Krah argued, the real focus should be on combating internal adversaries — namely, German leftists and Greens.
Well, that's true. The Greens (Die Grünen)were almost since their formation manipulated and partially also financed by the Stasi, the East German intelligence service. One of results of their activities is that the Germans have abandoned most of their nuclear plants and now are totally dependent on the Russian oil and gas.
This is true. I agree. Yet, his framing was bizarre. He could have just left out the "Erdogan is not your enemy" part. Erdogan IS the enemy, just like Putin and others of their mold.
For me it is so strange that Bahçeli supports Erdoğan without questions and objections. For me it looks like some way of betrayal of Türkeş legacy. And, well, I never forgive Erdoğan for his imprisonment of Enver Altayli, maybe the last of original Bozkurtlar and decent fighter for freedom of the "Soviet" Caucasian and Central Asian Türks.
The thing is in the last decades, under Erdoğan, Turkey turned into a more nationalist society instead of a conservative Muslim one, as many in the West incorrectly assume. Turkey is a nationalist society, not an Islamist one. But this happened independent of Erdogan, and actually IN SPITE of his efforts. So, eventually in mid-2010s he needed the support of MHP to continue ruling, because AKP was not able to acquire the absolute majority anymore. And Bahçeli gladly accepted the offer to become a junior partner, instead of remaining in the opposition.
I think the reaction (over reaction) by the right to Russia-gate is partially to blame. Sort of a "the enemy of my enemy...." kind of thing. Alone this is insufficient to explain the rights fascination with Russia. It could be a contributing factor.
It's quite simple really. The top influencers are being paid by Russian slush funds. I've done numerous videos on this subject. It is inarguable imho, when you look deeply into it.
That is true. But still I wanted to understand why their audience falls into this. One can pay certain individuals to promote certain talking points, but if significant portions of the public believe this then there must be deeper psychological reasons.
Because the audience is largely demoralised. A demoralised figure is far more likely to either fall for an exotic White Knight, or alternatively to have become maladjusted and essentially have become an Inverse NPC, who seeks dopamine from being "against the current thing".
If we look at UK DR, the main creators embody body characteristics, while, I suspect, soliciting e-donations from Russian slush funds, who reward those that push their narrative.
I've done about a dozen vids on the subject of the UK and russian collusion.
As far as I know, the anti-Western sentiments of the Türkish Rightists is a relatively new phenomenon. Başbuğ Alparslan Türkeş was not radically anti-Western and anti-American, even if he was critically to the US. He also was not a pro-Palestinian and his words "Arabs and Palestinians are enemies of the Türks" are well-known.
I remember when I firstly come to Berlin-Kreuzberg. I, a Northern Caucasian Qipşak Türk, knew that Kreuzberg was a Türkish district, but I was really surprised seeing there only posters with Che Guevara, Mao Zedong, Trotsky, and even Öcalan (jn Kurdish houses, I think). No Atatürk, no Türkeş, no Atsiz. Kreuzberg is indeed a district of Leftists, not of the Türks.
I have to admit I'm not well-versed in the details of Alparslan Türkeş's worldview, other than being aware of who he was. From my personal interactions with Turkish nationalists back in the days I can definitely say that they are anti-Western.
The high school I went to was a stroghold of Turkish nationalists (Ülkücüler) and their office (Ülkü Ocaklari) was literally accross the street. They were anti-Western and anti-American, and among, other things accused the West of "colonialism" and "imperialism", which is actually quite rich coming from Turks, given Turkey's own history of imperial conquest and genocide.
Yes, Kreuzberg is more of a leftist district -- rather called "hipster district" -- than a Turkish district. In fact, there are two different parts of Kreuzberg; one is older where mostly Turks and other Middle-Eastern and African migrants reside, and the other, more recent, is actually a party district inhabited by white leftists. That latter part is more famous and actually serves as a tourist attraction, with beautiful streets and corners that partly escaped destruction in WWII or were later restored.
Many European, American and other politicians are on Russian payroll, just like they were on the Soviet payroll in 1960-1980s. Also some of them are blackmailed, maybe since they worked for the East German Stasi while the GDR yet existed. And some just hate the US so much, so they are ready to cooperate with a devil. Anybody who has read some books about Soviet intelligence services, dezinformatsia, active measures, etc., knows this.
Yes, that is a very creative explanation, which may even make a little sense. But it feels mostly like you're casting aspersions and misrepresenting the reasoning.
Germany has throughout its history minimized any and all engagement in NATO conflicts. And that made good sense. If the BRD had committed troops to fight in Vietnam, well obviously the GDR would have to match that. Pacifism was the obvious sensible default, because no German on either side was particularly keen on shooting at their brothers.
After the wall fell, it kept mostly out of further American adventures and only gave minimal, if any support. Nothing in it for Germany and also a strong ideological anti-war/pacifist sentiment in the populace.
Not getting involved in other country's affairs is therefore our status quo (except selling weapons and then sometimes performatively/theatrically not selling weapons to someone anymore because they're evil authoritarians or whatever. Selling weapons makes money, which is in our interest of course.). So that's a conservative reason alone. But the main reason is, that the Right does not consider conflict with Russia or helping the Ukraine to be in Germany's national interest. As Bismarck put it:
"The Balkans aren't worth the life of a single Pomeranian grenadier."
And they may also even further believe, that it very much is in our own national interest to keep buying cheap Russian gas and not care about a country, that's not even a NATO-ally.
“Cloistered within their own ideological echo chambers, liberals have often failed to engage in any genuine self-reflection”
I don’t think this is fully intentional. The provincial and working classes have an instinctive hatred for them too, though I would argue theirs is stronger. The liberal worldview is much more threatening to them than vice versa, so it’s only natural.
No really, she is pro-Ukrainian. She participated in demonstrations against Russia and in support of Ukraine. Lately she was also in Georgia supporting the protests there.
Yes, that too. But that stems from misunderstanding of the true nature of Russia in the western Right. Russian criticisms of liberal values do not really stem from their sympathies for European traditions, but rather because they view those values as inherent to the Western civilization itself, which they deeply loathe in principle.
Perhaps this is also because Russia has been adopting from the West for many years mainly something bad, but not something good or useful, and therefore for the average Russian the West is associated with something bad and harmful, which, moreover, is imposed on him by the corrupt and anti-Russian "Russian" elite.
Short-sighted? What would Germany stand to lose, if Russia took over the Ukraine completely? What does Germany gain, if Russia would be driven out completely?
Germany would only win, when it will have a direct border with Russia, like it had in the 19th century, and also 1939-1941, without all those small transit countries. So Europe will get oil and gas from Russia cheaper, because so it will not have to pay transit tariffs to some Ukrainians, Poles, etc., Kleinstaatengesindel also. And now the Red China, which stands behind Russia, also does not want to have any transit lands on its One Belt One Road, or the New Silk Way, from China to Europe.
Win what? It's not even a conflict, we need be involved in.
And your "winning" would definitely not involve a border with Russia. No realistic scenario has that, because that implies NATO having broken apart somehow. Which it has no reason to. Because if the Russians invaded Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, it becomes a real war with nukes. No winners in that, ergo no players.
Everyone keeps forgetting that NATO has nuclear deterrence smh.
Also most of these countries make no sense for Russia to conquer for nationalistic/unification reasons. Ukraine kinda sorta makes sense, if you drink enough nationalist koolaid like Putin sure did. But anything West of that, and you'd get much smaller Russian minorities and way different ethnic and culture groups.
I do not think that the NATO will defend Estonians and Latvians. This block will never use nukes to save those "Eastern Europeans", but will simply abandon them, and, of course, express big concern.
It would be much better when such countries like Baltic States, Poland, Czechia, Romania will form their own block, something like "Intermarium", which will be much more vivid and ready to defend itself than the NATO which is weak and rotten to the core.
If Article 5 is just a bluff, then it's one that has never been called in its entire history. If an attack on Tallinn was not treated as seriously as an attack on DC, Paris or London, then all non-nuclear NATO powers will want to have their own nukes, very fast. If the nuclear members demand that Germany/Poland/Belgium/Spain/Turkey send men to die, in defense of the Eastern states, we'd all probably tell them to fuck off and demand that the nuclear powers use their nuclear arsenal instead.
Whilst I don't think, it'd be necessarily full escalation WW3 immediately, I think we'd find out a lot more about tactical nuclear warfare than we ever wanted to know. And I strongly believe that even Putin is not that curious.
Anyway, if NATO was just a paper tiger, there is no reason for Germany to help Ukraine on other NATO-members behest to serve NATO's/"the rules-based international order's" interest either. Since in that case, supporting Ukraine would also not serve our national interest.
Krah argued, the real focus should be on combating internal adversaries — namely, German leftists and Greens.
Well, that's true. The Greens (Die Grünen)were almost since their formation manipulated and partially also financed by the Stasi, the East German intelligence service. One of results of their activities is that the Germans have abandoned most of their nuclear plants and now are totally dependent on the Russian oil and gas.
This is true. I agree. Yet, his framing was bizarre. He could have just left out the "Erdogan is not your enemy" part. Erdogan IS the enemy, just like Putin and others of their mold.
For me it is so strange that Bahçeli supports Erdoğan without questions and objections. For me it looks like some way of betrayal of Türkeş legacy. And, well, I never forgive Erdoğan for his imprisonment of Enver Altayli, maybe the last of original Bozkurtlar and decent fighter for freedom of the "Soviet" Caucasian and Central Asian Türks.
The thing is in the last decades, under Erdoğan, Turkey turned into a more nationalist society instead of a conservative Muslim one, as many in the West incorrectly assume. Turkey is a nationalist society, not an Islamist one. But this happened independent of Erdogan, and actually IN SPITE of his efforts. So, eventually in mid-2010s he needed the support of MHP to continue ruling, because AKP was not able to acquire the absolute majority anymore. And Bahçeli gladly accepted the offer to become a junior partner, instead of remaining in the opposition.
You make some excellent points.
I think the reaction (over reaction) by the right to Russia-gate is partially to blame. Sort of a "the enemy of my enemy...." kind of thing. Alone this is insufficient to explain the rights fascination with Russia. It could be a contributing factor.
Yes, that could have also been a contributing factor.
It's quite simple really. The top influencers are being paid by Russian slush funds. I've done numerous videos on this subject. It is inarguable imho, when you look deeply into it.
That is true. But still I wanted to understand why their audience falls into this. One can pay certain individuals to promote certain talking points, but if significant portions of the public believe this then there must be deeper psychological reasons.
Because the audience is largely demoralised. A demoralised figure is far more likely to either fall for an exotic White Knight, or alternatively to have become maladjusted and essentially have become an Inverse NPC, who seeks dopamine from being "against the current thing".
If we look at UK DR, the main creators embody body characteristics, while, I suspect, soliciting e-donations from Russian slush funds, who reward those that push their narrative.
I've done about a dozen vids on the subject of the UK and russian collusion.
https://youtu.be/qUWeKMxAHbo?si=dUQvaGQdP8P7uktZ
Thank you for this. I'll definitely check your channel.
As far as I know, the anti-Western sentiments of the Türkish Rightists is a relatively new phenomenon. Başbuğ Alparslan Türkeş was not radically anti-Western and anti-American, even if he was critically to the US. He also was not a pro-Palestinian and his words "Arabs and Palestinians are enemies of the Türks" are well-known.
I remember when I firstly come to Berlin-Kreuzberg. I, a Northern Caucasian Qipşak Türk, knew that Kreuzberg was a Türkish district, but I was really surprised seeing there only posters with Che Guevara, Mao Zedong, Trotsky, and even Öcalan (jn Kurdish houses, I think). No Atatürk, no Türkeş, no Atsiz. Kreuzberg is indeed a district of Leftists, not of the Türks.
I have to admit I'm not well-versed in the details of Alparslan Türkeş's worldview, other than being aware of who he was. From my personal interactions with Turkish nationalists back in the days I can definitely say that they are anti-Western.
The high school I went to was a stroghold of Turkish nationalists (Ülkücüler) and their office (Ülkü Ocaklari) was literally accross the street. They were anti-Western and anti-American, and among, other things accused the West of "colonialism" and "imperialism", which is actually quite rich coming from Turks, given Turkey's own history of imperial conquest and genocide.
Yes, Kreuzberg is more of a leftist district -- rather called "hipster district" -- than a Turkish district. In fact, there are two different parts of Kreuzberg; one is older where mostly Turks and other Middle-Eastern and African migrants reside, and the other, more recent, is actually a party district inhabited by white leftists. That latter part is more famous and actually serves as a tourist attraction, with beautiful streets and corners that partly escaped destruction in WWII or were later restored.
Many European, American and other politicians are on Russian payroll, just like they were on the Soviet payroll in 1960-1980s. Also some of them are blackmailed, maybe since they worked for the East German Stasi while the GDR yet existed. And some just hate the US so much, so they are ready to cooperate with a devil. Anybody who has read some books about Soviet intelligence services, dezinformatsia, active measures, etc., knows this.
Breivik just have expressed his support to China, Russia, Iran, Northern Korea. That's all you have to know about "European right nationalists."
Yes, that is a very creative explanation, which may even make a little sense. But it feels mostly like you're casting aspersions and misrepresenting the reasoning.
Germany has throughout its history minimized any and all engagement in NATO conflicts. And that made good sense. If the BRD had committed troops to fight in Vietnam, well obviously the GDR would have to match that. Pacifism was the obvious sensible default, because no German on either side was particularly keen on shooting at their brothers.
After the wall fell, it kept mostly out of further American adventures and only gave minimal, if any support. Nothing in it for Germany and also a strong ideological anti-war/pacifist sentiment in the populace.
Not getting involved in other country's affairs is therefore our status quo (except selling weapons and then sometimes performatively/theatrically not selling weapons to someone anymore because they're evil authoritarians or whatever. Selling weapons makes money, which is in our interest of course.). So that's a conservative reason alone. But the main reason is, that the Right does not consider conflict with Russia or helping the Ukraine to be in Germany's national interest. As Bismarck put it:
"The Balkans aren't worth the life of a single Pomeranian grenadier."
And they may also even further believe, that it very much is in our own national interest to keep buying cheap Russian gas and not care about a country, that's not even a NATO-ally.
“Cloistered within their own ideological echo chambers, liberals have often failed to engage in any genuine self-reflection”
I don’t think this is fully intentional. The provincial and working classes have an instinctive hatred for them too, though I would argue theirs is stronger. The liberal worldview is much more threatening to them than vice versa, so it’s only natural.
https://odysee.com/@wolfstoner:9/%D0%BC%D1%8B%D1%88%D1%8C:3?r=89wmbzUW4YwyLot1ABR1JAtJZ4NgV1wH
Putin's soldiers torture a mouse.
I'm not surprised.
This video should be sent to Greta Thunberg.
She is already firmly pro-Ukrainian.
I doubt. She is pro-Palestinian (i.e. pro-Hamas), that's true.
No really, she is pro-Ukrainian. She participated in demonstrations against Russia and in support of Ukraine. Lately she was also in Georgia supporting the protests there.
There is also the affinity between the Right and Russians for anti-woke, especially anti-gay and -trans, cultural matters
Yes, that too. But that stems from misunderstanding of the true nature of Russia in the western Right. Russian criticisms of liberal values do not really stem from their sympathies for European traditions, but rather because they view those values as inherent to the Western civilization itself, which they deeply loathe in principle.
Perhaps this is also because Russia has been adopting from the West for many years mainly something bad, but not something good or useful, and therefore for the average Russian the West is associated with something bad and harmful, which, moreover, is imposed on him by the corrupt and anti-Russian "Russian" elite.
Short-sighted? What would Germany stand to lose, if Russia took over the Ukraine completely? What does Germany gain, if Russia would be driven out completely?
Germany would only win, when it will have a direct border with Russia, like it had in the 19th century, and also 1939-1941, without all those small transit countries. So Europe will get oil and gas from Russia cheaper, because so it will not have to pay transit tariffs to some Ukrainians, Poles, etc., Kleinstaatengesindel also. And now the Red China, which stands behind Russia, also does not want to have any transit lands on its One Belt One Road, or the New Silk Way, from China to Europe.
Win what? It's not even a conflict, we need be involved in.
And your "winning" would definitely not involve a border with Russia. No realistic scenario has that, because that implies NATO having broken apart somehow. Which it has no reason to. Because if the Russians invaded Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, it becomes a real war with nukes. No winners in that, ergo no players.
Everyone keeps forgetting that NATO has nuclear deterrence smh.
Also most of these countries make no sense for Russia to conquer for nationalistic/unification reasons. Ukraine kinda sorta makes sense, if you drink enough nationalist koolaid like Putin sure did. But anything West of that, and you'd get much smaller Russian minorities and way different ethnic and culture groups.
I do not think that the NATO will defend Estonians and Latvians. This block will never use nukes to save those "Eastern Europeans", but will simply abandon them, and, of course, express big concern.
It would be much better when such countries like Baltic States, Poland, Czechia, Romania will form their own block, something like "Intermarium", which will be much more vivid and ready to defend itself than the NATO which is weak and rotten to the core.
If Article 5 is just a bluff, then it's one that has never been called in its entire history. If an attack on Tallinn was not treated as seriously as an attack on DC, Paris or London, then all non-nuclear NATO powers will want to have their own nukes, very fast. If the nuclear members demand that Germany/Poland/Belgium/Spain/Turkey send men to die, in defense of the Eastern states, we'd all probably tell them to fuck off and demand that the nuclear powers use their nuclear arsenal instead.
Whilst I don't think, it'd be necessarily full escalation WW3 immediately, I think we'd find out a lot more about tactical nuclear warfare than we ever wanted to know. And I strongly believe that even Putin is not that curious.
Anyway, if NATO was just a paper tiger, there is no reason for Germany to help Ukraine on other NATO-members behest to serve NATO's/"the rules-based international order's" interest either. Since in that case, supporting Ukraine would also not serve our national interest.