Costin Alamariu Literature Review

This is RAW OSINT. Welcome to the game.

Like most people addicted to internet subculture forums, I’ve been familiar with Bronze Age Pervert for some time now. I’ve observed his posts from afar, including his countless flamewars and forum feuds over every possible subject.

Recently I saw the old Kantbot PowerPoints about BAP’s putative dox being recirculated, this time not to prove the Kantbot theory that BAP was a subversive and dishonest persona contrived to promote CIA neoliberalism, but instead to prove that BAP was a subversive and dishonest persona contrived to promote Jewish neoconservatism. These theories suggest that the BAP persona is not real, that BAP really harbors mainstream convictions or is at least allied with mainstream elites, and that BAP is using his persona to co-opt and deradicalize real dissent.

If this is true, and if BAP is Costin Alamariu, then it stands to reason that Costin Alamariu should advocate ideas incompatible with what BAP advocates.

I thus decided to validate the claims of subversiveness by reading public articles by Costin Alamariu. Below I summarize each of the articles or excerpts I could find and adduce conclusions as to whether they’re consistent with what the BAP twitter personality espouses, and whether they’re consistent with what a secret CIA neoliberal or Jewish neoconservative would say under his real name.

What I found sent shockwaves to the core of my being and radically disrupted my perspective of the world. I was not prepared for this tumble down (and up) the Escher staircase of a CIA-neoliberal, Jewish-neoconservative psychological operation (PSYOP), which entombed me in a conceptual tesseract from which I have yet to escape.

Article 1

In July of 2016, Alamariu published an article in Taki’s Magazine entitled “Putin 1 – International Vampires 0.”

In this article, Alamariu blames the “neoconservative intelligentsia” for promoting the discredited Trump-Putin connection that centrists, progressives, and conservatives in the mass media and federal government promoted for several years. The article speaks of how Trump’s campaign promise of foreign policy restraint constituted sufficient evidence for our empirically-oriented experts to infer collusion.

In discussing Trump’s foreign policy, Alamariu describes the foreign policy traditionally ascribed to neoconservatives, like the Iraq invasion and the support of the Arab Spring, as “reckless.”

Alamariu lauds Putin for putting a stop to the neoliberal (neoconservative?) looting of Russia in the ‘90s and praises the Russian president’s improvement of various socio-economic metrics in his nation. Alamariu then talks of Russia raiders like Marc Rich (later pardoned by Bill Clinton) as criminals who participated in the “rape of Russia.” He also names George Soros and associated organizations, as well as MIT and Harvard economists like Larry Summers, all of whom appear to be Jewish.

Analysis: These positions are anathema to the neoliberal and neoconservative establishment and consistent with what the BAP account espouses.

Article 2

In January of 2017, Alamariu posted “Rule of the Global Eunuch” on Medium.

This article discusses the overlooked scandal of South Korea’s first female president’s impeachment before turning to a more general polemic against the international leadership class that found Trump’s inauguration speech “terrifying.”

The impeachment of Park Geun-hye was memory-holed so fast you’d think she perpetrated a mass shooting from a hotel room in Vegas. For Alamariu, the silence of the media was fascinating given that protesters organized not one but multiple million-man marches demanding the former president’s ouster; and we know how important million-man marches are for democracy!

Alamariu describes Park’s quintessentially 19th-century female downfall, beginning with her attachment to some occultic shaman woman who led a cult of the “Eight Goddesses,” and ending with an uncouth chicken fat-stained dress. Alamariu suggests this cult’s prominence has led to gender equality policy being overfunded in South Korea, including paid leave for menstruation, while male military conscripts are abused by the matriarchal Korean state.

Alamariu then mocks the bizarre behavior of western leaders like Barney Frank, Tony Blaire, and Anthony Weiner, especially their participation in cult rituals. He also decries the UFO hobby and “kitsch neopaganism of Hillary campaign manager Podesta.”

Alamariu observes:

“It appears that, for whatever reason, the American elite selects for highly ambitious, compromised, corrupt, pedestrian people of remarkably banal and unrefined tastes, easily exploitable sexual neuroses, and a preoccupation with the faddish and occult.”

Alamariu suggests that neoconservative and progressive platitudes are convenient shields for insecure and depraved people who don’t want public scrutiny in their lives. Indeed, as we saw with Damon Linker, the Ring of Gyges exists in the west and anyone can use it by conforming to public pieties.

The article also focuses upon Elena Kagan as an example of how “the cream rises to the top.” He calls her an “obese, unaesthetic spinster” and quotes the anti-neoconservative Jewish author Paul Gottfried on her lack of intellectual achievements. Alamariu highlights her networking with other elite Jews as a significant factor in her privilege. He concludes that she’s a eunuch like those that serviced the Oriental despotisms of the past.

Analysis: These positions are anathema to the neoliberal and neoconservative establishment and consistent with what the BAP account espouses.

Article 3

In February of 2017, Alamariu posted on his Medium an article entitled “Was Tocqueville an Altright Internet Troll?”

This article defends Trump’s supporters against mainstream conservatives like George Will, David Brooks, Robert Kagan, and Bill Kristol, and lampoons their invocation of august philosophical names to delegitimize Trump and his supporters. Alamariu specifically focuses upon a favorite of the latter two neocons, Alexis de Tocqueville, and the general neocon obsession with the aristocratic French observer of American political life.

Alamariu deploys quotes showing that Tocqueville didn’t believe the neoliberal and neocon myth that the American system is a formal set of propositions that can be uploaded to other nations or downloaded by foreigners without significant cost to foreign nations or America. He suggests to neocons that they search for the word “Mexico” in Tocqueville’s book because “[i]t’s a great education in and of itself for people who believe the United States should spread democratic institutions throughout the world, or who believe that inviting millions of people from countries with no tradition of democracy or republican government will end in anything but disaster for America.”

Alamariu suggests that Putin and “white nationalism” are ciphers for a conservative establishment incapable of addressing the basis of Trump’s popularity: immigration skepticism. He argues that Tocqueville would’ve been “thankful for a man like Trump” who isn’t “beholden to international finance” and argues in a humorous passage that it is in fact the neocons who promote anti-American demagogs:

“Jeb Bush pandering to the “newcomers” as an ethnic boss-caudillo through his wife’s Mexican identity, or Marco Rubio being run by his oligarchic handlers on the fact that his last name ends in an “o” was far more a symptom of vulgar demagogy than Trump’s fundamentally defensive and protective measures of America’s citizenry…”

The article concludes with a suggestion for neocons that they cease invoking Tocqueville and start invoking philosophers closer to their own positions, like John Dewey, Karl Marx, and John Rawls.

Analysis: These positions are anathema to the neoliberal and neoconservative establishment and consistent with what the BAP account espouses.

Article 4

In September of 2017, Alamariu published a now-deleted op-ed in The Daily Caller called “The Liberalism that Isn’t”

Alamariu begins his most economically populist article with the assertion that American client states like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are more brutal than Putin. He says you don’t hear about their abuses on CNN because they “target merely gays and Shiites,” while Putin kills journalists, a protected class. He goes on to explain that many of the journalist murders ascribed to Putin happened before Putin came to power, and defends Trump’s record on journalism by comparison to Obama, who used the coercive power of federal law enforcement to surveil journalists.

From here he moves into a comparison of Eastern Bloc life to life in America and writes of America using its red guard – antifa – to racially target white students.

He attacks America’s debt culture, focusing upon student loans and their function: keeping everyone subservient to the state. He says that the global economy touted by the western establishment means nothing more than global tyranny and attacks low wages and immigration, while specifically lamenting that some Americans work for $2/hour in chicken processing plants. He concludes by arguing that even America’s elites are worse off than the middle class in Tokyo or Budapest.

In a rhetorically powerful statement against the system, he writes

“Massive public and private debt, mass immigration, and deindustrialization mean a people beholden to grim-faced clipped-hair HR viragos and soft-cheeked “journalists” who take on the role of capos. It is an intolerable form of slavery, for which the working class couldn’t get, in the bargain, even the feeble pride or paltry salary allowed to the dutiful of the striver class. It is for this that they revolted. Whether Trump delivers or not, he was elected in large part because people felt, even if intuitively, that his economic promises were connected to this push against political repression.”

Analysis: These positions are anathema to the neoliberal and neoconservative establishment and are consistent with what BAP writes on his account.

Article 5

In September of 2017, Alamariu published another article in Taki’s entitled “Looking Southward”

This article summarizes the racial nuances of Latin America, with its hierarchy of conquistador-descended leaders and their mixed-race subjects. Racism in Latin America, Alamariu points out, is based upon hue, with lighter people having higher status.

The point of his article is to criticize mainstream left- and right-wing analyses of leftist leaders in Latin America. He argues that the press’ discussion of Chavez and its obsession with his socialism ignores that Chavez espouses a socialism based upon race and ethnicity, not Marxist class stratification. Chavez is a proud dark pardo who hates the white ruling class that controls the economy.

The article chastises mainstream conservatives who have noted Chavez’s racial rhetoric because these conservatives have “focused exclusively on “anti-Semitism.”” Alamariu says this obsession obscures the fact that Chavez is openly hostile to anyone who is white. Alamariu says conservative pundits “don’t care to notice Venezuela’s abuse of whites as such.”

The American left is, according to Alamariu, less naïve than the right on this point. He says they have celebrated the racial character of the Chavez revolution.

He turns to Bolivia and points out that Morales led an ethnic movement of indios against the white ruling class, once again relying upon “American college professor” rhetoric. Alamariu flags humorous ethnonarcissistic elements of Morales’s movement like his plan to revert to a pre-Columbian calendar.

In short, the point of the article is that these third world liberation movements are primarily racial and only secondarily socialist. Like a classic neocon, he castigates neocon pundits for obsessing over anti-Semitism to the neglect of the anti-white and anti-Christian hostility that animates these third world populist movements.

Analysis: These positions are somewhat consistent with neoconservative analyses but deviate in that they courageously point out the anti-white nature of Latin American liberation movements instead of obsessing over anti-Semitism. They are also consistent with neoliberalism in their criticism of leaders like Morales, who run afoul of neoliberal institutional policies. Nonetheless, his arguments are more honest than those of the American left, who pretend every upstart left-nationalist is animated purely by class consciousness and not racial hostility, an infamous culture war distraction.

Article 6

On October 27, 2017 Alamariu published another article in the Daily Caller called “Mass Immigration Will Make the U.S. More Like Latin America” – unfortunately I could not find an archived version but the neoconservative-neoliberal American Renaissance has reproduced excerpts.

In general this article echoes Alamariu’s Tocqueville article by stressing that demographics are key to the American experiment. He echoes my conclusion here that racial hatred “is an old and unfortunate part of human nature” and laments that “[n]either constitutions nor Christianity have been enough to do anything about it.”

To support this conclusion, he observes that Haiti has the second-oldest republican constitution in the Western hemisphere but nevertheless accommodated the rule of a racist demagogue named Papa Doc Duvalier, whose racial hostility was directed toward people who would be classified as Black in the United States (the “Mulattoes”). In another excerpt, Alamariu compares the beliefs of people like Ben Sasse and Hillary Clinton to those of Papa Doc.

Analysis: These positions are anathema to the neoliberal and neoconservative establishment and consistent with what the BAP account espouses.

Article 7

On October 9, 2018, Alamariu published an article on Jair Bolsonaro in Palladium Magazine.

This is a long article on Jair Bolsonaro and the benefits of military rule in Latin America. Alamariu writes about Bolsonaro’s electoral prospects and compares him to many (now ill-fated) populists like Duterte, Trump, Le Pen, Salvini, and Abe Shinzo.

Alamariu says he’s an on-and-off resident of Rio and provides his perspective on the decline of Brazilian life for both the rich and the poor. He says that there was little hope that Michel Temer’s tenure in office could stop this decline, pointing out that Temer’s government “pursued a textbook neoliberal reform program of austerity with unfortunately familiar results.” This is exactly what a neoliberal pick-up artist would say! Watch out, ladies!

This state of affairs prepares the stage for Jair Bolsonaro, a “nationalist and populist congressman” hated by the left. Alamariu explains that Bolsonaro is a military man, a law-and-order guy, an opponent of gay rights and feminism, a proponent of private gun ownership, pro-business but hated by banks, and a maverick and outsider focused upon rooting out corruption and protecting the military against the left.

On gun control, Alamariu explains that it’s easy to get a gun in Brazil through illegal channels, but qualifies that the penalties for having an illegal gun are very high, such that the middle and working classes are deterred from arming themselves while the criminal underclass finds gun acquisition very easy. In other words, Brazil has experienced under progressive gun reform what everyone knows will happen under progressive gun reform in the U.S.

On social conservatism, Alamariu says that the left misunderstands Bolsonaro’s position out of paranoia about an “evangelical resurgence.” Alamariu says religion isn’t why most Brazilians support his social conservatism. He says Brazilians don’t want their children enticed, entrapped or corrupted by foreign sex tourists. They despise prostitution and the aggressive evangelical tone of modern gay liberation. In short, the middle class is conservative for traditional middle-class reasons and not out of any ideological concern. (As an aside, one of the greatest tricks of the left-right consensus in the west is convincing people that skepticism of social libertinism is rooted solely in social pathology or ideological fanaticism, and not in common sense material concerns about its socioeconomic costs).

Alamariu then defends the legacy of military rule in Brazil against Anglo-American misconceptions. He suggests the most innocent reason for this misconception is the lack of an “independent military tradition in the Anglo world,” which means a politically independent military and not a military that functions as a wing of the DNC through “retired generals” and infantilized “veterans” with the political sophistication of a … sorry I’m editorializing now.

Alamariu also suggests that this misconception was reinforced by the left-leaning media’s fetish for fatigued communist leaders like Castro and hatred for similar figures on the right, like Pinochet.

Alamariu argues that American perceptions of military rule are wrong, and that middle- and upper-class Latin Americans fondly remember military rule. Alamariu goes on to describe a golden age under military leadership, which embraced a form of authoritarian liberalism where the military left private life and associations intact. This doesn’t sound like neoliberalism or neoconservatism, both of which strive to promote democracy and social reform of private life.

Alamariu concludes his Bolsonaro analysis with a portentous observation that voter fraud is a big obstacle for the aspiring populist leader. In general, Alamariu is pessimistic about what Bolsonaro can do even if he wins, given his lack of allies in government.

Finally, Alamariu blames the ideological disconnect between American leaders and the middle class for emergent populist discontent, specifically blaming the ‘60s for effecting an ideological transformation of “western political institutions, finance, and media” leftward.

Analysis: this seems consistent with the views of BAP on twitter. Furthermore, I don’t see a firm case for CIA neoliberal Alamariu here, especially given his critique of neoliberalism in this article (as soon as you say the incantation “neoliberalism is bad,” you are a critic of neoliberalism). It’s also unlikely that neocons would like this article given their obsession with democracy promotion, and given the Biden administration and American media’s support for Lula.

Article 8

On October 12, 2018, Alamariu published The Lesson that America Did Not Learn from Vietnam in Palladium Magazine.

This is a long article that challenges the mainstream left- and right-wing dogmas about the Vietnam war. Alamariu embraces the Bircher-friendly analyses of the Vietnam war proffered by the likes of Hilaire du Berrier and James Burnham.

Whereas the left saw Vietnam as an unwinnable and unjust war, and the mainstream right saw it as a war the military won and politicians lost, Alamariu sees Vietnam as a war the loss of which was already foreordained in the 1940s by elite American embrace of socialism. Alamariu bolsters this argument by invoking evidence from Berrier and Burnham, showing that American foreign policy elite operated more or less in lockstep with a western left. For example, Alamariu names many of the individuals Berrier blames for promoting communism in Vietnam, such as Austrian immigrant socialist Joseph Buttinger, Professor Wesley Fishel, and the Russian-Born Wolf Ladejinsky. Alamariu further attacks the anti-European and pro-leftist agitating in Vietnam perpetrated by neocon darling Edward Landsdale, about whom the Notorious Neocon Norwood Max Boot wrote a biography.

Alamariu’s position here is totally opposed to neoliberal and neoconservative dogma, which imagines the post-war 20th century as a history of America combatting Communism. Perhaps most strikingly, Alamariu impugns an argument made by a contributor to the Claremont Review that praised Diem for eliminating “organized crime”, since this undertaking had nothing to do with combatting Communism, and since the “organized crime” Diem destroyed included secret monarchist and nationalist societies that were hostile to Communism.

Analysis: These positions are anathema to the neoliberal and neoconservative establishment and consistent with what the BAP account espouses.

Conclusion

If BAP is Alamariu, then the claim that BAP is putting on a show and concealing his public views to subvert dissidents seems unfounded, since Alamariu’s published views are more or less congruent with BAP’s, although the latter seems a bit more extremist and racist than the former.

I’m at a loss as to what ulterior goals could be achieved by saying the same things under one’s own name and one’s anonymous account, but I’m sure the personal antipathy underlying these conspiracy theories will generate rival and contradictory just-so stories. Or perhaps they’ll pick a new person to identify with BAP.