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'.

Now Trump is gone, the Alt Right needs a new hero

Trump may have betrayed the Alt Right by striking out against Assad, but we can find one major statesman in Assad and Putin's corner: Kim Jong Un.

 The government of North Korea sent a “message of greeting to Bashar al-Assad” on Thursday meant to congratulate Assad for “the 70th anniversary of the [Baath Arab Socialist] Party’s founding.” North Korean state media published the congratulatory note on Friday, following the Trump administration’s decision to conduct airstrikes on a key Assad military base.

“Kim Jong Un, chairman of the Workers’ Party of Korea, Thursday sent a message of greeting to Bashar Al-Assad, president of the Syrian Arab Republic who doubles as regional secretary of the Baath Arab Socialist Party,” the North Korean state newspaper Rodong Sinmun reported on Friday.

“Today the Party is resolutely struggling to courageously shatter the vicious challenge and aggressive moves of the hostile forces at home and abroad and defend the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity under the leadership of Bashar Al-Assad,” Kim, the dictator of North Korea, is said to have written to Assad.

Jong Un has impeccable non-interventionist, isolationist, anti-Zionist credentials. I recommend him to the Alt Right. The Weekly Standard, Breitbart, National Review and other pro-Zionist, pro-interventionist journals oppose Jong Un, so what's not to like.

I want to see Richard Spencer make a #StandWithKim meme to match this one for Assad:

Given that the Zionist and Neocon lackey Trump is rattling the saber against North Korea - which wants only peace and never did anything wrong, and is not the concern of Americans anyway, the Alt Right and all libertarians, all non-interventionists, need to throw their weight behind North Korea. Western imperialism never sleeps. The Alt Right, and the non-interventionists, need to act now.

Friday, April 7, 2017

The Alt Right Demonstrates Against Trump's Bombing of Syria

Notable personages from the Alt-Right and Alt-Lite, and assorted hangers on, attended a demonstration in London on the 8th April against Trump's bombing of Syrian airfields. Richard Spencer, Ann Coulter, Henrik and Lana from Red Ice Radio, Hunter Wallace, Paul Kersey of Stuff Black People Don't Like, Paul Joseph Watson, Mike Cernovich, Mike Enoch attended; also present were Assad-friendly politicians Jill Stein, Nigel Farage, Tulsi Gabbard and Rand Paul. John Derbyshire and Pat Buchanan, being elderly, were unable to attend but were there in spirit.

I thought I'd share some pictures of the event with you:

See here for an account in the Daily Mail.

Thursday, April 6, 2017

The Return of the King: Tradition and the New Führers

In one of my recent articles, I wrote:

""The most glaring deficiency of both the 'skin' and 'patriot' movements is that, while both subscribe to fascist practice, if not fascist theory, both lack strong leaders, 'great men'. The NSDAP and the PNF were conceived as, among other things, a means of catapulting their respective leaders Hitler and Mussolini into power. The expectation of all the fascist movements of the time was that their leaders were prepared for, and sought, absolute political power - that they would not settle for being mere leaders of a cult (i.e., William Pierce) or a trend in popular music (i.e., Ian Stuart). We in the nationalist movement today lack men of action - the Hitlers, Mussolinis, Mosleys, Degrelles... I compare a fascism without a leader to an Islam without a Muhammad.

I've recently made a study of the constitutional and legal structures of the Third Reich and have come to the not-so-startling conclusion that German National Socialism, and fascism in general, sought to reinstitute a form of monarchy. To give some examples. In Hitler's Germany, soldiers and public servants (including judges) had to swear an oath of loyalty to the Führer: a common practice in monarchies but one which would seem absurd in our present-day liberal democratic setting (imagine one swearing a loyalty oath to Malcolm Turnbull or Daniel Andrews). Another example: German laws forbade 'defamation' of Hitler, the NSDAP and the party symbols - Germans could be thrown into jail for making fun of Hitler the way the left-wing media makes fun of Trump - and such laws resemble the lèse-majesté laws which are still in effect in certain monarchies (Thailand, for instance).

I call this practice - of making ordinary politicians into kings - 'neo-monarchism'. I believe it is more common than many liberals and egalitarians would like to admit. Look at Putin, who has more or less resurrected the Tsardom, and the Assads, who are a Syrian royal family who came to power through Ba'athism, which was a secular, nationalist, revolutionary, socialist and anti-monarchist movement. Further afield, North Korea presents an example of a country which, under a revolutionary, left-wing and egalitarian regime, has reverted to a type of Asian monarchy. And, in the West, we have Trump, who is referred to as the 'God Emperor', after the title of the Frank Herbert science-fiction novel God Emperor of Dune.

The use of the word 'God' in connection with 'Emperor' here is significant. Julius Evola, the great Italian theorist of fascism and neofascism, writes at length in books such as Revolt against the Modern World (1934) of what he calls 'Traditionalist' societies of the ancient world which were ruled by kings who were said to be divine and blessed with magical power. Jesus Christ, who was the Son of God, was crucified as the king of the Jews and was possessed of magical healing powers, could be said to be a Traditionalist king - or almost king - of this type. In Traditionalist doctrine, at the end of the world, a king-like figure will return after a long absence and bring back divine law - what Evola calls Tradition - and banish evil; Christ's Second Coming fits in with this myth.

You might think that modern-day secularism and scepticism has rendered the notion of the divinity of kings superfluous. But this isn't the case in communist regimes. Mao would hold ceremonies in which he would bless the planting of crops; his presence, like that of the emperors of China of old, was considered to be divine and magical enough to ensure a bountiful harvest. Kim Il-Sung, the founder of communist North Korea, copied Mao's cult of personality and now is spoken of in North Korean propaganda in terms reserved for a celestial deity. All this goes back to an interview Alexander Dugin gave many years ago in which he shrewdly observed that the communist regimes most of all tended to restore Tradition.

I will quote two long paragraphs from the chapter 'Regality' in Evola's Revolt- to illustrate what I mean by Tradition and divine kingship:

Every traditional civilisation is characterised by the presence of beings who, by virtue of their innate or acquired superiority over the human condition, embody with the temporal order the living and efficacious presence of a power that comes from above. One of these types of beings is the pontifex, according to the inner meaning of the word and according to the original value of the function that he exercised. Pontifex means 'builder of bridges' or of 'paths' (pons, in ancient times, also mean 'path') connecting the natural and supernatural dimensions. Moreover, the pontifex was traditionally identified with the king (rex). Servius, a late fourth-century commentator on Virgil's works, reports: 'The custom of our ancestors was that the king should also be pontifex and priest'. A saying of the Nordic tradition reads: 'May our leader be our bridge'. Thus, real monarchs were the steadfast personification of the life 'beyond ordinary life'. Beneficial spiritual influences used to radiate upon the world of mortal beings from the mere presence of such men, from their 'pontifical' mediation, from the power of the rites that were rendered efficacious by their power, and from the institutions of which they were the center. These influences permeated people's thoughts, intentions, and actions, ordering every aspect of their lives and constituting a fit foundation for luminous, spiritual realisations. These influences also made propitious the general conditions for prosperity, health, and 'good fortune'. 

In the world of Tradition the most important foundation of the authority and of the right (ius) of kings and chiefs, and the reason why they were obeyed, feared and venerated, was essentially their transcendent and nonhuman quality. This quality was not artificial, but a powerful reality to be feared. The more people acknowledged the ontological rank of what was prior and superior to the visible and temporal dimension, the more such beings were invested with a natural and absolute sovereign power. Traditional civilisations, unlike those of decadent and later times, completely ignored the merely political dimension of supreme authority as well as the idea that the roots of authority lay in mere strength, violence or natural and secular qualities such as intelligence, wisdom, physical courage, and a minute concern for the collective material well-being. The roots of authority, on the contrary, always had a metaphysical character. Likewise, the idea that the power to govern is conferred on the chief by those whom he rules and that his authority is the expression of the community and therefore subject to its decrees, was foreign to Tradition. It is Zeus who bestows the [Greek word] on kings of divine origin, whereby [Greek word] or 'law from above', is very different from what constitutes [Greek word], which is the political law of the community. The root of every temporal power was spiritual authority, which was almost a 'divine nature disguised in human form'. According to an Indo-European view, the ruler is not a 'mere mortal', but rather a 'great deity standing in the form of a man'. The Egyptian pharaoh was believed to be the manifestation of Ra or of Horus. The kings of Alba and of Rome were supposed to be the incarnations of Zeus; the Assyrian kings, of Baal; the Persian shahs, of the god of light. The Nordic-Germanic princes were believed to derive from the race of Tiuz, of Odin, and of the Aesir; and the Greek kings of the Doric-Achaen cycle were called [Greek word] or [Greek word] in reference to their divine origin. Beyond the variety of mythical and sacred expressions, the recurrent view of kingship is expressed in terms of an 'immanent transcendence' that is present and active in the world. The king - who was believed to be a sacred being and not a man - by virtue of his 'being', was already the center and the apex of the community. In him was also the supernatural strength that made his ritual actions efficacious. In these actions people could recognise the earthly counterpart of supernatural 'ruling', as well as the supernatural support of life in the world of Tradition. For this reason, kingship was the supreme form of government, and was believed to be in the natural order of things. It did not need physical strength to assert itself, and when it did, it was only sporadically. It imposed itself mainly and irresistibly through the spirit. In an ancient Indo-Aryan text it is written: 'The dignity of a god enjoys on earth is splendid, but hard to achieve for the weak. On he who sets his soul on this objective, is worthy to become a king'. The ruler appears as a 'follower of the discipline that is practiced by those who are gods among men'. 

Now, I think in the above, you can find a justification for the rule of a Hitler or Mussolini, or Mao or Kim Il-Sung: in the end, any apologetics for such men must come back to Tradition and arguments which are thousands of years old. Evola would dispute that North Korea or Hitler's Germany could be considered as Traditionalist: he was an opponent of communism and a critic of National Socialism. But Evola, I think, could not see what was staring him in the face: the link between Tradition and modern-day 'totalitarian' and absolutist regimes. Dugin, on the other hand, saw it.

So how does this tie back to the topic at the start of this essay - the need for a leader? William Pierce makes a distinction between 'Nazism' and 'Neo-Nazism':

Inevitably, every member who engages in public activity, so that he is recognized publicly as a member, will be asked, “Are you a Nazi?” or, “Are you a neo-Nazi?” just as the National Alliance is routinely described in the controlled news media as a “Nazi (or neo-Nazi) organization.” (For those who make the distinction, the difference between “Nazi” and “neo-Nazi” seems to be this: The former term refers only to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party and its members. The latter term refers to organizations and people who draw their inspiration from the former, from the same sources as the former, but which are too young to have been directly associated with the former. Many people, of course, make no distinction between the two terms.)
Now, if you are 'taking inspiration' from the NSDAP, you need, most of all a leader, a Führer, who will, in the future 'Neo-Nazi' state will be given absolute power - a heavy responsibility. The legitimacy of such one-man rule can really, in the last analysis, only be argued for in Traditionalist terms.

The essential thing is that Traditionalism, in the modern age, must be disguised. In their collective subconscious, the millions of Asian peasants in Korea, China, Vietnam knew that communism didn't represent some new-fangled, Western, Jewish-German egalitarian doctrine but a return to the 'primordial spirituality' Evola talks about; the Maos and Kim Il-Sungs were repackaging Asian emperor-worship. Similarly we Westerners, we Europeans, must call upon the deeply-rooted, primordial Traditionalist myths of our own culture if we are to ever achieve a rule for new Führers.