Twitter cuts (#17)


The crucial embedded Vladimir Lukin citation:

It is in the genes. America has a simple ideology – that there is only one truth in the world, that truth is held by God, and God created the United States to be an embodiment of that truth. So the Americans strive to bring this truth to the rest of the world and to make it happy. Only after that will everything be well. This ideology has a strong influence on their policy. A wise traditionalist and a geopolitical expert, Kissinger had good reason to call such politicians “Trotskyites” for advocating a world revolution, albeit in their own way, but always in the front and in shining armor.

May 7, 2015admin 45 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Ideology

TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

45 Responses to this entry

  • Brett Stevens Says:

    America has a simple ideology – that there is only one truth in the world, that truth is held by God, and God created the United States to be an embodiment of that truth.

    I find it interesting people see this place as very religious, since it is generally not except in rural areas.

    The American philosophy: we succeed because we are morally right, based in the 1861 ideal of accepting everyone as equals in the proposition nation.

    In other words, the same internationalism that the French Revolutionaries embraced and later, the Bolsheviks adopted.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 7th, 2015 at 1:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • Twitter cuts (#17) | Neoreactive Says:

    […] Twitter cuts (#17) […]

    Posted on May 7th, 2015 at 1:50 pm Reply | Quote
  • Orthodox Says:

    Of course Russia groks it. Russia helped spread the current iteration of this ideology in America. To some extent this is Russia’s blowback.

    [Reply]

    chris b Reply:

    No. AIACC . How many times do we have to keep going over this?

    [Reply]

    Nick B. Steves Reply:

    Obviously AIACC. But that doesn’t mean that her children couldn’t infect her with their own, intentionally engineered, genetic variations. It’s undeniable that the USSR actively sought (and paid for) cultural destabilization in the US through at least the 60s.

    [Reply]

    chris b Reply:

    What is the obsession with the 1960’s? The USA was built on leftism and has been squirting leftism out of every pore onto the world since the 17th century. Also, given the CIA was funding feminism, modern art and degeracy, the only way the Russian commuist angle makes any sense is if you want to use it as a foil against which to structure a crass American patriotism.

    n/a Reply:

    You can repeat stupid shit moldbug told you as many times as you want. It still won’t make it true.

    http://racehist.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-jew-in-american-politics-part-7.html

    http://racehist.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-jew-in-american-politics-part-4.html

    [Reply]

    Rasputin Reply:

    Joo! Joo!

    n/a Reply:

    Note: stupid shit moldbug told you includes eye dialect “Joo”, and saying “Joos” does not constitute an argument (at least, not an argument in favor of anything except your own intellectual and/or social insecurity and the successful exploitation of this insecurity by the originator of the nerd cult you’ve attached yourself to).

    Zimriel Reply:

    n/a has found the unified theory of everything

    n/a assumes that those who disagree are “attached to” a “cult”

    n/a Reply:

    zimriel,

    No, I assume those who mindlessly parrot obvious nonsense from moldbug are members of his cult.

    E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Reply:

    fortunately, it is a jooish cult

    chris b Reply:

    @n/a the full retardation of the Jew thing has only become apparent to me since talking to NRx circles. I mean, serioiusly, it really is a bizzarre thing. All of the complexity of the past can be boiled down to some minority with what can only be described as superpowers.

    What really gets me is that there are plenty of places on the internet where you can congregate and talk about Jew degenerecy, so why did Jew obsessed people attach themselves to an MM catalysed group? There is an obvious unhinged monomania apparent in this behavior.

    But, whatever, sure Jews mind controlled the french revolution, the English puritans and the liberalism of USA intellectuals. The KGB then funded leftism in the USA via cultural marxists and helped Jews undermine the place. Because obviously west civ would be rolling along perfectly without them.

    NRx really is a mindless little shell of retardation now.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    “All of the complexity of the past can be boiled down to some minority with what can only be described as superpowers.”

    That’s what makes it so great. Don’t think, just gas the jews. Thinking is bad. You know why? Cause the jews are good at thinking. And they are bad. Ergo thinking is bad too. Ergo gas thinking as well.

    There. White nationalist logic explained.

    [Reply]

    pseud-chrysostom Reply:

    this is some impressive signalling, i almost forgot i was in the reactosphere and not huffpo for a moment there even.

    pseudo-chrysostom Reply:

    i find it ironic you invoke ‘boiling down the complexity of the past’ in one breath here, while in the next blithely papering over observations such as the fact that there was this thing called the union of soviet socialist republics, which was a thing that indeed did exist, which had its own people, its own interests, and had people most assiduously pursuing those interests, internationally even.

    [Reply]

    n/a Reply:

    chris b,

    Jews are merely “some minority”, and the idea that they’ve played a disproportionate role in advancing leftism is “bizzarre”, any sort of proposed disproportionate Jewish influence being equated to “superpowers”.

    John Reed, journalist, as single-handed vector of communism from America to Russia (where Marxists were organizing before he was born) and fomenter of the Mexican revolution, on the other hand, is perfectly obvious once moldbug explains it to you, and deeply convincing.

    Since your brain shut down when you saw the word “Jew”, I’ll try to explain this to you slowly. I did not include the links primarily to argue anything about Jews, but as a courtesy to those who don’t grasp that the moldbug precept “America is a communist country” is self-evidently idiotic.

    (1) The unstated obvious: “communism” has a definition. America has never been a full-blown communist country, and to the extent it’s moved in that direction over the past century, it’s moved less than pretty much every country in Europe.

    (2) The point of the first link: actual Communists in America were extremely disproportionately Jewish / Finnish / Baltic / Slavic. Native stock Americans were rare. John Reed was not remotely representative of Communist party members or sympathizers in America. But Moldbug finds a single Communist with New England ancestry, concocts a version of history in which he plays a pivotal role, and nerds like you eat this shit up, convinced that believing in this brand of nonsense marks you as simultaneously edgy and safely non-bigoted (unlike unsophisticated “Joo” obsessives). And, of course, highly intelligent.

    (3) The point of the second link: American experiments in utopian socialism sprang directly from known, 18th/19th century French and British thinkers, not 17th-century New England Puritans.

    The title of the posts is that of the book they feature excerpts from (“The Jew in American Politics”), written by half-Jewish Communist-turned-anticommunist Nathaniel Weyl, a more competent, 1960s version of moldbug; the book, despite the scary title, is simply a recitation of standard history (as opposed to moldbug’s nerdbait pseudo-history) and an apology for Jews that’s more convincing than moldbug’s, if ultimately unsatisfying.

    [Reply]

    chris b Reply:

    @pseudo-chrysostom – The whole point of MM was breaking the features of power down using insights from overlooked right wing intellectuals and history. This involved the observation that the US and anglo culture is pretty much commie to the core. This involves acknowledging serious internal problems, which clash with WN/ current NRx, alt-right proposed solutions of LOVE YOUR RACE and WE JUST HAVE TO HAVE THE RIGHT ATTITUDE, BRAH.

    @hurlock Wn or NRx? can’t tell them apart now.

    [Reply]

    pseudo-chrysostom Reply:

    and my whole point is that many in these circles seem to consistently suffer from the age old spectrum affliction of monocausalism.

    the observation that conservative sanity is infact a series of un-principled exceptions to the fundamentally revolutionary ideals they ostensibly believe in does not translate to their counterparts otherwise arrayed against them not existing or not ‘mattering’. beings are much more antifragile than the ideas of beings, as long as you have the same people, you can count on the same ideas, if with different window dressings. hence, consistent conservative inconsistency with revolutionary principles, and hence, the consistent insanity of persons in opposition to them.

    really, comments like hurlocks would not be out of place on revleft, there are few bogeyman more popular with the current orthodoxy than white nationalists. i believe you should reflect on your priors if they lead you to that same company.

    or atleast, try to have a bit more tact.

    [Reply]

    chris b Reply:

    @pseudo-chrysostom “Their are few bogeymen more popular” The casual assumption that my issues with WN are a signaling mechanism is laughable. Signalimg to whom? and what sort of nuance exists in thinking “I oppose A, so I support B which A hates”

    As for monocausism, if this is refering to AIACC, then that assumption is due to a serious misreading of the hypothesis. The whole superstructure of De Jouvenels minotaur and Power dynamic on which it rests, as well as the prot revolutionaryism —> communism line are multi- layered, complex concepts with multiple cause operating in tandem.

    [Reply]

    pseudo-chrysostom Reply:

    >Signalimg to whom?

    well to draw a metaphor, i dont think most women go through their lives consciously thinking theyre going fuck someone on the side once theyve secured a provider, but it happens anyways.

    im simply commenting on the curious phenomena of erstwhile reactionaries resurrecting old post-racial utopia canards. of course we’ve seen such ideas before, and they still live with us amongst the libertarians. many of those thinkers were reactionary like many here now are reactionary; when they said meritocracy certainly they ment it, they held few illusions of human equality. and yet, their ideas did not merely fail, but infact helped provide rationalizations that further opened the intellectual floodgates that lead to our current situations (see for example radishmags ‘white right’).

    whether it was lingering psychological predisposition to avoidance of devalidation and therefore inclusiveness (hence, a *denatured* principle of ‘merit’, defined to varying degrees of felicity), sheer cognitive blindspots, or more besides, the trouble is that they just didint seem to quite properly grok human biodiversity; not just the ways some people are different, but also the ways some people are the same, too nominalistic.

    >and what sort of nuance exists in thinking “I oppose A, so I support B which A hates”

    the nuance is that A: different ideas are less wrong than others, B: average people, and above average people too, tend to have difficulty idealizing more than one or two concepts, thus C: it behooves us then for people to believe in ideas that are *good enough*.

    to wit, people believing in something like racial nationalism would be preferable compared to many of the other memes floating out there on the whole, and more importantly they have shown more resistance to memetic mutations relative to the same, which is certainly an important, if not the most important, part of any ideology (and the people *will* have an ideology, if not from you, it will come from elsewhere). in short, things like that are ‘good enough’, and as any reactionary should know, the perfect is the enemy of the good.

    [Reply]

    chris b Reply:

    @n/a If you are going to apply a scrict definition of communism as being that brand of leftism put forward by Marx and the Bolsheviks, then you shoot you own argument in the foot. They were fairly conservative and based on the land. Pellicani correctly terms them Spartans opposed to cosmopolitan. This always confuses me about those who lap up the cultural marxism crap.

    If however, we widen the use of communism (or replace it with progism) then we can see the progressive/communist nature of protestants of the English civil war, The progressives of the French revolution and the progressivness baked into a nation (the USA) which was built by prots/progs as a proposition nation.

    [Reply]

    an inanimate aluminum tube Reply:

    America is a communist country was fun as a thought experiment for one blog post.

    But it shouldn’t be an excuse to obscure the fact that America is, and has always been, first and foremost, a liberal country.

    A country where even the conservatives are liberals. Where even a lot of the reactionaries are liberals.

    This is probably the natural end result of such a country. But the pace and intensity of the liberal craziness did accelerate substantially in the 60s when a certain group assumed power.

    [Reply]

    The Index Reply:

    This is where it gets a bit hazy for me. If by ‘a certain group’ we’re talking about the Brahmin caste, Woodrow Wilson (as close to an avatar for Brahmins, progressivism, Universalism, etc, as you can get) was elected in 1913, putting us 50 years out of sync and perhaps leaving the 60’s lurch to the left in need of independent explanation…

    ultraZEN Reply:

    Jews are an additional and accelerating, but not a necessary part of the equation. The metaphysical frameworks underpinning universalism, egalitarianism and progressivism were not hatched by Jews.

    For every Jew you find advancing some prog degeneration, you will find twenty northwestern white europeans pushing the cart along with willing hands.

    The prog train was underway long before Jews became a part of the Western elites, and the train will not halt its course by blaming and tossing imaginary SuperJews off the wagon.

    n/a Reply:

    “But it shouldn’t be an excuse to obscure the fact that America is, and has always been, first and foremost, a liberal country.”

    The Enlightenment was a product of France and Britain, not 17th century New England. And regardless of what pieties they mouthed, America’s founders were not particularly leftist.

    If America has been uniquely liberal from the start, why is every country in Europe to the left of America?

    an inanimate aluminum tube Reply:

    “The Enlightenment was a product of France and Britain, not 17th century New England.”

    That’s true. Never said otherwise.

    “And regardless of what pieties they mouthed, America’s founders were not particularly leftist.”

    But they did create founding documents based on principles of classical LIBERALISM.

    “If America has been uniquely liberal from the start, why is every country in Europe to the left of America?”

    Because you’re confusing leftism and liberalism. America may or may not be to the
    “right” of every country in Europe, but the idea that America is more liberal than Europe is not controversial.

    “Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. …Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programs such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, and international cooperation.”

    Despite American influence, Euros STILL don’t care about a lot of that stuff.

    “Liberalism rejected the notions, common at the time, of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property,[9] while adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law.”

    “Classical liberals were committed to individualism, liberty and equal rights.”

    American conservatives… are liberals. And as such, they are committed, at some level, to the belief in liberty and equality. This makes it difficult for them to effectively resist arguments that are framed as being about more liberty and more equality.

    And in hindsight, this toxic combination of universalism and individualism was ripe for exploitation by clannish outsiders. It’s one thing to have an individualistic frame of mind, but it is a terrible mistake to project that frame of mind onto other groups that may not share it to the same extent.

    n/a Reply:

    iat,

    “Because you’re confusing leftism and liberalism.”

    I know what “classical liberalism” is. You used “liberalism” in the current American sense (“liberal craziness did accelerate substantially in the 60s”) in the same breath you claimed “America is, and has always been, first and foremost, a liberal country”.

    “Despite American influence, Euros STILL don’t care about a lot of that stuff.”

    Of those ideas, I’d say only two have much greater currency in America than Europe (freedom of speech and free markets).

    “civil rights” – every bit as central to the worldview of Western Europeans, certainly, as Americans; just with an even more leftwing interpretation of “civil rights”

    “democratic societies” – support for “democracy” and universal suffrage is more or less ubiquitous now; but if you look at an issue like disenfranchisement of felons, the US is still to the right of most of Europe. Several European countries have compulsory voting, or take other measures to encourage voter turnout.

    “secular governments” – more intense support for this in places like France than in America

    “international cooperation” – definitely more highly emphasized in Europe than America

    “And in hindsight, this toxic combination of universalism and individualism was ripe for exploitation by clannish outsiders. It’s one thing to have an individualistic frame of mind, but it is a terrible mistake to project that frame of mind onto other groups that may not share it to the same extent.”

    I don’t entirely disagree. But if America had remained part of the British empire, I think we’d be in pretty much the same place today, if not worse off.

    Earlier, you said: “This is probably the natural end result of such a country.” France in 1776 was an absolute monarchy. Is modern France “the natural and end result of such a country”? Was Communist Russia a natural end result of Tsarist Russia?

    “absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings”

    These are not institutions that existed in Europe from time immemorial.

    an inanimate aluminum tube Reply:

    >>I know what “classical liberalism” is. You used “liberalism” in the current American sense (“liberal craziness did accelerate substantially in the 60s”) in the same breath you claimed “America is, and has always been, first and foremost, a liberal country”.

    Right, America was a classical liberal country and modern liberalism grew out of that. Making America, first and foremost, a liberal country. As it turned out, the classical liberalism of 1776 was not stable, but it gradually evolved to become more… liberal. I’m not philo-Semetic but it must be remembered that we gave women the vote more or less on our own.

    >>”Of those ideas, I’d say only two have much greater currency in America than Europe (freedom of speech and free markets).”

    In theory freedom of the press as well, but yeah, those are the main ones I was thinking of. The right to own guns is another relevant example, although not mentioned in the wiki-definition, it is justified using classical liberal ideas and that aspect especially is very alien to much of Europe.

    >>”I don’t entirely disagree. But if America had remained part of the British empire, I think we’d be in pretty much the same place today, if not worse off. ”

    No doubt. Clearly something went terribly, terribly wrong with Britain. We need to find out what so that we can make sure it never happens again.

    >>Earlier, you said: “This is probably the natural end result of such a country.” France in 1776 was an absolute monarchy. Is modern France “the natural and end result of such a country”? Was Communist Russia a natural end result of Tsarist Russia?

    Many here might disagree, but I’d say that yes, violent and destructive revolution is potentially one natural end result of absolute monarchy. Specifically absolute monarchy, more so than traditional monarchy or traditional society in general, where power was distributed rather differently. (lattice structure)

    Absolute monarchy has a single failure point. If all power is concentrated in the hands of the king and you end up with a bad or weak king, you’re in trouble.

    And pushing things too far is liable to provoke a reaction. It’s not hard to get people to believe the king is special. He has a pointy hat and golden armor after all. But maybe that is a bluff that is best not taken too far.

    After all, there is a simple way to physically rebut the idea that any particular king was chosen to rule by God. Ideas like divine right and absolutism just cry out for counter-ideologies that are willing to call King’s bluff.

    One thing we can say in favor of liberalism is that by spreading power around and setting up a variety of countervailing forces, it failed more slowly and much less spectacularly. We’re just lucky enough to be born at a later stage of the failure.

    n/a Reply:

    chris b,

    “Marx and the Bolsheviks [. . .] were fairly conservative and based on the land.”

    “we can see the progressive/communist nature of protestants of the English civil war [. . .] and the progressivness baked into a nation (the USA)”

    You’re not a remotely serious person.

    Bolsheviks are “conservative” and 17th century Puritans and 18th century American founders are “progessive/communist”?

    No, if these terms any have meaning, this does not work. You’re not clever for saying stupid shit like this.

    If you don’t like America, fine. If you don’t like Protestants, and identify with Catholics, fine. If you’re part Jewish, and wish to take the side of Jews, fine. You don’t need a reason. You don’t need to make up excuses. You don’t need to latch onto retarded theories. Ingroup loyalty is normal.

    Jonathan Haidt identifies a number of “moral foundations”:

    Care/harm: cherishing and protecting others.
    Fairness/cheating: rendering justice according to shared rules. (Alternate name: Proportionality)
    Liberty/oppression: the loathing of tyranny.
    Loyalty/betrayal: standing with your group, family, nation. (Alternate name: Ingroup)
    Authority/subversion: obeying tradition and legitimate authority. (Alternate name: Respect.)
    Sanctity/degradation: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions. (Alternate name: Purity.)

    Based on tests of modern liberals, “Haidt has argued that liberals stress only three of the moral foundations (harm, fairness, and liberty) in their reasoning while conservatives stress all six more equally.”

    This conceptualization of leftism, the idea that many leftist tendencies emerge from inherited moral predispositions, makes considerably more sense to me than moldbug’s absurd “cladistic” one.

    And if one does want to trace the intellectual genealogy of modern progressivism, there’s no question it owes more to Marxism (and, after Marxism, continental philosophy in general) than 17th Puritanism.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    See, saying “stupid shit” all the time does not improve your rhetoric.

    chris b Reply:

    @N/A These discussions with american patriots like you always go along the same path – No the USA is not leftist/commie/prog because that is all european jew stuff etc followed by insinuations that I‘m maybe Jewish.

    At this point I would recomend reading ‘revolutionary apocalypse’ by pellicani. There are many other books that make same point, but this one is very easy reading and is free online. The roots of leftism in puritanism/xtianity are clear and overwhelming.

    Seriously though, the overrunning of NRx by Christfag apologists, paleo-con-patriots and WNers is deranged.

    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    Plenty of us take Haidt as authoritative. Isn’t he Jewish?

    Erebus Reply:

    “A nice Jewish boy from central casting” as per the WSJ.

    That aside, the Jew-obsessed are deranged. ultraZEN’s comment is the best on this thread — his position corresponds exactly to my own, and I think that it’s basically the canonical NRx position.

    chris b Reply:

    @an inanimate aluminum This is anouther of those areas where I get the distinct sense of being conned by the whole NRx thing. As far as I can see placing reactionary thought on deep systemic power analysis was the whole MM thing, NRx has dumped all over this repeatedly.
    Were and are Jews very predominent in left psychosis – yes. Were/are they *really* actors or are they merely cogs in a power machine that is running blindly as per Jouvenel’s Minataur (and is intertwined with progism/leftism/xtianity.)

    Obviously they are scheming together and have super manipulation abilities. This is really good because then reactionaries can simplify rectification of the problem to the following simple equation: Remove Jews + love your people = win.
    The other option is to analyse the power dynamic and produce something scary and effective. But that is boring. Too hard.

    [Reply]

    an inanimate aluminum tube Reply:

    “Were/are they *really* actors or are they merely cogs in a power machine that is running blindly as per Jouvenel’s Minataur (and is intertwined with progism/leftism/xtianity.)”

    Why can’t they be both? I don’t draw a bright line distinction between actor and cog.

    Some WNs deny agency to white progs but grant it to Jews. “White progs got swept up in a Jewish intellectual movement”

    Some NRXers deny agency to Jews, but grant it to white progs. “Jews got swept up in white progressivism”.

    I’d suggest that both white progs and Jews have *some* agency, but not as much as they might like to think. Same for us. To some extent, we’re all cogs and our “freely chosen” actions are the result of larger processes beyond our control.

    But we still send people to jail when they rob liquor stores, even though there are a variety of complex factors that led to the robbery.

    [Reply]

    SanguineEmpiricist Reply:

    never stop writing NIO

    [Reply]

    chris b Reply:

    @an inanimate aluminum tube “I’d suggest that both white progs and Jews have *some* agency, but not as much as they might like to think. Same for us. To some extent, we’re all cogs and our “freely chosen” actions are the result of larger processes beyond our control.” – then we are reading from the same page then.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 7th, 2015 at 2:04 pm Reply | Quote
  • scientism Says:

    I guess there are two parts to this. On the one hand, America has a particular ideology and I think we can all agree that it needs to die. On the other, it seems that what he’s referring to is the idea that there’s one truth (whatever its content may be) and that this is ‘in the genes’. If the current ideology changes, will America – or, better, the Anglosphere – stop believing there’s one truth in the world that needs to triumph above all others? Probably not.

    The current ideology appears to be abolishing itself (since the one truth now takes the form of self-abolishing pluralism). It’s also abolishing the Anglo people in the process. Should it fail to destroy us all, I suspect we’ll be back to our old tricks eventually.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 7th, 2015 at 5:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • Twitter cuts (#17) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on May 7th, 2015 at 5:26 pm Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    Obama said in his UN speach: – America is exceptional.

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 7th, 2015 at 6:18 pm Reply | Quote
  • Lucian of Samosata Says:

    In his ‘Diplomacy’ Kissinger praises the realism of true statesmen such as Richelieu, Metternich, and Bismarck, against the Trotskyite messianism of Woodrow Wilson.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    While a very good historian Kissinger tends to miss the crucial difference between Richelieu and Bismarck on the one hand and Metternich on the other. The first two were instrumental in paving the way for the further development of popular government in their respective states (even if it wasn’t entirely on purpose), the latter one attempted to do the opposite, but ultimately failed. They were all realists, but realism and ruthless power-politics can be dangerous in the grand scheme of things especially if they are short-sighted. Of course neither Richelieu, nor Bismarck suspected that the reforms they made in order to transform their states into superpowers would one day lead to the degeneracy of their respective political systems into popular democracies of the most destructive kind the world has ever known, paving the way for the rise of figures like Napoleon and Hitler respectively. There is a valuable lesson to be found in the histories of both these cunning statesmen (Richelieu and Bismarck), and an important question must be raised about them: was their political success a failure in the long run? Were their reforms a mistake in the grand scheme of things? Could have history progressed otherwise with and without their respective political reforms?

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 7th, 2015 at 9:54 pm Reply | Quote
  • Daws Says:

    don’t b such babies! this is great news! we’re learning that another important state has sound views, and that we should expect them to help temper American lawlessness

    [Reply]

    Posted on May 8th, 2015 at 12:16 am Reply | Quote
  • Lightning Round – 2015/05/13 | Free Northerner Says:

    […] accidentally prints the truth on Russo-American relations. Related: A Russian understands America. Related: A summary can’t do this justice: read this. Related: Putin is America’s […]

    Posted on May 13th, 2015 at 5:01 am Reply | Quote

Leave a comment