KEEPING SCORE ON THE PUNDITS

We really need a "three strikes and you're out" policy with regard to political pundits, especially those who make sweeping statements and over-confident predictions. If that had been the case, we would have been shot of John Mearsheimer a long time ago.

As it is, this so-called "geopolitical commentator" is still trotted out in interviews and articles, and presented to us as someone whose opinion is actually worth something even though he has been repeatedly wrong on the Russia-Ukraine war, time and time again. In fact this is a war which Mearsheimer confidently predicted wouldn't even happen!

So, it's good to see that someone finally put together a string of some of Mearsheimer's more idiotic predictions on a year-by-year basis, highlighting just how bad this so-called "neorealist" is at keeping touch with reality. 

What strikes you about these performances—because that's all they are, performances—is how he manages to sound as smugly confident as he has always done.

You would think he would be losing his confidence by now, but, oh no, not our John. This reminds us that the real job of "expert pundits" like this is to sound authoritative in the future or present tense while being totally wrong in the past tense.

A serious scholar revises his views when evidence piles up against him. Mearsheimer simply resets his pro-Kremlin egg-timer and repeats a slightly updated version of his usual schtick. The only question is whether he is being paid to do this or is simply a genuine geopolitical moron. 

WHEN DEEP STATES FALL OUT (IT'S SAD)

by Duns Scotus

One reason why politics has been so weird for the last 10-15 years or so is because the countries with real deep states have been pulling in unison against those states that don't really have deep states. 

So, who am I talking about?

Those countries with real deep states—or deep deep states—are Russia, where the President is literally a deep state bro, Israel, China, and, to a lesser extent, Iran. 

Of course, Western states have deep states too, but the difference is that these are incredibly shallow by comparison and are subject to all sorts of democratic oversight. They essentially can't hurt a fly without establishing full legal cover that would stand up to examination by a future court or pubic enquiry.

Now, going back to the weirdness that we saw in politics in the last ten years, much of this can be directly traced and linked to the influence that Deep States have exerted on Western states. The methods used range from co-opting dissident movements on the right and left, pushing disinformation & polarisation, promoting reductionist populism, undermining politicians seen as in some way antagonistic to their states, corrupting mainstream politicians to be more sympathetic, and even taking over or setting up mainstream media operations. There are countless examples of all of these, which it would be tedious to go into here.

What has made the Deep State infiltration of open Western societies particularly powerful is that the main ones have for much of the last ten years been marching in lockstep. The main Deep States impacting on the West are essentially Russia's, which is generally supported by China's, and of course Israel's with its long-standing penetration of Western finance, media, culture, and, indeed, religion.

For most of the last 10-15 years, these two poles of Xenocratic Deep State power have been not only perfectly aligned but also actively echoing and amplifying each other.

For example, from at least 2010, the Kremlin decided that "populist nationalism" was the ideal vehicle to counter the centre-leftism on which growing European unity and transatlantic cooperation were based. Likewise, the Zionist Likudnik Deep State made a decision that European centre-leftism (and its American corollary) had to be opposed for entirely different reasons, namely to undermine the natural support that it generated for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. 

With these two potent Deep States pulling in unison, things really started to move in politics, with 2016 being something of an annus mirabilis with both Brexit and the election of a deeply compromised insurgent candidate to the US Presidency. 

The foundation of this harmony between the Russian and Israeli Deep States (and their ascendency over the ineffectual shallow deep states of the West) is based on a fundamental similarity between both states, which are essentially expansionary historical revisionist states.

Russia craves to get back the imperial penumbra that it lost it WWI but got back and expanded on in the Soviet years before losing it again in the Gorbachev years, while Israel's historical revisionism is a hodge podge of basic survivalist expediencies, focused on the need to have defensible mass and borders, mixed in with bunkum neo-theological moral justifications about "reclaiming" ancient Judea and Samaria "because God's Chosen People."

Both of these Deep States with their sinister agendas saw the benefits of the Trumpist mess and a Europe beset by fake patriotic populist nationalist parties zeroing in on the legitimate fears and concerns of easily-duped boomerist voters, which is exactly why they both put their shoulders to the same wheel.  

The problem, though, for this winning combination was that both actors started to tread on each other's toes. Russia, as an oil and gas economy and a militarily incompetent power, needed to stay aligned with Iran. This position both bolstered its power to manipulate the oil markets, while, following its botched invasion of Ukraine, supplied its military with cheap and effective Shaheed drones to help maintain its military threat.

However, this close association rubbed up against the interests of the Israeli Deep State, which, following the emasculation of Arab Nationalism, finalised in the crushing of Saddam Hussein (2006) and Muammar Gaddafi (2011), saw Iran as the foundation of all real opposition against its revisionist project.

However, these increasingly pointed contradictions between the two Deep States did not become a serious problem until 2023, when the massive, surprise assault on Israel from the Gaza Strip by Hamas led to the Gaza War and its related conflicts, including this years US-Iran War. These conflicts led to a perceived need in Tel Aviv, as well as an opportunity, for Israel to "finally deal with" the Iran problem. It is this that caused the major schism we now see between the Russian and Israeli Deep States, which are now, finally, pulling in opposite and incoherent directions. 

This whole geopolitical macrocosm can be seen in the microcosm of the online influencer Laura Loomer who recently performed a breath-taking 180-degree heel turn on her previous support for Putin's war on Ukraine.

On June 17, 2026, she posted a video on X stating “I think I fell for Russian propaganda.” She later said on her podcast, which has a MAGA audience of around a million viewers, that many Americans (including herself) had become "overly sympathetic to Russia" after years of focus on alleged Russian election interference, and that she had parroted anti-Ukraine talking points without fully recognizing online manipulation.She also criticized Russia’s “denazify Ukraine” schtick, while noting its attacks on Ukrainian Christians and other crimes.

Following this, she actually travelled to Ukraine this month, where she experienced air-raids, visited sites, including the location of the Bucha massacre, and met Ukrainian figures (including a rabbi), and interviewed President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. She then apologized more strongly for her past positions, explicitly stating she had "been wrong," had lived in a media echo chamber, and had been influenced by Russian propaganda.

But the fact is that Loomer was never a tool of Russia. She was, is, and always has been a willing tool of Likudnic Zionism, living in their media echo chamber and swallowing their  propaganda with relish.

This can be seen in her frankly insane positions. She is a cheerleader for a hard-line, hawkish stance favouring aggressive strikes against the Iranian regime. "It’s always a great day when President Trump bombs Iran," she tweets. She criticizes ceasefires and deals as "too lenient," and has called for extreme measures such as "carpet bombing," including strikes on power and water infrastructure, oil facilities, mosques, financial institutions, and other targets to "send Iran back to the stone ages" and force a surrender.

What has changed is that, like her handlers the Israeli Deep State, she has become more aware of the links between the Russians and the Iranians, as Israeli has become bogged down in an endless conflict with its region since the Hamas attacks on Israel.

Part of this may have been sparked off by our "old friend" Alexander Dugin. On May 27th, Loomer posted about Russian Dugin's suggestion that Russia should distribute or sell nuclear weapons to countries (including Iran) that could use them against the West or United States. 

Loomer called this "terrorism" while awkwardly backing out of her previous support for Russian terrorism against Ukraine:

"Also, nobody hates Russia. I certainly don’t and I have complimented Russia for many things in the past. I opposed all US aid to Ukraine and I even praised Putin for calling out election fraud, Big Tech censorship of the 2020 Presidential election, and for saying Russia needs to “De nazify” Ukraine, a country that literally militarizes Nazis (Azov Battalion). I do not hate Russia, and it looks like a beautiful country. Many of my ancestors came from Russia..."

This is what it looks like when Deep States fall out. 

Denigrators of women will say that this rather ridiculous realignment was also driven by Loomer's ongoing "bitchfight" with her fellow "populist right-wing" influencer Candace Owens, who continues to slavishly support Putin. But this bitchfight might simply be a reflection that Loomer and Owen's revenue streams are coming from distinctly different shady corners, or, more precisely, from diverging Deep States.

WELCOME TO CHOG ("THE CRYPTO-HIBERNIAN OCCUPATION GOVERNMENT")

 Think I've got a feeling I've lost inside

by Colin Liddell

There are 23 people who sit at the top table of British politics, namely the Cabinet table.

Why 23? Probably because that's how many prominent MPs you need on your side to ensure control of the wider government party in Parliament—although the conventional explanation is that it comes from the number of departments into which running a country like Britain naturally devolves. Bullshit!

Following Andy Burnham's "coronation" as leader (by fellow Labour MPs, not voters), he spoke about "uniting the party" but immediately engaged in what looked to some like a "Stalinist purge" of Starmer loyalists and installed his own people. 

"His own people" is the key phrase here.

Many in the dissident right are familiar with the phrase "ZOG," an American term signifying "Zionist Occupied Government." But how about "CHOG" or the "Crypto-Hibernian Occupied Government" that now appears to have taken over the UK?

I will not go into how valid the term ZOG is, although, with genocide underway in Gaza & the West Bank, and with America dragged into a war it clearly doesn't want, it has become increasingly clear how "oversized" Zionist influence is. However, ZOG was never really a thing in the UK—or at least not a very big thing. Can the same be said for CHOG? I think not.

Influential as they are, Jews have been too small a group to really dominate UK politics. But there are other well-established non-English ethnicities that at least have the numbers, like the Scots and the Irish.

In the 1990s and early Zeroes, when Labour last dominated UK politics, some commented on the prevalence of Scots or, in Tony Blair's case, "Crypto-Scots" (yes, so you thought he was English too) in the government.

When Starmer swept to power in 2024, in what was an "unpopular landslide" (caused by Russian interference splitting the right-wing vote), one thing that could be said about his government was that it was relatively "English" in character. The same, however, cannot be said for the Burnham government.

So, let's go through the entire 23-member cabinet and identify the dominant element of their ethnic origin or background  (feel free to quibble in the comments):

Andy Burnham (PRIME MINISTER) —IRISH

John Healey (Chancellor of the Exchequer)—IRISH

Ed Miliband (Foreign Secretary)—JEWISH

Shabana Mahmood (Home Office)—PAKISTANI

Louise Haigh (First Secretary of State)—IRISH

Pat McFadden (Work and Pensions)—IRISH 

Wes Streeting (Ministry of Defence)—ENGLISH 

Yvette Cooper (Health and Social Care)—ENGLISH 

Lucy Powell (Education)—IRISH
Angela Rayner (Housing)—WELSH

---------------------------------------------------
Bridget Phillipson (Equalities)—IRISH
Miatta Fahnbulleh (Energy)—AFRICAN

Jonathan Reynolds (Business and Trade)—ENGLISH 

Heidi Alexander (Transport)—ENGLISH

Alex Norris (Justice)—ENGLISH

Angela Eagle (Environment)—ENGLISH

Lisa Nandy (Culture, Media and Sport)—INDIAN

Chris Bryant (Northern Ireland Office)—WELSH

Douglas Alexander (Scotland Office)—SCOTTISH

Stephen Kinnock (Wales Office)—WELSH

Anneliese Midgley (Chief Whip)—ENGLISH

Baroness Smith (Leader of the Lords)—ENGLISH

Sir Alan Campbell (Leader of the Commons)—ENGLISH

Now let's crunch the numbers:

IRISH (6)

ENGLISH (9)
SCOTTISH & WELSH (4)
PoC (4)

However, if we draw a generally acknowledged line between the key cabinet posts and the less important ones (see above), we get this picture:

IRISH (5)
ENGLISH (2)
SCOTTISH & WELSH (1)
PoC (2)

In fact, there is not a single heterosexual English male among the top ten cabinet posts!!!

Whether this cabinet is CHOG or not, it has a much more "Western Briton" feel to it than the Starmer cabinet and will possibly behave in ways typical—or at least reflective—of its ethnic/identitarian orientation at some point. This may be held in partial check by elements of the Deep State, which presumably remain irredeemably old-school English.

At the very least, it raises interesting questions of ethnic dynamics in UK politics and whether a truly integrated and fully assimilated UK identity can be created in a country that has been undergoing rapid demographic change since the late 1700s.  

___________________________________

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 

JIM GOAD WENT

Goad (right) spent his worthless life trying to prove he was not gay and boring. He failed.

Born 1961. Died 2026. Goad was long a "presence" on the Dissident Right, but was essentially just an "edgytarian" Boomer with little or no moral compass, rather tedious atheist views, and no identifiable ideology, although he tried to make himself amenable to Greg Johnson's "gay Nazi" clique in his final years.

He focused what little IQ he had in coming up with trite vulgar ad hominem attacks against people who upset him. As such he reflected a low-brow American sensibility that is a fitting reflection of his own background and indeed himself.

He was considered "Alt-Right" for a time, thanks to his largely forgotten 2019 appearances on Richard Spencer's YouTube channel and being the most popular but least interesting writer at Greg Johnson's Counter-Currents site, which he joined after being sacked by Taki's Magazine in 2020.

Sadly for fans of his diatribe-fuelled garbage, Goad started "taking a break" from Counter-Currents in 2025 to deal with the serious health issues that actually "dealt" with him. So, thoughts and atheistic prayers, bro. 

Here at NeoKrat we have no wish to be too judgmental on the broken souls who typically make up the dissident right, but we might have to really stretch our characteristic forbearance with Goad, as he was a self-confessed wife beater, drug taker, and bisexual attempting to pass himself off as "manly," LOL.

He also had an autistic son called Zane with his second wife Shannon (now divorced obviously), whom he often tried to use for moral capital, despite spending his whole life mocking the disabled and using terms like "retard" with gay abandon. 

As mentioned already, after joining Greg Johnson's "stable," he adopted more obviously anti-Semitic views in order to please his paymaster. Prior to this, however, Goad was extremely contemptuous of Johnson, as this clip reveals:

He was also known for a rather ridiculous, long-running feud with Matt Forney, in which Forney scored major points in this hilarious Luke Ford live stream from 2018, which continually cycled back to Jim's self-admitted homosexual experiences some years back with a little Black boy.

Goad's work also commented frequently on the homosexual relations that occur in prison, adding to the widely-held suspicion that he was subjected, either willingly or unwillingly (I suspect the former), to such encounters during his three years in prison for beating up another woman, which was itself a very gay thing to do.

His most well-known book is the Red Neck Manifesto (1997), which shows his knack of pairing a catchy and promising title with turgid and overwrought "slop" writing that has little of worth to say. However, it is not impossible that the work influenced JD Vance to recount his hillbilly couch-fucking exploits in his own memoir, Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis.

Probably Goad's most significant contribution to the "higher civilisation of the West" has been his coining of the term "shit magnet" a non-judgmental appellation to describe people, rather like himself, who constantly get involved in pointless drama, needless mishaps, avoidable accidents, and unfortunate health issues. The term is also particularly useful in referring to a large number of people in the Dissident Right, which is really just "Shit Magnet Central." 

TEAM NAMED AFTER "SILVER" WINS SILVER MEDAL AT WORLD CUP

 

Argentina, a country named after the Latin word for silver, has, appropriately enough, won only the silver medal at this year's World Cup, and not the much more important shiny golden trophy. The country's name, which was made up as a kind of advert to attract low-IQ poor people in the 16th century, derives from the Latin word argentum, meaning "silver," "silvery" or "made of silver." Actually, rather than silver, it is made up of monotonous grasslands and pointless mountains.

The people of the nation are largely Mestizos, descended from European incels forced to marry tribal Indian women by their lack of sexual prospects in their new land, as could be seen by the distinctly "sub-" or "quasi-" European appearance of most of the players, all of whom think they are "White." This was exemplified by the team's captain, a tiny autistic man, who was later observed crying after his team's usual tactics of smoothly stringing together pin-point accurate fouls failed to achieve another undeserved victory.

The nation, which is totally crap at war, as proved by what happened in the Falklands in 1982, was beaten in the final by Spain, a nation whose name derives from its ancient abundance of edible rodents. " I-Shpania," which later became "Spain" is believed to be a Phoenician word for "land of the rabbits."

In this case, Spain certainly "pulled a rabbit out of the hat" with a late winning goal in extra time by Ferran Torres, scored during a short intermission in the flow of Argentinian fouls.

Argentina's proudest moment outside of stealing World Cups was when its battleship "The General Belgrano" was sunk by a Ghurkha.

WAS "QUIET AND SHY" WIDDECOMBE KILLER LOOKING FOR A MOTHER FIGURE?

Joshua Kerry, alleged killer of Ann Widdecombe

It looks like the alleged killer of Ann Widdecombe, a leading member of Nigel Farage's Reform UK Party, is just another "quiet and shy" loner, this time one from a northern English council estate.

Meet 28-year-old Joshua Kerry, arrested for the brutal slaying on July 8th of the 78-year-old politician and "reality TV" star, who was for many years a Tory MP and minister before defecting to Reform UK.

Police have handed the case to counter-terrorism officers, hinting at a possible "political" or "ideological" motive, but basically Kerry fits the classic incel pattern: polite neighbour who takes out the bins, former lift company office drone, living first with his divorced father in Rotherham, then alone, after daddy's death. And where was Mummy all this time?

Family members talk about a "gentle boy" who sat quietly in the corner while his siblings rough-housed. But it just doesn't add up. No drama, no red flags, no watch lists, nothing on the radar until one day, suddenly "out of the blue" he decides to drive several hours south to Widdecombe's house, openly parks on her driveway, and then gains entry to the house, and batters the old lady to death. 

Kerry's hometown of Rotherham, of course, was "ground zero" for Britain's grooming gang scandal, in which gangs of mainly Muslim men groomed, raped, and prostituted thousands of underage White girls over decades with little push-back from the authorities. But how does all that fit in with this murder, as Widdecombe, like most of Reform UK, presented herself as a "protector" of English virginity. 

Another element in Kerry's background is his family's military background, with several members of the Kerry family having served in the forces. Again, this is something that should have pushed him to the right. Is the story here one of Kerry being the "black sheep" of the family and rebelling against a conservative consensus? But then, how does his father's recent death fit into the story?

Is it perhaps even weirder than that? In fact, murders usually are weird. Is it possible that Kerry was simply looking for a substitute "mother figure" in Ann Widdecombe and reacted violently when she "rejected" him?

Widdecombe: Possible mother figure?

Another strand that should not be let go off is the suspicious timing of the killing and how it serves the narratives of a beleaguered Nigel Farage, under attack in the media for accepting millions from a dubious "crypto-billionaire" living in Thailand.

Farage defended the dodgy donation on the basis of its intended purpose, claiming that the money was given to him because of his heightened security needs. How convenient then that a major Reform UK politician is then suddenly bludgeoned to death just when Farage's defence was crumbling with the British public.

EUROPE SHOULD DUMP FIFA AND THE IOC

Nik Jeelvy (and a flock of angry seagulls) make the case for Europe ending its relationship with corrupt international sporting organisations, like FIFA and the IOC, that have repeatedly bent over backwards to "sportswash" some of the worst states and individuals on the planet.

"OFFICIAL REASON" FOR GRAHAM DEATH CONSISTENT WITH "POPPER" USE

After a suspiciously long wait of almost 24 hours, we have finally been given the cause of death of Senator Lindsey Graham. As reported by the Washington Post: 

"Lindsey Graham died of aortic dissection, preliminary medical report says."

Unfortunately for the legacy of the "South Carolina Senator for Israel," this cause of death does not rule out the use of "poppers,"  a popular name for amyl nitrite, a drug often used in the gay community to enhance "alternative sexual experiences." 

A 2014 study of drug-related risks to gay men, found that poppers are linked to broader cardiovascular risks, including arrhythmias, myocardial ischemia, and higher incidence of cardiovascular disease, especially with heavy or chronic use. 

This is because Poppers can cause sudden drops in blood pressure (often 10–30 mmHg), reflex tachycardia (increased heart rate) as the body compensates, and temporary increases in heart workload and changes in blood flow and shear stress on blood vessel walls, like arteries.

The final verdict must remain open despite the attempts to "craft" a respectable narrative of the Senator's death. However, it can be said that an "aortic dissection" (essentially a tear in the body's largest artery) is entirely consistent with the thesis that Senator Graham may have used poppers in the hours and moments leading up to his death, whether he did or not.

Also consistent with what we can call "The Popper Hypothesis" is the timing of the incident, which occurred in the early evening, a time when most septuagenarians who are not engaged in drug-fuelled homosexual trysts with younger men are winding down with nice cup of cocoa or possibly a soothing smoky single malt.

In fact, heart attacks and aortic dissections both show a clear circadian (time-of-day) pattern, with peaks typically in the morning or early daytime hours, not at 7 or 8 pm when Senator Graham appears to have met his fate.

The narrative that Graham died from a non-popper related cardiac incident is therefore looking increasingly threadbare.

We at the Neokrat demand that the full truth be made known as soon as possible, as the gayness (or not) of US senators, especially those from Southern conservative "Bible Bashing" states, is a aspect of US politics that can provide dangerous blackmail leverage to foreign states and may even be behind America's involvement in its latest war against Iran.

LINDSEY GRAHAM DEAD AT 71: "POPPERS" SUSPECTED

Senator Graham standing next to a "gay rights" banner

Youthful 71-year-old US Senator and "MAGA war-hawk", Lindsey Graham has died suddenly in what can only be described as a "suspected poppers-related incident."

Although the cause of death is being officially hidden from the public and may be quite different, Graham was a relatively "young" US Senator with no serious pre-existing life-threatening medical conditions, so for him to suddenly keel over and die like this—in the middle of the US-Iran war that he long campaigned for and after a recent much-publicised trip to Disneyland—is highly suggestive of an "extraneous factor," like a potent chemical substance suddenly introduced into his bloodstream.

"Confirmed bachelor" Graham never openly identified as gay, due to the narrow-minded prejudices of voters from his "Bible-bashing" home state of South Carolina. Nevertheless, the four-times-elected US Senator was widely suspected of living a wild, gay lifestyle on the quiet.

Such a theorised "secret life" of anonymous hook-ups, possibly with hidden cameras recording every detail for future political leverage, would undoubtedly have included dalliances with much younger men and the need to "keep up" with them, possibly through taking a potent cocktail of chemical stimulants and relaxants that conceivably could have included Viagra and amyl nitrite, popularly known as "poppers."

According to the Mayo Clinic, Amyl nitrite should never be combined with vasodilators or erectile dysfunction medications like sildenafil (Viagra), avanafil, tadalafil, or vardenafil. Such a  combination causes a rapid and dangerous drop in blood pressure, which can lead to cardiac arrest or death. Alcohol can also magnify these blood pressure drops. 

Although Lindsey's sudden death may be entirely unrelated to an "alternative" sexual lifestyle, the sudden manner of his death and other circumstances of his life, like his willingness to continually bend over backwards to serve Israel, possibly due to gay blackmail, points heavily in this direction.

HOW IS MARK RUTTE MAKING OUT?

Former Dutch politician Rutte channelling the Little Dutch Boy in his latest role

Over recent months Mark Rutte, the Secretary General of NATO, has certainly made his bed and will definitely have to lie in it. Most people now see him as Trump's arse-kisser-in-chief, which is not exactly a great legacy to leave. 

At the recent NATO conference he was even asked by a Danish journalist:

"Mark, you sit next to Donald Trump in moments when he talks about conquering Greenland, when he talks about lashing out at allies like Spain, starting trade wars, things that the old Mark Rutte wouldn't have approved of. Does this have any effect on your self respect when you sit next to him like that and say nothing?" 

Ouch!

Rutte, of course, ignored the insult, and rambled on about other things that are not even in the same post-code as "self respect," claiming that Trump was having a "positive impact" on NATO.

Is this actually the case? Let's look at the stats.

I am not going to get dragged into debates here about Purchasing Power Parity or the fact that much of US military spending is obviously pork barrel to keep certain senators and congressmen happy, but will just stick to dollar values to keep it simple. 

If we go back to 2021, the entire global military budget was $2,113 billion, of which 37.9% ($801 billion) was spent by the US, while the rest of NATO accounted for 17.1% ($361 billion). 

In 2022, with Biden supposedly in charge and Russia now invading the Ukraine, the US share of global military spending had climbed to 39.2%  ($877 billion) while the rest of NATO fell to 15.8% ($355 billion). 

2023 saw some improvement: USA $916 billion (37.5%) vs. Other NATO $425 billion (17.4%). 

It was the same story in 2024, the last year of the Biden administration: USA $997 billion (36.7%) vs. Other NATO $425 billion (17.4%).

Now, let's consider 2025, the first year of Trump's second administration. What we see here is the same pattern as before but somewhat accelerated: USA $954 billion (33.0%) vs. Other NATO $627 billion (21.7%).

So what is the takeaway from all this? What we see here is that even before Rutte became a Trump suppository and started calling the Orange Baboon "Daddy" while laughing off his unhinged threats as cute little jokes, things were already moving in a Rutteian direction.

But how much did this have to do with Trump, Biden, or Rutte? Not very much, in my view. The real reason Europeans want to spend more on their militaries is simply because of the continuing war in the Ukraine and the perception, which was even there under Biden, that the USA is not someone you can rely to step up as an ally.

Even though Trump has turbocharged that perception, the rest of Europe has only gone from 17.1% to 21.7% of the global military budget. This is not really that much when you think about it, even though it might look like too much if Russia suddenly collapses.

So, overall, it looks like Rutte is largely an irrelevance. Almost anybody else in that position would be having a similar impact, although, unlike Rutte, they would probably be able to pull it off with a lot more self respect.  

THE AMERICAN SKIRMISH OF INDEPENDENCE

 

250 years of gay history

by Colin Liddell

Most history is "gay," by which I mean it is a mess of petty, incontinent, girlish emotions, designed to make morons cry and feel good about themselves, while they are manipulated and enslaved to the schemes of greater men.

Of course, in some cases, such as mobilising nations to fight wars of survival (Ukraine) or just preventing the riff-raff from shitting in the streets, the pride it instils may even be useful and necessary.

But, beyond this childish shadow play that satisfies the kind of people that Trump, Tommy Robinson, and Nigel Farage can effortlessly lead about on a string, some deference has to be paid to actual history, namely the processes, events, and realities that have shaped our World; while downgrading those that haven't had any influence on it. In other words, yes, it's time to take a big, fat dump on America's 250 "Anniversary" celebration and its circle-jerk of self-congratulation.

Let's cut to the chase. The so-called "American War of Independence" was not what we Europeans call a war. It certainly didn't have any battles as such! (Check Malplaquet, Zorndorf, and Waterloo for reference). It was mainly a series of crappy little skirmishes in various godforsaken wooded nooks and manure-infested cornfields, where a few dozen—or at best a few hundred—men died by bullets and bayonets. Many more, it is certain, were killed by dysentery and sheer boredom. 

Despite the astounding triviality and miniscule scale of these events, they have endured centuries of being backloaded with fake historical "significance" by an ever-burgeoning America, desperate and hungry to have some sort of "historical plinth" on which to perch its bloated bag of economic mass.

But the brutal fact is that the so-called "War of Independence" had zero impact on World history, unlike the war that preceded it, the Seven Years War.

Now, if that war had gone differently, all World history would have been altered and followed quite a different path. You can not say the same for the "American War of Independence." If that had never happened, America would eventually have become independent anyway, just like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Swaziland. Also, due to economic and demographic bloating, it would probably have become just as big, fat, ugly, and boomerish a state as it has become in the 20th century, although possibly with a better-looking king.

What is even more absurd, however, than the constant "Muh Founding Fathers" backdating of historical importance to this series of trivial skirmishes and inane debates is the ridiculous notion put about by contemporary American morons that the USA somehow "kicked England's ass."

It did not. First of all in the period 1776 to 1781 when the war raged puttered along, there was no such thing as the USA. The Colonies, such as they were, were just as British as Britain. They only later became what we know of as "America" when they let in every piece of riff-raff and human detritus that had a pulse.

Secondly, the so-called "American Skirmish of Independence," if it had any significance at all, was merely as a minor sideshow of the "Second Hundred Years War" between England and France, a global struggle between these two nations that started in 1701 with the War of the Spanish Succession (1702–1713), then continued through the War of the Austrian Succession (1744–1748), the Seven Years War (1756–1763), the Anglo-French War (1778–1783), the French Revolutionary War (1792-1802), and the Napoleonic War (1803–1815), ending in England's epic victory!

Yes, America only became independent because the French, backed up by their cronies the Dutch and Spanish, intervened.

Without French artillery, French troops, French money, and especially French ships (all used at Yorktown), the only hope of the American Revolutionaries was that the English would just get bored traipsing around tedious cornfields and dreary forests. Unlikely, as the English are a nation who watch cricket!

In short and to sum up, the American "War" of Independence was just a skirmish in a much bigger conflict that was temporarily won by the French. "Independence" was then effectively granted to the Americans by the French, who realised that they were not strong enough, especially at sea, to take North America back under their control. If they had been and their victory more complete, then America's proud Revolutionaries and Founding Fathers would doubtlessly ended up rotting in the Bastille or under the blade of the guillotine.