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.

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Steve Sailer: Putin Sponsors Muslim Migration

Will you see any Putinista acknowledge the above? No, never. They simply don't listen.

We can find a few thoughtful comments for the Sailer piece, but inevitably, the Putinistas come out of the woodwork to defend their great pro-Muslim immigration leader. I've noticed a pattern: the Putinista defender will ignore the Muslim immigration question and attempt to change the subject by yammering on about Soros and how anyone inside Russia who opposes Putin - nationalist or not - is a Jew or in the pay of the Jews. Or he will gratuitously insert one of his favourite topics, the perfidy of the Ukrainians, who are run now by both Neo-Nazis and Jews.

It's as if the Putinistas don't want you to notice that the same demographic displacement that is happening to the West is happening to Russia.

I see now that Putinism, and Alt Rightism, is multiculturalism - a new 'civic nationalism' or 'civicism', you could say, a creed in which race and religion doesn't matter: the main thing is that you oppose 'interventionism' and 'neoconservatism' and 'wars in the Middle East' and 'Trump plunging us into WWIII'.

Take a look at the below Man with the Golden Gun - he's the face of the Alt Right now.

Alt Right endorses a non-white

Southern nationalist Hunter Wallace doesn't do Southern nationalism any more: he's been sucked into the Alt Right mire. Which, in turn means: Putin. Two occasional posters for Occidental Dissent, Jack Ryan and Marcus Cicero, have taken the site over and now determine its ideological direction, which has become one of Alt Right multi-cultism, Putinism, Assadism and now, after the Shayrat raid, anti-Trumpism.

Here's the latest from Ryan:

Finally some good news to report.
I’ve found a very articulate, intelligent, principled opponent to the latest Neo Conservative attack on Syria. She’s a young, apparently a high caste Hindu Indian American, Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard.
Tucker Carlson Fox Interview
Outside of not “naming the Jew” Rep. Gabbard says everything Pat Buchanan and we say about the lying, deceitful Neo Conservative, Zionist, Christian Zionist, Military Industrialists that pushed the counter productive US wars in Iraq and are now doing the same regarding Assad’s Syria. Miss Gabbard is apparently a veteran of the Iraq wars and she noted that Colin Powell and other Bush administration officials simply lied in front of the United Nations about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and that these lies resulted in many Americans in the military that she personally knew were needlessly killed.
Just watch this interview – I’ve never seen a more intelligent, straight forward presentation of the truth against the Neo Conservative, Zionist war mongering lies.
Again, outside of not “naming the Jew” she’s doing it all.
Finally some good news! The arrival of a patriotic, honest, Alternative Left. Please hang out in Liberal Left places and let them know there is an alternative that is Liberal Left and strongly opposes these terrible wars.

White nationalists - and Southern nationalists - might find her ethnicity problematic, and so too her opposition to Trump's 'extreme vetting' of immigrants from Muslim countries.

But none of that matters: what does is her line on the Middle East, Syria and 'interventionism'. One commentator sums it up neatly:

What gives? The main thing is that Gabbard, like Jill Stein, another Assadist and Putinista, forms part of the opposition: Trump used to, but no longer. Once you cease being opposition, the Kremlin can no longer support you.

As Roman Skaskiw tweeted weeks before the bombing of the Shayrat airstrip:

In the New Cold War between the US and Russia, the Alt Right are the new communist party

Back in the days of the Cold War, the US Communist Party echoed the Kremlin line and followed it through every twist and turn. It did so out of ideological conviction and also because it received substantial funds from Russia.

What's the Kremlin line now on Trump? Medvedev's recent post on Facebook gives us a clue:

But in launching a military response that would have been unthinkable under Obama, Trump has both renewed and emboldened Putin's sense of purpose in defending Assad and painting the US as the aggressor. It has also allowed Russia to revert to its best-rehearsed, and most well-received, talking point: The US is an imperialistic actor with an impulsive leader whose loyalty lies not to his people but with "the establishment."

"This military action is a clear indication of the US president's extreme dependency on the opinion of the Washington establishment, the one that the new president strongly criticized in his inauguration speech," Medvedev wrote on Facebook.

"Soon after his victory, I noted that everything would depend on how soon Trump's election promises would be broken by the existing power machine. It took only two and a half months," he added.

'Trump has been gotten to', 'Trump now a pawn of the "establishment"', 'Trump has betrayed his base' for bombing one lousy airstrip: that's the exact same line as the one taken by Millenial Woes, who in his new video encapsulates the new Alt Right position on Syria, Assad, Putin and Trump.

Funny that, eh?

Monday, April 10, 2017

How Yockey refutes non-interventionism and justifies Trump

The US did the right thing about toppling Ghaddafi in 2011, but was remiss in foregoing the opportunity to throw Assad that same year: that is, it neglected its responsibilities as a great power. I have tried to explain this to some of my nationalist friends, but they don't really understand this at all, being unaccustomed to thinking like Bismarck, Hitler, Frederick the Great - in terms of realpolitik and machtpolitik.

Yockey illustrates my point better in his chapter 'The Law of Protection and Obedience' in Imperium (1947). Yockey defines the Law as 'To him who supplies protection also goes obedience... It will go either voluntarily, as the result of persuasion, or as the result of force'. In other words: Syria belongs to America or to some other great power and forms part of a political organism, and unless it descends into anarchy, cannot not be part of a political organism. If it is to exist, it must be ruled by someone. That someone - the sovereign ruler - demands obedience, and in exchange for that obedience, he protects that territory and its people from incorporation into rival states.

Yockey gives a concrete application of this: Europe - and Germany - in the immediate aftermath of the war, with the two halves under the occupation of the Americans and the Russians respectively:

Once more the words protection and obedience have also been used with an entire absence of any moral content. Thus “protection” can mean unlimited terror by military means, and “obedience” may be a reflection of the alternative of the concentration camp. The condition of occupied Europe under extra-European armies is protection within the meaning of this organic law. Even though these extra-European armies are starving and torturing the populace, nevertheless they are protecting that part of Europe from incorporation by another political unit. America protects its half from Russia and Russia protects its half from America. Thus the word is neutral vis-à-vis the disjunction of altruism-egoism. Protection is not kindliness, it is acquisition of power. Obedience is not gratitude, it is political submission from whatever motive.

Other examples of the law in action: feudalism, 'Western protectorates' and federalism:

This Law describes Western feudalism, for instance. Feudalism is the strongest political system that can arise. It is integrated inwardly and outwardly... The basic formulation of the feudal Idea is nothing but Protection and Obedience.
Protectorates such as Western international law recognizes are examples of the law. It also describes any federal units that arise. The central government is the only political one, for it protects and thus receives political obedience.

What happens if the rulers of a State don't pay attention to this law? The weakness of the political organism and possibly its death:

Looking at the organism inwardly, the amount of protection and the amount of obedience, and the quality of these things, describes the inner strength of the unit. A high degree of protection and a high degree of obedience constitute an integrated organism that can stand the test of politics. Such an organism can often prevail against great odds. A low degree of the protection-obedience relationship describes a unit that is inwardly weak. It cannot stand a real hard struggle, and will often succumb in a test even to an organism with fewer material means and numbers.
Thus when in the 20th century an organism dare not conscript a population within its area, such an area is one of inner weakness; and cannot be counted part of the political body. Such a situation can only continue as long as such an area is not the focus of political tension.

Yockey more or less anticipates what happened to Syria following its disintegration in 2011:

The existential nature of the Law is also shown by the fact that if a State is unable to protect an area and population within its system, that area and population will pass into the system of another State that can protect and has the will to protect. The passing may be by revolt, it may be by war. It may be by negotiation, particularly if the protecting State allows a quasi-government to exist in the protected area, which can make a private understanding with other powers to deliver to them the population and territory.

In 2011, so far as Libya was concerned, the US was able to 'protect an area and population within its system' - i.e., it was able to protect the rebels; in Syria, it was unwilling to protect, and so allowed the area and population to 'pass into the system of another State that can protect and has the will to protect'. The US, the protecting power in this instance, did allow a 'quasi-government to exist in the protected area' - in fact, more than one quasi-government: the Assad rump regime, the Kurdish-held area, the rebel-held area, the Turkish-held area, and, after 2014, the ISIS-held area...

The consequences for Europe of that non-interventionism we all know: for one thing, it has triggered a massive Syrian refugee crisis, which could have been avoided. The US had a window of opportunity in 2011, and in that time had Assad been overthrown (like Ghaddafi) or forced to resign (like Mubarak), then the refugee crisis wouldn't have happened, and neither would the 2015 Cologne New Year's Eve sexual assaults...

The failure of the US to live up to its responsibilities as a power and to accede to weakness in this instance did hurt Europe, the West and the white man. A little 'hawkishness', a little 'liberal interventionism', a little 'neoconservatism', back then would have solved many of the problems afflicting us today; at the least, it wouldn't have hurt. As to why the Obama administration showed such passivity and inaction, one could blame their lack of courage - but one also must blame the poisonous, will-sapping atmosphere created by the isolationists and non-interventionists after the Ghaddafi ouster. In other words, one must blame the Ron Pauls. They, through their thoughts and actions, aided and abetted the rape of the women and girls of Cologne.

But now Trump enters the picture. The US has been bombing Syria for quite some time, often in co-operation with Russia and Assad, so as to prevent areas from falling into the hands of ISIS and the various 'bad' rebel groups. Now Trump has put the population Khan Sheikhoun under his wing and is protecting them from Assad (and, as a corollary, demanding obedience in return). In other words, he is expanding the sphere of US power in Syria. That has shocked the world, but it's something that should have been done long ago. From a political point of view, the more of the Syrian 'area and population' the US can enrol and conscript, the better.

None of this means that I am taking a pro-American position. Any statesman from any great power - Russia or China, for example - in Trump's shoes would be forced to act as he has done, and would be criminally negligent not to have done so. The laws Yockey describes apply universally.

Saturday, April 8, 2017

A Song of Solidarity for the Alt Right's New Friends

One of the interesting thing about the Trump air strike is that it has drawn North Korea and Syria, and Iran and Russia and Syria, closer together: it's a case of united we stand, divided we fall.

In a tweet about the missile strikes, Rouhani said: "I call on the world to reject such policies, which bring only destruction and danger to the region and the globe."
"U.S. aggression against Shayrat (airbase) strengthens regional extremism and terror, and global lawlessness and instability, and must be condemned," Rouhani said.
The heads of the general staffs of Iran and Russia, a close ally of Assad, spoke by telephone on Saturday and condemned the U.S. strikes as "blatant aggression ... aimed at slowing a trend of victories by Syria's army and its allies and boosting the terrorists' morale", Iran's state news agency IRNA said.
Iran's Mohammad Baqeri and Russia's Valery Gerasimov "stressed that the two countries would continue their cooperation with the Syrian government until the full defeat of the terrorists and their backers in the country", IRNA added.
North Korea weighed in on Saturday, calling the U.S. strikes "an unforgivable act of aggression" that showed its own decision to develop nuclear weapons was "the right choice a million times over".
Diplomatically isolated North Korea considers Syria a key ally.

Trump or Assad? Trump or Putin? The Alt Right have chosen Assad, and Putin, over Trump. The Alt Right has some new friends: Iran, Syria, Russia, and North Korea. (Or perhaps these friends weren't new: it could be that the Alt Right was working for Putin, at least, all along).

Iran, Syria, Russia and North Korea make up a new coalition - a Gang of Four. The Alt Right must express their solidarity for the foursome. I've found just the perfect song, see below.

Never fear, Alt Right, the light is darkest before dawn.

Win or lose, sink or swim 
One thing is certain we'll never give in
Side by side, hand in hand
We all stand together

Play the game, fight the fight
But what's the point on a beautiful night?
Arm in arm, hand in hand
We all stand together

Keeping us warm in the night
La la la la
Walk in the night
You'll get it right

Win or lose, sink or swim
One thing is certain we'll never give in
Side by side, hand in hand
We all stand together

Praise Kek!

The Arabs hail 'Abu Trump'

Hail Trump! No, it's not Richard Spencer, but the Arabs: see here, here and here.
Some interesting memes here, including one of Trump with a Muslim beard:

It gives an indication of hated Assad is in the Arab world.

Meanwhile, Reuters is running a story, 'Many Trump voters welcome US air strikes as show of strength'. I would go so far as to say that Trump, by bombing those airfields, has ensured his re-election. And a win in the House of Representatives in 2018.

Don't believe that Alt Right: the bombing of Syria wasn't electoral poison. The Assadist Alt Right are now alienating the pro-Trump base. Paul Joseph Watson savaged Trump in one of his videos, and then backtracked after he lost hundreds of subscribers. Likewise, Laura Southern put up an anti-Trump video and then took it down. As we see from this 4Chan thread:

 I quote from the French poster here:

Anonymous (ID: 2woPJXbm)  04/09/17(Sun)02:49:36 No.120152232▶
>>120151258 (OP)

They must be punished
They only pretend to be back, they lost so many subscribers and followers they they realised the money train might not come by
They should give a part of their revenues to an association or to a fundation
I don't believe those money grabbers really support President Trump

Assad and Hitler are not the same: why Holocaust Revisionists should believe the Sarin gas attack story

Assadists and Putinistas will fall into two groups: those who believe that Hitler gassed the Jews and those who don't. Both groups believe that either a) Assad has never used chemical weapons and that the April Sarin attack was a 'false flag' and never happened or b) that the gas attack happened, but it was the rebels who did it (this is now the official Kremlin line). Those Assadists and Putinistas who have doubts about the Holocaust tend to point out the resemblances between the Syrian gassing allegations and the Holocaust tale. Both Assad and Hitler have been accused of gassing innocent people, both are regarded as dictators, and both wear moustaches. On that basis, the Assadists argue that the anti-Assad atrocity propaganda is just as fabricated as the anti-Hitler was: because the Holocaust story was false, we should infer that the Assad chemical warfare allegations - and other allegations, such as the mass executions at Sednaya jail - are false. And both fabrications are said to be the work of the Jews (but never the Americans and the Russians, whose role in fomenting Holocaust propaganda is nearly always overlooked).

It was recently reported that forensic tests have been carried out on the victims of the Sarin gas attack:

Autopsies on victims of the Syrian poisoning gas attack have confirmed chemical weapons were used in the daybreak strike that led the United States to fire more than 50 missiles into Syrian territory. 
The autopsies, conducted on three victims by Turkish doctors, provide the most concrete evidence to date for why more than 80 civilians - including about 30 children - were killed. The chemical used was most likely the deadly nerve agent sarin, the Turkish Health Ministry said.
"According to the preliminary results, the findings suggest that the patients were exposed to a chemical substance [Sarin]," the statement said.
Sarin is 20 times as deadly as cyanide. Within seconds of exposure noses run, tears form, mouths drool and vomit. If exposed to a high concentration, victim will convulse, become paralysed and die within 10 minutes.
Turkish Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag said that the World Health Organisation supervised the autopsies and that the results were sent to The Hague for further analysis.

Does this blow the thesis of the Mike Enochs - that the Sarin gas attacks never happened - out of the water? I think so. We can scoff at Turkey and point out that Turkey is hardly 'neutral' and 'objective', but at least Turkey is doing a forensic analysis (and so will the analysts at the Hague). The results of that analysis can be disputed all one likes, but at least it was carried out. Mike Enoch can carry out his own forensic analysis, or petition for 'neutral' and 'objective' nations such as Russia, Iran and North Korea to do their own. Even Iran has suggested that an 'impartial' enquiry should be held.

The fact that the Turks carried out autopsies illustrates the qualitative differences between the Syrian and German gassing allegations. In the seventy years since the end of the war, not one autopsy of any of the six million Jews killed by Hitler has been performed that shows death by gassing - not one. And hardly any forensic analysis of Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor and other Holocaust murder sites has taken place: we simply haven't bothered - at least to the extent that the Turks have done in Syria.

It would be easy enough to do, one would think. Scientists have detected the cosmic background radiation that appeared during the Big Bang; surely they could detect residues of the poison gas at Auschwitz which killed 1.5 million people? After all, the gassings at Auschwitz took place over seventy years ago, the Big Bang, thirteen billion.

The Holocaust story, when it first appeared, was a huge dump of unsubstantiated and unsupported information, as in this British Daily Telegraph article from June 1942:

If you read it, you'll all see that it depends one man's say-so. No forensic evidence was provided. The British didn't take the story seriously at the time, which is why they buried it on page five of a six-page newspaper.

The Soviets, after the liberation of Treblinka, did attempt to provide some forensic evidence: piles of shoes, eyeglasses and human hair. The perfectly innocent explanation for these was that the camps doubled as textile factories. At any rate, piles of glasses don't prove that a mass extermination - with or without poison gas - took place.

The second difference that arises after a comparison between the Holocaust and Assad stories is that the former seem wildly implausible, the latter do not. Anyone who has read the wartime and Nuremberg trial accounts of German atrocities - killing Jews with poison gas and electrocution, chasing Jews into pools of acid, forcing Jews to climb up trees which are then cut down - is struck by their Kafkaesque absurdity and unreality (but then Kafka was a Jewish writer, and wild stories of persecution and violence by Gentiles form part of the Jewish folk literary tradition). The figures, too, seem wildly inflated: 35,000 to 80,000 Jews - which is two to three infantry divisions worth - were shot dead in the ravine of Babi Yar in the space of a few days. Whereas the allegation that Assad hanged 5000 to 13,000 people in the jail at Sednaya over the course of four years seems perfectly plausible. At the least, if and when the regime falls, the story can be verified through forensics. As for chemical weapons, Libya under Ghaddafi developed them, and Iran and Iraq used them against each other in the war in the early eighties (some have speculated that Russia transported Iraq's stockpile of chemical weapons to Syria in the weeks prior to the 2003 American invasion); there's no reason why Syria shouldn't be using them as well.

To pull back now and look at the big picture. The US and Russia - and Jewry - are engaged in a new Cold War. All sides loathe anti-Semitism, and National Socialist Germany, with a fanatic intensity. Shouldn't we in the movement take a position of 'a pox in both your houses'? Why favour one over the other? Why go to bat for Assad, an Arab and a Muslim, and Putin, who despises National Socialism, bans Holocaust denial, encourages Muslim and non-white immigration into Russia... Assad may look white, but he is not; Putin is nominally white, but, being a Russian revanchist, hates the West, the white man, Europe.

Here's the other argument. Why should we associate ourselves with brutal regimes such as Syria, North Korea and Iran - the three of which are now aligned - when the three have perfectly verifiable and well documented human rights abuses which are appalling enough make Israel look good? It goes without saying that Hitler has a bad reputation and that the task of refuting the Holocaust story burdens us (as it was designed to do); so why add to that burden by carrying the flag for the Assads, Jong Uns and Rouhanis?

Finally, many on the Alt Right are angry with Trump and are doing their best to whip up hatred towards Trump. But, while they may be anti-Semitic, the Hunter Wallaces, the Kevin MacDonalds, the Mike Enochs, the Richard Spencers, were never on our side - the Holocaust Revisionist side - anyway. They were, however, on the side of Putin, who believes in the Holocaust, uses it to justify the 'Great Patriotic War', bans Holocaust denial in Russia, and accuses the Ukrainians of being Nazis (as if being a Nazi was a bad thing).

'All the hallmarks of a false flag': How the Alt Right was manipulated

When listening to Mike Enoch's hilarious on-air meltdown on the Daily Shoah during Trump's bombing of the Syrian airfields, I was struck by one thing: the absolute certainty with which Enoch believed that the Sarin gas attack was a false flag. He seemed convinced that it had never taken place. After the attack, the false flag meme had swept the Alt Right - and the Far Left - like wildfire, and, at a political meeting I went to on the Friday of the Trump air strike, I was regaled with accounts of how the gas attacks were faked.

It's well known that Putin, as part of his disinformatsiya campaign against his opponents in the Ukraine and in the West, relies on 'savushkinas' - armies of paid Kremlin trolls. My suspicion was that the same 'savushkinas' were working overtime to disseminate the false flag meme on behalf of Russia and Iran's client regime in Damascus. It turns out my suspicions were correct. I've just found an amazing article, 'How the alt-right brought #SyriaHoax to America: Tracing the "false flag" claim back to a pro-Assad website' by the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab), and after reading it, you won't be able to argue with its conclusions.

It contains a lot screenshots and graphics, and you should click on the link to view them.

Here's a summary of the piece:

A conspiracy alleging a chemical weapons attack carried out in northwestern Syria last week was a "false flag" operation orchestrated by "terrorists" opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad quickly made its way from a pro-Assad propaganda outlet to leading members of the far-right media in the US.
The trail leading directly from Al-Masdar News to far-right entities like the conspiracy-trafficking site InfoWars was documented by the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research (DFR) Lab, which uses open-source information to trace patterns of disinformation and hybrid warfare. Al-Masdar is run by Assad loyalist Leith Abou Fadel, who pushed a conspiracy theory in 2015 that a refugee tripped by a Hungarian camerawoman while holding his young son was a "supporter of Al Qaeda."
So how did the meme make its way from Syria to Australia, where my meeting took place?

The Al-Masdar piece was quickly "reproduced verbatim by at least three conspiracy sites:, and The Lifeboat News," according to DFR Lab. 
It was also quoted extensively in an article titled, "This is why CNN and all mainstream media must apologize for FAKE NEWS Syria chemical attack," which was published by the pro-Russia site The Duran.
On April 5, InfoWars, a far-right site known for peddling conspiracy theories, picked it up. It ran an article claiming the gas attack was a false-flag operation funded by the liberal business magnate George Soros and carried out by the White Helmets — a civil defense organization comprised of volunteer first responders that detractors have attempted to brand as a tool of Al Qaeda-aligned rebel forces.
The InfoWars article, DFR Lab wrote, "made the same claims, and used the same sources, as the al-Masdar story," merely "reversing their order."
Once the theory was in the crosshairs of one of the country's most notorious conspiracy theorists — InfoWars founder Alex Jones — it got help from one of Jones' biggest fans: Mike Cernovich, the self-described "new right" commentator whose work has been praised by the Trump administration.
"#SyriaHoax is hash tag of the day! Don't fall for #SyriaHoax!," Cernovich tweeted to his nearly 250,000 followers on April 6.
The hashtag was retweeted approximately 3,000 times by some 40-odd Twitter accounts — including fake accounts operated by Twitter "bots" programmed to aggressively pump out propaganda. DFR Lab suggested the idea for the hashtag may have originated with a month-old, pro-Russia account with 18 followers. 
Much of the hashtag's "initial viral appeal appears to have come from suspiciously hyperactive accounts that tweeted it dozens or hundreds of times in the space of a few hours," DFR Lab wrote...
The hashtag owed its success largely to Cernovich, who is an influential tweeter in his own right. However, part of that success was due to bots.
So the 'savushkinas' who spread this weren't even human. Here's an image:

Again, I urge my readers to click on the link and read the report all the way through.

The Business Insider story writes, 'That the alt-right would pick up on a hashtag aimed at villainizing forces opposed to Assad and Russia broadly aligns with its  crusade against establishment politics  and perception of the US as a globalist, imperialist power working on behalf of liberal elites'. So all of this done for politics. Keep in mind that Iran and Russia - and China - are global imperialist powers as well as the US. The Syrian conflict is a war, and in any war, all sides - and not just the 'globalist, imperialist power' the US - tell lies in order to influence public opinion. Evaluate your information - and the sources of that information - carefully, folks: don't accept any meme just because it's anti-US. Don't be a bot, and don't fall victim to the 'Trolls from Oligino'.

Apologies to a Jewish communist: 'Not all Neo-Nazis...'

The Jewish-American communist Louis Proyect - who has a lot of power on the US Left, and seems to be one of the few Marxist-Leninists to oppose the Assad regime - recently put up a brief post  containing Richard Spencer's #StandWithAssad meme:

Proyect wants to tar all of us Neo-Nazis with the same brush, and it's in his political interest to do so: he wants to stir up the US Left against the Assad regime, and one means of doing that is to associate US and European supporters of Assad with fascism, Neo-Nazism, racism, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and other deplorable, irredeemable things. Like a good many leftists, Proyect relies on a group-shaming strategy in an attempt to keep his fellow leftists - some of whom have strayed towards Assadism - in line.

But we on the Far Right don't all support Assad and Putin. I'm reminded of that classic Green Lantern issue by Neal Adams and Denny O'Neil, in which Green Lantern assaults the evil slumlord Jubal Slade:

Green Lantern is summoned to Oa by his superiors, the Guardians, and made to give an account for himself: 'You have behaved inexcusably! We have monitored your activities! We have observed your emotional attack on your brother Earthling!'. Green Lantern responds with a defence that has been stuck in my head ever since I read the story thirty five years ago: 'That... Filth... Is no brother of mine...!'.

Mr Proyect, I am a Neo-Nazi, and apropos of Richard Spencer, 'That filth is no brother of mine'.