Monday, July 9, 2018

The Real Enemy: the Trumpian boomer conservative




I.

The Right in the West has become, since Trump’s election, the battleground between two opposing tendencies: the Atlanticists and the Eurasianists. In the latter group, we find Putin, Dugin, the Eurasianists, the National Bolshevists, the advocates of a new Red / Brown alliance – all of whom have been gaining ground steadily in the Right since the Maidan uprising in the Ukraine in 2014 and Putin’s subsequent invasion of eastern Ukraine and Crimea; in the former, the new wave of Trumpian immigration-restrictionist and civic nationalist conservatives, who came to prominence during Trump’s hostile takeover of the Republican Party and his ascension to the presidency.

For a time, it seemed that Putin would emerge as the leader of the Right, after ploughing in considerable resources into winning it (and the Left, but that is another story) over, and in the geopolitical arena, he faced little competition, given that the US had elected an intransigent, homosexual Marxist negro to the presidency for not one but two terms. But now Putin seems to have taken a step backwards when by all rights, he should be moving ahead.

In the past four years, Putin has annexed Crimea, has been unable to have been dislodged from eastern Ukraine, and has saved what is left over of the Syrian Arab Republic rump state (at the expense of Syria having been partitioned – Russia has to share Syria with Iran, Turkey, the Kurds and the US, and may, at the time of writing, have to accede to an Israeli concession in the border town of Quneitra). One would think that these victories translate into prestige, prominence, but this is not the case. The organisations and parties in the West that Putin has fostered, or gained influence in, have largely fallen into disarray. Trump, on the other hand, seems more interested in these than Putin is: he has been making inroads in the populist parties of the Far Right, once the exclusive preserve of Putin, and one indication of this is the controversy caused by the recent remarks by Grenell, the US ambassador to Germany. Trump, who makes no secret of his distaste for Merkel, is letting it be known that in the Trump administration, the immigration-restrictionist parties of Europe have a friend, and in 2018, is expanding in power and becoming the leader of the Right, not only in the US but in the West.

Perhaps the reason for Putin’s apparent decline is weariness. His regime – which is 18 years old – is showing signs of age, while Trump’s administration is only in its second year, and possesses all the reformist zeal and energy of the Reagan administration in its first term. Added to that is the fact that Trump has a better image than Putin, who is guilty, in the eyes of the Far Right, of a multitude of sins: Putin does not advocate nativism, immigration restrictionism, racialism; he takes the standard, orthodox Soviet view of National Socialism and WWII; he cultivates Israel, Netanyahu and Jewry. Putin has always lacked credibility among the more discerning and critical members of the Far Right for these reasons, whereas Trump presents an alluring alternative, not only to Duginism, but to white nationalism: he proves that one can be a civic nationalist, a conservative and a Zionist and at the same time a highly effective nativist and immigration restrictionist – and therein lies the danger. The white nationalists, along with the Duginists, are being outflanked by Trump. They stand in the middle ground between the Eurasianists and the Atlanticists, and as the fortunes of the Eurasianists decline, and the Atlanticists rise, they must either carve out a third position or join one of the two opposing sides.

Trump can draw followers from the Right – the Center and Far Right – because, at the moment, he is undertaking a great war against the Left, a war which is being waged for the control of key institutions in American life. The American State consists of the executive, judiciary and legislature: the Trumpian faction of the Republican party controls the executive, has only partial control of the legislature (which refuses to authorise release of funds to pay for his Mexican border wall) and the judiciary (which, in the lower courts, has attempted to stall some of his immigration restrictionist measures). As for what Trump calls the ‘Deep State’, institutions such as the armed force, the police, the secret police (the FBI), the public and education sectors: Trump has excellent relations with the police and the army, but faces resistance (Hillary Clinton’s ‘Resistance’) in the other institutions. This resistance extends to what may be called the Outer State - the entertainment industry, the media, the churches, the trade unions, the chambers of commerce - and in these we find ambiguous attitudes towards Trump at best. Big business likes Trump’s tax cuts and deregulation, but not his tariffs and not his nativism, and the rank and file of the trade unions firmly support Trump whereas the leadership does not, and as for the conservative media, even it is not completely won over to Trump, but is warming to him because of the aberrant behaviour of the Left.

The antics of the Left may serve to tighten, and not loosen, Trump’s grip on power. Political neutrality no longer exists in the US, and neither does moderation. The US Center Left has collapsed into the Far Left, a process which has started under Obama and has accelerated since the 2016 election campaign, and the resulting chaos and tumult has played into Trump’s hands and is well suited to his unique brand of divisive politics. In the November primaries, and in the 2020 election, Trump will run on a Nixonian ‘law and order’, anti-leftist platform, and will seek to persuade the American voter that the Democrat Party has been taken over by immoderate, left-wing fanatics – an easy task.

Trump – if he wins big – will only increase his standing within the Republican Party, and this will give him the freedom to enact more of his program. At present, the party forms an obstacle to the fulfilment of his most important election promises. Trump may have taken over the party in 2015-2016, and sidelined the dissident ‘Never Trump’, pro-business and pro-immigration faction, but he lacks good personnel, and has been forced to appoint liberal and pro-immigration conservatives, such as Kirstjen Nielsen, who, according to the Trumpian media, is attempting (alongside Chief of Staff John Kelly) to thwart Trump’s restrictionist policies from within. If Trump were truly the autocrat, the totalitarian, the media claims him to be, he would not be faced with this quandary. After all, extreme reproducibility and uniformity of views make up some of the distinguishing characteristics of a totalitarian organisation. L. Ron Hubbard found no shortage of followers who would carry out his orders to the last letter, and neither did Joseph P. Smith, the founder of Mormonism, and neither did Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro…

All the more reason, then, why we should reject Trump: he is not one of us – a ‘totalitarian’, a ‘fash’, a ‘Nazi’. But, at the same time, it must be said that Trump has done many good things for us. According to the Russian military writer Viktor Suvorov, Stalin viewed Hitler as an ‘icebreaker’ – some would cause chaos and disruption in the West and bring about war, thereby making Europe weak and vulnerable and open to Soviet domination. My argument here is that Trump essentially plays the same role. Trump should not be regarded as the enemy: the conservatives behind should. They stand the most to benefit from a triumph – no matter how temporary – over the Left and the Eurasianists, a victory which will be at our expense.

II.

Who do I mean by ‘conservative’? First among these number the big names, the opinion makers, of the conservative movement: the boomer conservatives. The list includes Rush Limbaugh, Kurt Schlichter, Victor Davis Hanson, Scott Johnson, Sean Hannity. They support Trump unreservedly and hold to immigration-restrictionist views. They are civic nationalists, American patriots and they put it about that liberals and Marxists, who believe in black nationalism and affirmative action quotas, are the ‘real racists’, and that true conservatism is colour-blind. And while the boomer conservatives do not belong to the (heavily Jewish) neoconservative faction of the conservative movement, they proffer philo-Semitic views and defend Israel to a ridiculous degree. (This side of their doctrine was exposed after the May massacre of Palestinians by Israel at the Gaza border. In one day, Israel shot more than 55 unarmed people dead like dogs. Had the American army shot dead 55 Mexican illegal immigrants at the US-Mexican border, or 55 Black Lives Matters protestors in Illinois, the uproar would have been immense, and such that the conservatives would have been forced to acknowledge that perhaps, this time, the US state had gone too far. But when it came to the massacre in Gaza, conservatives blithely dismissed the notion that it was anything out of the ordinary from a political, legal or moral perspective, and even insinuated that the Palestinian dead, all ‘terrorists’, deserved to be killed. The incident showed that the conservatives place little to no value on Arab life, and that old truism – one rule for Israel, another for the rest of the world – still holds).

It goes without saying that the conservatives disdain National Socialist Germany and take (unlike paleoconservative Pat Buchanan) the conventional view of the Second World War and the Holocaust to be absolutely, a 100% unassailably true. In this they follow Putin.

One should not labour under the misconception that these are men without virtue. Limbaugh says some excellent things on immigration, and has shown himself to be a shrewd and canny observer of US left-wing politics: he would not have survived for thirty years in radio, and become a fixture on the conservative scene, if he did not possess great insight. And these conservatives do form part of the political establishment – the protestations of Limbaugh and others not withstanding – and this gives them a tremendous advantage over the Richard Spencers, Hunter Wallaces, Mike Enochs, Matthew Heimbachs: they are more wired into reality. They form part of the state. And it could be argued, with some justification, that they deserve more respect than the Spencers and Anglins. The conservatives will point to the good work that they and their publications (such as Breitbart) do on immigration, and note that their journals and media outlets wield no small influence over the executive and the legislature, and not to mention the views of the ‘average American’. The conservatives, so the argument goes, are more realistic and effective than the white nationalists, Neo-Nazis, Alt Rightists and other fringe-dwellers.

Boomer conservativism is not confined to septuagenarian and sexagenarian Republicans – it carries over to the Far Right (or Alt Right) and its circumference. As right-wing aficionados of American popular culture know, the American entertainment industry has been infiltrated, to an astonishing degree, by ‘social justice warriors’, who have destroyed cultural institutions such as the Star Wars movie franchise and Marvel Comics. In politics, every action generates an opposite reaction, and ‘Cultural Marxism’ in contemporary pop culture has spawned a legion of YouTube commentators who fight against it and who have become politically powerful in their own right. These commentators more often than do not consider themselves to be conservative, let alone political: they see themselves as ordinary, every day Americans who are defending a beloved cultural heritage against a left-wing Kulturkampf. But, if one takes them seriously as political actors and examines their views, one sees an exact parallel between their ideology and that of the boomer conservatives. The same applies to the creed of other YouTube personalities such as Sargon of Akkad and Jordan B. Peterson, both of whom became a significant material force (as the Marxists themselves would put it) in a short period of time.

Past them, we come to the intermediate zone where the Center Right turns into the Far Right: the semi-respectable, nativist conservatives grouped around Peter Brimelow’s Vdare.Com. Here the Ann Coulters and Michelle Malkins rub shoulders with the black sheep of the conservative family, among them John Derbyshire (a British writer who was expelled from the National Review for writing a derogatory article against American negroes), Steve Sailer (an advocate of geneticist, ‘human biodiversity’ and race and IQ theories) and Pat Buchanan (a once-respectable paleoconservative and Republican presidential candidate who fell from grace). It is here that the conservative, who sees himself as a realist and who wants to keep his finger on the pulse of the conservative movement, pulls himself back from the brink, into safety – into the realm of Breitbart, Fox News, Red State, PJ Media and the Weekly Standard.

And what is the problem with this? The answer is that such conservative politics takes one away from the racialist and radical politics of a thinker such as Alfred Rosenberg.

III.

Rosenberg’s masterpiece The Myth of the Twentieth Century (1930) shows up the lie that German National Socialism only concerned itself with the fate of Germans only, that it had no bearing on the white world at large. 

Here Rosenberg writes on America:

This points to the problem of America. In the United States the racial policy
will have world political effects, in exactly the same way as once the idea
of Democracy determined the life of almost all states.
 North America is the area in which freemasonic Human Rights were first
realized. Brother Washington became the archetype of this philosophy.
The American declaration of freedom was the model for the Rights of Man
of the Paris revolution. In order to further capitalism, the battlecry of
Rights of Man was heard, and the liberation of the Blacks was accomplished
in the southern states.
The Black question stands at the head of all questions of existence in the
United States of America. The American liberal is bound and determined
to force his ideas on America, for as a state, the antiquated Liberalism
thumps the dub of Freedom on all citizens even if it must be beaten in with
rubber truncheons. If the insane principle of the equality and equal rights
of all races and religions is one day finally surrendered, there is yet hope.
Then the necessary conclusions with regard to the Asiatics and Jews will
result of themselves.
 We can not tolerate a policy that permits Blacks to appropriate our
civilization, open stores, become lawyers, and organize themselves
politically. It is particularly in this respect that American legislation should
intrude, and, with clear aim, introduce a resettlement of the Blacks to
Africa.

After deprivation of political civil rights, they should begin a planned
expulsion, increasing year by year, of Blacks to central Africa. That would
be a beneficial enterprise in the long run because every Black could easily
be replaced by a white. The United States of America would become much
more uniform as a result. If all this does not occur, then the present day
12 million Blacks will, in a short time, number 50 million. As the troops
of Bolshevism they could deliver a decisive blow to white America.

How right he was! Here he is on American policy towards Asia. He simultaneously condemns Western imperialism in Asia and Asian immigration into the West:

A statesman who has only Nordic European and Nordic North American
interests in mind will support the battle cry which is directed against the
present European and American states: east Asia to the east Asians! Japan
and China must retain the possibility of at least allowing their peoples to
live. To forbid immigration to North America and Australia to the Yellow
races, but at the same time to wish to colonize or rule the far east, is a
Capitalist insanity.
 It is possible that the misused technology of the Whites still triumphs
today. It is possible that the Yellow man is pushed back, throttled. But
then he will necessarily turn his face in other directions and will follow
the tracks of Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, and Attila. Bismarck's words, "The
Yellow men will one day water their camels in the Rhine," may find
fulfillment.

The United States of America, according to the universal agreement of all
travelers, is the magnificent land of the future. It has the great task of
throwing aside all outworn ideas which date from before its foundation.
It can proceed with youthful strength to set up the new idea of the racial
state, such as some awakened Americans have already apprehended, like
Grant and Stoddard. They saw the necessity for the expulsion and
resettlement of the Blacks and the Yellow men, the handing over of east
Asiatic possessions to Japan, the working toward a Black colonization in
central Africa, and the resettlement of the Jews to a region where this entire
group can find a place.

Can Rosenberg’s vision be carried out, at this late hour? Of that we are unsure. What is certain is that Rosenberg’s ideas cannot be put into practice if we are forbidden to discuss or even contemplate them. The civic nationalist conservatives work to prevent either from happening.



Friday, June 30, 2017

How did Simone Veil survive Auschwitz?


Auschwitz 'survivor' and pro-abortion activist, Simone Veil, has died at the ripe old age of 89.

How did she survive Auschwitz? Over 1.5 million people died there: this was the worst death camp in the history of the world. The odds of surviving the Chernobyl disaster (which only killed 32 people, according to Wiki) would be greater. Day in, day out, this camp was specifically designed for killing a) as many people as possible and b) killing as many Jewish people as possible - either through gassing or starvation or overwork.

Worse would be the odds of surviving to 89. A spell in one of Stalin's gulags, or Mao Tse-Tung's, would severely reduce one's life expectancy, and we could expect an internment in Auschwitz - which killed more people, proportionately, than any one of Stalin or Mao's camps - to do the same.

Weil's name and that of her sister (another survivor) appear on a Holocaust memorial:

As one of the more than 76,000 Jews deported from France during World War II, Veil appears on the Wall of Names at the Shoah Memorial in Paris, under her maiden name Simone Jacob. So do her father André, her mother Yvonne, her sister Madeleine and her brother Jean. Of the five, only Madeleine and Simone survived the ordeal, though Madeleine would die in a car crash just seven years after the war.

Could it be that others whose names appear on that memorial - which commemorates the Jews gassed to death by Hitler - also survived?

Saturday, May 6, 2017

Putin's whore Le Pen: should France vote for her?




Panicked leftists such as Andrew Coates have been comparing Le Pen to Hitler; I would compare her to former head of the French Communist Party, Maurice Thorez.

It's fairly easy to identify Le Pen as an agent of Russia. As soon as a Western politician starts spouting 'Great Patriotic War' gibberish, you know they're in the tank for Putin:


The Front National leader said it was time to “secure Russia to the European continent” and hit out at Hollande’s decision not to sell Mistral battleships to the Cold War superpower over their actions in Ukraine.
It comes as populist leaders like Donald Trump have expressed their desire to improve relations with Russia – and eschew globalist movements like the European movement with typically anti-Russian sentiments.
Ms Le Pen said: “During the last world war she [Russia] paid the heavy price.
“The 25 million Russian and national deaths of the different nationalities of their empire have contributed to our freedom.
“No one has paid the same price, and France will not forget it, even if the European Union gives the order to forget it.
“Russia was badly treated by the European Union, it was badly treated by an indentured France.
“We deplore the denial of our commitments when we yielded to foreign pressures and refused to deliver Mistral Projection and Command buildings that would not have altered the strategic balances or contributed to increasing tensions in Ukraine.”

Around 19 million Soviet civilians died during the war and the vast majority of these deaths were caused by Stalin's mistreatment of the Soviet civilian populations - you can read about it in Walter Sanning's classic The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry (1983). But Allied and Russian propaganda blames these deaths on the Germans, of course, and so does Le Pen. Some neofascist!

Let's examine Le Pen's claims further: what has the 'freedom' that Russia helped bring to France led to? For one thing, a permanent, irrevocable change in France's demographic makeup:





The leftist Anton Shekhovtsov has written an article on Le Pen which contains an interesting piece of information: Le Pen fell under Putin's spell in 2013, well before the propaganda blitz Putin launched on the Western world following the Maidan uprising and the annexation of Crimea in 2014:

Since 2013, it has been obvious that her views on international relations, especially those related to Russia, were guided by the Kremlin’s positions on those issues. For example, in June 2013, during her visit to the Ukrainian city of Sevastopol – at that time not yet annexed by Russia – Le Pen supported the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement, but, after her first ever visit to Moscow the same month, she would denounce Ukraine’s rapprochement with the EU and vote against the Association Agreement in the European Parliament. Since Le Pen started meeting Moscow’s officials on a regular basis, no Russia-related statement of hers has ever conflicted with the Kremlin’s line: neither on Putin’s repressions of domestic democratic opposition, nor on the Russian invasion of Ukraine or Moscow’s support of the murderous regime of Bashar al-Assad.
Not that by repeating Moscow’s disinformation Le Pen pays off the debt to the Kremlin; rather, she appears to echo Moscow’s narratives because she simply hopes to have continuous Russian financial support. Thus, Le Pen seems to lack not only her own views on international relations, but also self-respect. She wanted to meet someone from the Russian ruling elites already in 2011, but no Russian high-ranking official wanted to invite her to Moscow, because the Kremlin waited for the outcome of the 2012 presidential election in France. The Russian authorities aspired to have good relations with either François Hollande or Nicolas Sarkozy – relations that could have been potentially damaged, had the Kremlin invited Le Pen, and demonstrated political support for her, before the presidential election. It was only after President Hollande criticised Putin, in June 2012, for his support of Assad that the Kremlin decided to play rough on France and build relations with the Front National to destabilise social peace in the country.

Embarrassingly for Le Pen, she wasn't Putin's first choice in the 2017 presidential elections - it was Fillon:

But in 2016, Le Pen became a fall-back option for the Kremlin, and for this very reason the Front National not only failed to obtain another loan from a Russian bank that year (the First Czech-Russian Bank went bankrupt in 2016), but also started having problems with the Russian Deposit Insurance Agency that managed contracts of that bankrupt bank and threatened to recover the loan from the Front National through legal action. Given the fact that the Deposit Insurance Agency is a state-controlled institution, it is inconceivable that its position vis-à-vis the Front National was not coordinated with the state authorities.
The Front National became a fall-back option for the Kremlin, because Moscow adopted a wait-and-see attitude towards the political developments in France and, after the Republican primaries, decided that it would support François Fillon, who is known for his soft stance on Russian domestic and international policies, rather than Le Pen. And only after Fillon started losing popularity because of the “Penelopegate” did the Kremlin, again, decide to turn to Le Pen and even invite her to Moscow to demonstrate who Putin’s preferred candidate in the French presidential election was.

French voters today are faced with a stark choice between an Atlanticist and a Putinist. But does a 'Third Way' - neither Trump nor Putin - exist for France? In Yockey's last essay, 'The World in Flames: An Estimate of the World Situation' (1961), Yockey thought so. The answer lay in De Gaulle, who sought a position of neutrality and non-alignment in the Cold War:

The growing tide of neutralism in the world, is due to the political incapacity of the leadership corps of America-Jewry. If this tide rises in Europe, America-Jewry would be defeated before the war. De Gaulle is not a great man, but if he is able to gain French independence, he will immediately find himself the spiritual leader of all Europe, pygmy though he is. De Gaulle is a cretin, but people will follow even a cretin if he embodies their deepest, most natural, instinctive feelings. De Gaulle’s driving force is a vanity of super-dimensional extent. Even Churchill, the embodiment of the Idea of Vanity itself, was still content to be a Zionist executive with a front position, a big office, and a resounding title. But De Gaulle wants more: he wants to be equal to the masters who created him and blew him up like a rubber balloon. Because of the spiritual force upon which he has accidentally alighted—the universal European desire for neutrality—he may even succeed. An idiot might save Europe. History has seen things as strange.

If and when Le Pen loses, the French Far Right should undergo a self-reassessment. Perhaps a turn back to Gaullism could show the way forward.

In the meantime, let's pause to consider the feelings of the Charlemagne SS Division who fought in the battle of Berlin this month 72 years ago: what would they have thought of Le Pen?





The UKIP wipeout: was UKIP's Assadism partially to blame?



UKIP has been wiped out in UK council elections: it lost every single seat it had acquired in past elections - all 115. This stunning rout has been overshadowed by the collapse of the Left: Labour, which as we know has been heavily infiltrated by communists, lost 334 seats.

The Center Left - which these days is mostly indistinguishable from the Far Left - in Western countries has suffered badly in the past seven months: it lost the US presidential election and was wiped out in the Dutch House of Representatives election and the French presidential election. The Western electorate seems to be moving rightwards, and in the case of the UK at least, towards the Center Right and away from the Far Right.

The late American journalist and supply-sider Jude Wanniski compared electoral politics to business and believed that the customer - in this case, the electorate - was always right. Just as investors as an aggregate arrive at the correct valuation of the worth of companies in a stock market indice at the close of a trading day, the electorate, as a whole, shows a wisdom greater than its parts and always chooses the best candidate, or the least worst one. Wanniski would say that the UK electorate made the right choice in rejecting Labour, and UKIP, to the extent that it did.

The question is: why was UKIP so thoroughly trounced? The most obvious reason is that UKIP, after the Brexit referendum, has served its purpose and can't justify its existence any more. After the referendum, UKIP tried to re-invent itself as a more conventional populist and civic nationalist party - something akin to the BNP under Nick Griffin - but didn't succeed.

But I think the answer lies somewhat deeper. Suppose you are a communist running for office who is explicit in his support and admiration for Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao; the electorate could be forgiven for thinking that you, once in power, will attempt to introduce policies which are in accord with the ideologies of these four men. The electorate, not being stupid, knows that Stalinism, Trotskyism, etc., add up to poverty, misery, starvation, terror and the rest and so will rightfully reject you and your party.

Suppose you, as a British politician - whether it be on the Far Left or Right (and it doesn't matter which for the sake of this example) - tout Assad. It's reasonable to assume that you, once in power, will behave like Assad. Perhaps you and your family will stay ensconced for 41 years, and after the British people rise up against you, you'll make war on them, torture and slaughter them in the hundreds of thousands; your soldiers will rape boys and gouge out peoples' eyes with drills. Perhaps some masochistic voters will want this; most won't.

Paul Nuttall, the leader of UKIP, has made no secret of his admiration for Assad; neither has Nigel Farage, the former leader of UKIP (and still the public face of the party). Nuttall and UKIP could have taken up the Tory line on Syria - that Assad is doing terrible things, that Assad must go, etc., etc. - and this wouldn't have been inconsistent with UKIP's platform; but UKIP was forced to take up Assadism because of its commitments to Putinism.

Putin has hijacked UKIP and just about all the major parties of the European Far Right:

Europe’s far right parties have been particularly enthusiastic about Putin. Unlike most other European political groupings, they applauded his war against Georgia and military meddling in Ukraine. When Putin invited representatives of their parties to observe the referendum to have Russia annex Crimea, they dutifully attended the event, after which France’s National Front, Britain’s UKIP, Austria’s Freedom Party, and Italy’s Northern League endorsed its legitimacy. Hailing Russia’s president as a true patriot, Le Pen lauded him as a defender of “the Christian heritage of European civilization.” Farage, asked which world leader he most admired, responded without hesitation: Putin! The leader of Austria’s Freedom Party, Heinz-Christian Strache, praised Putin as a “pure democrat.” Indeed, Europe’s far right parties blame the EU and NATO for the crisis in the Ukraine, support lifting EU sanctions on Russia, and back Russia’s military intervention in Syria. In the European parliament, their representatives vote in favour of Russian interests nearly all the time.
In turn, Russia’s president has assisted these parties in their struggle for power. In 2014, the National Front received an 11 million Euro loan from a Russian bank to help finance its successful municipal election campaign. During the current French presidential campaign, the National Front applied for a substantially larger Russian bank loan, Russian media outlets are working hard for Le Pen, and Putin has received her in Moscow with the kind of buildup usually accorded a head of state. In Germany, Russian media and social networks played up a false story of an alleged gang rape of a 13-year old girl by migrants, prompting tens of thousands of Germans to take to the streets in protest and generating startling electoral gains by Alternative for Germany. That party has denied allegations that Russia is providing it with funding, but not the possibility that Russia is behind the mysterious appearance of millions of copies of its campaign newspaper and thousands of its election signs. Meanwhile, the youth group of Alternative for Germany has forged an alliance with Putin’s United Russia party.
The story is much the same in other nations. In Austria, the Freedom Party appears to be receiving Russian financial assistance through a thinly veiled intermediary, a prominent Russian oligarch. Russian cooperation with Austria’s far right became official in December 2016, when the United Russia party signed a cooperation agreement with the Freedom Party. In Britain, the Russian government, despite formal statements of neutrality, clearly sided with UKIP’s Brexit campaign. Enamoured of Farage, it provided him with frequent guest appearances on Russia Today and, following passage of the Brexit referendum, even offered him his own show on that state-funded network. In the Netherlands, Russia’s disinformation and propaganda arms have worked to assist Wilders and his Party for Freedom by trumpeting false news stories.

UKIP has been transformed from a Eurosceptic party to a party which, among other things, works as a front for Russian geopolitical interests; in this way it resembles the Communist Party of Great Britain, which received extensive financial backing from Russia and wound up after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Geopolitically speaking, a British Far Right party - or any British party - in 2017 is faced with two choices: either go with America or with Russia. No 'Third Way' exists. Britain has been run by Jews, communists and Tories since the mid-1930s, and has been in the American sphere of influence since that time. A party which declares itself to be outside this arrangement is aligning itself with Russia, which is unpalatable to most in the British electorate. In order to succeed, then, a Far Right party has to make peace with at least one of the three dominating factions - the Jewish, the communist, the conservative - and place itself at their disposal.

Perhaps a 'Third Way' does exist: a real 'Third Force' nationalism, whose slogan is, 'Neither Trump nor Putin, neither Netanyahu nor Assad'. From the time of the end of the war and up to around the 2000s, the British Far Right had been striving for a similar goal. But by around the mid-2000s, it gave up. Nick Griffin of the BNP, and then UKIP, saw that 'Third Force' nationalism was not paying great dividends electorally, and so attempted steer the Far Right towards Toryism - and Judaism - and away from the ideologies of white nationalism and Neo-Nazism, both of which are hated and feared by the British establishment. But Griffin's quasi-Toryist venture folded, and Griffin, Farage and Nuttall slid into Putinist populism.

Can the British Far Right pull itself out of the ditch? After the UKIP defeat, it must; it needs to clean house and purge the Putinistas from its ranks if it is continue to maintain the winning of elections as its primary goal. Putinism is fast becoming an electoral liability.

Putinism or Nazism: Choose One

Oh no, it's that time of the year again: Russia is going to put on its annual military parade in Red Square on May 9. The British tabloid The Sun writes of the rehearsals:

More than 70 planes and helicopters practised manoeuvres overhead with the world’s largest military transport helicopter Mi-26 escorted by a quartet of Mi-8 helicopters set to open the show.
On the ground, thousands of  troops put on well-practiced parade in a huge show of military might.

No doubt this will impress the Richard Spencers, Hunter Wallaces, Andrew Anglins; they will laud it to the skies. After all, the Sun headline reads: 'PUTIN ON A SHOW OF MIGHT - Thousands of Russian soldiers, aircraft and tanks march in a massive showcase of military power'. Doesn't this prove the inferiority of American and 'Zionist' arms? That 'Russia strong, Russia strong'?

Yes, all Alt Rightists, white nationalists, Neo-Nazis should approve of this parade and do their best to promote it. But wait - let's take a closer look: what does this parade commemorate?



May 9 should be a day of mourning. Contra Putin, the fall of the Soviet Union was not the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century: it was the fall of National Socialist Germany. All our present misfortunes stem from it:








Tuesday, May 2, 2017

In Defence of Trump




Carolyn Yeager has written a few articles recently criticising Trump: see here and here. These are significant as Yeager, unlike Trump's critics on the Alt Right, comes from the Holocaust Revisionist and Neo-Nazi wing of the Far Right; so does another recent Trump  critic, Art Jones:

In a tent deep in the woods of rural Kentucky, an old neo-Nazi spoke bitterly of how he feels “betrayed” by Donald Trump.
“I’m sorry I voted for the son of a bitch, I really am,” said Art Jones, who the Anti-Defamation League identifies as a Holocaust denier who has been dressing in Nazi garb and celebrating Hitler since the 1970s.
“I’m sorry I spent $180 out of my own pocket to buy three big banners that said, ‘President Trump, build the wall’,” the blazer-clad Jones said, to a tent full of about 100 men, some of whom wore paramilitary-style uniforms. “Now he says, ‘Eh, what wall?’ I’m embarrassed that I voted for him.”
Jones blamed Trump’s failures on the “Jewish lobby” and the president’s son-in-law and aide, Jared Kushner, who is Jewish.
“If I could take the vote back,” he said. “I would.”

Yeager, unlike Richard Spencer and Andrew Anglin, doesn't serve Putin; she hasn't been corrupted by Putin and has attacked - as any decent person should - Putin over the annexation of the Crimea, the attempt to annex Eastern Ukraine, the downing of MH17 - all topics on which the Spencers, Anglins, Mike Enochs, Hunter Wallaces have stayed conspicuously silent. (I can't speak for Art Jones: I don't know enough about him to know what his opinions on Putin are). But both Yeager's criticisms of Trump and those of the pro-Putin side of the Alt Right stem from a common source: a belief that Trump, since becoming elected, has become a pawn of Zionism and Jewry.

In a comprehensive profile on the Alt Right in the New Yorker, we find this:

As you may have read, the reactionary honeymoon is already over in the White House; the Trump Train is losing its alt-right cars. After the president announced an airstrike against a Syrian military airfield last month, his biggest and loudest supporters on the countercultural right — who would generally rather be fomenting authoritarian regimes at home than opposing them abroad — publicly broke with their god-emperor, muttering that the inciting chemical attack was a “false flag.” “We voted for ‘Make America Great Again,’ ” wrote new-right blogger Brad Griffin after Trump sharply criticized anti-Semitism at a Holocaust-remembrance event. “Instead, we got Jarvanka, Gary Cohn and a bunch of globalist neocons foaming at the mouth to start new wars.” The apparent status decline of Steve Bannon seemed only to confirm a parting of ways between the alt-right and their would-be Crusader king. To guys like Richard Spencer, Alex Jones, or Andrew Anglin, Trump — the savoir of the white race, melter of snowflakes, and slayer of social-justice warriors — has started to look like just another cuckservative.

I disagree with this entirely. Trump, after the bombing of the Shayrat airstrip, didn't steer the US on the path towards 'war' in Syria. The US has already been at war in Syria for since 2014 and has made over 8000 airstrikes which have inflicted severe casualties on the Syrian population - and on ISIS and the anti-Assad rebel fighters.

Wallace, Anglin, Spencer, Enoch objected to the Shayrat bombing, not out of a phony 'anti-interventionism', but because of what it portends. America's bombing Shayrat represents the first crossing of swords with Putin; through this action, it has named Putin as the enemy (in Carl Schmitt's sense of the word).

The Spencer faction of the Alt Right has served Putin's interests at least since the Maidan uprising and the Crimea annexation. Around the time of the commencement of hostilities with the Ukraine, Putin began to cultivate fringe extremist political movements - from Neo-Nazis to white nationalists to libertarians to communists to nationalist populists - in the West; he also targeted fringe Western political figures such as Tulsi Gabbard, Jill Stein and Dennis Kucinich, and former heads of state such as Gerhard Schroeder. That's in addition to hiring a vast army of professional, underpaid Kremlin trolls to spam message boards and forums on both the Left and Right with nearly identical propaganda arguments and links. Putin doesn't care about ideology and he doesn't care about consistency; he only wants to maintain power for himself and his corrupt, oligarchic clique.

The Alt Right, and the Neo-Nazis and white nationalists, being politically - and often intellectually, sadly enough - weak, didn't have the strength to resist Putin's blandishments. As a result, they have betrayed their fundamental principles. Putin represses Russian nationalism (and Neo-Nazism) at home; he represses Holocaust denial; he encourages massive non-white and Muslim immigration. In fact, he pursues exactly the same policies as any Western, 'globalist' politician.

Putinism shows sharp contradictions which cannot be reconciled. Putin encourages separatism abroad while repressing it at home; he makes a practice of interventionism in Syria and the Ukraine while repressing isolationism, interventionism, pacifism, etc., at home; he, being one of the richest men in the world, if not the richest, belongs to the well-heeled globalist elite but at the same time portrays himself as a simple nationalist and populist, etc., etc. In the West, the Alt Right, the Neo-Nazis, the white nationalists, the paleoconservatives, the communists who do support Putin are well aware of these contradictions, but choose to ignore them; the lure of Kremlin favour has proven to be too strong.

In the end, Putinism comes down to geopolitics. To understand this, we need to look at geopolitical realities and how these affect the internal policies of the US.

Putin wants as much power for his geopolitical unit as possible, and being a revanchist, wants to regain as much external territory from his neighbours as possible. He also wants to restore lost prestige by bombing Syrians and propping up the butcher Assad, the greatest mass murderer in Arab history (and who, even if he was entirely innocent of the Sarin gas attack at Idlib, is not someone you want on your side). But one obstacle stands in Putin's way: the US. Putin can't survive a direct military confrontation with the US, but he can undermine it. He can achieve this by using the old Soviet tactic of cultivating the internal opposition within the US - by buying fringe political groups and politicians. As a general rule, Putin always supports the opposition (so long as they're opposition). This is why he throws his weight behind the American Far Left and Far Right. He supported Trump in the 2016 election because he expected - like most - that Clinton would win; but, to his surprise, the opposition candidate won. But Putin could not take advantage of this. Ideally, Trump as president would serve the Russian national interest like Roosevelt before him. And ideally Trump would even do what Roosevelt never did and dissolve America's geopolitical independence entirely and turn America into an 'ally' (that is, a vassal) of Russia. But this was not to be. America stayed the way it was - an independent political unit, as Yockey would call it - and hence the disappointment of Putin and the fury of Putin's American followers, who perhaps invested too much hope in Trump. (It would seem that the American Putinistas expected Trump to be another Henry Wallace, who ran as a third-party candidate in the 1948 presidential election and who was thoroughly under communist, that is Russian, control).

Now, as it so happens, the Far Right critics of Trump are correct: he - and America - are controlled by Jews: America has been under Jewish control since 1933, when Roosevelt was elected in what Yockey called the 'American revolution of 1933'. The surprising thing is that Trump's followers on the Far Right expected him to change that; they believed he would lead some sort of Yockey-esque uprising against Jewish power in America. At the least, they downplayed Trump's Jewish connections, even his Jewish style. (Trump, with his accent, his speech patterns, his affectations and mannerisms, does look and sound like a Jewish New Yorker). It was only after the Shayrat bombing that the Alt Right discovered, and announced to a shocked world, that Trump and the Trump family had been thoroughly Judaised.

But how does this matter? America is ruled by Jews, Russia, by Slavs; China by Chinese, Iran by Persians... Does the fact that Russia, China, Iran, North Korea are ruled by their own people make those countries superior to America? The anti-Semites will answer yes; and they demand that America be ruled by white Americans - not by an alien minority.

The question is how is this to be achieved, and when: Enoch Powell was fond of quoting Thucydides, who said famously that the powerful never willingly relinquish power, and this is true of the 'Culture Distorters' in America, who will not be relinquishing power any time soon.

So what should patriotic Americans do in the interim? For a start, they should get behind a president - any president, no matter how 'Zionist' he is - who opposes non-white immigration and does something, anything, about it.

At only 100 days in, Trump has shown himself to be the most anti-immigrant president since Coolidge or Eisenhower:

The number of migrants, legal and illegal, crossing into the United States has dropped markedly since Trump took office, while recent declines in the number of deportations have been reversed.
Many experts on both sides of the immigration debate attribute at least part of this shift to the use of sharp, unwelcoming rhetoric by Trump and his aides, as well as the administration’s showy use of enforcement raids and public spotlighting of crimes committed by immigrants. The tactics were aimed at sending a political message to those in the country illegally or those thinking about trying to come.
“The world is getting the message,” Trump said last week during a speech at the National Rifle Association leadership forum in Atlanta. “They know our border is no longer open to illegal immigration, and if they try to break in you’ll be caught and you’ll be returned to your home. You’re not staying any longer. If you keep coming back illegally after deportation, you’ll be arrested and prosecuted and put behind bars. Otherwise it will never end.”
The most vivid evidence that Trump’s tactics have had an effect has come at the southern border with Mexico, where the number of apprehensions made by Customs and Border Patrol agents plummeted from more than 40,000 per month at the end of 2016 to just 12,193 in March, according to federal data.
Immigrant rights advocates and restrictionist groups said there is little doubt that the Trump administration’s tough talk has had impact.
“The bottom line is that they have entirely changed the narrative around immigration,” said Doris Meissner, who served as the commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service in the Clinton administration. “The result of that is that, yes, you can call it words and rhetoric, and it certainly is, but it is changing behavior. It is changing the way the United States is viewed around the world, as well as the way we’re talking about and reacting to immigration within the country.”
Experts emphasized that it is still early and that the initial success the administration has had in slashing illegal border crossings could be reversed if it fails to follow through on more aggressive enforcement actions that will require more than just rhetorical bombast.
Many of the other initiatives Trump has called for — including additional detention centers and thousands of new Border Patrol officers and immigration agents — are costly. Others, such as his vow to withhold federal funds from “sanctuary cities” that protect immigrants, are facing legal challenges.
Yet unlike areas such as trade, health care or foreign policy, where Trump has moderated his extreme campaign positions or failed to advance his agenda, the administration has systematically sought to check off the president’s immigration promises.
Most notably, Trump signed an executive order during his first week in office that, among other things, vastly expanded the pool of the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants who are deemed priorities for deportation.
Deportations had fallen sharply in the final years of the Obama administration as the former president tightened enforcement guidelines to focus on hardened criminals. But under Trump, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has begun to ramp up the number of immigrants who are being placed in removal proceedings.
Federal agents arrested 21,362 immigrants, mostly convicted criminals, from January through mid-March, compared with 16,104 during the same period last year, according to federal data. Arrests of immigrants with no criminal records more than doubled, to 5,441 in that period.

And keep in mind that Trump is just getting started.

Trump is having an effect on legal immigration as well: see here.







Saturday, April 15, 2017

Hunter Wallace's War on Terror



Another Lebanese-Syrian car bombing, with dozens killed at Rashidin west of Aleppo: born-again Assadist Hunter Wallace, following the line of the Assadist regime, has been quick to pin the blame on 'the rebels' and to use it to justify Assad's brutal war on his own people. In effect, Hunter asks the opponents of Assad in the West: 'Are you happy now?'.

It's an old, old propaganda technique and one that takes me back years ago to the 2002 Bali bombing. At the time, Australian conservative columnist Gerard Henderson - our equivalent of George Will - wrote an article with the Hunter Wallace-esque title ' Bleeding hearts left exposed as fools'. He uses the exact same rhetorical strategy as Wallace:

Perhaps those who blamed the US for September 11 will now realise they have been deluded.
Who will be on Michael Leunig's Christmas card list this time? Last year, in the aftermath of the terrorist murders in the United States, the Melbourne-based cartoonist declared that it was time to extend "mercy, forgiveness, compassion" to, wait for it, the leader of al-Qaeda.
Writing in The Age on Christmas Eve, the intellectual guru of Down Under's leftist luvvies declared: "Might we, can we, find a place in our heart for the humanity of Osama bin Laden and those others? On Christmas Day, can we consider their suffering, their children and the possibility that they too have their goodness? It is a family day, and Osama is our relative." It remains to be seen whether Leunig will exhibit similar sentiments this Christmas with respect to the weekend's massacre of the innocents.

Bush's war on terror, and the invasion of Afghanistan, were justified by the Bali bombing: that's the lesson we can draw.

Questions were raised early on as to who did the Bali bombing. The Wiki article on it regards it as settled that the perpetrators were the Indonesian Islamist group Jemaah Islamiah. Unlike Wallace, Henderson, at least, had the decency to admit that he didn't know who carried out the bombing:

It is unclear which person or group was responsible for the terrorist attacks in Bali. The murderers could come from one of the Islamist groups in Indonesia known to have contacts with al-Qaeda, namely Jemaah Islamiah or Laskar Jundullah. It could be terrorists with a different, essentially domestic, agenda; or criminality could be the prime motive. It is too early to say. 

As for the Rashidin bombing, it is 'too early to say'. The rebels, in a fit of sectarianism, could have done it; perhaps the Assad regime did it to make the rebels look bad. We don't know with any certainty, just as we don't know who car-bombed the Lebanese politician Rafic Hariri in 2005 or who set off the wave of car-bombings in Iraq in 2006-2007. At the time, the Hariri assassination was blamed on Assad's allies Hezbollah, while the Iraq bombings were blamed on sectarians who wanted Sunnis and Shiah to fight one another. I myself, being a conspiratorial-minded individual, thought that the CIA or Mossad could have been responsible for that wave of sectarian violence in Iraq. And, seeing as the widespread backlash and revulsion against the Hariri assassination brought about Lebanon's 'Cedar Revolution' and the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, who's to say that Syria's enemies didn't do it?

The fact of the matter is that the Arabs - and foreign actors in the Arab world, such as the Americans and the Israelis - practice a duplicitous, violent and often murderous type of Byzantine politics designed to encourage sectarian divisions. Western nationalists now, thanks to recent events, have wandered onto the battlefield, but are to be advised to get out - for the sake of retaining their integrity and their sanity.

The astounding thing is that the death toll of even a hundred Rashidin bombings wouldn't approach the number of those killed by Assad, which now approaches the hundreds of thousands. The wave of rapes, tortures and murders performed by Assad is unprecedented in Arab history, and, thanks to the widespread use of social media and smart phones in the Syrian conflict, most of the atrocities are immediately verifiable. To say the least, none of this constitutes a 'good look' for the Alt Right, for Western nationalists, for Southern nationalists. By supporting Assad, we are placing ourselves in the same position as those communists in the West who supported the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia. Those leftists downplayed the atrocities of the regime, and after its crimes were exposed to the world, were made to look either grossly callous or grossly ignorant. My prediction is that the Assadists and Putinistas in the West will end up looking the same way.

On the surface of it, one finds it hard to understand the newfound concern of Wallace with Syrian politics and the numbers of Syrians killed through violence. Wallace and the other 'non-interventionist' opponents of Trump pretend as though the Shayrat airfield bombing was the first air-strike carried out in Syria by the US. It wasn't: the US has launched over 8000 airstrikes since 2014. Civilian casualties from these have been significant and continue to mount. The US bombed a mosque in Al Jinnah and killed dozens in March. Why didn't we hear about it from Wallace?

The two-fold answer is that the US was bombing 'terrorists' back then, often in co-operation with Russia and the Assad regime, and that the Shayrat airstrike represented the first time that the US had raised a hand against the Assad regime - and, by extension, its sponsor Russia. Syria didn't appear on Wallace's radar until Shayrat. Carl Schmitt defines politics as the ranging of men against one another as enemies, and Trump has now become, after Shayrat, Putin's enemy. Trump must be destroyed; he must be attacked for his abandonment of 'non-interventionist principles' (overlooking the fact that Russia and Iran, along with the US, have been intervening in Syria for years) and for his Jewish and Israeli connections (overlooking Putin's Jewish connections and Russia's cordial relations with Israel and Netanyahu). The entire Alt-Right has been mobilised for this task. The American Alt Right's éminence grise, Richard Spencer, is owned by Putin - and has been for some time - as are other peripheral, fringe figures in US political life such as Tulsi Gabbard, Dennis Kucinich, Jill Stein... These 'sleeper agents', as Yuri Bezmenov would have called them, have sprung to life - they have been 'activated' - and are now to be deployed against Trump. Wallace, knowingly or unknowingly, is following in their train. In other words, he acts now as an instrument of Putin's foreign policy. He is treading a dark path.

I will conclude here with some of the wise words of Roman Skaskiw.
After two years of close observation, some strategies and motifs of Russian propaganda have become evident.  Hopefully these lessons will lend some clarity on the information war which overlays the kinetic one.
1. Rely on dissenting political groups in Western countries for dissemination.  Kremlin talking points appear with uncanny similarity in most alternative political movements in the West, including communist, libertarian, nationalist, and even environmentalist, whose protests occasionally overlap with anti-NATO protests.
I had an especially close look at the libertarian community as I have long been a part of it.  Rampant misinformation led me to write these three increasingly horrified essays about what some prominent libertarians were saying about Russia and Ukraine: Putin's Libertarians, When Your Former Libertarian Hero Calls You a Nazi and The Latest Libertarian Shillery for Russia.
The persistence of demonstrable lies and their almost word-for-word repetition in radical left media was uncanny and put into perspective only after I discovered the Active Measures interviews and the Deception was My Job interview of Yuri Bezmenov.  KGB agents who had defected to the United States in the 1970s and 80s all said the same thing.  Espionage was a minor consideration of Russian intelligence.  Their focus was controlling the message and it often happened through influencing media and political movements in freer societies.
Russian intrigue with dissenting groups even makes an appearance in Joseph Conrad's fantastic 1907 novel The Secret Agent.
Their impressively broad appeal is evidenced in their recruitment of both Western neo-Nazis and Western communists who claim to be fighting for World Communism to support the war in Eastern Ukraine.