Ukraine

Can somebody tell me why Russia has invaded Ukraine and destroyed thousands of buildings, including hospitals and schools, and killed and wounded thousands of innocent people by launching missiles at residential buildings and shooting innocent Ukrainian citizens for no reason ? What is the justification for this aggression ?

Those 2 sources were a couple from hundreds. But considering it appears to be too upsetting for you to read about Putins wealth (I mean, who could get wound up about that other than a Putin arse licker ) then maybe you would care to produce some more 'credible' sources that report on how skint he is . Do you have any ?

What is your problem with the invasion? Do you get this upset at every invasion?

The question as to which side should White Nationalists support in the current Ukrainian war is a hot topic of debate right now.

Nationalists and White Nationalists are divided over the conflict.

My view is that I want what is best for White people, and what is best for the Ukrainian and Russian people, and for the soonest end to the conflict that can be worked out, with an agreement that both sides can live with.

Over the weekend Traditional-Catholic (meaning that he rejects Vatican II and pretends to be fighting the Joos) Dr. E. Michael Jones debated Dr. Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents webzine. Both EMJ and GJ are weak on the Holocaust but not extremely so. GJ is a "Big Tent" White Nationalist meaning that he doesn't reject most civic nationalists, Holocaust Deniers, or Nazis.

I am not an admirer of E. Michael Jones, anti-Semite or not. I think he is faking it ─ giving some lip service to Revisionists and White Nationalists. EMJ literally sees no difference besides color between a (White) Irishman and a Negro as long as they both have taken the Latin Rite sacraments. He criticizes Jews only because they are the enemy of Christ.

I missed the second part of the debate and will have to finish it later, but it is available at Odysee:



After the debate, Greg Johnson published an article on Counter-Currents that I think is well worth reading.


 EMJ endlessly repeats the charge that supporting Ukrainian nationalists might as well be advocating for the "Gay Disco" (referring to the 2016 terrorist attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida by a Jihadi) and this argument is pretty weak. Greg Johnson says in the debate that he does NOT support promoting LGBTQ.

Dr. E. Michael Jones is famous for strawmanning and baldly mischaracterizing his opponent's positions in debates.

So I am leaning slightly towards Dr. Johnson in this matter of supporting the self-determination of the Ukrainian people. However, I am extremely skeptical of the idea of supporting them materially rather than just morally, and certainly not militarily. The current Ukrainian regime is (((Kosher))) and therefore not laudable. The fact that the Usual Suspects in Washington and the EU are calling for war against Russia is extremely suspect.

I am skeptical of NATO and think that it mostly ended its usefulness when the Soviet Union broke apart. I also don't think it is a good idea expanding NATO into former Soviet Union territories with the exception of the Baltic states and Moldova. Belarus does not want to join NATO and is loyal to Moscow. However, Johnson makes a good point that had Ukraine joined NATO, Putin could not have invaded.

The point of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was Article 5, that an attack upon one is an attack upon all. This is a very good deterrent, especially since it is tipped with nuclear weapons.

On the other hand, I think centuries-old Russian claims to a warm-water port and the Sevastopol naval base are legitimate.

And I don't agree with the argument in some circles that had the Warsaw Pact expanded to Canada (as part of supposed Canadian self-determination) it would have necessarily meant World War III. There would have been plenty of Liberal Internationalists or Neoconservative Chickenhawks in Washington that would have only been too happy seeing a Berlin Wall at Toronto if that is what Canadian (((Commies))) wanted.

Although I agreed with vigilant postwar containment of Communism, except proxy-wars, the "Containment Doctrine" espoused by George F. Kennan basically postulated that it was okay to fight Germany to Unconditional Surrender or even Genocide over Danzig or the Sudetenland (or whatever) in World War II because Hitler was an Evil dictator (i.e., anti-Semitic). But the Soviets on the other hand, they could be reasoned with, so signing treaties with them was Agreement not Appeasement. Of course, this premise is faulty. Plus, certain traitorous circles handed over nuclear weapons technology to the Soviets from the start, so there's that.

As far as the war in Ukraine, it is an interesting dilemma, but the sooner the conflict is over with, the better.

Based on some of the reporting in the mainstream news media, I think it is time for the United States to start testing nuclear weapons underground again, and especially conscripting the scions of the elite for military training as in the old days. I'd love to see Chickenhawks like Fox News' Sean Hannity on the business end of an entrenching tool.