Former Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton: "As someone who has helped plan coup d'état—not here but, you know, other places—it takes a lot of work. That's not what [Trump] did."

— BREAKING: Sri Lanka's president flees to Maldives after protesters storm his home - @SkyNews

@TGNewsU

Japan, the land of the rising sun, the world of Tradition, the cult of ancestors, the cult of the elements - the Sun, the Moon, Water, mountains, streams, groves. The unique etiquette of the samurai. A warlike and heroic nation, mobilized for a common and total service to the highest solar ideal.

All this contrasted sharply with what we see in our homeland, in Germany and in Europe as a whole. Cosmopolitan cities, selfishness, capitalism, the market, venality, oblivion of higher ideals.

But at the same time, how close is Japan to the romantic soul of a German patriot, in love with German myths and legends, full of nostalgia for that golden feudal age, when Tradition flourished on the European continent — the age of Knights, Holy Empires and Magical Kings.

~ Karl Haushofer

The bear will leave its cave forever.

Looks like International Law is back on the menu.

UK Outraged After British Volunteer Dies In Russian Custody In Ukraine, Summons Ambassador

A British volunteer who had been arrested in April in the Russian-held southern Ukrainian city of Zaporizhzhia has died in captivity. He was being held by pro-Russian forces of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR) for "mercenary" activity.

British media and the UK government have long maintained that the 45-year old Paul Urey was an aid worker and was illegally detained. UK officials are outraged and are pressing the issue with Russian counterparts. "We are urgently raising this with our Ukrainian allies and the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs," the UK's Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office announced Friday.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/british-volunteer-dies-pro-russian-separatist-custody-ukraine

Response to Joel Davis on Atlanticism

Western friendship depended on America being a just guardian of international law and granting amnesty after WWII. Their exploitation of this unique position has been a catastrophe, not only for the European judicial order, but also against it – Americans have not escaped the consequences of this either. This catastrophe followed the worst injustice in history, which may never be righted. Nevertheless, it is essential to keep the extent of these events in mind, the degree of failure in the face of world power.

One cannot separate society from its mores and culture, they are part of its iconography. Despite the protests of a weak conservative position, and no matter the causes of gender wars, they represent a significant part of what the Western democratic order has become. To deny this is to miss something significant, especially regarding the underlying causes which led to the sexual revolution.
It may be partly a herald of the madness of the West, and also a response to the technical leverage placed on sexual mores. In any case, conservative s themselves are equally to blame and have not been able to create any substantial opposition.

Western unity is a falsehood, as much of the destructive order begins, both through colonialism and anti-colonialism, in and against the West. Germany was occupied and subjected to the worst humiliations, and today the whole of the West faces constant subterfuge and neutralisation by America and underground military agencies. To say that Eurasia could not have a unity in the face of this would be foolish. At the least they are far less divided than the West is now, and decades of pressure has brought them together out of necessity. This is not unlike the explosion of new countries admitted into the UN during the Cold War – enemies may be made into a legitimate union, if only temporarily, through radiating power of the great spaces.

In very broad terms, Western unity was based upon the Age of Discovery, the Peace of Westphalia, and Industrialisation. Each of these has come to an end, so there can be no return to a defeated Western unity. One must first understand the power and spatial shifts. What does this new era ask of us?

Decentralisation and depoliticisation will be absolutely necessary as the order shifts. However, I don't see a return of nation-states without the world dualism being resolved first. Nations and states will only be possible with a total world state or its destruction. Anything in between will only continue the interim, or mixed state, quality which acts against strong states and peoples.

Atlanticism has never been nationalist, its rise accompanies the final defeat of nations. And even if it were possible a new name would be necessary. If people are to rebuild the nations totally than the continental and world order can only undergo an even greater change. We must think in terms of a new millennium, and reconciling with the defeat of our nations. What part of a millennium would such an undertaking demand? This is the test of post-nationalism: building only after overcoming, not living from the defensive any longer. For us, we can only think of inheritance and sacrifice, that which was denied to us.

America did not uphold its duties to the West, and engaged in the worst injustices in history – for that there must be consequences. The possibility of an American uprising seems to have passed, so now it is a matter of divine intervention. Of course, they should not face vengeance or the world trials to which they subjected others, but their place on the world stage will have to be reconstituted; whether through war, civil war, revolution, or all at once. No matter, most people underestimate the changes that will, and must, take place in the coming years.

https://news.1rj.ru/str/joeldavisx/599

When I say that nationalism was defeated I don't mean it in the sense of a fait accompli, only that the great spaces won out. It does not mean that nations can never return, only that the forces underway are far greater than most on the Right seem to think. What we face is a power unlike any other in history, as Tocqueville pointed out long ago even "tyranny" and "despotism" fail to describe this new power. The first nationalists fought against it, but perhaps were incapable of seeing its extent, a destruction that would bring an end not only to states but to mythologies, religions, and value systems. There is a gigantic power that has grown over five hundred years, and the nations have been disposed of as old weapons, then tools.

The first nationalists were fighting from a position of defeat, and in short were attempting to carry on elements of the ancien regime – or arm themselves for the return of a Barbarossa figure. It is no mistake that the great figures of nationalism were Germans, they held a unique position within the European Revolution. One could even say that they were arming themselves for a fight that would inevitably come – their revolution was theological and philosophical. With the defeat of the German Revolution, and the defeat of national liberation struggles in general, there is nothing but the world conflict of spaces. It is hard to imagine a return of nations without confronting this, an order at least as powerful as what confronted the original nationalists. Herder's philosophy of language is an example we cannot repeat, however it suggests the degree to which we will be forced to change.

We might also look to a revolution or reordering of time. "Only in duration does time approach the irrational abyss that brings forth the cosmic event out of itself." Deep down, even the conservatives embrace apocalypse rather than revolution. It is thus hard to see that historical politics can be repeated, that it will solve such grave and non-political problems. That liberals have turned to conservatism has revealed their apocalyptic force, a force beyond the political.

If there is a return of nations they will not form as laws of historical time and order. We are not merely post-national, we are post-historical. We endure the end of an order of time, and not only formally in the sense of the millennium. This is essential to understanding Carl Schmitt's theology, and a nation being driven into the soil like a Cross which the world revolves around. Power is the first question; its form the second.

I do not know that Western governments fear nationalism so much as any opposition whatsoever. This is the essence of the party, parliamentarism, and the perfection of conflict. It is a matter of neutralising forces, if this were not the case there could not be a new social war each decade, and the abandonment of ideologies in the face of each crisis. Of course, the anti-globalisation movements were dealt with severely and totally, so what may seem as exclusive treatment of the right-wing is tied to the defeat of the left-wing. Each side gets a taste of neutralisation.

This is not to say that there is no danger, only that we should not focus on defense and weakness of governments. Democracy has its own formative power, it is not only destruction and negation. Where it is forced into crisis it does so mechanistically, much more coldly than any type of government that came before it. Automatic processes and weakness are often a sign of an absolute conclusion, a definitive end which unites all things. Ideology itself is not a danger, only the type of opposition hidden behind it, which makes one criminal and non-human.

The state of exception is misunderstood, what makes democracy so powerful is that it needs no state of exception – emergency measures and total mobilisation act ahead of it, prefigure its dangers. This speaks to an opposed theological form, and not an atheistic defense.

Nevertheless, I agree in regards to what has been expended in the past decades. There is a level of crisis that governments are increasingly unable to respond to, even to the point of causing more damage. But I think there remains a strong faith in democracy and conservatism – this will only end with a great deal of pain.

The rest is also interesting. With great danger comes great opportunity. A theological and apocalyptic nationalism is the only possibility for us, although I will emphasise the theological rather than national – it is a dynamic which gives the people its form. Post-nationalism in this sense welcomes a complete levelling, a gigantic war which can only form of a total world opposition.

Nations can only form of such mythological destruction. Not through will alone.

https://news.1rj.ru/str/ImperiumPressOfficial/1349

Strange documentary on feminism

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Al9CzVQVhLo

"On the horizon the light glances on the ruins of Puisieux. Looking at the white roofless walls surrounded by the skeletons of trees, one might fancy oneself surprised by the ghostly apparition of a phantom and extinct oasis in the midst of a desert. Not a sign of life as far as the eye can see, and death itself seems to have fallen asleep; for not a shot breaks the midday stillness of the front. No sound and no movement betrays the presence of whole regiments in hiding. There is utter peace, and only nature speaking to itself."
~ Ernst Jünger, Copse 125

"It will be proved to the hilt, if the war goes on, that whether in attack or defence, fighting can only be done in zones. But we must at the same time manage to rid ourselves once and for all of the disastrous idea of the line with which history and the drill-yard have saddled us all through the war. The simile of the steel cord, that I introduced just now, is equally false. The right one is that of a net into which the enemy may certainly penetrate here and there, but where he will at once be overwhelmed from all sides by a web of fire. Like the magician’s apprentice, we have never made ourselves thoroughly masters of the weapons whose power we dispose of. We do not realize that the frontal volley at short range is done with. We fight now with long-range machinery, diminutive centres of energy radiating a deadly effectiveness.

We shall no longer hold our ground shoulder to shoulder, but isolated from one another in small groups and distributed far and wide over the smoking country, conductors of elemental forces. And in the same way we shall attack as an army in echelon composed of venturesome machinery, under cover of rings of fire and armoured aeroplanes, and controlled from a central point by flash-signals. Here we have the picture of the great battle of automata which consists in this—that two strongly organized and yet at all points highly mobile zones of power, whose molten edges flow into one another, attempt to turn each other from an ordered array into a chaos of useless iron and enervated mobs. A test like this, in which a number of entirely unpremeditated battles will necessarily be set in motion at one time, will give the clear and incontestable proof whether a nation deserves to survive, or whether it has played its part and must make way for a stronger and therefore a better one. Its equipment will be put to the proof and weighed up, its achievements, therefore, in science and industry—in short, only the best and most fit will be in the running. Indisputable testimony will be given, in the discipline of large bodies of men and in the capacity of the command for bold organization on a large scale, of a nation’s fitness for empire. And finally, it will be shown whether a civilized nation has so much future left it, and so compelling an appeal to its sons, that it can find hundreds of thousands of young men of high intelligence and iron heart who have still life’s joys before them and yet, in the midst of the frightful loneliness of battle, count the destruction of all they know and are and might be as nothing compared with the greatness of the idea within them. All this will come to the ordeal and much more besides. It is to be hoped that we shall always have a manhood to meet this test with joy and courage; it is equally to be hoped that it may not fall to the lot of every generation.

We shall always be proud nevertheless that it fell to our lot."

~ Ernst Jünger, Copse 125

"You know, I need hardly remind you, it is not numbers or strength that gives victory in war; but, heaven helping them, to one or other of two combatants it is given to dash with stouter hearts to meet the foe, and such onset, in nine cases out of ten, those others refuse to meet. This observation, also, I have laid to heart, that they, who in matters of war seek in all ways to save their lives, are just they who, as a rule, die dishonourably; whereas they who, recognising that death is the common lot and destiny of all men, strive hard to die nobly: these more frequently, as I observe, do after all attain to old age, or, at any rate, while life lasts, they spend their days more happily."
~ Xenophon