Steve Bannon's Secret Plan

[@gavranarh]

Hi Michael; long time follower and listener. Not sure if what I'm about to say is a realistic suggestion, one that fits at all with your daily schedule, teaching, researching obligations etc. Whether you're the right person to do it I'm also not too sure about, but it seems clear that someone ought to do it: a book. In the course of reading this article you mentioned on several occasions how it's beneficial and important to be familiar with various thinkers and ideas which the article touches upon in order to better understand Bannon, MAGA, Vance or the article itself. The book I'm suggesting would be exactly that, an introductory level book titled something like "The Online Right - A Reader" which would cover, in chronological or thematic order, the overview of the most important thinkers, crucial ideas and concepts from Plato to BAP and Yarvin, tracing a through line that connects the dots and delineates this vague field called the Online Right (there are other names, as you well know, but the idea is to frame it as vaguely and as broadly to include as much many as possible interested and active in this field). The book, in my opinion, should be calibrated for an intelligent novice, a layman or a liberal even, so neutral and not overly technical in tone. An example would be Tom Hollands "Dominion" which I'd recommend to anyone, in which he skillfully balances history, theology, biography with a great narrative style. I'm not necessarily suggesting you write a history, but something that is a bit looser than a textbook and more substantial and intellectually nutritious than an essay. Now that we have Lom3z and Passage press, this might not be that far fetched? I think this would be a great resource for many people that flock to your channel anyway, but all in one place and with a consistent and systemic broad overview. I think the writing of it would give you a chance to also systematize your own thinking and to better position yourself within this space, where you're already present anyway. The thing you should absolutely do, besides, is to record an audio version of that book - for better or worse this is really a must, a must, in your own voice or even read by an AI - I think even Audible does AI audiobooks nowadays. Anyway, thank you for the things you do. I really appreciate not only the content you produce (excuse the pejorative "content") but also how you manage to make it feel almost intimate and shared between you and the individual viewer - I think this is your great strength: even though you're dealing with abstract and all-encompassing subjects, you still create a personal atmosphere that makes it easier for the viewer to relate and to believe these things are not only important but useful.

[@DrRhysPritchardPhDMScBSc]

Brilliant. Thank you. Those who run Washington, financiers, must be looking to moving their money behind those who carry guns desperately? Pity their money is made of paper and algorithms not hard capital? Looks like those who carry guns may want minerals , food and chemicals, not fiat currency? A house made of paper is soon to replaced by one made of BRICS?

[@sonarbangla8711]

All the philosophical pitfalls becomes clear when readers recall "economics decides everything:, gives new meaning to "it is the economy, idiot". Dugen is needed to make Americans and Bannon accept multipolar world.

[@Jared0203]

Very good idea.

[@JuanPerez-jx3np]

I truly respect that you foresaw this big big big shift in political history. The push for an end to liberal domination and the coming back of the nation as a political entity. You have being bullied for studying Dugin but boy have things turned around!

[@cnektp1]

I hope your channel continues to grow. I also hope that my comments may be even the slightest contributing factor to your encouragement to continue, as you mentioned in the video. Listened to you on zero hour 💪🏻 let’s go! 🧠

[@csk4j]

still grateful for introducing me to Dugin years ago👍🏻

[@hansnoeldner1861]

Thanks!

[@millerman]

Thank you

[@lazarus_8589]

Would you ever do a livestream about the current situation in Canada?

[@olegkirovskii2720]

Лицом к лицу лица не увидать. Большое видится на расстоянии! (Which is a Russian verse that in my poor translation sounds something like "You can't see a big thing from close up. A big thing should be observed from far away". All this just to say thank you to Michael who explained Dugin to me in an understandable way, a task I failed in despite reading Dugin's books in their original versions)

[@davidpuente2194]

Wonderful stuff. Thanks for what you do.

[@bretrohde7300]

Quite an excellent video. Thanks, Michael.

[@geos3593]

I liked the article. after I read it I said, “Bet millerman covers it”

[@FilterHQ]

Quality content..thank you :)

[@mikecook7334]

Illuminating….thank you, Michael.

[@kittenlang333]

Loved this! You cover stuff I would never have time to discover. Would you consider putting chapters in your videos? I don't know if it's a lot of work and I do know it's a selfish request. But I'm still asking just in case🤗✌🏼

[@jonsmall2993]

Great reading, thanks !!

[@andrewkoretsky2695]

Interesting, informative. Thank you.

[@gabrielguitarman]

Great video, Michael. Olavo is yet to be studied, even here in Brazil. My master thesis on Voegelin was, in part, an effort to pursue one of Olavo´s research leitmotiffs. BTW, I would love to share some words with you! You should do some Voegelin/Olavo here. Warm regards from Brazil

[@calebmundle5948]

Unfamiliar with Olavo but love Voeglin. What connection did you explore?

[@gabrielguitarman]

@@calebmundle5948 Well, Olavo was at the same time a preacher for Voegelin´s work, a critic and a continuator. I´ve centered my research on Voegelin´s readings of Plato, specially of The Republic and it´s mystical counterpart, the Timaeus. In the political-theological drama of Plato and of Voegelin´s readings of Plato, Olavo noted that Voegelin in the end had a model closed towards that which Strauss noted as Revelation (even if Voegelin, is letters with Strass is way more open to it than his counterpart). In his last work, In Search of Order, we can see the mystical tension of the philosopher towards the mystical path. Voegelin chooses Plato´s theology against Christian theology, or, as Morrissey puts it in Consciousness and Transcendence, he develops a sort of new Christian theology where the dogmas are diluted by philosophical inquiry.

[@gabrielguitarman]

Now, Olavo´s research program of the "Revolutionary mind" was what I can call the microfundations of Voegelin´s Macroeconomy. Voegelin´s perception of the revolutionary issue on Gnostic phenomena (or as he put it before, Political Religions, bearing in mind that later he also changed his interpretation and categories used to interpret this issue) was in general focused in the civilizational scale. He never searched for the individual patterns of how this is felt on and impacted the world via the work of the philosophers. Olavo does exactly that on his interpretations of Machiavelli, Descartes, Kant, of Husserl, of marxists and analytical philosophers. He finds specific patterns of thought that are both negations and transformations of the reality, such as the marxist inversion of time (justification of current actions by future objectives) and the kantian cognitive parallax ( Kant´s philosophy is nullified by the fact that for Kant, we only have access to phenomena).

[@gabrielguitarman]

Now, back to the initial part of the answer: Olavo was at the same time the lonely preacher for, a critic and a continuator to Voegelin´s philosophy. My research was on Voegelin´s interpretation of The Republic and, by extension, it´s mystical counterpart, The Timaeus. The political-theological drama of Plato and of Voegelin reading Plato, specially bearing in mind Voegelin´s last and unfinished work In Search for Order, underlines in the end that, as Olavo noted, Voegelin´s anthropological model (the quaternary openness towards reality) puts him in a position of not accepting Christian Theology, of not accepting Revelation as theorized by Strauss (even if, as per Strauss-Voegelin letters, Voegelin is more open to it than Strauss Chinese wall between religion and philosophy). Between Plato and Christ, in later life Voegelin chooses the first, or, as Morrissey analyses in Consciousness and Transcendence, Voegelin sort of creates a new Christian Theology where the dogmas are diluted. As this channel is all about mysticism, the last Voegelin book is a must read.

[@torat1511]

excellent,thankyou

[@sandorfintor]

This was exceedingly educational 🫡

[@peterlynley]

Very informative.

[@Havre_Chithra]

Vance made Trump 10 times more appealing to anyone paying attention

[@duaneb21]

😂😂

[@b.alexanderjohnstone9774]

Yes children we once had to remember where the bookshops were! Please don't ever complain you can't find anything good to read (I'm sure those here have too much to read but it pleases me to type curmudgeonly injunctions).

[@trogoautoegocrat666]

I would like you to discuss Steve Bannon’s interest in 4th way literature. It’s a fascinating premonition for the 4th political philosophy, and characters like Gurdjeiff, Ouspensky, Nicoll, Orange, etc were influential in the American Harlem Renaissance (Jean Toomer) and the California Ideology (Steve Jobs). It seems to fit in the history of Traditionalism, but to be its own separate pathway. I heard that Gurdjeiff was personally feared by many of the important communists of the past so he was somehow known in a personal capacity by the inner personalities granting life to the ideas of that time.

[@calebkeen8967]

Philosophy can prove corrosive of the character necessary for sustaining humane political life cf. the reign of the 30 in Athens, the history of Marxism/Leninism etc. Curious if you have any thoughts on the potential danger here in general, and specifically whether someone like Bannon's interest in Evola and Lenin instead of, say, Lincoln is cause for a concern that he's been corrupted by philosophy instead of assisted to a clear-eyed understanding of what is necessary or best.

[@silverback7348]

Modern philosophy, imo, and especially starting with the German Ideslists, becomes a self-indulgent trap and symptom of the travesty that was sold to us as “The Enlightenment”. Bannon’s references seem to be a nod and wink towards results-oriented pragmatism.

[@wtice4632]

​@@m.k.3197 thats not what he said

[@berserker4940]

Great video

[@stonewall3745]

Really enjoy your content! Do you have a video that gets into defining Liberalism? Thank you.

[@downinthecypressswamp2234]

Southerners should be thought of as our own nation.

[@shukuffxi]

Hi Michael, I'm about half an hour in and what's sticking out in my mind enough to comment before finishing is that on one hand you mention the various frameworks you want people to be aware of and to understand. At the same time, you mention a distrust between anti-modern thought from the right that is hostile towards progress. For me, presuming you understand those frameworks it seems ... like mixing exoteric and esoteric but not quite. What is commonly being used in the west as "Progress", the various frameworks behind it use deeply esoteric perspectives on what "Progress" is (i.e: it's not the normal meaning for which the average person might assume something like "More computers in classrooms for kids and easier access to medical care) that it's virtually unfair to even use that word. In some sense, you have to start somewhere, right? And it's very broad usage of the term, especially as you're trying to get people introduced to these topics. On the other hand, while I agree some people a step or two from Trump are well familiar with a variety of esoteric texts from the right, it seems unfair to lump Bannon in in the sense that I don't believe he's basic his thought on Evola or Schmitt but rather that we're practically at fever pitch of anti-modern criticisms seeing as we're in some kind of hyper-real post-modern dystopia. There's this element of how you discuss things that I find has it's pros and cons in that you treat these thinkers fairly as thinkers while at the same time it sort of puts them all on a playing field equally but no one really knows which team any of them is playing for (at least, without a lot of reading, and there's more than a single team or more like sub-teams within larger teams AND multiple teams)

[@Pardero]

It sounds as though you seek a handy identification of 'good guys' from 'bad guys,' and assignation to appropriate camps. I am absolutely ignorant of philosophy, but could understand people with nearly identical influences becoming bitter rivals, whether or not their agendas were similar. Comparable core values are no guarantee of comparable actions. I think Millerman is illustrating abstract political philosophy's influence on actors who may have the ability to develop concrete policy. If you are seeking networks or cabals of 'multipolarity conspiracists,' Red Scare style, I think that would be unproductive. I am blue collar, and merely wish for tradition and return to the Republic, but am delighted to learn I am loosely aligned with a philosophy that expresses my thoughts scientifically. Whether the grass roots contingent, or the intellectuals, I am glad it is taking root.

[@shukuffxi]

@@Pardero It's not that I seek identification of 'good guys' and 'bad guys' - but to refer to Progressives, Progressivism as if the exoteric meaning is what Progressives believe seems bonkers to me after the last 150 years. Keep in mind that National Socialists were Progressives, yet we don't poo-poo Progressivism, just Nazism, but there's no such thing as National Socialism without Progressivism. It's a doctrine. It's a very specific view of the world. If you want a list of the most doctrinally accurate Progressive political parties in that time frame you get National Socialism, Soviet and CCP Communism, the Khmer Rouge. From a purely intellectual position, just look at the doctrine, the belief structure, the philosophy and so on that all of them were attached to and leaving all of that out seems... like why would you do that? We put labels on poisons. As for people with nearly identical influences becoming bitter rivals: that's exactly what Nazism and Communism are. They're both denominations of Progressivism much like Catholic and Protestant are denominations of Christianity. You get a Protestant and a Catholic together and they can disagree but are generally quite tolerant and accepting of each other. But if you put two Catholic's together and they disagree that's a much bigger deal: they're supposed to believe the same things and if they don't, one of them isn't a Catholic at all. All Progressive denominations are essentially in a battle to be the "one true" Progressive - one of the main reasons Nazis and Communists hated each other despite both sides frequently losing members to the other. The core Progressive beliefs are the same. But I'm more than familiar at this point with many of the names Millerman is discussing. I can also give credit where it's due, and they all frequently have interesting perspectives, views, and some things they clearly get wrong and such. If you are interested in "tradition and return to the Republic" that doesn't mean you're a "traditionalist" in the manner he discusses in this video. You could be, if you looked into it and got a lay of the conceptual land laid out by all those workers but it isn't quite as simple as something like a meritocratic hierarchy vs. equality - that's more the very, very, very broadest stroke, the type of thing that gets people interested. Think of it this way: anyone who was "against racism" instantly latched onto "Black Lives Matter". How could you disagree with that? Who would? Especially in America? "Tradition" works in similar fashion. You might find some things the "traditionalist school of thought" states to be incorrect, or something we've left behind because there was a genuine issue with - but that doesn't make you "for Progressivism" because of it. My main contention is more along the lines that while he's trying to get people interested, to read the authors and such and properly understand what they're saying it still seems wild to me that Progressivism somehow gets this magical pass despite it's rampant history of mass slaughter.

[@Pardero]

@@shukuffxi I haven't put nearly as much thought into as you, and am not as well read, but I am not familiar with your use of "Progressivism." I thought progressivism and liberalism were nearly synonymous. I had believed National Socialism a conservative reaction to Bolshevism, and the 'socialism' was tacked on to siphon worker support from the Bolsheviks. NSDAP found its strongest support among farmers, much as the Finnish Whites found their support in rural Finland, whereas the Bolshevik support came from the large cities. I would characterize the NSDAP as conservative with socialism only tacked on for show. I will grant the Bolsheviks could be considered as 'progressives,' though I can't describe what Stalinism was with my limited knowledge. I think extremist ideologies foment extremist counter-ideologies, and Nazism wouldn't have been created without the threat of communism. Though not exact opposites because they were both authoritarian and totalitarian, NSDAP was nationalist and traditional, whereas Bolshevism was international and revolutionary. Dugin appears to sharply differentiate them, though his books are beyond my comprehension level. I like Dugin's concept of a Fourth theory, but I have read Dugin is a neo-Stalinist, which is troubling. I believe Russia is righteous in taking ethnic Russian territory, and increasing the distance from the NATO threat, but can never condone expansion into Finland, the Baltics, Romania, the Caucasus, etc. as Dugin appears to champion in one of his books. I have little desire or aptitude to learn philosophy, political or otherwise, but may need to educate myself more. It is easy to agree with Russia on the Ukraine problem, but I cannot support a bill of goods which includes an expansionist Eurasian Empire that condones Stalinesque purges and terrors as it 'seeks its destiny.' I dropped Introduction to Philosophy because it was incomprehensible, and I feared it would hurt my grade point average, but I may have to do some reading. I would hate to be cheering Russia against a corrupt liberal empire, only to watch Russia revert to something even worse. I had hoped Europe would be one of the poles in a multipolar world, but the Europeans seem satisfied being pawns for the Anglo-Zionist Empire.

[@shannonm.townsend1232]

N​azism is but a tool of empire. Communism is anti empire.

[@shannonm.townsend1232]

​@@ParderoI believe Lenin wrote extensively on the importance of national movements, even if the goal was internationalism.

[@alexcipriani6003]

Read Trade wars are class wars by Michael Pettis

[@1lonecanadian]

Once you become a man, you can never go home again. To attempt to do so is to refuse your own transformation from a dependent boy into an independent man. Modernity makes us long for the good old days, but our sentiments for something lost in time often betrays the fact that we let them go for the novelty found in the promise of something new. The failure of the luddites in their attempt to stamp out the industrial revolution was effectively the last stand of traditionalism. What was once farm to table or loom to market within less than a few hours walk from your most distant relative has almost been completely eliminated around the entire globe. Traditions are not national, nor are they international, they are local. The industrial revolution with its supra national industries and their mass movement of people, mass markets, mass finance, and mass transportation has seen to the eradication of local traditions to have them replaced by more portable and universal ideologies that are not connected to a singular a place or people. We cannot go back home to any form of traditionalism because we know too much, we can live and travel too far from our families, and we need not have a connection to the land for the food and resources to sustain ourselves. There is no foundation upon which to build a tradition once you are living in the heart of modernity.

[@henrylicious]

The current infrastructural failing is of modernity will push for a balance between the two.

[@JamesBBKK]

Ms. Conley: In this life, there’s no second chances.

[@iankclark]

Any comments on “Behind the Bastards” takedown of Curtis Yarvin?

[@millerman]

Haven't seen it (/read it/heard it). Feel free to post link.

[@jesusgonzalez-acton8045]

@@millermanyou’re not missing much, they just cribbed from the recent Atlantic pieces on Vance, Yarvin et al. And as far as *that sort of podcast* goes (lefty so-called academics unmasking some right wing figure), it’s probably the least serious option. The libtards of Know Your Enemy and The Empire Never Ended are at least less reddit-tier in their snark.

[@missypead2293]

Are you Goblist?

[@vantagepointmoon]

Interesting read, takes a rather thoughtful person not to outright demonize such polarizing figures nowadays. Mainstream thinking, to the extent that it exists, focuses on holding on to the system that in its final days. Very easy to confuse in that incredible stream of events the last paroxisms of the old world and the moves of the one emerging

[@silverback7348]

Bannon’s success, if and when it happens, will seemingly crystallize into transformative reality as if by the “esoteric, alchemical” magic you give lip service to. In reality, it will be conscientious effort, fortitude, vision and tactical implementation in spite of adversaries that gets credit. What Bannon understands is that reality is “relational” and won through story and belief. I think your understanding of Esotericism, or rather how it is applied, is vastly different than Bannon’s.

[@thecookiechannel7083]

Multipolar is ok. The problem comes with who decides what your pole is. Christian National? Ok, but what is the official Christian authority? If you have Christian diversity, you are losing your polarity. A Eurasian pole? Ok, but can small eastern block countries decide they want out? Would Russia allow that? The current US system can be improved . Even with higher summer gas prices, being incapable of finding or demanding higher pay, and a deficit, there are many marginal adjustments we can make without resorting to mysticism (Dugan, Evola, Guenon).

[@saxet812004]

lol "Far Right"

[@goldberg7019]

Populism in Rome was more Imperial funny enough I think the USA will go through the same kind of evolution

[@lloydgush]

Carvalho is closer to bannon, or, more precisely, bannon is closer to carvalho.

[@klolwut]

Baum huh

[@millerman]

Oh yes, he (and I) are part of a massive Jewish conspiracy that you have managed to discover from sheer brilliance. Now that the gig is up, definitely do NOT read his Bannon book! It's not for you, and there's nothing you can learn from it. Thanks for watching.

[@berserker4940]

@@millerman Ok ok Michael you seem like a good person. Genuinely. I would love to hear your thoughts on Karl Marx's "Zur Judenfrage"

[@GreenCanvasInteriorscape]

The mind of the finkelsheimer is remarkable, the wonders of its inconclusive skills 🤷 L Shana Tova!

[@Russkiy_Partizan]

I was a conservative, but US foreign policy, neoliberalism, the support for the Salafists in Syria and what I mean is the aggression against Russia made me a Marxist, that I identify with the Axies of resistance, which is a multipolar world. Pepe Escobar is more of a deep thinker, than Steve Bannon , with an understanding of the world that is in tune with the rest of the world. I see the US as such an existential threat, which can start a nuclear war, Iran is a more stable peaceful partner, alliances are created where they help Venezuela and the Sahel, this bloc thinking is an answer The slaughterhouse of death, destabilization from the West. It is happening in Gaza, for me and many in the non-Western world, Israel and the USA have exhaustion syndrome. I understand some of Steve Bannon's theoretical starting points, have nothing against America Frist. When I listen to the subtext, it is smarter strategy to administer the empire, and recognition that there will be more spheres of interest. Nevertheless, Steve Bannon is obsessed with China, spreads racial values, divides black/white, Shia/Sunni, Bernie Sanders is a communist, wants the Color revolution in Iran and in China. He wants to shape the multipolarity in his spirit. BRICS is very much a solution, the dollar is not my problem, it will be because the rest of us pay to the US. Countries have security interests, NATO extremely aggressive organization, since 2001, 35 million have become refugees because of the US loyal organization NATO. It's like having Napoleon as a neighbor, it's just counting the numbers. Steve Bannon is certainly better than neo liberals, he has this exceptionalism. For example, Steve Bannon says that the president of Brazil is a communist because he wants to cooperate with China, supports destabilization in Venezuela, therefore the USA has a refugee problem. Not dismissing Steve Bannon, multipolarity should not become either a Chinese, American or Russian project/hegemony. Back to the time before imperialism, and the Silk Road. The US must think about what you contribute to the rest of the world, do you build nuclear power plants like we in Russia in Egypt and soon Mali, have built high speed trains in Laos. Neither China, Russia, Sahel, Moodi are so ideological, what do YOU have to offer. Steve Bannon's multipolarity, is not global, what function for Ibrahim Traoré and Sahel, Syria where 90 percent of the population lives below the poverty line due to sanctions. Spheres of interest, it concerns security, the Baltic states do not want to trade with Russia, which according to the World Bank is the 4th largest economy, it is completely idiotic. No problem for us. Steve Bannon's thoughts would have come before the Arab Spring, it burned my last hope, made to discover Marxism. At the same time I don't want to sound too negative about Steve Bannon is encouraging that he is questioning the dollar, traditionally the Republican Party up until the 30's has been anti war/imperialist, they were Russia's best friend because we didn't believe in empire, had territory/natural resources, and if the US wants to be a capitalist experiment, traditional, that's their business. Having such a hard time with Exceptionalism. I'm a marxist, take Israel out of the game, which is a country I really loathe, then that form of republican/constitutionalist is more anti-imperialist, sympathetic than the progressive/liberal/democratic party. Marxism came out of many conservative philosophers, can have many interesting discussions, and conservatives can contribute many needed perspectives/wisdom.. Don't understand why so many Americans seek confrontation, Communists in Russia learned that exceptionalism, was a misery, world revolution, why can't they accept that China has its model, that other countries prefer a Marxist model, they don't need to make a conflict. You are so much better, do your America Frist deal, that your country delivers, so maybe Burkina Faso, other countries that want more sovereignty look at your model. rather than Chinese state capitalism. Nobody wants to be at war with you and Israel, we just want to be at peace.

[@djan959]

Do you know Primakov doctrine. Alexander Dugan. has not been to the Kremlin I don't think. Bannon was to the White House but certainly not very long!

[@silverback7348]

Stop using past-tense “shaped”. The destabilization is happening in real time and with greater and greater intensity.

[@abracadabrazz1]

Can’t believe you blocked me

[@kino_punkt44]

So much for the tolerant ultra fascist multi polar right 😢

[@DhanurvedCohen]

​​@@kino_punkt44There is no silly right and left in his thought in him you liberal sunshine

[@LabelsAreMeaningless]

@@kino_punkt44 using those terms shows you don't know the meaning of the terms you're using.

[@matsulrich7765]

54:13

[@urosuros100]

You know what fascinates me, and sorry for criticizing your endeavors... You are like Tom Bilyeu, he is a successful guy, he is smart and he reads a lot. But somehow, just like you, you read that smart stuff, but it is like you can't simulate it in your mind - the 'how will this process manifest in time on human society', it is like you both are incapable of understanding the ideas you meet, this things you read... They all lead to consequences. And I do not see you understanding the ideological war that is being waged. Go listen to this video, and understand how these factions work. They are all in this together. The Russians, the US, China, India and Pakistan... The clip is: "BORIS RATNIKOV on Psywars (2013)" on KZbin.

[@cnektp1]

I disagree with your criticism.

[@LabelsAreMeaningless]

Having watched that clip, it doesn't indicate they're all in this together. It simply says they use similar technologies on eachother. In no way does it indicate partnership, quite the opposite.

[@urosuros100]

​@@LabelsAreMeaningless ​ It is not easy to understand history. There is only one monster in this world, it has 7-8 parts, which are the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Holland. This monster makes Russia and the US work together all the time. You let this monster run loose on the world and you get the first genocide in Namibia, purely racial stuff. You have the first concentration camps in South Africa in the second Boeur war, the Brits placed children and women of the Boers into these camps, to starve them out and demoralize their husbands, fathers, brothers, etc... All that was done because the two of the richest gold mines in the world, owned by the Rothschild family, were under threat of a Boeur takeover. So the Retchilds, having gained control of the Bank of England after the Napoleonic wars, sent famous murderers, the Red Mundires to 'liberate' the gold mines. Then you have the Opium wars that destroyed Chinese society and led to a Century of humiliation for the Chinese people. Other examples you already know (Napoleonic wars, Holocaust, WW2, Suez crisis, WW1, colonialism, slavery, conquistadores). So, when the US took over the top of the pyramid, the Russians were happy. They not being murdering monsters like their Western neighbors. With Americans you can talk, you can work with. You can split the world and markets (Cold War), you can stop the nuclear war (Cuban crisis), and you can make money with them and cooperate. With monsters, you simply can't. So, the US and Russia, and now China, India, Brazil, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, are all working together to keep the monsters under control. It started with NATO, a wonderful idea of how not to allow them to have nuclear weapons themselves. Then the USSR sold them gas and oil using pipelines so that the control of Europe was managed through US-Russia cooperation. It still is, it must be, monsters must be kept in check. So, the Ukraine war is a way to bankrupt (both energetically, financially, and industrially) and disarm this monster and then NATO and the EU will implode, leaving them poor and at each other's throats. The US will move all the experts and factories it can. Their reach must be limited to their neighbors. The US had to create BRICS in order to survive hyperinflation in a managed way. You must have some healthy parts of the world, economically, so that you can use their currency to overcome hyperinflation in 3-5 years instead of 10-30 years. This hyperinflation cannot be avoided and this war is just to put control on the monster for when the US economy must reset. The monster has to be tightly controlled unless we want death and destruction upon the world. So, yes, as you asked, the US and Russia are best friends. Besties guarding the world of nightmares.

[@shannonm.townsend1232]

Jesus Christ no brother. Broadly speaking there is an empire in decline with animperial project that is coming apart at the seams; it is the West.

[@Havre_Chithra]

Since I read dugin... Nothing is the same

[@jeff_loveland]

🤌✨

[@TheSunship777]

Once the Abraham Accord is established after a regime change in Iran Israel will not need weapon supplies costing taxpayer dollars however for now and I think Brannon would agree the support for Israel should be ongoing. Bannon has been critiqued for quoting Evola by the liberal media stating that Evola hated the Catholic Church . He has also been criticized for stating a few things other things [regardless] I like the fact that there is someone in American politics that has read Evola and Guenon . The problem with Dugin is his activity in his thinking not Dugin the scholar- how it should be acted on. And when are his Noomahia series going to be translated to English? The idea about reading cutting edge thinkers is more what I think in communion to what they think rather than a dictatorship of thought from the 'other' . That can be collective as well as individual . I just bought a book by Vladimir Jabotinsky although Nationalistic he was also for the individual. Dugin seems more on the collective side as Evola was on the Patriarchal . Noomahia seems more Anthropological and since I haven't read [outside of the contents] those works, am not acquainted with his biases . Reading is a marriage and marriage is a compromise.

[@LabelsAreMeaningless]

No one with full knowledge of that situation would say what you just did. You're praying for something that would not result in Israel winning anything. They'd be in a far more dangerous position. Netanyahu is actively destroying Israel's future by being far too greedy, egotistical and driven by blind hatred with no moderation at all. His only vision is greater Israel and erasing anyone and everything in his way.

[@wesrosenberg2102]

Another well intentioned and curious man become an ignorant pawn of Israel’s messianic plans. Sad to see. Rise above Micheal!

[@JimODonnell-en2be]

Go raibh maith agat.

[@susansmiles2630]

Why on Earth are you promoting fascism? Bannon is a monster.

[@billySquanto]

Who gives you your ideas, susan?

[@PeterStrider]

Lol, it's too much to expect you to even listen to the video

[@danruizmd]

Thanks!

[@millerman]

Thank you!