We interrupt your regular scheduled programming with a post inspired by the sudden death of Wagner’s Prigozhin and Utkin, blown out of the sky today in a missile strike or bomb attack.
In February 360, Caesar Julian was faced with a terrible decision. He was in Gaul fighting the Germans, and the Emperor, his cousin Constantius II, demanded half of his troops be sent to join him in a faraway war in Persia. And not just half of his troops, but his best troops. And not just his best troops, but troops he had promised would never have to fight outside of their homeland. And there were rumors that Julian would be replaced by one of Constantius’s generals as soon as he sent his loyal troops away. And Constantius had murdered Julian’s half brother in a similar fashion. But on the flip side Julian’s troop numbers were puny, he had very little money, and Constantius had a well-earned reputation for skillfully putting down rebellions.
Julian’s troops gathered outside, rebellion in the air. They proclaimed him Emperor. What was he to do? Accept the crown, and then be overthrown and murdered by Constantius in what were horrendous odds like his half-brother was? Or reject it, and possibly be torn to pieces by the mob of soldiers gathered outside?
Julian waffled, undecided. He slept on it with the troops waiting outside for a decision. As he slept, Julian had the following dream (as told in the wonderful novel “Julian” by Gore Vidal):
I dreamed and, as often happens, I found in dreaming what I must do awake. I was seated in my consular chair, quite alone, when a figure appeared to me, dressed as the guardian spirit of the state, so often depicted in the old Republic. He spoke to me. “I have watched you for a long time, Julian. And for a long time I have wished to raise you even higher than you are now. But each time I have tried, I have been rebuffed. Now I must warn you. If you turn me away again, when so many men’s voices are raised in agreement with me, I shall leave you as you are. But remember this, if I go now, I shall never return.”
Julian awoke in a sweat, and the dream convinced him: he would accept his soldier’s demands, reject Constantius’s orders and, whatever the horrible odds, fight to the bitter end with the self-proclaimed title of Emperor.
Julian unexpectedly won the civil war against his cousin when Constantius suddenly died of a fever, and he became sole Emperor — the last Hellenist Emperor Rome would ever have.
I go into Julian’s full story here if it interests you, but the point of conveying it here is this: in life there comes occasionally, rarely, maybe once in a lifetime, if ever, a moment where a decision has to be made, at least in a historic figure context, but probably for regular people as well: is the person all in, or not?
Cue the wildly overplayed song Lose Yourself, with the lyrics “You only get one shot, do not miss your chance to blow / This opportunity comes once in a lifetime, yo”. Eminem is a deranged shitlib, but the lyrics are fitting in this context. Or perhaps see Vivek Ramaswamy’s recent horrendous rendition.
Or the Breaking Bad episodes “Half Measures” and “Full Measures” also comes to mind.
Julian went all-in and he became Emperor from his decision, when he very likely would have been overthrown and murdered if he had shilly-shallayed or rejected the advice of the guardian spirit in his dream. (He was abandoned by the figure from his dream and murdered only a couple of years later, but that’s a different story).
Let’s give some other examples.
Consider Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon, where he suddenly marched on Rome with only a single legion, causing panic in Rome and the oligarchical Senators to flee. Caesar went all-in and he won due to his daring and intestinal fortitude.
Caesar crossing the Rubicon as depicted in the HBO show “Rome”, which in my opinion is the best show of all time.
But then later Caesar showed mercy to the same Senators, enacting only half-measures, and as a result they assassinated him; how the worm turns. Octavian/ Augustus pursued full-measures in revenge, showing no mercy to his enemies at all, and he ruled in stability and prosperity for a lifetime.
Consider Ross Perot in the 1992 U.S. election. He had huge support and could have likely won as a third party candidate; however, he felt forced to drop out after globohomo came up with dirt against him or a family member. He later found his balls and re-entered the race, but the opportunity had passed; he ended up getting only 15% of the vote after the general population considered him to be weak-willed. He had one shot and he missed it.
Or consider the failed 2016 military coup attempt in Turkey; full of half-measures, what a mess and a disaster, to the point many have argued (persuasively, in my opinion) that the whole attempt was set up by Erdogan/Islamic loyalists in the first place, given they had extremely detailed lists of enemies to purge ready to go.
The point of this is when we look at Prigozhin’s aborted march on Moscow, the guy had one opportunity. The ruling elite were caught with their pants down; Wagner was immensely popular, the military did not want to fight them, and they started their march with what looked like aplomb, shooting down a bunch of Russian aircraft with their anti-air missiles. The military stood to the side. Wagner’s beef with the Ministry of Defense under Shoigu, a globohomo puppet, was well known thanks to reporting by
where Prigozhin aired the establishment’s dirty laundry in public. It wasn’t a certainty of victory, but there was a chance there. But what did the former chef of Putin do? He turned around and sued for peace after a day. “Sorry guys, I didn’t mean to cross the Rubicon here! Whoops! My bad!” And apparently Lukashenko, the leader of Belarus, negotiated some sort of deal between Prigozhin and Putin and Prigozhin was let free, wandered around Russia with no arrest, thinking he could then turn his attention back to plunder in Africa while a bunch of Russian patriots like Strelkov and Surovikin and Popov, among others, were arrested. It made the whole thing take on a surreal nature and led some to believe that it was a false-flag operation meant to sniff out patriots within the Russian military. But the pro-globohomo elites (yes, Putin and other oligarchical leaders in Russia are controlled by the Rothschild central bank owners as I have previously documented) were indeed embarrassed at Prigozhin’s aborted march on Moscow; they slyly waited for the right opportunity for revenge, which didn’t take long at all. They took him out along with (apparently) the founder of Wagner Utkin and some (all?) of the top leaders at the same time. Bravo to them for playing their cards so well, a masterful sight to behold.Now perhaps Putin, having removed any danger from the right-of-center, will move for a humiliating Minsk-style fake “peace” with the West, with war to be resumed in a year or two followed by another humiliating loss. Or perhaps this analysis is wrong; it is so difficult to tell the motivations and strategies of the players in Russia, even if one is a native ala
who seemed quite surprised in his post here; and even harder to tell through the layers of media lies. “Because, he thought, if the scanner sees only darkly, the way I myself do, then we are cursed, cursed again and like we have been continually, and we'll wind up dead this way, knowing very little and getting that little fragment wrong too.” ― Philip K. Dick, A Scanner Darkly…The point of this is that globohomo plays for keeps. They are utterly ruthless, amoral, and do whatever it takes to retain power, no matter the cost. If you step to them you will be destroyed, and they will do it with no compunctions, in whatever way they decide is your weakest point, and they will feel no moral qualms about it at all. When they strike they will do it suddenly, so the victim has no idea it’s even coming. Consider how poorly prepared the world’s population was to deal with the fraudvirus narrative, which was enacted as revenge against populism for the unwashed masses having the temerity to elect Orange Man and Bolsonaro and vote in favor of Brexit.
This is why I think it is best to try to retain humility despite the daily political vicissitudes; I have been embarrassed more times than I can count offering certainty over a political analysis, especially in my younger days, only to be later proven wrong. Regardless, if the hope of the right is to wrest power from globohomo, it will not be done without an equivalent level of ruthlessness, and the price to pay for that ruthlessness is selling one’s soul to the Demiurge, who controls material reality. These are the incentives within this reality; if you want a different reality, better hope that God comes down somehow and changes the rules.
Thanks to Substack, we have access to sensible views like yours, Rolo's and Slavsquat's; otherwise we'd have to rely on the finkelthink narratives of MSM/Z-anon.
And kudos for quoting from Vidal's Julian. Your remarks on Caesar remind me that in Creating Christ, the authors observe that when Caesar met opposition or betrayal, and won, he would offer clemency; the defeated party would join him, grateful for being spared and looking forward to sharing in the future loot. (But there were no second chances, you'd be ruthlessly eliminated at the first sign of disloyalty; no "forgive your brother 70 time 7 times"). In this way Caesar built a base of power, gaining more and more allies, and gained the adulation of the people.
I guess things didn't work out so well with him and the Senate, but consider that the Senate's triumph was short lived, and emperors that followed used Caesar's own name as a title. Not a bad legacy. In fact, the authors go into this in order to argue that Julius Caesar (JC) was the real life model that the myth of Jesus Christ (JC) was based on. Whether or not that holds water, they do make a case that the Roman world was not a world of ruthless "blond beasts" that was either (1) taught morality by the loving Christians , as the latter would say, or (2) destroyed by a religion of slave morality, as Nietzsche and a lot of "alt right" types would say. History is complicated!
Shakespeare, of course, captures this sense of being at one of the junctures of history in his play Julius Caesar, although these lines belong to Brutus:
There is a tide in the affairs of men
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves
Or lose our ventures.