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!

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).

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.

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.