TORY NECROSIS ACCELERATES AS FIRST RAT JUMPS SHIP

Farage greeting the latest Tory defector

The death of the Tory Party seems all but inevitable at this point. In the latest sign of rigor mortis setting in, an actual member of the Tory shadow cabinet, MP Danny Kruger, has now jumped ship and tied his colours to Reform UK's mast. He is the first sitting Tory to cross the floor.

As reported by the BBC:

Conservative MP Danny Kruger has become the first sitting Conservative MP to defect to Reform UK. Kruger has been an MP since 2019, and sits on Tory leader Kemi Badenoch's team as a shadow work and pensions minister. "The Conservatives are over," he told a press conference, sitting alongside Reform party leader Nigel Farage [...] The East Wiltshire MP [...] said the Conservatives were no longer the main party of opposition. He said: [...] "The rule of our time in office was failure. Bigger government, social decline, lower wages, higher taxes and less of what ordinary people actually wanted."  [...] he said the Tory party was "divided" and had a "toxic brand".

All true, but the reason the Tories are a toxic brand is because of people like Boris Johnson, who opened the immigration floodgates, and Kemi Badenoch, a Nigerian "anchor baby" who was inexplicably elected leader following the defeat of Rishi Sunak in 2024.

And because of people like Kruger too.

The MP, who is of South African background, served as a political secretary to Johnson when he was prime minister and was a supporter of Badenoch's disastrous leadership.

He is therefore best described as a rat jumping a sinking ship, rather than a man of principle and integrity. 

Reform UK allowing political refugees to flood in

WHY THE MAGA REVOLUTION WILL FAIL

Peak Boomer Slop > Revolution

by Colin Liddell

I think it is probably undeniable by now that America is going through some sort of "attempt" at a Right-wing revolution. Unlike the French (1789~1793), Russian (1917~1920), and German (1932~1934) Revolutions, and even the earlier Revolution against the British (1775~1781), it appears to be much more nebulous and a bit vague. 

For example, it's hard to say when it actually began, although J6 seems like a possible starting point.

Up until that date, Trump tried to remain "within the system," but after that date he became an anti-system politician and a "revolutionary figure," who attracted other revolutionary figures and forces, or at at least figures and forces that were radically different from conventional politics—podcasters instead of politicians, conspiracy theorists instead of analysts, and, oh yeh, a Peter Thiel-backed couch fucker.

The Trotsky of the MAGA revolution?

The election of 2024, when, according to Trump, the "auto-pen" and its hyped-up replacement were rejected by the voters, represents a stage of this revolution.

Earlier revolutions also had moments like this, votes, elections, resolutions by assemblies, etc., that had all the appearance of relative normalcy and legality, but then they also had lots of violence. We have not yet seen that in the case of this revolution.

However, it is also possible for revolutions to be largely peaceful. The German Revolution of the 1930s was largely peaceful compared to the bloodshed and outright civil wars that typified the First American, French, and Russian Revolutions. Also, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England passed off without much unpleasantness, although there was later violence and conflict on the fringes of the British Isles. 

Will the American Revolution we are seeing now—such as it is—result in more substantial violence and conflict, or will a genuine new order arise without this? Also, at what point will this revolution shake off its vague and nebulous character and be seen for what it is?

What turns a political movement into a revolution is some kind of opposition that is then overcome with violence. Without this, the attempted Trump revolution might actually just wither and die as "normal politics" reasserts itself. 

The present-day Trump Revolution can be characterised, with extremely broad brush strokes, as a revolt of the rural conservative, and largely White areas against their domination by the Metropolitan cities.

These rural or small town areas have been under the cultural cosh of the big cities for decades now. Some case could be made that they have been economically exploited and dominated as well, but that is harder to do and requires a more sophisticated audience. But the cultural domination is much easier to perceive and mobilise against, which is why the so-called "culture wars" are at the heart of this movement/ revolution. 

But will this movement provoke opposition that will then lead to violence? This is, after all, what would turn it into an unmistakable revolution.

The shooting of Charlie Kirk by an incel from a Right-wing family who appears to have fallen for a "trap" or "shemale," has been seized on by many in the nascent Trump revolution as the first stirrings of opposition by the "Radical Left" that will enable or justify the necessarily violent aspect of revolution. 

Before this, however, MAGA had been looking for hate in all the wrong places. It had been trying to provoke a Left-wing response that it could mobilise against by pushing ICE to behave in ever more "egregious" ways and then by sending in elements of the National Guard from banjo-playing states to "fight crime" in gay-disco-infested Metropolitan areas.

Make no mistake, these actions were all part of a plan to foment and accelerate revolution by creating emergencies and stand offs with State and City authorities that could then pass the ball back to the Executive of the Presidency.

But, so far, the Democrats have been wise to Trump's game. They have not fallen for the bait, effectively hamstringing his attempts to weaponize the office of the Presidency. The Dem strategy appears to be to hold out until they can geld him in the Midterms. 

The Charlie Kirk murder and the faint possibility that transgender gunmen will rise up around America and create a new emergency that will empower the Trump Revolution has got MAGA excited right now. But, essentially, this looks a bit try-hard and difficult to maintain. 

Hard to weaponize this dude for a right-wing revolution TBH

Here is Trump's "boots on the ground" MAGA stormtrooper Stephen Miller laying out the revolutionary vision on Sean Hannity:

"The last message that Charlie Kirk gave me before he joined his creator in heaven was he said that we have to dismantle and take on the radical left organizations in this country that are fomenting violence. And we are going to do that, under President Trump’s leadership. I don’t care how. It could be a RICO charge, a conspiracy charge, conspiracy against the United States, insurrection. But we are going to do what it takes to dismantle the organizations and the entities that are fomenting riots, that are doxxing, that are trying to inspire terrorism, that are committing acts of wanton violence."

This formula of revolution that we now see MAGA trying ignite was cooked up back in 2020, at the height of the BLM riots, but MAGA has made several severe analytical errors that now ensure its present attempt at Revolution will struggle to catch on. 

MAGA saw the BLM riots of 2020 as essentially "Leftist" in character rather than racial, and drew the conclusion that, once Trump returned to office, he would be able to provoke "the Left" (not Blacks) into similar outbursts, thus creating an endless cycle of reactionary and revolutionary energy that could then be used to strengthen and centralize his power. 

The mistake here was that Trump moronically ignored the racial character and "consumeristic" aspects of BLM, and the fact that it was able to cause so much chaos and normie fear by channelling the racial animus and opportunism of the Black underclass. In fact, Trump continued to go out of his way to reach out and befriend the Black community, and actually scored quite well with them in the 2024 election (16% of the vote, up from 8% in 2020).

If he really wanted to create a revolutionary situation by igniting unhinged "Leftist" opposition, then, something like the BLM riots of 2020 or a similar urban uprising in the ghettoes would have suited his purposes much better than irritating—through Charlie Kirk—the boyfriend of some transsexual, or RICOing, say, the Democratic Socialists of America or some NGO dedicated to helping border jumpers (what other groups could Miller possibly be referring to?). 

Miller talks about the need to stop "terrorism" and "acts of wanton violence," but they are not happening on any significant scale. Also, MAGA actually needs them to happen to create the febrile and volatile situation that it needs for its revolution in exactly the same way that George W. Bush needed planes crashing into the World Trade Centre in 2001 to get the Neocon Wars started. Afterall, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq could never have happened if the terrorists had stayed at home or just killed one or two college speakers.

The only way for MAGA to produce the right kind of revolutionary energy to seize greater powers is for a large part of the country to rise up and create chaos. An angry and alienated Black community could provide that, but, instead of seeing the potential of rioting Blacks as a foil for their authoritarian power grab, MAGA continues to treat Blacks with great deference. 

If America's cities were on fire now, as they were back in Trump's lame duck final year in 2020, there would be much greater opportunities to outwit the Dems, stir up normie fears, provoke more genuine conflict, and pull off a revolutionary power grab. But in 2024 Blacks are instead remarkably docile. 

Instead, the Trump Revolution is left relying on the stroppiness of a tiny number of aggrieved transsexuals to provide the casus belli of its faltering revolution. Even with the American political system in an advanced state of political AIDs—as it unquestionably is—this is unlikely to suffice. 

___________________________________

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

CHARLIE KIRK'S MURDER—BEYOND THE RETARDOSPHERE

by Colin Liddell

The retardosphere that is American politics has already told you all about the Charlie Kirk murder. This is because, as soon as it happened, this event became a prime piece of real estate in the attention economy, ready for dual or even triple development by the usual gangs of idiots. 

The American Right is stretching all its "credibility" to maintain its initial assumption that it was a transexual antifa, with as few modifications as possible, in the face of the breaking facts. 

Meanwhile the Left is pushing the shitty narrative that Kirk was a victim of his own "hateful rhetoric," while also sticking to the idea that his killer was somehow right-wing (and therefore implicitly someone who should have liked that "hateful rhetoric"), WTF!

Nick Fuentes, meanwhile, is now talking about what a great guy Charlie Kirk was and attempting to use the most loathsome element in his political mindset, namely his fake and shitty Christianity, to make common cause with Kirk's base in an attempt to grow his own following. Only a week ago, Fuentes was ranting about how Kirk wasn't even a Christian. True, but more true of Fuentes.

Fuentes's goal is cynical, namely to syphon off as many TP USA members as possible into his Groyper Army. If he succeeds, the Zionists who kept Kirk as their tame pet right to the end, will have to figure out a way of getting Fuentes on board, or else find some other "solution" to a pied piper who could lead American youth into the darkest portals of an anti-Semitism that they themselves are working tirelessly to stoke by their actions in the Middle East.

Fuentes dumbing down his admittedly dumb content to get leaderless TP USA followers on board

The fact is that all these maggots on the vast ball of attention that has been attracted by this event have a vested interest in putting their spin on Kirk's murder. And it is these spins, along with the low IQs and unsophisticated nature of Americans, that creates and maintains the retardosphere, which lies at the centre of American political consciousness.

But what is the truth?

Details are still emerging, but it looks like the narrative that fits the present facts, and is most likely to fit any additional facts, is this: 

"People are essentially boring but also a bit complex, PLUS people flake out from time to time, AND, oh yeh, America has lots of guns lying about."

Not exactly, very compelling, but it is what it is.

Tyler Robinson came straight from Red State, small-town, Hicksville America. It was his Trump-voting father and his Christian pastor who got him to turn himself in.

Probably just bored

Yes, he went to college, that "hotbed of Leftist brainwashing," but his experiences there seem anything but radicalising. He attended Utah State University for one semester in 2021, where he studied pre-engineering, instead of Marxist gender studies, and later enrolled in the electrical apprenticeship program at Dixie Technical College, where he was a third-year student at the time of his arrest.

Yeh, Dixie Technical College, that well-known haunt of transvestite antifa, LOL! 

By most accounts, he was a shy, boring kid, who should probably have found Kirk's Judeo-Christian family values (with a side order of cucking for Putin and Bibi Netanyahu) appealing, except that he didn't.

Maybe he just didn't feel happy in that boring, Christian, Red State, small town skin—people's biological base happiness levels could also be an issue. Maybe Kirk, due to his excessive parasocialism, became the lightning rod for that. Incelism, as usual, may also have played its erratic and self-destructive part. C'mon girls, try harder to save America's young men by showing them a good time from time to time!

But the main takedown from this petty assassination, which everyone in the retardosphere is trying to shape up into a "major historical event" supporting their shitty polarised position, is that there is really no coherent or significant "story" behind this story.

Kirk's death is essentially about as significant as—and a lot less meaningful than—those of all the dead Gazans he cheered on from the side-lines. 

___________________________________

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

RIGHT WINGER IN AMERICA KILLED BY APPARENT "RIGHT WING" SHOT

US patriot Charlie Kirk, possibly killed by a fellow right-winger

It is not yet clear who shot Charlie Kirk, a prominent right-wing "influencer" in America, as the shooter has yet to be apprehended by America's increasingly clownish law enforcement.

However, what we can say at this very early stage is that Kirk was killed by a shot that has all the hallmarks of being "right wing"—and almost definitely not by someone of Muslim heritage.

Left-wing terrorists tend to be more chaotic and ineffectual, often requiring several shots at closer distances to hit the target, while Islamic terrorists prefer bombs and bad driving.

While we can not yet rule out such shooters, the slaying of Kirk has all the characteristics of being carried out by someone from the right-wing end of the political spectrum.

There was only one shot, which hit Kirk's artery—with pinpoint accuracy causing near instantaneous death—and this came from a rooftop position estimated at around 200 yards away. The killer then made a clean getaway.

An efficient assassination like this strongly suggests a high-functioning, experienced gun-lover, possibly with a background in an elite military unit. Such a person is unlikely to be a Leftist emotionally upset by Kirk's milquetoast embrace of family values and gun freedom. 

The other very real possibility is that Kirk's killing was a professional "hit job" ordered by another state or some significant clique within the US government for its own sinister purposes, such as the destabilisation or polarisation of America. If that is the case, it is not entirely clear how the killing of Kirk fits into the larger plan or where that plan is heading.

Based on these admittedly wild speculations, the best guess is that Kirk's killer was probably someone of radical or extreme right-wing views that he pissed off in some way.

As Kirk was very active in promoting "para-social" interactions with his target audience, the person who cruelly targeted him in this way might also turn out to be a former "friend" or supporter of Kirk's organisation Turning Point USA.

Honour his dying wish

ISRAEL BOMBS US ALLY ONE DAY AFTER "EPSTEIN ESTATE" RELEASES TRUMP'S BIRTHDAY CARD

by Colin Liddell

I am not a big fan of meaningless coincidences, so what are we to make of two recent events that seem somehow syncopated, namely the release of the Trump "paedo" birthday card and the radical escalation in Israeli terrorism signalled by the attack on Qatar?

Quite a lot, I think.

Firstly, let's look at the timing. The release of the birthday card was on 8th September, while the attack on Qatar was the next day.

Rather odd, wouldn't you say?

Next, Qatar is not some "scumbag" state (from the US perspective!), like, say, Iran, Syria, or Yemen, but is actually a major US partner and ally.

Remember it was Qatar that personally gifted Trump a $400 million plane. Also, the US has bases there, including the very important Al Udeid Air Base, which hosts the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and supports over 10,000 U.S. and coalition personnel. This is used for air operations, logistics, and command-and-control in the Middle East. The base houses advanced aircraft, like F-16s, B-52s, and KC-135 tankers.

Pretty big, huh? 

Also, in 2018, Qatar invested $1.8 billion to upgrade and expand the base to reinforce its role as a "permanent U.S. defence hub."

I guess the Qataris were hoping these moves would ensure their security from random acts of madman terrorists like Bibi Netanyahu. 

Also, let's not forget Qatar's massive contribution to the wider US economy: Since 2020, they have splurged around $48 billion on US arms. This was on stuff designed to defend the country from a potential threat from Iran. But guess who the real problem in the Middle East is again?

The obvious conclusion from all this is that the Israeli attack on Qatar was essentially just Bibi Netanyahu openly defecating on America from a great height and expecting Donald Trump to lap it up and say "thank you, sir, can I have some more?"

But why would Netanyahu even do this unless he had Trump totally by the balls?

This leads to the rather obvious inference that, yes, indeed, he does have Trump by the balls, and that his iron grip is essentially whatever dirt Jeffrey Epstein got hold of during the 15-or-so years they were best buddies while also running a major paedophile/kompromat operation. 

The first news of the Trump birthday card came to an eager public through Murdoch owned press. Murdoch is widely seen as an extremely pro-Zionist press tycoon.

Next, the actual decision of releasing  the card was taken by the two men, both Jewish, who are in official charge of the Epstein estate, lawyers Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn.

While Kahn is "merely" just ethnically Jewish, Indyke is heavily involved with the wider Jewish community in New York, with close associations to the Temple B'nai Abraham, a Conservative synagogue in Livingston, New Jersey. Indyke also served as secretary of the board for the Wexner Foundation (1998–2001), set up by Epstein's primary client, Leslie H. Wexner, which funded Jewish programs and causes in Israel and the U.S., including grants to Israeli public officials.

It would be totally surprising and indeed absurd if Epstein were part of a Mossad op, while Khan and Indyke were not.

The most plausible explanation here is that releasing the card when they did was designed to push Trump and those in the wider US foreign policy community into a box, with little time to react, except passively. 

The real goal, however, was not to just kill some Hamas guys, but instead to derail peace moves and the rapprochement between Iran and Europe over nuclear issues, something that would have undermined Netanyahu's justification for his campaign of permanent terrorism and total war against the Palestinians.

Also, it has to be added that use of this tactic would not have been effective if the birthday card was all they had on Donald Trump. The release was therefore intended to serve as a reminder to Trump that there was plenty more in the can that could hurt him. The real Epstein files are not the ones the US government has, but the ones that Israel and Mossad have. At least, this seems the most plausible explanation.

The takeaway from all this is that a paedophilia-compromised Trump is a major US Foreign Policy liability and should be removed as soon as possible.

___________________________________

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

TOWARDS CIVILIZATIONAL NATIONALISM

Don't let this happen

by Cemil Kerimoglu

From the first days of Russia’s full-scale invasion, Poland emerged as Ukraine’s staunchest ally. Poland pushed the West to wake up, to act, to stand firm against Russia’s aggression. It lobbied relentlessly, both diplomatically and in backdoor negotiations, urging hesitant Western capitals to commit real support to Ukraine. On the battlefield too, Poland was among the first to deliver critical arms, especially in the war’s chaotic opening year, when delays could have been fatal.

But crucially, it wasn’t only the Polish government that rallied. The Polish people opened their homes, their hearts, and their borders. Ukrainian refugees – mostly women, children, the elderly – were met with open arms. I still remember hearing Polish volunteers at the border speak on camera. Their voices trembled with emotion as they explained that they couldn’t just watch this tragedy unfold from the sidelines. They said they loved Ukrainians, and it was their deepest desire to help Ukrainian people. And you could feel they meant it.

For a moment, it felt like something larger was being born – a vision long buried but never forgotten. The old Intermarium dream, once championed by Józef Piłsudski: a strategic alliance of Central and Eastern European states united against Russian imperialism. Suddenly, that idea wasn’t just an old mapmaker’s fantasy. Poland and Ukraine, bound by shared suffering and mutual purpose, looked poised to become the backbone of a new geopolitical reality.

But then something shifted.

Tensions started to creep in last year over Ukrainian grain exports. What began as a policy dispute spiraled into something uglier. Polish truckers, later joined by Slovak and Hungarian counterparts, blockaded Ukrainian cargo trucks. Frustration curdled into resentment. Soon, the historical ghosts returned. In Polish public discourse, old wounds were reopened – Volhynian massacres and the contested legacy of Stepan Bandera. Once marginal topics began to gain traction in headlines and official speeches.

Even former president Andrzej Duda – long a steadfast friend to Ukraine – spoke out bitterly in one of his final interviews. He couldn’t understand, he said, how Ukrainian officials could embrace him warmly while wearing the red-and-black insignia of the UPA, a group responsible for atrocities against Poles. “Poland will never accept this” he said, drawing a firm line. To Poles, Bandera and his followers were not heroes – they were criminals.

His successor, nationalist Karol Nawrocki, has taken that line further, proposing legislation that would criminalize UPA symbols in Poland, equating them with Nazi and Soviet iconography. Other officials have gone so far as to threaten a veto of Ukraine’s EU membership unless Kyiv formally apologizes for Volhynian massacres and allows the exhumation of Polish graves.

This spiral of recrimination could not come at a worse time – if there were ever a good time for it at all.

Europe stands today on a precipice. Central and Eastern European nations, in particular, face a civilizational threat in the form of a resurgent, unrepentant Russia. To let historical grievances fracture unity now is to play directly into the hands of the Kremlin. Whatever wrongs Poles and Ukrainians committed against each other in the past, they are dwarfed by the scale and brutality both of these peoples endured at the hands of Russians for centuries, and Ukrainians continue to endure now.

This is not the moment to divide over flags, insignia and historical grievances. This is the moment to understand what’s at stake. Europe’s survival depends on solidarity. The priorities should be set straight. Russia is the single greatest evil currently threatening European Civilization and Europeans must stand together.

And yet, despite everything Russia has done – and despite the long, painful lessons of the past – not everyone in Europe seems to understand the stakes. As the war drags on, an old, familiar rot has begun to surface once again: the quiet reawakening of anti-Ukrainian sentiment in parts of Polish society. The specter of petty nationalism, long buried but never fully gone, is haunting Europe once more – just when unity is most vital.

It’s hard not to be reminded of another fateful chapter in this region’s history: the years 1920–1921. Back then, too, Poland and Ukraine stood shoulder to shoulder against a Russian invasion. Poland, under Józef Piłsudski, had just pulled off the improbable victory at the Battle of Warsaw – the so-called Miracle on the Vistula – stopping the Red Army’s advance into Europe. He had done so not alone, but in alliance with Symon Petliura’s Ukrainian forces. Together, they had the momentum. The Red Army had been driven out of Poland. Full liberation of Ukraine – and with it, a strategic transformation of Eastern Europe – was within reach.

The defeat of the Soviet Imperialists, the window of opportunity that was missed

But just as total victory seemed so near, something gave out.

In Poland, Piłsudski’s vision – a free and sovereign Ukraine as one of the cornerstones of a Central and Eastern European alliance – was under assault from within. The National Democracy movement, led by Roman Dmowski, opposed any partnership with Ukraine. Obsessed with petty nationalist sentiments and territorial claims to cities like Lviv, and willing to strike a bargain with Russia if it preserved Poland’s perceived national interests, they pushed back hard against Piłsudski’s plans. And in the end, they won.

Poland abandoned the alliance. It signed a separate peace with Soviet Russia – the Treaty of Riga in 1921 – securing temporary calm for itself while leaving Ukraine to face the Red Army alone. Ukraine was crushed, absorbed into the Soviet Union, and subjected to the horrors of Russian rule: forced collectivization, cultural erasure, mass executions, and the man-made famine of the Holodomor.

Poland, having thought itself safe, would learn the truth soon enough. And learn it the hard way. Twenty years later, it too would be overrun and brutalized by the very same power it had once thought it could appease at the expense of abandoning Ukraine and satisfying its petty short-term interests.

History, it seems, is circling back.

Once again, the region finds itself at a crossroads. And once again, the old curse threatens to return: the curse of parochialism, of small-minded nationalism, of clinging to ancient grudges at the expense of a broader, more holistic vision. We see it not just in the resurgence of anti-Ukrainian rhetoric in Poland, but in the broader region. The PiS government has stoked anti-German sentiment, demanding war reparations and reviving grievances better left buried. Poland remains fixated on Volhynian massacres and the figure of Stepan Bandera, refusing to contextualize these wounds within the larger war of survival Ukraine is fighting today.

Stephan Bandera, the poster boy of petty nationalist squabbling

Moreover, the staunchly anti-Ukrainian and anti-German, petty nationalist party Konfederacja (Confederation) has been steadily gaining votes. Recently, they staged a grotesque publicity stunt in front of Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate on the anniversary of Warsaw Uprising. Their aim was to shame Germany, to reopen historical wounds, to force remembrance through humiliation. But conspicuously, being fixated on historical grievances against Germany and Ukraine, they never seem to remind Russians of having killed and brutalized even more Poles throughout history than Nazi Germany did.

Why this selective outrage? Why does Konfederacja choose to remind Germany of the dark episodes of its past, when Germans – the great, civilized cultured nation – had repeatedly and sincerely apologized (even over-apologized) for those crimes? And at a time when Germany and Poland share common destiny and are allies in an existential war against their common civilizational nemesis – Russia?

Moreover, the Polish figures who like to bring reparation claims against Germany, somehow do not bring similar claims against Russia. Is it because they know that Germans, a civilized culture nation, can be pushed around like this, while Russians, shameless and immune to moral appeals, cannot? Or perhaps the deeper reason is more disturbing: that some in Polish political life see Germany – not Russia – as the greater threat; that they hate the cultured and penitent Germans, their civilizational kin and natural allies, more than the barbaric and proud Russians – their greatest civilizational nemesis.

This, too, is what petty nationalism does. It warps moral vision. It lashes out at kin who kneel in remorse, while ignoring the real enemy who still holds the knife.

In Hungary, in turn, Viktor Orbán’s government continues to stir resentment over the Treaty of Trianon, accusing Ukraine – without evidence – of mistreating its Hungarian minority. In Romania, nationalist politicians like Călin Georgescu and George Simion fan tensions over Bessarabia and Bukovina, invoking historical claims that only serve to fracture regional unity.

These pathologies – these old tribal reflexes – are exactly what Russia bets on. Fragmented, feuding, and mistrustful, Eastern Europe cannot stand. United, it can. The lesson of the 20th century should be burned into the region’s memory: no country in Europe is safe on its own.

But the crisis facing Europe is not only geopolitical. It is also moral and civilizational. While Eastern Europe is being pulled back into the gravity of petty nationalism, Western Europe is caught in a different but equally corrosive current: a radical, flattening universalism that seeks to erase all distinctions, all boundaries, all rootedness.

In the West, the dominant worldview today revolves around the idea that empathy must be expanded endlessly – until every human being on the planet is equally embraced. At first glance, this impulse may seem noble, but beneath its surface lies a spiritual void, because when empathy is expanded to include everyone, it risks meaning nothing. When everyone belongs, no-one truly belongs.

The total empathy that an individual human can manifest is a fixed amount. When it is indiscriminately distributed across all of humanity, its power is diluted – i.e. the net empathy each human receives becomes negligible. The math is simple: if empathy is finite, and you divide it among a lot of people, each receives next to nothing. This is essentially what Western liberal universalism demands: the dispersal of attention, emotion, and allegiance under the banners of "tolerance," "diversity," and "multiculturalism." But by trying to love everyone equally, one risks loving no-one meaningfully. By trying to maximize the breadth, he sacrifices the depth of feeling. The result is a thinning out of identity, a kind of emotional entropy.

On the opposite end of the spectrum lies petty nationalism. Unlike liberal universalism, it narrows empathy rather than disperses it – focusing all care and concern on a narrowly defined in-group. It deepens feeling at the expense of reach. Following the same math, if you divide the finite amount of empathy among fewer people, each receives more. But those left outside the circle receive nothing. And when the circle is drawn too tightly, it breeds hostility. It fosters the hatred of one’s closest neighbor, even when that neighbor shares the same roots, the same fate, the same historical memory and the same enemies.

This is the true danger: that in narrowing their sense of solidarity, some Eastern European nations are turning their animosity not toward an existential enemy that once enslaved them – but toward each other. 

They don’t drift toward Russia because they admire it. They drift because they lack the emotional range to maintain unity with their neighbors. And Russia, parasitic as ever, knows exactly how to exploit this. It feeds on these resentments like a vulture circling a wounded animal, encouraging division, inflaming old grudges, and keeping the region fragmented.

Petty nationalism is not new. It is one of Europe’s oldest afflictions. Long before the current wave of liberal universalism, Europe was ravaged by its own tribalism. The continent tore itself apart in endless fratricidal wars. The First and Second World Wars were the culmination of this tendency to elevate the narrow petty identity above any broader sense of shared destiny.

Today, both extremes – petty nationalism and limitless universalism – are failing Europe. The former forgets the common good in favor of parochial pride. The latter forgets identity altogether in pursuit of an abstract sameness. Both lead to vulnerability. Both make Europeans easy prey for a power like Russia, which knows what it is, knows what it wants, and will stop at nothing to get it.

Thus, Europe today is caught between two dead ends. In the West, an open-border limitless universalism that dissolves identity into abstraction. In the East, a petty nationalism that clings to old wounds and sees allies as adversaries. Each in its own way undermines the continent’s cohesion. Each drains the instinct for self-preservation. And both leave Europe exposed at the very moment it faces an existential threat.

If Europe is to survive and rise to new heights it must transcend both. Universalism flattens our sense of who we are – it deprives us of depth; petty nationalism narrows the identity to the point of suffocation – it deprives us of breadth. One leaves us too detached to defend ourselves. The other too divided to stand together. In this vacuum, there can be no real unity, no common front, and no common sense of destiny.

What is needed is a new synthesis – civilizational nationalism.

Civilizational nationalism is the true universalism that carries both meaningful depth and enough breadth. It balances depth of feeling with breadth of feeling. It bridges the chasm between abstract cosmopolitanism and parochial tribalism. It carries the emotional depth of real belonging while expanding its scope to include the full European family. It is rooted in common ancestry, shared historical memory, and the recognition of common destiny.

This kind of nationalism does not mean retreating behind national borders, nor does it mean dissolving them into global sameness. It means forging a broader identity that gives meaning to the word "Europe." It means recognizing that Poles, Ukrainians, Romanians, Hungarians, Germans, French, English, and others are not simply neighbors by geography – but kin with shared ancestry and historical memory. That there is no need for Europeans to choose between their individual nations and the whole civilization.

Only such a framework can provide the spiritual architecture strong enough to resist both Russia’s aggression and the internal rot of fragmentation. Only this can counter the appeal of petty nationalist movements that gravitate toward Moscow – not really out of love for Russia, but out of despair and resentment. What drives them into Russia’s arms is a deep sense of dispossession: the belief that their leaders care more for some distant ideals and civilizational aliens than for their own people.

If Europe’s institutions once again anchored themselves in the will and memory of their peoples – if they honored those who built and preserved this civilization – much of that resentment would evaporate. Those who now look to Russia in protest would turn back toward Europe, if Europe gave them something to belong to. A Europe that draws strength from its common ancestry and historical memory – in other words, Europe that espouses civilizational nationalism – that Europe would no longer be vulnerable to Russian manipulation. It would become something stronger than the sum of its parts.

And that Europe would be meaningful. It would be inspiring. It would possess the identity expansive enough to unite hundreds of millions of people, yet intimate enough to be deeply felt by every single European. That Europe would be unstoppable.

Follow Cemil Kerimoglu's Substack here

DIRTY DONALD'S DOODLE SUGGESTS HE MAY HAVE BEEN A KIDDIE DIDDLER

 

Aspirins on an ironing board. What mean?

Now that Trump's "birthday card" to his former best friend and world-renowned PAEDOPHILE has been revealed, it is interesting to reflect on the relationship between the two revealed by the card. Apart from its talk about being pals who have a "certain things" in common, never aging "enigmas," and keeping "wonderful secrets," what is even more striking is the fact that Trump's drawing appears to show a female body with barely perceptible breasts.

As if well know to breast experts and proud fathers of teenage daughters, breast development in girls typically begins between the ages of 8 and 13, with most starting around 10 or 11. This process, part of puberty, is driven by hormonal changes, particularly increases in oestrogen. Initial signs include breast buds—small, firm lumps under the nipple. Full development, including growth and shaping, usually takes 2–4 years but can vary. 

This means that, at best, we are looking at a picture of a 15 year-old girl and probably one even younger. 

Of course, if Trump was heavily into Oriental women with smaller breast sizes, a tenuous case could be made that his doodle was depicting a 16 to 17 barely legal girl, but, as is well known, the president's preferences in breast size, at least when it comes to sexually mature women, tend to verge on the orbular as we can see in these highly respectable photos of the first lady:

Big jugs!

Huge swinging Slavic fun bags!

Putting the dairy out of business

Now contrast Melania's humongous melons with these immature microscopic mumps: 

Even though a court of law might struggle to convict Trump of paedophile crimes on the basis of this, the court of public opinion is not so hidebound by petty legalistic requirements. Trump's lengthy association with the world's most infamous paedophile and this illustration strongly suggests that Trump at least knew of Epstein's paedophile crimes and chose to stay silent or, more likely, participated in them. 
  

STOP SANE-WASHING THE SPINELESS AND NARCISSISTIC LUNATIC IN THE WHITE HOUSE

Vlad Vexler comments on the mainstream media's pathetic tendency to hope or pretend that Donald Trump is a normal human being whose oral emissions carry the same weight as the precise words of honourable and sane men of principle, instead of treating them as the irrelevant burblings of a corrupt, narcissistic mess, who is still carrying a candle for Vladimir Putin nearly four years into his blatant war of aggression against Europe. 

 

SHORTPOD (107) THE PERFORMATIVE STUPIDITY OF U.S. PRESIDENTS AND THE ACTUAL STUPIDITY OF TRUMP

One of the oddest things about US politics is the preference of voters for Presidential candidates who appear to be stupid, or at least intellectually dim. This results in winning candidates acting a lot dumber than they really are, unless they are Black, when the rule tends to reverse. With the advent of Donald Trump, however, Colin Liddell argues, Americans finally hit the jackpot and got the genuine dumbass president they have always wanted.

FOREIGN AGENTS (2): LOUIS MARINELLI

Louis Marinelli agent of intended but ineffectual chaos 

Marinelli is now a rather forgotten figure, but he should be remembered as an example of how foreign ops, agents, and useful idiots work in our open and rather naïve Western societies. Born in New York in 1986, Marinelli is an Italian-American, who became a foreign agent by the well-known route of going off to Russia to teach English.

In 2007, Marinelli after finishing high school (but not college apparently) headed off to the "giant outdoor toilet" that is Russia to "teach English" in the cities of Samara and Kazan. Nothing to see there, folks! Lots of unskilled English-speakers have done the same over the years -- God bless 'em! -- but by 2009, Marinelli was in St Petersburg, where he was also a student at Saint Petersburg State University, the alma mater of Russian presidents Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev.

Prior to leaving for Russia, he had been an anti-same-sex-marriage activist, launching the Facebook group "Protect Marriage: One Man, One Woman" in 2006, which then grew into a major social media network of "social conservatives" against same-sex marriage, all while he was in Russia, and quite possibly because the page was already getting lots of help from Kremlin on-line assets.

Then in 2011, having acquired a Russian wife, he suddenly returned to the West, moving to California, where, very suspiciously, he immediately got involved in the completely inorganic and, to all intents and purposes, astro-turfed "Calexit" movement. This was odd because while in Russia he had often expressed disgust with the "decadent," "homosexual" West, but now he was suddenly so keen to live there and help a pro-gay marriage Blue State part of the USA escape from Red State dominance.,

The obviously fake "Calexit" movement, which he became involved with after his return to the USA, was clearly based on the slightly more organic "Texit" movement in Texas and the somewhat more organic "Brexit" campaign in the UK, both of which were knocking around at the time. 

Suffice to say, the idea of parts of the USA or the EU "seceding" is an idea that has a lot of appeal in Russian intelligence circles, as the Russian siloviki feel rather ill-done by the Western-backed secessionism that split up their beloved USSR back in the day. 

While Texit played to Texan Republicans freaking out that Obama had been elected President and then re-elected, Calexit lamely attempted to play a similar role to Californian Democrats upset by the prospect of "Orange Hitler" (or some other GOP candidate) becoming President.

This was a little odd because the whole logic of Calexit is that left-leaning Dems would support it in order to escape from a conservative America, but Marinelli, with his opposition to same-sex marriage was on the other side!

This kind of "ideological flexibility" is often a good "tell" of foreign agents and assets. Indeed, all the better to serve the Calexit agenda, Marinelli accordingly dumped his opposition to gay marriage around this time, something he would never have done if the Kremlin had assigned him to, say, the more conservative Texit movement.

But, that aside, even with the election of Trump, Calexit had zero traction and turned out to be a total wet fart.

But it is not the success or failure of the movement that is at issue here (as it clearly failed), it is the malevolent intent of outside actors, like those in the Kremlin, seeking to break up the United States or cause disruption and division. 

This seems to have been the principal, if not the only, reason for Marinelli to return to the USA, because, just as soon as Calexit hit the ground like a dead cat, Marinelli immediately upped sticks and ran back to his beloved Russia, in April 2017, despite having declared a more "pro-gay marriage" stance than when he left, LOL.

He wrote at the time that he was withdrawing his petition to repeal the part of the state’s constitution that said California is an inseparable part of the United States:

"It is only proper, given my intention to seek permanent residence in Russia and not return to California in the foreseeable future, to withdraw that petition from circulation, and to allow a new petition, free from ties to me and drafted by others, to be resubmitted at future date of their choosing."

The impossibility of getting 585,407 valid signatures between April and July, in order to place the petition on the ballot may have been the real reason for withdrawing it.

But this was not the end of the story. Perhaps motivated by the growing success of other Kremlin ops in adding to the growing hysteria in the USA, it seems that Marinelli's handlers decided to dust off Calexit once again, with Marinelli re-emerging in 2021 to whip the dead horse of Californian secessionism again, even though he was living in Russia at the time! 

As reported by Fresno site GVWire: 

"Louis Marinelli believes that California should separate from the rest of the United States so much, he is living in Russia. He also plans to run for governor in the upcoming recall election using a Fresno address. The election to determine the fate of Gov. Gavin Newsom is scheduled for Sept. 14. Marinelli is one of an 100-plus candidates expected to run to replace Newsom, if he is recalled. 'I personally have labeled him as a rising despot, an authoritarian. I do not believe that the elections will be held fairly and freely in California,' Marinelli said this week at a news conference in Russia."

Perhaps up to this point, if you were a naïve enough numbskull, you could still dismiss Marinelli as "just an oddball" with no links to the Kremlin. But in 2022, actual evidence of Russian state funding for Marinelli's quixotic campaign was revealed. 

Top Californian newspaper The Sacramento Bee reported:

"In February 2018, as organizers of the so-called 'CalExit' campaign to have California secede from the union and form its own country, a Russian national named Aleksandr Ionov sent electronic messages to a secession supporter, court documents say. Ionov offered funding for a protest that would have supporters make their way into then-Gov. Jerry Brown’s office.

Ionov and the organizer traded proposed designs for posters for the event, and eventually wrote that he sent $500 to the organizer, who on Valentine’s Day led a demonstration at the state Capitol 'in support of California’s secession from the United States,; court papers say.

Afterward, Ionov corresponded in Russian with a member of the Russian Federal Security Service, or FSB, boasting that the FSB officer had asked for 'turmoil' in the United States. 'There you go,; Ionov wrote, court papers say.

The effort was part of a 'years-long foreign malign influence campaign that used various U.S. political groups to sow discord, spread pro-Russian propaganda, and interfere in elections within the United States,' the Justice Department said in an announcement Friday during which authorities in Tampa, Fla., revealed Ionov had been indicted there on charges of targeting political groups in Florida, Georgia and California 'to further Russian interests.'"

Ionov also has links to Neo-Confederate group, the League of the South.

So, how does this tie to Marinelli?

"Court documents identify the organizer in California only as 'unidentified co-conspirator 6,' an American who had lived in Russia and California and was the founder and president of an unnamed group seeking to have California secede from the union.

That individual appears to be Louis J. Marinelli, the one-time founder of CalExit and the Yes California political action committee who subsequently gave up on his quest and now lives in Arkansas."

The only questions left to answer are "WTF is Marinelli doing in Arkansas?" and "What is the Kremlin likely to be up to there?"