There’s one significant difference between Putin and Hitler: I know for a fact that the negative propaganda about Putin is bullshit. Furthermore, it looks increasingly like the image of both was created by the same people.

But imagine if America managed to provoke, start and win a nuclear war with Russia, and if our descendants were reading the history books written by the winners. What do you think would be a conclusion that a rational person would end up with after being brought up on such sources? And that’s what worries me, because history books are not the only thing that is written based on the results of wars. It’s also the international borders and the international laws. Who sits in the UN security council? The winners of the last world war. Who introduced the concept of “human rights” as basis of legal doctrine? The winners of the last world war. Who controls the world reserve currency? The winners of the last world war.

And what happens if the winners of the last world war are no longer the most powerful actors on the world stage? They aren’t relinquishing their power without another world war that would reset the fault-lines of power.

That’s what I mean as world war being a social thermodynamic phenomenon: it is an artifact of entropy. When there’s too much of a difference between nominal and actual power, a sociological equivalent of a hurricane arises in order to mix up the fluids and re-establish entropy.

The problem with humans is that victors are by definition “good”. Whoever wins a world war is “good”, and whoever loses is “evil”. I listened to an Obama’s speech once, at a D-day memorial, where he stated that there was a clear line between good and evil in that war – meaning, the Americans were on the good side, the Nazis were on the evil side. But if the Nazis happened to win, there would be a similarly clear line between good and evil drawn in the history books, only with the roles reversed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_uC0wy_O90

As I said, I can’t be sure about the facts regarding Hitler. Sometimes he seems very reasonable and his moves justified, and I managed to clear up a few points of contention, where his moves appeared to be irrational until I found out the facts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6o84NU9Ees

Sometimes, however, he baffles me with incompetence, egomania and self-delusion. He certainly doesn’t look like either a good guy or a role model. What he does look like, is much better and far less evil than Stalin, and much better and less evil than Churchill. In any case, Stalin killed more of his own people than Hitler killed Jews. That, in itself, makes you think. Churchill, on the other hand, seems to be the prime candidate for the historical role of the instigator of the WW2, and the direct cause of the destruction of the British Empire. Basically, he hated Hitler and the rise of Germany so much, he intentionally provoked Hitler into a military conflict, which was a Pyrrhic victory for the Brits; they never recovered from the blow they sustained and their international role diminished to that of America’s vassal state. If anything, Hitler seems to have been guilty of consistently implementing Putin’s principle of “when you see that the fight is inevitable, strike first”, which makes him seem like the instigator of all conflicts of the war in Europe. But don’t get me wrong: Hitler’s racial policies were evil. They follow the principle of collective guilt, collective punishment and reduction of individual soul to irrelevance, which is the exact opposite of a spiritually-centered attitude. What I’m asking is, how was Stalin better? No, there is no good there. If you ask Scylla, Charybdis is evil, and vice versa, but that doesn’t make either of them good.

And yet, we are supposed to believe that in WW2, good triumphed over evil, and that the very fact that something resembles Hitler or the Nazis is proof that it is evil.

Hitler advocated conservation of wildlife and nature, he advocated ecology, economic growth, employment and healthy industry, and believed in positive evolutionary criteria and a glorious future. Are those things also evil? No, something is not evil just because Hitler did it. He did many good things, advocated many healthy and rational concepts. The fact that he lost the war and committed some genuinely evil deeds doesn’t warrant using him as a measure of all evil.

Before the French revolution, if you asked a man in Europe what it means to be good, he would say “to be like Christ in virtues and deeds”. Today, the answer would probably be “to be unlike Hitler”. This is a shitty answer. I don’t buy that. You can’t define an apple by saying it’s unlike a banana. You can’t define Sun by saying it’s unlike a piece of coal. That’s why Celsius scale of temperature isn’t good – because the point of water freezing just isn’t cold enough, you need the point of atoms not moving at all, you need the Kelvin scale, and Hitler is very far from being the thermodynamic zero of mankind. Furthermore, even if we managed to identify a person that is the thermodynamic zero of morality, what then? Should we define “good” as being not similar to the worst asshole who ever lived? That’s supposed to inspire people? People need to worship heroes, they need great deeds to inspire them, they need to see great and noble examples and think, “I want to be like that one day”, not see the worst possible human and say “oh, at least I’m better than that”.

You might say that comparing oneself to Jesus might set the bar too high and induce feelings of guilt and unworthiness, but so what? Being significantly less than God is certainly less depressing than being somewhat better than the worst possible scum. Besides, every time you want to measure yourself, you get to look at God.

I’m trying to understand what I’m seeing.

Yes, another month, another Muslim terror attack in France. This is becoming a regular thing. What bothers me is that those things were obviously allowed to happen, and not only that, but the order came from America. The order to allow the hordes of Muslims into Europe and America, where they will do what they are best at – murder and rape – came from America. There is no other explanation for it.

What I’m interested in is “why”.

You see, the Paris, Brussels and Nice attacks are utterly unsurprising and predictable. The only ones shocked by that are those who are so fucking stupid they actually believe the leftist bullshit about all people being the same and all cultures and civilizations being the same. The main result of this officially sanctioned invasion of unwashed Muslim hordes from the Middle East will be the awakening of Europe and America to the true nature of Islam. It will remove Islam’s carefully designed and implemented trickery of the “religion of peace”, and people will see it for what it is: that ISIS and Al Qaeda are not some “heretics” who “misinterpret” Islam. They in fact practice it literally and diligently. It’s the “moderate” Muslims who are not practicing that thing properly. That’s the truth of Islam. Islam is the religion under which Europe was robbed, plundered and raped throughout the Middle Ages, and it only subsided once Europe industrialized and developed power sufficient to crush the Muslims militarily and turn them into colonies (which, if I may add, was the perfect state of things, because allowing those shitholes to function as sovereign states is a bad idea).

The consequence of letting the Muslims into Europe en masse is so predictable, and it is so certain that those giving the order knew what would happen, the only remaining question is “why”. What are they trying to accomplish?

My working hypothesis is that guys in Langley are very smart. Those in Washington are usually stupid and corrupt idiots, but there are some very smart people in the CIA, who basically think the same way I do, only they have more information and resources. So I can assume that they know the demographics of Europe, they know what a strategic error it was to give the Muslims the monetary equivalent of the entire energy expenditure of the Western civilization by allowing them to profit from oil and thus influence the Western civilization without actually needing to rise up to the challenge and attain the civilizational level necessary to participate in it. They know who actually ordered and financed 9/11. They know it’s the Saudis, they know what it’s all about. They know more about those bastards than I do. I’ve seen some public documents; those were written by smart people. So CIA is in the know about Islam, they know the same things Geert Wilders knows. It’s just that they don’t talk about it in public; rather, they prepare contingency plans, they develop options for dealing with the problem.

If we look at the entire recent history of events in the Middle East, America has been intervening there in order to decivilize and deindustrialize countries, basically removing from Islam everything that was obtained by oil money, and reducing them to their natural state of medieval savagery of ISIS. That is actually a good thing, because ISIS is not dangerous. An Islamic state with modern weapons and technology is dangerous, but if you remove the industrial layer and reduce it to the technological level Islam would naturally have if not for oil, the danger level is that of the Somali pirates – you need to watch them with some minor naval force, but they are harmless to the West. It looks very much like America has been going through the list of Middle-Eastern countries, sorted by hostility to America, descending, and crossing them with red ink, one by one. Iraq, Libya, Syria. The next one on the list is Iran, but since this one is the most difficult, Turkey and Saudi Arabia might rise closer to the top of the list.

So, if America is trying to get rid of the threat posed by Islam that was empowered and enriched by oil money, why are they importing Muslims en masse into Europe and America? Well, you can’t really get rid of the Muslims if people in Europe and America have an idealized, unrealistic picture of Muslims as some kind of innocent victims of colonialism and Israel. Muslims need to be seen for what they are, and no amount of propaganda would do it. What is actually necessary is to allow the Muslims to show, in several controlled instances, what they want, what they would do if unchecked, and what they truly are. People need to see them for what they are, and it would be utterly incredible and unbelievable if shown to the peoples of Europe and America in any other manner but through the blades and guns of Muslims. So, what we are seeing here, the terror attacks, it was allowed in order to awaken us to the evil of Islam, and to show us what Europe will look like if we allow that to immigrate and breed here, financed with our own tax money, because the Muslims are simply incapable of functioning in our civilization on merit while remaining Muslims. And the Leftists, whose ideology allowed it all to happen, they will utterly discredit themselves now and will also be seen for what they are: blithering idiots who think “good” means “different from Hitler”.

And I can expect the next steps. Turkey will descend into Islamism. Saudi Arabia will openly spite America and some serious shit will take place there. Iran will soon obtain nuclear capability, and then Israel will act. They will wipe out all Muslim centers in the Middle East, and by then people will be prepared to see this not as an evil act, but as something that, finally, someone actually had the guts to do, for the good of all. Islam will be banned everywhere, the Muslims will be dealt with in some way in both Europe and America, problem solved.

What I don’t understand is why America is simultaneously poking at Russia and China. I also don’t know if it is all actually a result of someone’s careful planning, or if some degree of chaos and uncertainty played a role. What I do know is that the likes of Obama and Hillary are puppets on someone else’s strings. That much is obvious; they are someone’s creatures.

There’s been lots of talk about whether we’re back in the cold war between NATO and Russia. Let’s clear this up a bit by defining what made the cold war so bad, what made it end, and then let’s see where we are now.

The cold war was defined as a non-friendly but not openly hostile political situation, aggravated by the possession of nuclear arsenal by both sides, and further aggravated by the advances in rocket technology which reduced times from launch to mutual destruction to cca. 35 minutes.

What made this especially dangerous was aggressive political posturing which made a nuclear attack possible, forcing both sides to implement a hairline trigger on the nuclear arsenal, with short reaction times making the system dangerously sensitive to false positives. Essentially, it’s like the situation where you are constantly harassed by burglars and thugs to the point where you respond by arming yourself to the teeth and responding to every suspicious noise during the night with gunfire, which eventually results in killing a family member who forgot to turn on the light.

The cold war stopped being a credible threat when Americans stopped their political posturing, Reagan agreed to meet with Gorbachev and they signaled to the Russians, in no unclear terms, that they don’t intend to nuke them. Once the political hostilities stopped, the nuclear war stopped being a credible threat, regardless of the fact that both nuclear arsenals were barely reduced; as with handguns, the weapon itself is not a danger, but the mindset of the owner.

When the cold war ended, the Soviets decided that since the outside threat has ended, it’s now time to deal with their economy because standing in lines for bread and everything else during peacetime makes no sense whatsoever, and in their hasty and poorly devised reform attempt they wrecked their own country. Americans then decided to interpret this as their victory in the cold war, although the cold war itself ended several years earlier.

This resulted in a very dangerous change in American mindset, where they stopped viewing the Russians as an equal power, and instead started seeing them as some sort of a failed country of a defeated people, with decaying military that is a threat only to the local ecology. This was actually true for an entire decade, but since Vladimir Putin came to power, he implemented powerful and effective measures which stabilized the country, repaired the economy to the level that is far better now than it ever was, even during the best of times. He also worked on reconstructing the industry and the military functionality. As a result, the Russian army is now not as massive as it was in the Soviet times, but is much more effective. The nuclear functionality was rebuilt, and nuclear deterrent is now completely functional on a level superior to that of the Soviet Union. Very accurate tactical and aerospace-defense rockets were also developed in the meantime.

So basically, the reason why the cold war was bad was because Americans were actively performing hostile propaganda against the Soviet Union, which was armed with strategic nuclear weapons, and political hostilities made it a conceivable supposition that the purpose of the political propaganda was to justify a nuclear first strike against the demonized enemy.

The situation we have today is that the Russians have fully functional strategic nuclear weapons and the Americans are in the middle of an unprecedented military-political campaign of putting thousands of troops on the Russian border under the guise of “military exercises”, they apparently attempt to weaken the Russian nuclear deterrent by activating an Aegis Ashore station in Romania, building another one in Poland and placing Aegis warships in the Baltic sea, they already politically destabilized Ukraine and are trying to provoke Russia into responding militarily, and they are actively and consistently implementing a propaganda campaign against Russia, ever since the Sochi Olympics. The Russian president, who is an extremely calm, moderate and competent politician, is portrayed as a Hitler-like psychopathic dictator who needs to be stopped, which looks very much like all American recent justifications for war, where the attacked country is first exposed to strong propaganda which portrays it as a prison-country that is held hostage by some Hitler-Satan hybrid of a dictator and his ridiculous henchmen, and needs to be invaded in order to free the people, who will then magically proceed to follow a natural human tendency to form an America-like democratic paradise, where you don’t have just one party to vote for, but two, and it’s not like you have to go through a complicated vetting process where the elites check out or even propose the credible presidential candidates, and where you have free economy, not like other countries where the government regulates the economy by bailing out failing banks and businesses. Oh wait…

But I digress.

We actually passed the point of being back in cold war and we are on the very brink of hot war. NATO tanks are on the Russian borders, which was never the case before. American anti-ballistic defenses, which were the crux of the “Star wars” crisis of the Reagan administration, which provoked the Soviets almost to the point of losing their cool and starting to take out the Pershing II intermediary-range silos in West Germany, are surrounding Russia. Russian fighter-bombers are performing close warning runs above American Aegis ships in the Baltic and Black Sea. Also, America is provoking China in the China Sea. Turkey, a NATO member, actually shot down a Russian fighter-bomber in Syria, where the Turks had no right to be. This is all almost identical to the war games from the 1980s, where a realistic political and military escalation leading to a nuclear exchange was modeled. The only reason why this didn’t escalate further is that Russian president is one very cool and calculated person.

The problem is, the Russians are pissed off right now, and I mean the entire people, not the government. They didn’t like being insulted, they didn’t like being lied to, they didn’t like their allies being taken out systematically, they didn’t like the former Soviet republics and Warsaw contract countries being recruited into NATO, they didn’t like the surrounding countries being infiltrated by CIA and their minions under the guise of “promoting democracy”, and they certainly didn’t like the greatest president they had since Peter the Great being portrayed as some Hitler-like maniac. They also didn’t like America sponsoring the Nazis in Ukraine, they didn’t like the fact that openly anti-Russian governments are installed in the former Soviet bloc despite great popular support for Russia in those countries, they don’t like the fact that all the journalist in Europe work for CIA, that the Russian opposition is briefed by the American embassy and paid either from the State Department budget or by CIA-sponsored “NGOs”. They don’t like America artificially reducing the price of oil on the world market and introducing sanctions against Russia in order to weaken its economy, and they are basically completely disappointed in America, after initially having embraced the American values in the 1990s. Americans think that their “democratic” pro-western puppets are the opposition to Putin. No, they have zero popular support in Russia and if not for the State Department financing they would already have starved. The true opposition to Putin is the Communist Party, and compared to them, Putin is incredibly calm and moderate. The problem is, if the Communist Party wins the parliamentary elections, this will reduce Putin’s ability to respond calmly and rationally to further American provocations, and if he is forced to respond in a way that will be demanded by the people and the parliament, he will be forced to take down the threatening American assets, and take further initiative to secure their immediate borders. From there, it’s nuclear exchange in several predictable moves, and no credible alternative.

The situation could be immediately resolved by removing idiots from power in America, and disbanding NATO, for whose continued existence there is no valid reason anyway, and it’s merely a bureaucracy that tries to create problems for which its continued existence would be the solution, at the cost of degrading the actual security of the world to the lowest point ever outside of open world wars. Also, America would have to remove their military installations from the former Soviet bloc, and you’d be surprised to know how many of those there actually are, including concentration camps for extrajudicial detention and torture of “undesirables”.

The problem is, I just don’t see America stopping the thing it’s doing, because it thinks it’s winning, which is the most dangerous state of things because that’s how the wars start. The even bigger problem is, I don’t see how America can be shown it’s not winning in ways that don’t include hundreds of nuclear mushrooms sprouting over American cities. So yeah, how dangerous is it? Very. It’s as dangerous as handling a deadly poisonous snake without being aware that it is poisonous. If you know it can kill you, you’ll be careful. It’s the absence of this awareness that makes this current crisis so much different than the ones before. Before, the Americans were aware of the fact that the Russians had the amount of nuclear weapons that is enough to turn Earth into Mars. Today, they seem to think that those nukes for some reason don’t count, as if they’re props made of plastic, and you can play with tanks and planes and it will somehow magically stop there because you brainfucked yourself into believing that nobody will ever use nukes, even when his existential interests are threatened. It reminds me of the bullies who get shot because when faced with an armed person, they act as if the gun doesn’t exist and actually continue bullying the person until he pulls the trigger, and then they act surprised as if nobody could see that coming. One such fucktard actually won the Darwin award by daring his 10 year old son to stab him with a knife, repeatedly, until the distraught kid actually stabbed him in the chest, to which the fucktard responded with “I can’t believe the kid actually did it” and died.

I can see the nuclear war coming for over a year, and so do the American experts on Russia. The Russians were refurbishing the fallout shelters in Moscow year ago. Anyone who doesn’t see what’s going on is either blind or delusional.

The only real question is, are the Americans doing this on purpose or are they just incredibly stupid?