there is a consistent pattern of being pro-Russia and pro-Putin, as well as a consistent pattern of bending over backwards to excuse or overlook Trump’s outrageous behaviour. It is quite striking to behold. And what's interesting is that it is by no means an isolated example, but rather a pattern that is repeatedly extensively throughout Trump’s fan base. A large percentage of Trump's supporters are pro-Putin. I confess that I had never thought to bring up the subject of Russia in my past talks with Kevin, but I have the uneasy feeling that if I did, he too would be expressing pro-Russian sentiments.
What does Kevin (an Australian), Diebert (a Dutchman) and jupiviv (an Indian) have in common, besides being members of this forum? Well, they have all spent the last few years immersing themselves in alternative politics and visiting alternative sites, and so it makes me wonder just how extensively the Russians have involved themselves on these sites. How much of Breitbart is driven by the Russians, for example? How involved were the Russians in the Gamergate affair? Have the Russians, with their well-honed KGB techniques, been exploiting the various grievances that Westerners have with their lives and “turned” them against the very idea of Western civilization itself?
As I said before I encountered 'technical difficulties', you would do well David to examine the New Right with fresh eyes because, from my angle of view, and I have made substantial efforts over the last year to read up on it, you really do not grasp it. Now, what relevance would such knowledge have? First, I do not see an interest in right-leaning and conservative politics as being incommensurate with many, and possibly most, of the philosophical predicates that you value and upon which this forum is based. Therefor, even though I knew this before, it is surprising to me that you and Dan seem to hold such established, rather common, rather mass-man 'liberalish' outlooks. I would imagine that most of your hard philosophical predicates would incline you, say, toward positions held by Julian Evola and some of those who in the interwar period (20s and 30s) attempted to develop an alternative to Marxism and Communism as it swept up populations in that period of time.
One idea that might be of interest, and some value to you, when one thinks on Eastern Europe is an idea that Jonathan Bowden explored: that though Communism was oppressive to the satellites of Moscow (those now free and independent Eastern Bloc countries), culture there was preserved 'as if in aspic' according to him. Now, as it happens, these countries, when Westerners visit them, seem more European than Europe does now. That means of course nearly completely non-multicultural. One might say Oh, you mean white
? But it is something more. It really means regional and ethnic and 'true to itself'. It means uncontaminated by giant economic interests that, somehow, influence policy and succeed in importing disparate people. That is one element. The other element is the relationship and the link to 'their own traditions' which, now that the restraints are lifted, begin to upsurge in the population. Cultural, social, religious. So, and this is just one angle, Eastern Europe has given rise to a group of philosophers and thinkers, definitely not of the classic and liberal Left, who have many things to say on the question of 'identity' and 'self-empowerment'.
One other factor to take into consideration --- since you are talking of the KGB and Russian manipulation --- is that within the American power-elite there is a faction called Neo-Conservatism. According to some (E Michael Jones is one, there are others) it is this particular elite that has brought America into its recent destructive wars. According to Jones for example he sees these men (he names them) as 'Trotskyites', a term which requires some explanation of course in this context. But these men have an interest in permanent war and are always upsetting established orders becuase, I gather, they understand they can gain in various different ways. Also according to these theorists (jones, et cetera) the present Liberal American establishment (Obama/Clinton) has links to these strategies, and that they are interested in provoking conflict with Russia. If this is so, it might be true that Trump represents a threat to a certain Washington power-faction. This might explain the sudden awareness of the American 'deep-state' and all the intelligence connections, and therefor a media campaign to paint Trump and his desired and expressed policies in the worst possible light. One senses behind-the-scenes battles and conflicts.
I also think that you do not have much understanding or appreciation of the 'regional' element that is beginning to manifest itself. Globalism is a bizarre doctrine really and is nearly absolutely undemocratic! It is a design-scheme which began to be implimented in the aftermath of WW2 and, according to Noam Chomsky at least (he exaggerates but I do not think he fails to see accurately power-dynamics), this was set up by the Americans whereby the world was divided into 'regions'. So, what is happening now, or one thing that is happening now, is that regions and people within regions are expressing their lack of assent to this 'globalization' project, both as idea and as economic fact. Therefor, out of that opposition there are many voices, many commenators, many philosophers who are coming to the fore. You can find many of them through the Counter-Currents website.
It must be understood, because it is true, that most of these people do not find an intellectual home within liberal and left-leaning postures. The reasons should be obvious. They require, and the seek and develop, strategies of resistance to liberal culture (I prefer the term hyper-liberal to indicate a soup of economics, culture, liberalsim and as my arachnoid freind Diebert might say 'seduction'). So, what happens is that they begin to articulate positions of resistance to the mass infiltration and thus their discourse is similar to that of the European interwar (20s-30s). It does have commonality with conservative social writing, which is also fascist writing, on the topic of preserving sovereignty in the face of a cultural mosnter like communism and Marxism.
Therefor, I suggest applying a certain prophylactic lens when viewing, say, Breitbart (not a good example) and other discourses which are floating around out there that are reactionary in the precise and accurate sense of the word. (Counter-Currents is a better example but it is far more intellectual). That prophylactic would be one where the regional complain, if you will, and the personal lamantation and the expression of violation and regret in the face of the hyper-liberal onslaught is recognized and understood. It is possible, then, to look upon 'white identity' or European identitarianism in a more understanding light. I have made efforts to understand 'white identity' in America and, as it happens, I have come to understand an aspect of their project as having integrity if looked at fairly. For example, I have read David Dukes work (well, his autobiography) and now instead of relying on the media reports I have my own opinion of the man. When I understood that these were 'identity' movements, and that a Japanese or a Romanian could just as well feel a need for an 'Identity" posture, it helped me to better understand some very essential things about the US. (Topic of another discussion of course).
One must I think separate the Trump Phenomenon from the man Donald Trump, to the degree that this is possible. Trump is beyond any doubt the worst possible choice to become a president and one could go on and on about this. He will very likely fail 'bigly'. But that is a somewhat distinct question. More important is the Trump Phenomenon, and therefor the link between this upset in the general order and people like, for example Marine Le Pen and other regional politicians of the political right who are moved by purer forms of conservatism which have postures of 'self-protection' and regional decision-making (a turn against receiving orders from a globalized establishment).
Now, then it comes to Commander Solway (I am still working out the proper salute) I have to admit that I find all your, if you will permit me, hysterics to appear as not a little surprising. It doesn't fit, and yet it does fit. You are a product of the Austrialian socialized system, you benefit from it, indeed it enables you to do what you do (largely). Your present discourse, which is coherant and yet based on skewed understandings (that is my view but then I tend to see everyone who is outside of power as having limited vision, rather like K. In The Castle: we really do not know how power functions and we have to guess), has embarrassed me to read. And then I noticed that you could not back away. You may therefor have incredible insight into the reality of the Absolute, but as to politics and power you seem 'to see through a glass darkly'.
When you ask what Diebert, Jupiviv and Kevin have in common you ask a good question, yet you imply an answer that I will imagine is false. What they each seem to have, in contradistinction to you, is a cooler head! Less prejudice. A position far less doctrinaire. I would suggest, based on what I have read here, that they have nuance and a more careful, back-grounded and even foot-noted articulation of understanding.
Now, and finally, I know what it is like to be a high-flying goose (and a rather low-shuffling four-footed barnyard creature with fleas and tartared teeth). I fly between the stars! I fly out of this entire manifestation
(what you call The Absolute) and I have visited the *ponds* of 4 discreet and separate Absolutes. Yes, my perspectives are that wide. I of all incarnated beings understand what it is like to sully myself among the *commoners*. Yet I do it and I do not begrudge the destiny that has been assigned to me. Nor should you begrudge yours.