IS NORTH KOREA BABY-FARMING?

by Colin Liddell

It has long been my contention that the countries and populations that will best survive the current "Demographic Winter" that the entire world is sliding into are the ones that are willing to completely override the conventional models of family formation and employ science or social pressure in a "no holds barred" way.

While providing more maternity care, kindergarten facilities, and tax breaks to encourage women to have babies is fine, the actual results suggest that it is not very effective or efficient. The best results seem to have been achieved in the 1970s and 1980s in East Germany, which is a rather long time ago.

Also, it is not an option to simply "turn the clock back" to an era before contraception, abortion, and women's rights, when women, kept barefooted and chained to kitchen sinks, pumped out the sprogs. That is more of an incel fantasy.

No, in my view, the solution to the Demographic Winter now enveloping us is going to be a lot more direct and scientific. In essence it will involve a form of "baby farming," in which various techniques, such as embryo harvesting, IVF, surrogacy, ex-natal care (incubators and ultimately artificial wombs), and other as-yet-unimagined tech fixes will play vital roles perhaps in combination with elements of social regimentation.

But which countries are most likely to resort to these methods?

Due to the "unscrupulous" nature of these methods (judged by the conventional "normie" morality of the West), it is not likely to be Western nations. Instead, it is much more likely to be the more ruthless, authoritarian, and totalitarian states that exist in the East. The West meanwhile will probably continue to "offset its demographic incompetence" through messy mass immigration, multiculturalism, and botched and tedious attempts at assimilation. 

The archetype of the kind of state best placed to resort to "radical demographic solutions" is North Korea. But you can also see similar characteristics in China and Russia. All three have the requisite disregard for Western morality. Other contenders could even include Western-aligned nations like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore. These are the sort of societies that are most likely to deal with demographic doomsday by trying something completely new which nevertheless accords with their collectivist and non-Christian ethos.

"The shape of things to come" is not yet clear and defined, but the arrow of history points increasingly towards something like baby farming, with the possibility of increasing numbers of children being, so to speak, "post nuclear" in the sense of being created outside the malfunctioning model of the nuclear family.

The individualistic ethos of the West directly conflicts with this. Not so much the ethos of the East. It is important to at least be aware of this possibility, and to keep an eye on any stories out of places like North Korea or China that seem to hint at moves in this direction.

For this recent the recent barely-reported story of quintuplets in North Korea set bells ringing.

As anyone familiar with r/K theory applied to racial types knows, the tendency to have polyzygotic pregnancies is lowest amongst the East Asian (Mongoloid) race and highest amongst the Negroid races, with Europeans (Caucasians) somewhere in the middle. So, for a Korean mother to have five babies in one go, is something remarkable, probably unnatural, and well worth taking note of.

What exactly happened at the maternity clinic in Pyongyang to create this unprecedented event is not known and will probably remain a closely guarded secret, but it may suggest that North Korea is not content, like individualistic western nations, to give in to the demographic slide, and is instead seeking a collective solution, one that can subsequently be applied on a much larger scale in the future in other countries.

___________________________________

Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Neokrat and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying his book here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia), or by taking out a paid subscription on his Substack.

Follow on Twitter and Bluesky

WHO WAS WHO IN THE DISSIDENT RIGHT: Z-MAN

Alaric being offered a young boy, the preferred avatar of Z-Man

by Colin Liddell

A once anonymous blogger who was "outed" in February 2022 as John Christopher Zander, 55, a software salesman from the Northern suburbs of Baltimore. His identity became known due to a data breach at domain registrar and web host Epik. He passed away in 2025.

He became associated with a "race realist" Alt-Right position around about 2015, but was more of a  paleoconservative type. Since 2020, he wrote for the rather tame Taki's Mag. Despite his relatively mild positions, Zander was afraid of being doxxed, hence his closely guarded Z-man persona.

He started his Z-Man blog in 2013, after a history on comment sections and message boards. Relatively sane and nuanced on the JQ and other racial issues, he nevertheless allowed himself to become associated with actual Nazis, for example by writing for Counter-Currents. He produced rather dull content with a strong streak of "boomer" fatalism and conspiritardary that made him sound a lot older than he was (just Gen X). His American insularity was amply demonstrated by him mistaking Morgoth for a Scotsman.

His chosen avatar was from a "homoerotic" painting by the German artist Ludwig Thiersch that appears to shows the German barbarian Alaric the Visigoth being offered a small male child. Make of that what you will.

___________________________________

Read other entries like this in Who's Who in the Dissident Right, a biographical guide to the colourful characters of the on-line Right.

____________________

Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Neokrat and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying his book here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia), or by taking out a paid subscription on his Substack.

Follow on Twitter and Bluesky

LATEST ATTEMPT BY EVERY SINGLE WHITE PERSON ANYWHERE TO BE SPECIAL RESULTS IN "BEDROOM CRUCIFIXION"

In yet another desperate attempt by all White people everywhere to be "special," a White person wanting to be special in America has killed and crucified an elderly pastor, pinning his arms to the bedroom wall behind him, stretched wide, in the form of a crucifixion.

Adam Christopher Sheafe, 51, who had formerly tried to be special by having a giant "Hebrew" neck tattoo, murdered Pastor Bill Schonemann, 76, in April as part of a campaign to achieve "specialness" by killing religious leaders in cruel and interesting ways that would add to his appeal on social media and the dating market. 

This is merely the latest in an infinite backlog of White people trying to be "special" either in ways conducive to the advance of World civilization or not.

Sir Alexander Fleming being "special" by discovering a cure for clap just in time for WWII

Scientists have long studied the phenomenon of "every singly White person anywhere trying to be special" and have blamed it on a mysterious condition called "the Faustian Spirit," which seems to afflict only White people, possibly due to a lack of sunlight or a refusal to use chopsticks. 

Often this desperate need of all White people everywhere to "stand out a bit" can be channelled into relatively harmless areas, like winning Nobel prizes or adopting weird food fads, such as drinking raw milk infected with botulism, but more often than not it can prove deadly and self-destructive.

For example, last year, a White person in Belarus pumped himself up with steroids so much in an attempt to be "unique and interesting" to the point where he simply exploded into a giant puddle of steaming proteins.

Friends of White people have been urged to keep a vigilant lookout for this disturbing tendency. If you see any White people trying to be special, immediately tell them to calm down and remind them that their chances of being truly special, winning a Nobel Prize, or starting a new religion are actually less than winning the lottery or being hit by lighting.

US/ISRAEL vs IRAN: THE FIRST SLOP WAR AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

by Colin Liddell

So, what was the outcome of the "Great Israeli-American-Iranian War" of 2025? Here is my take...

First off, Israel went into it because they were very confident that America would back them up. Without the USA behind them they would have been a LOT more cautious. So, having the US behind them, emboldened them and made the start of the war possible. 

The USA got involved mainly because Trump felt he was missing out on the "glory," and, as usual, Israel was pulling all its strings in the US to pull the Americans into its war.

Secondly, there were a lot of tactical successes for Israel, blowing shit up and killing some VIPs, but no real meaningful or strategic gains. In fact quite the reverse.

It doesn't look like the Iranian masses have risen up to the sound of Israeli bombs and missiles, and it doesn't look like they will. If anything, the chances of the Ayatollahs being overthrown seem to have receded. 

As for the Americans, there was an impressive display by America's long-range bombers, but hardly anything worth the trillions they cost. I think some dirt was moved around. In short, it proved to be a "Slop War" that got a lot of attention but changed practically nothing in line with the objectives of the US and Israel. 

Of course, it achieved Trump's number one objective of being the centre of attention for another day, but beyond this, it achieved nothing for its protagonists.

But even though it was a pointless "Slop War" it was not inconsequential. The war had a least three important outcomes. 

(1) Iran, which was not developing an A-bomb (according to US intelligence), must now be set irrevocably on that path. Considering that the US Stealth Bomber force seems to have only inflicted superficial damage on Iran's uranium enrichment facility at Fordow at the cost of freeing Iran from IAEA constraints, Iran could be said to be in an even stronger position to get an A-bomb. 

Getting an A-bomb would be a big propaganda boost for the Iranian regime, which could deflect any criticisms of this "escalation" and "proliferation" onto the fact, hitherto ignored by the international community, that Israel also has an illicit A-bomb based on stolen technology and materials. 

Iran getting an A-bomb would also make America look weak, so Iran's allies are going to be happy with that outcome. This "war" has made a longer-term possibility into a shorter-term certainty. 

(2) The "International System," based on the UN, IAEA, WHO, UNRWA, NATO, and other agreements between nations and "global standards," is in complete disarray. 

Probably everybody will suffer from this to varying extents in the years ahead, but as the US was the mainstay of this "World Order," and got much of its global power from it, the US will take one of the biggest hits, including to the dollar.

To put it more succinctly, what we witnessed in the skies above Israel, Iran, and Qatar was a bonfire of US soft power. Yes, even "Slop Wars" have consequences - in this case propelling Iran to have its own nukes while destroying a shit ton of US soft power.

(3) Prior to what we must now call the "First Slop War," Iran could be described more as a Russian ally than a Chinese one. The main supplier of Iran's post-Shah military gear was Russia, with special emphasis on its air defences. In the conflict, the Russian-supplied S-300PMU-2 air defence system was badly exposed by Israel. The effect of this is that Russia was humiliated in the skies above Iran, and thus discredited as a main partner. After this war, as Iran retools and rearms, it will become apparent that China is seen as the main ally and will supply equipment at least as good as that which helped Pakistan to get the edge on India in their recent spat.

As Chinese military hardware is almost as good as Western military hardware but a lot cheaper, this will drastically change the balance of power in the Middle East.

The self-serving, shallow, and opportunistic actions of the two sociopaths, Netanyahu and Trump, have greatly facilitated these changes, none of which are good for Israel or America, so congratulations Bozos!

___________________________________

Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Neokrat and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying his book here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia), or by taking out a paid subscription on his Substack.

Follow on Twitter and Bluesky

FEARS GROW OVER SLEEPER CELL IN U.S. AFTER ATTACK ON IRAN

Following President Trump's statesman-like decision to "mostly peacefully" bomb an Iranian mountain, fears are growing of sleeper cells in the USA hitting back. 

Tweeting from an underground bunker, Trump stalwart Charlie Kirk warned:

"Stay armed. Stay vigilant. We have no idea how many sleeper cells are inside the United States. It's an unforgiveable weakness Biden left this country with. Stay alert. Pray."

There are even fears that a sleeper cell could be "embedded" in the White House itself, ready to strike the President when he is at his most vulnerable.

Trump's most loyal follower, JD Vance

So far, attempts to pin down the identities of the elusive cell have failed, although one of its members is said to wear eye-liner and is sexually attracted to furniture, while another is reputed to be a diminutive man with a receding hairline who enjoys spending time in bathhouses.

A third member of the cell is believed to be a former female member of the armed forces who is fond of surfing and prone to commit her terrorist acts "in the name of Aloha!" 

THE FALLOUT FROM AMERICA'S ACT OF AGGRESSION

The future Middle East will bask in the shade of the mushroom clouds

by Dmitry Medvedev

What have the Americans accomplished with their nighttime strikes on three nuclear sites in Iran?

1. Critical infrastructure of the nuclear fuel cycle appears to have been unaffected or sustained only minor damage.
2. The enrichment of nuclear material — and, now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons — will continue.
3. A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads.
4. Israel is under attack, explosions are rocking the country, and people are panicking.
5. The US is now entangled in a new conflict, with prospects of a ground operation looming on the horizon.
6. Iran’s political regime has survived — and in all likelihood, has come out even stronger.
7. The people are rallying around the country’s spiritual leadership, including those who were previously indifferent or opposed to it.
8. Donald Trump, once hailed as ‘president of peace,’ has now pushed the US into another war.
9. The vast majority of countries around the world oppose the actions of Israel and the United States.
10. At this rate, Trump can forget about the Nobel Peace Prize — not even with how rigged it has become.

What a way to kick things off, Mr. President. Congratulations!

Taken from X

SHORTPOD (106) SLOP POLITICS LEADS TO SLOP WARS

Trump is the epitome of slop politics ( = talk big, grab a lot of attention, deliver nothing). His latest decision to bomb Iran fits perfectly into this paradigm. The best thing you can do is ignore it, although others, including Iran, may choose not to.

TRUMP ORDERS "BUNKER BUSTER" TO UNLOCK MELANIA'S LADY PARTS

Sleeping on the wrong side of the blanket since 2006

After 20 years of a loveless orange marriage, President Donald J. Trump has now ordered the US Air Force to prepare a "bunker buster" bomb to unlock the "lady parts" of the First Lady, Melania Trump. According to rumour, the former Slovenian model has been skimping on her marital duties since the birth of their "autistic" son Barron Trump in 2006. 

The "bunker buster bomb," better known by its technical name GBU-57A/B, is a precision-guided, 30,000-pound piece of ordnance that is dropped from a B-2 Spirit stealth bomber from a height of 50,000 feet. It is designed to impact deeply buried and hard-to-reach fortified targets, such as bunkers, tunnels, and uncooperative bits of Slovenian marital minge.

Melania perfecting her ice maiden vibes

Trump's more optimistic military advisors believe it is the ideal weapon to "open up" or "loosen" the dormant lady parts of Melania and get the aging President to finally "plant his flag."

However, sceptics in Trump's cabinet, led by Tulsi Gabbard, who has also not been giving it away for quite some time, claim that Melania's dormant lady parts are so well guarded that even a Massive Ordnance Penetrator like the GBU-57A/B will be powerless to put a bit of zing back into the aging President's love life. 

WHY RUSSIA'S SUMMER OFFENSIVES ARE DOOMED

NOTE: Girkin is a Russian ultranationalist currently under arrest in Russia. This article was lifted from his Telegram account which remains free.

by Igor Girkin

I regard the probability that we will take Sumy as minimal. The probability that we will come close to them - well, it may be, but no more than that.

As for the evacuation of the civilian population, it would be better, of course, to evacuate them, from the point of view of humanitarian law, since the fighting will be conducted near the city, and there will still be a lot of things flying into the city. But this is already on Zelensky's conscience, if he has it at all. I don't think so.

Now, as for the offensive in the Dnipropetrovsk region. There, the enemy continues to implement his favourite strategy of exchanging territories for a while. 

In the direction in which the Russian troops are advancing, there will be no strategic breakthrough. At least, the enemy is not in danger of this. He considers it possible for himself gradually, in battles, very slowly to leave territories that are not of strategic importance for the outcome of the war.

Therefore, unfortunately, once again, all the actions of the Russian troops are predictable, calculated in advance by the enemy, with measures taken to counteract them.

I think that the situation, with a high degree of probability, will be an exact copy of the events of 2024, when the enemy first repelled our offensive in the Kharkiv region and the Donetsk region, for more than two months. And at the end of summer, he launched a brazen counterattack, which ended in a seven-month battle in the Kursk region. There is a high probability that we will see something like this again.

THE CORRUPTION AND STUPIDITY AT THE HEART OF THE IRAN WAR

Nix Jeelvy examines the reasons why millions must die. Once upon a time wars were fought for big and serious reasons. Now, however, it's more a case of the fragile egos and legal problems of a certain type of morally-gutted, boomer politician.

HOW WILL CHINA RESPOND TO AMERICA AND ISRAEL GANGING UP ON IRAN?

by Colin Liddell

There are a lot of questions in the air right now due to the rather unhinged but so far "successful" Israeli attack on Iran.

The main one seems to be whether Trump and America will join the war or not. But right behind this question, is an almost as large, if not even larger one.

This is: What will China do?

Since extremely heavy sanctions were imposed on Iran decades ago, Iran has been selling most of its oil to China. I think the figure is around 90% of Iranian oil. In other words, a lot of the oil China uses comes straight from Iran, conveyed there in a fleet of shadow tankers. Iran is also China's preferred diplomatic proxy in the Middle East while it tries to pull the other states there out of the American camp.

So, looking at things in a "Big Picture" way, what the Israeli attack on Iran boils down to is a new round in the Neo-Cold War that is now being waged between China and America. America joining Israel in its attempt to devastate or "regime change" Iran is therefore a direct chess move against China.

But how can China respond?

China simply doesn't have the power projection to take on the USA and its allies (remember them?) in Middle Eastern waters. However, there are also a lot of other options for China to play a strong and decisive counter move. So, what are these?

Well, rather than fight America at an awkward distance, China could remove the conflict to a much more convenient location, i.e. the straits between China and Taiwan.

If America gets involved in a major "regime changing operation" against Iran, China can get involved in a major "reunification operation" with Taiwan. In the same way that Russia responded to the overthrow of its puppet government in Kiev in 2014 by seizing Crimea and parts of the Donbas, China can respond to the overthrow of its ally in Iran by seizing Taiwan, or at least threatening to. The downside here is that such a move would trigger the Japanese, but that might be a manageable cost. 

Secondly, another option for China is to support the Iranian government in various ways. This will depend upon how stable the Iranian regime is. If it is reasonably stable, China can change the entire Middle Eastern game simply by ensuring that Iran has a successful A-bomb test within the next couple of weeks or so. It could do this by simply having an A-bomb supplied to Iran, either from Chinese Pakistani or Russian sources. 

It could also supply Iran with the weapons it needs to restore its air defences and its offensive capabilities. We saw how effective these were in the recent spat between Pakistan and India, where the former gave the latter a bloody nose.

This kind of support would be a longer term project and would require some sort of stabilisation of the war and a prolonging of the conflict. This is probably why Netanyahu and Trump seem to be in such a rush at the moment.

Up till now, China seems to be mainly offering diplomatic and rhetorical support to Iran, but that is simply the tip of the iceberg. Right now you can be sure that the Chinese leadership is considering every option. Because of this, America would be foolish to jump into Israel's war. Meanwhile, despite its apparent shining success, Israel might well have bitten off a lot more than it can ultimately chew.

___________________________________

Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Neokrat and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying his book here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia), or by taking out a paid subscription on his Substack.

Follow on Twitter and Bluesky

ISRAEL AND IRAN'S WAR IS BAD FOR RUSSIA'S WAR

NOTE: Girkin is a Russian ultranationalist currently under arrest in Russia. This article was lifted from his Telegram social media account which remains free.

by Igor Girkin

An attack on Iran had long been expected. I believe that without permission, coordination and direct support from the US, Israel would never have launched such a large scale operation. This is clearly not a limited action.

Given the number of casualties among Iran's top military and political leadership, Iran, of course, will retaliate and, in my opinion, already is. Overall, we are witnessing the beginning of a major Middle Eastern war, in which Iran is in a very weak position.

Why is its position weak? Because Israel has excellently prepared the ground for its attack through a series of consistent actions. First, the Iranian president, who supported Syria and Assad, was removed. The next Iranian president pulled Iranian troops out of Syria, which significantly weakened the Syrian government's position. As a result, within two weeks, Syria was crushed and destroyed.

Much of its territory came under Turkish control, while a significant portion fell under Israeli control (the strategically important Golan Heights). Now Iran essentially has no way to reach Israel through a ground operation without entering a direct conflict with Türkiye. And Türkiye has a very strong army. Fighting it would be extremely difficult for Iran.

Now, Israel, naturally, is using its significant superiority in missile and air power to strike Iran, not expecting a serious or truly painful counterattack. If Iran does take any action, it's possible the US will get involved standing behind Israel and seize the opportunity to defeat Iran.

What does this mean for us? 

Two main threats. 

First and foremost, the termination of our southern corridor, since we were actively using Iran to supply oil and other raw materials to India and other countries. This route was quite important for us. Now in the east we only have China left as a transit route for our goods.

Secondly, of course, as Iran is subjected to more and more attacks and losses an increasing number of industrial facilities and loses an increasing number of industrial facilities, it won't be able to supply us with weapons and ammunition as it did before, which will also affect the course of military operations.

NETANYAHU SHITS ON TRUMP WHO PRETENDS TO LOVE IT

No sad that Mossad are so bad

by Colin Liddell

Okay, here is my quick response to the Israeli attack on Iran: 

First of all, even though there is a lot of "emotional baggage" between these two countries, this is essentially an unprovoked "Pearl Harbour" style attack by Israel. This is certainly how almost everybody in the World sees it. Only America is an exception to this, and even there, there is a lot of ambivalence.

In short, this weakens Israel's moral position even further following its near-genocide in Gaza.

Secondly, Netanyahu did this directly against Trump's wishes and his previous posturing as a "peacemaker" and a "deal maker." The US was pursuing diplomatic talks with Iran and had more discussions scheduled. Basically, this is Netanyahu just dumping a giant turd in the punch bowl.

The Israeli Premier did this because he has zero respect for Trump (possibly because he has the Epstein Files in his own desk drawer) and because he knows that Trump is powerless to impose even the extremely weak sanctions that Biden was attempting against Israel. Bibi is confident that the Israel lobby is strong enough in America to pull things through, no matter what excesses he gets up. It's not just "TACO" Trump that is in those Epstein Files, it would seem!

Thirdly, Trump instinctively realised how weak, pathetic, and out of the loop this attack by Israel made him look. After all Netanyahu is figuratively shitting on him. This is why Trump immediately went on Truth Social to post this obfuscating garbage:

The tone is all very much, "I tried to warn them" and "this was all due to our brilliant military equipment," etc.

Effectively, he is trying to claim a share in the glory of what he clearly believes is a devasting and decisive attack. However, his post completely ignores the fact that Israel used all this "best and most lethal" US military gear without the his say-so or that of the American government.

Trump is trying to have his cake and eat it here. He wants in on the credits for this impressive attack, but his administration is also sending out the cowardly message to Iran not to hit US servicemen in the Middle East because the US was not involved. This particularly demeaning message was delegated to "Little Marco."

However, Trump is wrong on all these points.

First of all, Netanyahu called the shots here and Trump just looks lame and passive; secondly, despite this, America and Trump are nevertheless implicated in this attack, simply by allowing Israel to use American-supplied weapons as they wish; and, thirdly and most importantly, this was not a such a "genius move" after all, despite the obvious skill with which it was carried out. 

The end result of this attack will simply be to ensure that no deal to keep Iran non-nuclear can now succeed.

As a consequence of this, Iran will almost definitely accelerate its efforts to develop nuclear weapons. This could happen within days, weeks, or months, depending on the extent of Israeli-inflicted damage, but it will certainly happen; and this will be Netanyahu's ultimate legacy to Israel, which will also be the beginning of its end.

But almost as bad as this existential misstep, is the spectacle of Trump pretending that all this happened somehow at his behest, while also pretending to have clean hands.

Does this pathetic attempt at stealing Israel's valour make up for some deep-seated sense of shame that Trump has carried with him for dodging the draft all those years ago? And what insane act will he now need to engage in to offset the unbearable humiliation that Netanyahu has imposed on him with this unhinged attack?

___________________________________

Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Neokrat and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying his book here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia), or by taking out a paid subscription on his Substack.

Follow on Twitter and Bluesky

BOEING, BOEING, GONE! AMERICAN "FLYING COFFIN" TAKES ANOTHER 290 LIVES

In what looks like the latest example of America's "no consequences" quality control going tragically wrong, a Boeing jet liner has plunged to its fiery death moments after taking off, killing hundreds of passengers. Also killed were several dozen people on the ground. The estimated death toll is circa 290. The jet was a 787-8 Dreamliner sold to Air India back in 2014, with American-made General Electric GEnx-1B engines, rather than British Rolls Royce engines.

As reported by the BBC:

"An Air India passenger plane bound for London's Gatwick airport crashed shortly after taking off in Ahmedabad, western India, on Thursday, killing 241 passengers and crew. It later emerged that only one passenger, a British man, had survived. Among those on board were Indian, British, Portuguese and Canadian nationals. More than 200 bodies were recovered from the scene, but it is unclear how many are from those on board the plane, and how many are casualties from the ground."

As is well known, Boeing has had multiple safety issues over the last few years.

In 2018 a Boeing 737 MAX 8 crashed into the sea off the coast of Java, Indonesia, with 189 fatalities; in 2019 another Boeing 737 MAX 8 crashed in Ethiopia with 157 fatalities; in  2021 a Boeing 737-500 crashed off Indonesia (again), killing all 62 on board; in 2024 a Boeing 737-800 crashed in Muan, South Korea, killing 179 of the 181 on board.

This last crash prompted South Korea to order safety inspections of all Boeing 737-800s in the country. A bit late!

Then in January 2024 an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 MAX 9 had a door plug blowout, which miraculously did not cause fatalities but led to the temporary grounding of 171 MAX 9 aircraft for inspections.

There have been numerous other "incidents" showing a pattern of serious flaws and a culture of "almost criminal" negligence -- almost because Boeing's business model clearly seems to be to cut corners on their crappy aircraft and then to buy off any heat when this policy inevitably results in a horrific air crash.

This was highlighted just a week ago when a lawyer for some of the families of the 2018 crash told the BBC that a deal between the aviation giant and the US Justice Department (DOJ) is "morally repugnant":

"The firm said it agreed to pay $1.1bn (£811.5m) to avoid prosecution over two crashes that killed 346 people, in a filing on Wednesday, external.

Sanjiv Singh, counsel for family members of some of the victims of a 2018 crash in Indonesia, says the deal allows the firm to 'sidestep true criminal accountability'...

The deal includes the company paying $444.5m to families of crash victims. It will also put $455m towards improving its compliance, safety and quality programmes.

Under the deal, Boeing also agreed to pay a criminal penalty of $487.2m, although half of that was already paid in 2021."

Yeh, half of the money paid out was immediately ploughed back into Boeing, LOL.

Essentially this is a cheaper option than building safe and reliable aircraft because the public are morons and have an inability to remember important stuff like being burned alive in a cheaply-made metal tube while Boeing's directors grant themselves massive bonuses.

Boeing is the "President Trump of the aviation world" -- in the sense that it can do any dumbass, stupid, immoral shit it wants and avoid the real consequences by just "pardoning itself."

Hopefully airliners will start to vote with their feet and purchase elsewhere, even if America's senile President continues to threaten their countries with sanctions for not buying American crap.

The precise reason for the crash has yet to be determined. No doubt there will be attempts to blame it on a passing seagull or freak weather conditions caused by someone cooking a curry at the wrong moment.

THE POSSIBILITY THAT HITLER WAS NOT AN ANTI-SEMITE

by Colin Liddell

People who hate Jews can readily 'understand' why Hitler was anti-Semitic, but for those of us who don't automatically hate Jews and are reasonably familiar with Hitler's backstory, it does seem a little odd that Hitler went down this path.

First of all, Hitler was not stupid. This is important because one of the preconditions of anti-Semitism, or believing that the Jews are some kind of evil supervillains, is an IQ south of 100. Hitler, by contrast, despite his humble origins and tendency towards self-delusion, was obviously a man of high intelligence, able to judge people and situations in a manner that allowed him to play complex political games and win. Could he really have believed the frankly ludicrous anti-Semitic tropes that his lowly followers fell for?

Secondly, Hitler was also not Jewish. This may sound odd, but I mention this because, as is well documented on the right, many of the most anti-Semitic people are, actually self-loathing Jews themselves. If in doubt, please read my article "America is Shit at Racism" for some ready examples.

Thirdly, the Jews in the period in which Hitler lived were a lot more moral and respectable than Jews are today, by which I am mainly referring to the behaviour of the Likudist-dominated Israeli state in causing genocidal conditions for Palestinians and carrying out other extremely underhanded operations. But you could also throw in the behaviour of various high profile obnoxious Jewish individuals.

Not even trying...

Mitteleuropa Jews of the late 19th and early 20th century, by contrast, did not make those kinds of glaring PR mistakes. They went out of their way to appear cultured, civilised, moral, and polite, and largely succeeded. 

Fourthly, Hitler personally appears to have had relatively positive experiences with Jews. This is an area that may require more detailed research, but, off the top of my head, I think it is true to say that many of Hitler's best customers when he was an impoverished "Bohemian" artist on the streets of Vienna and Munich were Jews. Then, later, during World War One, Hitler could not have failed to notice the relatively high number of Jews serving honourably in the German army. After all, he was recommended for his own Iron Crosses by a Jewish officer.

And that is not all. Recently there is growing interest and research into Hitler's own involvement with the short-lived Bavarian Soviet Republic, an entity that he would later denounce as "Jewish-led" and "Bolshevik." At the time, however, Hitler seemed to be quite cosy with the whole thing.

Hitler as an enthusiastic participant in the "Jewish-led" Bavarian Soviet

So, based on this, it is at least plausible to posit a theory that Hitler was not a sincere anti-Semite, but a tactical one.

But, then, how does one explain all the anti-Semitism that flowed from him? Is it absurd to consider the notion that the person guilty of the most notorious acts of Anti-Semitism in history may not have been a genuine anti-Semite in his views and feelings?

A true intellectual does not wall off possible avenues of thought, enquiry, and speculation simply for emotional reasons or because others may find them offensive. Based on the evidence mentioned above, there is some foundation for such a notion that Hitler may have been an insincere Anti-Semite. But, besides actual deep, burning, emotional hatred of Jews and a sense of paranoia, what could have propelled Hitler down such a path?

To explain this paradox you would need to consider, at least in theory, the utility of anti-Semitism to a non-Anti-Semitic politician in interwar Germany. There are several points that arise here.

First, Hitler was a politician seeking popularity at a time when it was difficult to offer the masses positive improvements. Around the time he entered politics, 1919 to 1920, the best that a sincere politician could offer the masses would be stability and steady improvement. This was hardly the kind of sharp message and ready appeal that a relative outsider like Hitler could cut through with. Therefore, viewing things purely from the perspective of a political career, Hitler had to construct a negative appeal by being against something, more than for something.

Secondly, while Hitler craved success like any politician, it is something of a stretch to see cynical ambition as his only motivation and anti-Semitism as his only tool. Whatever one's view of Hitler's anti-Semitism is, there was clearly more to Hitler's politics than that.

But what did he really care about politically?

The problem of Hitler is not dissimilar to the problem of the Bible. Christianity would be viewed as a very different religion if our view of it was mainly based on readings of the Old Testament, while the second book, the New Testament, was neglected. But this is exactly what has happened with perceptions of Hitler. 

During his life, he actually wrote two books. The first one, Mein Kampf, is too well-known. Anyone reading it could not fail to pick up its message of anti-Semitism. Hitler's second book, however, is much less well known. In fact, it is usually called "Hitler's Second Book" because it was an unedited transcript, written around 1928, that was not published in his lifetime. This book reveals Hitler's views on foreign policy and geopolitics, and, whatever one thinks of these, there is an infallible logic and sincerity to his views.

I haven't read it for some time, but from what I recall the basic ideas are as follows:

(1) Britain, France, Russia, China, and America, all have vast empires and territories, which provide living space and raw materials for their economies. Germany, like all great countries, needs a similar empire in order to survive. 

(2) Due to the invincibility of the British Royal Navy, it is hopeless for Germany to seek an overseas empire like it did under the Kaiser, when it so dramatically failed. Germany must therefore seek its empire in the contiguous land territories to the East. This idea was summed up by Hitler on September 16th, 1941, when he told Otto Abetz, the German ambassador in Paris, that "Russia as far as the Urals" would become Germany's equivalent of Britain's India. He also added that this land would be more advantageous to Germany than India was to Britain due to its geographic proximity.

(3) In order to create this inland equivalent of Britain's sea empire from the small base of its post-Treaty-of-Versailles territory and against the many states that stood in its way, Germany needed, in Hitler's view, to go through a period of intense militarization, both physically and spiritually.

The implication of this logic is that a conventional democratic Germany (i.e. the Weimar Republic), focused on the immediate needs and comforts of its masses, would be incapable of undertaking such a Spartan effort. In order to do what was necessary, Germany would therefore need to undergo a revolution, not just a coup. Only through real revolution could the emotions and fanaticism needed to galvanize the masses, redraw the maps, and rebuild the geopolitical architecture of Europe, be unleashed.

But revolutions are dangerous because, in essence, they are internal or civil wars that generally pitch one class against another in a way that usually leads to the destruction of one of the classes. The most obvious examples to Hitler's mind would have been the French and Russian Revolutions, although he may also have been aware of the English Revolution of the mid-17th century.

In both the French and Russian Revolutions, the upper classes were destroyed, while in Russia other classes, such as well-to-do peasants, also perished. Both revolutions led to severe internal disruption and brutal wars that killed millions. Such a process repeated in Germany could prove disastrous or even fatal. But how else could a cunning and ruthless politician unleash the radicalising flood of emotion and hysteria needed to revolutionise a society? 

The answer to this question is obviously the tactical use of anti-Semitism on a massive scale.

Through stoking up an intense hatred of Jews, the Nazis could emotionalise and revolutionise German society without waging a damaging internal conflict that would wipe out entire classes and weaken the state against its neighbours. On this tide of emotion, Hitler and the Nazis could override not only the freedom of the German people and tighten their grip on the state, but they could also dismiss their comforts and material interests in favour of what Hitler saw as the greater and ultimate good -- guns instead of butter! 

Anti-Semitism made all this possible without the major schisms of a conventional revolution. Anti-Semitism thus provided a path to revolution with a much lower price tag, as only a relatively small minority would bear the pain of the revolution.

Also, while the French and Russian revolutions invited the enmity and intervention of foreign powers, this was not the case with Hitler's anti-Semitic pseudo-revolution. In spite of attempts by "international Jewry" to "declare war on Germany" and boycott it, no sanctions were imposed and all the major powers were happy to continue doing business with Nazi Germany and participate in the 1936 Berlin Olympics.

Welcome to Berlin 1936

The problems only began for the Nazis when their attempt to use the revolutionary energy they had unleashed at such relative low cost was managed badly. Their attempt to create their land empire led instead to war with too many important nations at the same time, and a causality toll much higher than any revolution could produce. 

Whether this attempt was driven by the real or fake anti-Semitism of its leader, it is easy from the safety of the early 21st century to demonise Germany's attempt to create a land empire. But in a world of high tariffs, protectionism, and mercantilist economics, creating empires or zones of influence was the only way for nations to be truly sovereign and secure. Japan and, to a lesser degree, Italy were forced to follow similar paths.

The world created in the aftermath of WWII -- the one that prioritised free trade and emphasised collective security -- was an entirely different one from the one that called into being dangerous imperialists like Hitler.

___________________________________

Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Neokrat and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying his book here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia), or by taking out a paid subscription on his Substack.

Follow on Twitter and Bluesky