URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       True Left
  HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: True Left vs False Left
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 29494--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Duginism
       By: rp Date: March 5, 2025, 11:10 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       If it is impossible to confront Duginism directly, I support
       this (given the rise of racism/machinism of "Whites" in the U.S.
       as well):
  HTML https://x.com/sabrewulf001/status/1895559468030836866?t=eVm7LasLYYvEPQ9RwSQUFw&s=19
       [quote]
       USA & Russia should go to war - full on.
       nothing of value would be lost. there would be fewer
       whites/christians in the world.
       that is ALWAYS a good thing.
       @iamyesyouareno @AnnCoulter @MattWalshBlog @michaeljknowles
       @charliekirk11 @RichardBSpencer @JesseKellyDC
       [/Quote]
       But, as the very next reply notes, the time at which this is [I]
       least likely[/I] to happen is right now.
  HTML https://x.com/Meghanshh/status/1895578111833752017?t=gkvDkiBBIECAPPfSGDoBYg&s=19
       [Quote]
       Unfortunately, that is impossible. This incident has cemented
       rus-u.s partnership for the next decade. This was always the
       plan. Putin gets ukraine, U.S gets access to the Arctic.
       Multipolarity 101.
       [/Quote]
       #Post#: 29498--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Re: Duginism
       By: 90sRetroFan Date: March 6, 2025, 2:23 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote]Multipolarity 101.[/quote]
       And this is why I was saying:
  HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/enemies/duginism/msg28598/#msg28598
       As for war against Russia, I would prefer attrition to maximize
       between Russia and EU countries first. (This would also free up
       more space for climate refugees.)
       #Post#: 29501--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Re: Duginism
       By: rp Date: March 6, 2025, 2:55 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Well at least now we know Britain and France are going to put
       boots on the ground in Ukraine. Russia will definitely not be
       deterred due to its massive nuclear arsenal, which means more
       attrition between EU and Russia. I hope this draws the U.S. in
       as well due to treaty obligation, as I would like to see
       "Whites" (including Jews), especially machinists, genocided.
       #Post#: 29502--------------------------------------------------
       Re: War
       By: 90sRetroFan Date: March 6, 2025, 3:31 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       "Britain and France"
       By the same logic, I would prefer attrition from Poland etc. to
       maximize first.
       #Post#: 29539--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Australia
       By: rp Date: March 11, 2025, 6:03 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
  HTML https://x.com/igorsushko/status/1892692858496278856?t=HFBwzwFlvo7XnTRP8DbcwQ&s=19
       [quote]
       Australia doesn't have nukes and is not in NATO.
       In the new world order, I fail to see significant obstacles to
       China invading Australia to take its natural resources valued at
       $20 trillion, a bargain even if it costs China $2 trillion.
       Australia's population is only 26 million.
       [/Quote]
       The question is, why isn't China doing this?
       #Post#: 29540--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Australia
       By: 90sRetroFan Date: March 11, 2025, 7:06 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Firstly, the answer to your question: Eurocentrist Xi.
       Secondly, I would not want Australia becoming Chinese territory.
       Australia should be Nusantaran territory. Chinese territorial
       expansion should happen northwards.
       Thirdly, Dugin is the one who wants China to be tempted into
       territorially expanding southwards:
  HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
       [quote]Dugin envisions the fall of China. The People's Republic
       of China, which represents an extreme geopolitical danger as an
       ideological enemy to the independent Russian Federation, "must,
       to the maximum degree possible, be dismantled". Dugin suggests
       that Russia start by taking Tibet–Xinjiang–Inner
       Mongolia–Manchuria as a security belt.[1] Russia should offer
       China help "in a southern direction – Indochina (except Vietnam,
       whose people is already pro-Russia), the Philippines, Indonesia,
       Australia" as geopolitical compensation.[9][/quote]
       However, I re-emphasize my belief that China's current lack of
       interest in Australia is not due to anti-Duginism, but merely
       due to being too psychologically colonized (hence also lack of
       interest in taking back Manchuria etc.).
       #Post#: 29541--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Re: Australia
       By: rp Date: March 11, 2025, 8:02 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I see. It is India who has the most to gain from taking back
       from Australia, as it would be poetic justice for colonialism.
       #Post#: 29542--------------------------------------------------
       Re: War
       By: 90sRetroFan Date: March 11, 2025, 8:39 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       India lacks pre-colonial-era historical ties to Australia. India
       is not the only former victim of British colonialism, so by your
       reasoning every former victim of British colonialism would have
       a similarly valid claim to Australia. In that case who should
       rule Australia?
       You seem to be confusing economic justice (which is to be sought
       by migration by former victims of Western colonialism to the
       territories of former colonial powers) with statal ownership of
       territory. I would not mind Australia being demographically 100%
       populated by people of Indian ancestry, but that population
       should not be paying taxes to India, but should be paying taxes
       to whomever rules Australia in the future (preferably
       Nusantara). People of Indian ancestry in future Australia will
       be equivalent to people of Indian ancestry in present-day
       Singapore.
       #Post#: 29543--------------------------------------------------
       Re: War
       By: rp Date: March 11, 2025, 9:00 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I see. Thank you for clearing that up. But I will say that
       emigrants need a security guarantee from the Indisn government,
       as they are subjected to racist attacks.
       #Post#: 29544--------------------------------------------------
       Re: War
       By: 90sRetroFan Date: March 11, 2025, 10:11 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I disagree. Unless the Indian government offers the same
       security guarantee to all migrants from all countries to all
       countries, it would be applying an ingroup-outgroup
       double-standard. It should be the local government that offers
       any such security guarantees to immigrants. It is the one with
       the pragmatic incentive to do so, after all, since it wants to
       keep them around paying taxes, and indeed attract more
       immigrants (and hence their tax money) if possible based on the
       positive reviews of existing immigrants.
       *****************************************************
   DIR Previous Page
   DIR Next Page