Nov 10, 2015

Nationalism in a Nutshell

via Nationalist Alternative

There has been much activity in recent months in Australia by Nationalist and Civic Patriotic groups, primarily against the Islamification of the West.  While these groups may seem to share common purpose, the differences between them can appear subtle, but they are important.

We have become aware of certain hostility against Nationalist Alternative and other genuine nationalist organisations from a small number of vocal players in the new patriotic movements, and some of this is directed at our supposed ‘racism’ and ‘supremacism’.  Patriotic and anti-Islam movements rise and fall from the milieu of disenchanted and angry Australians, and tend towards particular ideologies and stances, especially when the motivator is the fight against the slow and unyielding Islamic jihad against the West, and the Islamification of Western nations.

Nationalist Alternative drafted the Anti-Jerusalem Declaration and it was co signed by the Australia First Party, to draw the proverbial line in the sand, and reject the pro-Israel and pro-multicultural stance that many anti-Islamic parties and groups inevitably tend towards.  The Anti Jerusalem Declaration stands in defiant opposition to these tendencies and affirms that nationalism is our primary goal.

In taking a stance against Islam, and against the Left, the basics of nationalism are quite often forgotten, ignored, and discarded.  Many of these groups, such as the EDL or the ADL are not nationalist at all. We find emerging the below categories of supposed patriots whom are not nationalists.
  1. Anti-Islam – support for Israel – support for Multiculturalism minus Islam and Support for Multi Racialism
  2. image1

  3. Anti-Islam – support for Israel – Anti Multiculturalism, multiculturalism replaced with support for Mono Culturalism (assimilate to Australian ‘values’) but critically – support for Multi Racialism: Rise Up Australia Party, Liberal Party ( Anti Islam further watered down to Anti – ‘Radical’ Islam)
  4. Anti-Islam – Anti or indifference towards Israel/Zionism – Anti Multiculturalism, multiculturalism replaced with support for Mono Culturalism (assimilate to Australian values) but critically – support for Multi Racialism or “Skin colour doesn’t matter”
Nations are collections of people who have, by nature of their existence, a common race or ethnicity/ heritage and then secondary characteristics like culture. They may, or may not, have a state which represents them. The rise of nationalism in the 19th century is based on this idea (state) but nations (races) came first and are primordial as a reflection of the ancient evolutionary tendency of humans to organize into distinct groupings based on an affinity of birth.

Some nations have no state, i.e. the Kurds.

No one would expect the Kurds to be patriotic, or ‘flag wavers’ to Iraq or Syria or Turkey which are states in which Kurds are a minority. Those states do not exist to advance the Kurdish interests or implement their unique cultural values into law. The Kurds then have no self determination or Sovereignty.

Some nations (races/ethnicities) also have a state which represents them, and the state is a product of the nation for the nation, i.e. Israel(hypocritically), Japan, Bangladesh,Estonia,Hungary,Iceland.

Some nations exist within a larger state, which contains multiple nations. i.e., the now defunct Yugoslavia, the now defunct Czechoslovakia, the now defunct USSR, Iraq, Syria.  These states have short lives, or revert to authoritarianism, such as Singapore.
Some nations had a state which represented the nation, but now only shares the name, and the state is no longer is for the nation, but still finds itself in the position where that nation is dominant, though declining, making it move towards a Iraq, Yugoslavia, and so forth, i.e., the Western nations.

Nationalism is the recognition that nationhood is not defined by state, that Western states have decoupled themselves from their respective nations and are now HOSTILE to the nation, as exemplified by German Chancellor Merkels actions, and that the nation needs to revert back to having a nation-state that serves it for its own survival because there is no other option.

Our nationalism recognised that our states, the government entities which share the name of nations, Australia, Germany, Sweden, France and pretty much all other white nations, no longer are for our nation, but are for an administration and civic institutions.  They exist as a state decoupled from the nation and a end in themselves.  There is no connection any more between Australia and Australians, except that all Australians exist within the Australian state and are subject to that bureaucracy.  Same with Germany, where Merkel is openly stating that the masses of immigrations are just “new Germans” to “replace” the “old Germans”.

image2The model where the nation represented a people has been destroyed, and replaced with a model where the state stands alone, and the nation of people which share the name are now just deracinated members of this state apparatus.

So to nationalists, our loyalty is to our nation first, and not the state. Our state is hostile. Our leaders would not blink at replacing every Australian with an import from the subcontinent, or Africa, or anywhere.  Neither would Cameron care if Britain was English, or Pakistani, as long as they paid their taxes to support the plutocracy and didn’t upset the status quo.  Further than this, they are engaging in that program of replacement, through mass immigration and assimilation of non whites into the host white population otherwise known as White Genocide.

The obvious difference then between Civic Patriotism and Nationalism hinge on the patriotic allegiance or clinging to state institutions and civic values. Despite the fact these have been subverted/corrupted by no longer linking national identity with a people but mere citizenship, singing the national anthem, liking football, paying taxes or being born in the territory of the state.


Nationalism: the duty to ensure existence (life) and self determination for the nation (racial or ethnic group) that fostered the folk identity and created the country’s institutions, legal framework, infrastructure and culture in the first place. Without whom these institutions would not have developed in the way they have over the centuries nor even existed if another type of people had settled in Australia.

Patriots fighting against the Islamification of the West are fighting a good fight.  But it is not necessarily ours.  Our struggle is not to ensure that the immigrants who come here respect the Australian state apparatus, vote, pay taxes and support the system which destroys us.  Our struggle is not to safeguard the state, but to safeguard the nation.

Any organisation which finds mass importation of all races and ethnicities as ‘new Australians’, even to the point where they may replace us as significant percentages of the population, OK, cannot, by definition be nationalist.  Most don’t claim to be, but we must avoiding assuming they are.  For any group which places the survival of Israel as an ethno-state as a more moral endeavour than us protecting our nation from demographic engineering cannot be one who stands with the Nationalist cause.

Nationalists should assist with their fight against Islamification and far Leftist provocation and self destruction, but when it comes to standing for our nation, we will have to realise we may stand alone.

Radio Western Rebirth: Pathological Altruism, or Pyromaniac Activists

via TradYouth

Listen Now

Word of the day: Potokism
  • Pathological Altruism, or Pyromaniac Activists?
  • The new Government initiative to spy on dissidents, particularly “racists” and “anti-semites”, with the Southern Poverty Law Center running it behind the curtain.
Relevant links:

When Darkness Comes to Town: Inside Austria's Nightmare Buses

via Britannia

Austrian bus drivers have revealed the nightmare of ferrying thousands of nonwhite invaders to Bavaria—facing death threats, fights, disappearing “immigrants,” and forced overtime after the government lifted all restrictions on rest periods. 

The bus drivers—who begged to remain anonymous after colleagues were sacked for refusing to partake in the invasion process—told the Austrian Die Krone newspaper of the nightmare they face. 
That paper said the team of 200 bus drivers are exhausted, threatened, and in despair at the breakdown in the crisis management team.
Tasked with driving busloads full of invaders from the Spielfeld border reception center to Bavaria, the drivers started off by begging the Krone reporter not to reveal their names: “Please do not write our names. Two colleagues have just lost their jobs because they no longer wanted to take part in these trips,” a driver said.
Then he and a colleague went into the dangers they face on a daily basis: the most important of which is that they are being forced to drive exhausted after the Austrian government lifted all restrictions on driving times and rest periods especially for the invader columns.
“We are forced to drive while exhausted, and this is very risky for all motorists,” the bus drivers said.
The official regulations state that bus drivers are only allowed to drive for a pre-determined period every day, and must have breaks within that time period to ensure that they remain fresh and alert.
Astonishingly, the Austrian Interior Ministry—which is also responsible for road safety—has issued a decree overriding these rules only for the buses carrying invaders to Bavaria.
As a result, the bus drivers are working up to eighteen hour shifts with only minimal rest stops along the way.

The Austrian Interior Ministry decree removing all restrictions on driving times and rest periods—for the nonwhite invader-carrying buses only
In addition, there are religious and racial fights on the buses, as a driver explained: “The police in Spielfeld stuff the buses full without regard to the different nations and religions. During the trip, there are always fights. There are never any police on the buses either…”
In addition, the nonwhite invaders track the route being followed by the bus on their cell phones, and if they think for a minute the bus is deviating, they threaten the drivers with death.
When the buses do stop for occasional toilet breaks, at least eight or ten “refugees” always vanish at each stop, the drivers said.
“After each break, eight or ten people are off—but the police do not care, as they do not even know how many are driven away by bus from Spielfeld…”
The drivers also described the conditions of the coaches after the nonwhite hordes have disembarked: a “horror which we have to clean up.”

A separate article in Die Krone revealed that the Austrian police are also at a crisis point. They have worked 190,000 hours overtime in September alone, and increasing numbers are booking off sick rather than deal with the Angela Merkel-imposed disaster any more.

As a result, the government has removed all allowances for any policeman booking off sick for more than 30 days in a year, effectively forcing officers to choose between keeping their livelihoods or becoming unemployed.
In addition, police working at the nonwhite invasion crossing points are forced to pay for their own food while working impossibly long shifts—while the invaders passing through before their eyes are fed countless hot meals for free.
According to police union representatives, the “atmosphere is at boiling point” and a “strike threat is in the air.”

Discarded clothing and debris left behind by migrants.  Muslim savages show no respect for the people or countries that take them in

Making Sense of White American Misery

via Occident Invicta

Well, it looks like the left is finally beginning to realize what we on the alt right have known all along: life for white people isn’t all peaches and “privilege.” On account of a major spike in suicides among middle-aged whites, many progressives have gotten the memo that the economy hasn’t been too kind to white Americans either. Due to such economic distress, the white male death rate has risen – even as their counterparts in other majority white countries increasingly live longer. American exceptionalism strikes again, it seems.

Even though I agree that economic inequality necessarily engenders a certain sense of despondency, I don’t think it’s an entirely sufficient explanation. After all, various other economically struggling demographics have not experienced similar epidemics. Of course, I’m sure SJWs would insist that privileged white men simply can’t cope with the hardships of life compared to more battle-hardened “POC.”

My take is that a couple of factors are at play. For starters, compared to other whites, white Americans are much more atomized and radically individualistic; there’s a far greater sense of anomie than is normal in other industrialized societies. It also goes without saying that white Americans are less communal than Latinos and Asians, who place a higher premium on group identities. Even blacks, despite high illegitimacy rates, are more collectivist than whites. I suspect that when you’re aging and financially strapped, having to sink or swim completely on your own can seem unbearable.

This sink or swim feeling is only compounded by the whole bootstrap myth, which asserts that any failure in life is entirely your own fault. In many ways, it adds insult to injury; not only are these struggling whites broke and miserable, but our culture in so many ways tells them that they deserve to suffer. Since whites are far more likely to subscribe to bootstrap libertarianism than other groups, growing numbers seem unable to handle the misery and humiliation any longer.

Shit like this is why I have been so critical of American pathologies lately. Not only does American exceptionalism lend credence to open borders, multiculturalism, and other lunacies, but now it’s driving white people to suicide. At some point, we need to acknowledge that extreme individualism and unfettered capitalism deserve much of the blame for white America’s deterioration; it’s not the Joos who are pressuring these besieged men to kill themselves. I sometimes feel like those of us on the alt right get so caught up attacking external threats that we neglect to tend to white peoples’ internal wounds.

Just to be clear, by no means should we ignore enemies of our people. Nevertheless, given that the alt right openly espouses a pro-white ideology, I think we have a responsibility to at least try to find a solution to alleviate white American pain. Given our low birthrates, we can ill afford to lose more whites to self-inflicted death.

Who Is Running John Kasich’s Campaign? Insanity on the Road to New Hampshire

via American Renaissance

I live in New Hampshire, which will hold the first presidential primaries in February 2016–and I just got a call from the Kasich campaign. The caller’s black accent was so thick I had to ask her several times to repeat herself. I finally asked to speak with someone who spoke clearer English, and she eventually hung up on me. I wanted to complain about being hung up on and to urge the campaign to take measures not to alienate potential voters, so I went to Mr. Kasich’s website to look for contact information.

Who in the world designed this website? For a target audience of Republican primary voters, this has to be among the least appealing approaches I have ever seen. On the homepage there are two pictures of scenery, two of the candidate, and two of (presumably) Kasich supporters.

Advertising is supposed to create a “bandwagon effect,” that is, to get you to believe that people just like you support this guy. On Mr. Kasich’s web site, besides the candidate, there are images of exactly 14 people. Eleven are women and 13 are minorities. All are teenagers or in their early 20s. How is this supposed to create a bandwagon effect for tax-paying adult Republican voters in states like New Hampshire and Iowa? And how is that Ebonics-speaking telephone representative supposed to resonate with a New Hampshire electorate that is 91 percent white?

The Kasich approach is even worse than that laughable video from Jon Huntsman’s campaign kickoff four years ago in which the candidate spent the entire video riding a motorcycle across the southern Utah desert (which might as well have been Mars to us New Englanders), while a narrator told us that Huntsman speaks Chinese and Hokkien (whatever that is).

Look at the people featured at the Kasich website. Do I care what these selfie-snapping narcissists think about national policy? What do you suppose their combined tax burden was last year, compared to your own? What could possibly have possessed someone seeking the Republican nomination for president to represent himself this way?

The only explanation is that Mr. Kasich has hired an idiot for a campaign manager, who thinks Mr. Kasich can win the New Hampshire primary by pretending to be Barack Obama (who lost the New Hampshire primary in 2008). I wasn’t likely to vote for the man to begin with, but if his ability to run a campaign reflects his ability to run a nation, this guy is off the list.

I didn’t try to reach anyone at the campaign, after all. These people are beyond advice. They’re hopeless.

“Unrepentant Marxist,” Eric Hobsbawm, Still Celebrated as Britain’s Greatest Historian

via The Occidental Observer

Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm
I met up with a conservative former professor of mine, for a few rounds of drinks and some lively political conversation this past Thursday, as we do from time to time when he’s up north.

Although the good professor teaches Colonial History at a liberal British university and no doubt watches his P’s and Q’s around this particular former student, after several pints of ale and a few laughs, he’s typically quite forthright.

We touched on an array of topics over lunch, including Britain’s current immigration crisis, my ‘misguided decision’ to volunteer my services as spokesman for the British National Party, Nigel Farage’s being against maternity leave due to all the lasses he’s impregnated, and the All-Blacks incredible victory over the Aussies at last week’s Rugby World Cup Final.

As the third anniversary of Eric Hobsbawm’s death had just passed, I felt it befitting to introduce the man’s name into the conversation at some point.

After all, Marxist historian Hobsbawm had also read history at Cambridge, and in spite of his unrepentant Marxist views, is still widely regarded as Britain’s most influential historian.

“Were you aware that Eric Hobsbawm expired with almost two million quid to his name?” (1) I snickered, as I attempted to mop up wayward gravy with my third Yorkshire pudding.

My quintessentially Tory friend, attired in Harris Tweed from top to toe, who once after a few too many Pimm’s cocktails joked that Britain “should bomb the chorizo out of Buenos Aires if the Argies ever again invaded the Falklands”, was surprisingly indifferent.

“You’ll not find too many mainstream academics in this country with anything negative to say about Hobsbawm, Jack. The man’s generally regarded as the greatest British (2) historian of our time.”

I felt like reminding the good professor that the British Security Service had tracked and monitored the Egyptian-born Jewish academic (#211764 on MI5’s index of personal files) for decades due to their well-founded suspicion that he’d been collaborating with known Communists and Soviet spies against his host nation. (3)


To say I was astonished by my dining partner’s disregard would be an understatement of the grandest proportion. After all, Hobsbawm’s blatantly anti-British writing is responsible for the virulent left-wing bias infecting university history departments across the length and breadth of the country, as well as the fact that it has yielded an academic climate in which our best and brightest feel nought but shame for the role their ancestors played in building the planet. As Andrew Joyce noted, referring to Hobsbawm, Ralph Miliband, and Harold Laski,
they didn’t just “happen” to be Jewish. Both Hobsbawm and Laski were the intellectual leaders of the radical Left in Britain at that time. Miliband had other colleagues, many of whom were also Jewish, but the trifecta of Hobsbawm, Laski and Miliband was the engine-room of the anti-positivist, counter-cultural Left in Britain during the 1960s. All three played the public role of secular, atheist, unattached cosmopolitans while at the same time marrying and socializing exclusively within their race and pursuing Jewish interests with every written and spoken word.
Most notably, Hobsbawm claimed that “European nations were ‘ideological constructs’ created without a substantial grounding in immemorial lands, folkways, and ethnos” — an ideology that is ideally suited to the dispossession of the indigenous peoples of Europe. As Prof. Ricardo Duchesne notes,
Eric Hobsbawm, the highly regarded apologist of the Great Terror in the Soviet Union, persuaded most of the academic world, in his book, Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality (1989), that the nation states of Europe were not created by a people sharing a common historical memory, a sense of territorial belonging and habitation, similar dialects and physical appearances; no, the nation-states of Europe were “socially constructed” entities, “invented traditions”, “imagined” by people perceiving themselves as part of a “mythological” group in an unknown past. Hobsbawm deliberately sought to discredit any sense of ethnic identity among Europeans by depicting their nation building practices as modern fairy-tales administered by capitalists and bureaucrats from above on a miscellaneous pre-modern population.
Hobsbawm’s work has undeniably tainted British historical legacy and has de-legitimized a sense of English or British identity. For how long this infection will last, I do not know.

Then there’s the fact that his words have glossed over a period of history so abjectly evil, an entire generation of students believe “Communism is viable, if done correctly.” This is something I was in fact told by pupils I lectured at an Ormskirk college during one of my parliamentary husting events.

After all, “only Marxists fight racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, white privilege and most importantly are fair to Gays.”

The scores of millions of corpses and devastation left in the Soviet Union’s wake, the hundreds of millions of lives ruined, the profoundly immoral and wicked deceptiveness of the ideology that massacred the peoples of Eastern Europe and Germany, have been omitted from the annals of history due entirely to academics like Hobsbawm, and as a result, a generation of our children have been lost in the rubble.

English author A N Wilson writes,
What is disgraceful about the life of Hobsbawm is not so much that he believed this poisonous codswallop, and propagated it in his lousy (poorly written) books, but that such a huge swathe of our country’s intelligentsia — the supposedly respectable media and chattering classes — bowed down before him and made him their guru and our ‘greatest historian’…..The truth is that, far from being a great historian who sometimes made mistakes, Hobsbawm deliberately falsified history.
In his book The Age Of Extreme, published in 1994, he quite deliberately underplayed the Soviet Union’s attack on Finland in 1939–40, saying it was merely an attempt to push the Russian border a little further away from Leningrad. He also omits any mention of the massacre of 20,000 Polish soldiers by Russian Secret Police at Katyn.
In his 1997 book On History, he wrote the following: ‘Fragile as the communist systems turned out to be, only a limited, even minimal, use of force was necessary to maintain them from 1957 until 1989.’
Ask the inhabitants of Prague, where Soviet tanks rolled into the streets in 1968, if they agreed with Hobsbawm that this was ‘minimal use of force’.
Ask the millions of people who were taken from their homes by KGB thugs and forced to live, often for decades, in prison-camps throughout the Gulag, whether force had been ‘minimal’.
These are not mistakes — they are wicked lies.”
Wicked lies that have conned a generation of our nation’s children, as well as apparently my former Cambridge-educated professor into believing the traitor’s legacy needs preserving.

Even though I didn’t exactly expect him to declare Hobsbawm a villain, I’d assumed he’d at least express some degree of indignation.

But, he exhibited no visible reaction. Although, the good professor could hardly be called a revisionist historian, he was ordinarily critical of blatant historical manipulation and academics guilty of it — except apparently on this occasion.

I sat wondering whether I should pursue the matter, or instead move onto another point of discussion. After all, we meet but once a semester and I certainly didn’t want to try his patience after he’d driven so far to see me.

Still, I couldn’t let it go in good conscience.

“Didn’t Hobsbawm publish a pamphlet extolling the virtues of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, as well as claim that Russia’s invasion of Finland was in the Finns’  best interests because … and I quote, ‘Finland needed protecting from British Imperialists’. … You’re about as close to a British Imperialist as I’ve ever met.” I prodded.

The professor looked at me with bemusement, before permanently changing the subject back to rugby.

Sadly, this is how the vast majority of historians and political commentators view Hobsbawm and his historiographical legacy.

From the leftist ideologues controlling 20th century orthodox historiography to so-called right leaning (4) Neocon darlings like Niall Ferguson, the mainstream consensus is, Eric Hobsbawm is the “greatest historian” to walk the face of the earth!
That Hobsbawm is one of the great historians of his generation is undeniable. With his extraordinary erudition and quick wit, Hobsbawm was one of the greatest historical conversationalists I have ever known.
Hobsbawm’s quartet of books beginning with The Age of Revolution and ending with The Age of Extremes constitute the best starting point I know for anyone who wishes to begin studying modern history.
In Hobsbawm’s Guardian obituary (5), assistant editor and former Tony Blair advisor, Martin Kettle, wrote,
Had Eric Hobsbawm died 25 years ago, the obituaries would have described him as Britain’s most distinguished Marxist historian and would have left it more or less there. Yet by the time of his death at the age of 95, he had achieved a unique position in the country’s intellectual life. In his later years he became arguably Britain’s most respected historian of any kind, recognised if not endorsed on the right, as well as the left, and one of a tiny handful of historians of any era to enjoy genuine national and world renown.
Unlike some others, Hobsbawm achieved this wider recognition without in any major way revolting against either Marxism or Marx.
And Hobsbawm is just as respected in the States.

In a 2003 article the New York Times referred to Hobsbawm as  “one of the great British historians of his age, an unapologetic Communist and a polymath whose erudite, elegantly written histories are still widely read in schools here and abroad.”

Articles in several Murdoch publications also expressed admiration for the man.

And Hobsbawm is just as respected by the political elite as he is with the media and academia.

Tony Blair once referred to the Stalinist historian as ‘a giant of progressive politics history’ while former Labour leader, Ed Miliband opined,
Eric Hobsbawm was an extraordinary historian, a man passionate about his politics and a great friend of my family. His historical works brought hundreds of years of British history to hundreds of thousands of people. He brought history out of the ivory tower and into people’s lives.
But he was not simply an academic; he cared deeply about the political direction of the country. Indeed, he was one of the first people to recognise the challenges to Labour in the late 1970s and 1980s from the changing nature of our society.
Only fellow Cambridge alumnus and indubitably the most honorable academic I’ve had the privilege of working with, the late Tony Judt — who is also in fact Jewish — has criticised Hobsbawm for his “nauseating bias in favour of the USSR, communist states and communism in general, and his tendency to disparage any nationalist movement as passing and irrational.” (6)

But what frustrates me most is not that deluded politicians like Ed Miliband and Tony Blair idolise subversives like Hobsbawm, or that mainstream pundits, journalists and commentators have all but canonised the man. It’s not even how he’s impacted how we view history and the appalling manner in which we indoctrinate our children.

It’s the blatant hypocrisy surrounding the man’s legacy.

If Hobsbawm had been an impenitent fascist instead of a lifelong supporter of the British Communist Party, would he be revered as he is?

Would former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, have bestowed the distinction of Companion of Honour upon him — one of the highest accolades it is possible to give a British academic — if he’d kept a shrine to Oswald Mosley in his Golders Green home? (Golders Green has a large Jewish population — another indication that he was a strongly identified Jew.)

Would the Left have lionised him as they’ve done for decades?

Certainly not. Hobsbawm would have been vilified as so many Fascist sympathisers have. One need only look at how the great Henry Ford is viewed by the American establishment, and the manner in which Edward VIII and Neville Chamberlain have been judged by orthodox British historians for their role in WWII.

I myself can hardly find a pub to hold my British Renaissance meetings in, due to the fact I had the audacity to question the allegiance of a local Friends of Israel leader turned MP, during my parliamentary election campaign.

“Unrepentant” Marxist to the Very End

Speaking in 1994 to author, Michael Ignatieff, (not to be confused with Noel Ignatiev, the Jewish-American Leftist academic who called for the death of all Whites) about the fall of the Berlin Wall and collapse of Communism, Hobsbawm was grilled about his earlier support for the Soviet state.

“If Communism had achieved its aims, but at the cost of, say, 15 to 20 million people — as opposed to the 100million it actually killed in Russia and China — would you have supported it?” Ignatieff asked.

Hobsbawm’s response — without an iota of reluctance in his frail 77-year-old voice — was a single emphatic syllable: ‘Yes’.” (See also the New York Times obituary.)

It mattered little he’d made millions huckstering in the capitalist system he supposedly loathed and left it to his family rather than the state or some other collectivist organisation. Nor did it matter that his daughter Julia — who  doubtless benefited from inheriting her father’s money and has since been awarded an OBE (Order of the British Empire) for Service to Business (yes, you can actually get knighted in Britain for helping rich people get richer) — is an enormously successful entrepreneur who via her public relations firm helped put New Labour’s Tony Blair and Gordon Brown in power. (7) (Julia Hobsbawm founded Hobsbawm Macauley Communications with Gordon Brown’s wife, Sarah.)

In spite of all the evidence that Marxism is the single most destructive ideology ever spawned on this planet, Hobsbawm remained steadfast in his support of it.

And Hobsbawm’s not alone….

Thousands of miles from London, South African Marxist radical, Nadine Gordimer, was asked by BBC Hardtalk’s Stephen Sackur if majority rule was worth the rape, death and destruction her nation had seen since the rise of the African National Congress. (I will be covering Nobel Prize-winning Nadine Gordimer’s hypocrisy in a future article.)

She too, with little reservation in her frail, but vitriolic voice answered, “Yes, it most certainly was.”

Like Ralph and Ed Miliband, Nadine Gordimer, Yossel Slovo and a large percentage of academics espousing Marxist ideology, Hobsbawm was born into an Eastern bloc Ashkenazi immigrant family that fled continental Europe to the Anglosphere (rather than their beloved USSR) in the run up to WWII.

His destination of choice was Britain. His target — the values Britons held most dear ­— and weapon, his treacherous pen.

As with each of the aforementioned subversives, Hobsbawm showed an inclination towards Marxist radicalism early in life.

Prior to his arrival on British shores, Hobsbawm was an active subversive, first participating as a member of the German Sozialistischer Schülerbund (Society of Socialist Pupils) and Youth Communist League. Hobsbawm then joined the pro-Soviet German Communist Party, while regularly contributing to the infamous Frankfurt School of Critical Theory — an institution rightfully seen as influential in the demise of Western civilisation.

Upon his arrival in Britain, Hobsbawm immediately found himself involved with local Left-wing politics — an entirely mainstream activity for Jews during this period.
And like members many of the self-righteous Hampstead and Islington intelligentsia (8) sitting atop today’s Labour Party, Hobsbawm attended one of Britain’s most prestigious institutions of higher learning, historic Cambridge University, from where he’d operate.

There he mingled with other Bollinger Bolsheviks and Soviet spies like Anthony Blunt and Guy Burgess, who’d also been recruited by Marxist academics with links to the former Soviet Union.

Hobsbawm would later chair the Communist Party Historians Group, and until his death in 2012, acted as president of Britain’s Marxist/Socialist Historical Society.

Most importantly, until his last breath, Eric Hobsbawm would remain an ardent supporter of the ideology that’s ruined the lives of so many, before securing his place as my nation’s “greatest historian.” In broad perspective, the lionisation of Hobsbawm and the coincident dispossession of the British people — submerged now in an orgy of guilt over their brilliant past fomented by Hobsbawm and his ilk — represent the supreme triumph of the Jewish left.

(1) John Stevens of the Daily Mail wrote that “Hobsbawm, who died aged 95 in October 2012, was one of Britain’s most eminent historians, but he was widely criticised for his defence of Communist regimes. A rich hypocritical idiot, it appears. According to records held at the Brighton probate office, Hobsbawm — who joined the Communist Party at the age of 14, and once described himself as an ‘unrepentant Communist’ — left an estate with assets totalling £1,835,341.”
(2) Although he is often referred to as a “British historian,”, Hobsbawm was born in Egypt to Austrian-Jewish parents. By swearing allegiance to Britain’s Cold War enemy Hobsbawm relinquished any right he may or may not have had to refer to himself as such. He is in fact as British as his ideological hero Antonio Gramsci is Italian, and equally as dangerous to Western values and host nation.
(3) The Guardian’s Richard Norton Taylor wrote that “Hobsbawm was subjected to persistent surveillance for decades as MI5 and police special branch officers tapped and recorded their telephone calls, intercepted their private correspondence and monitored their contacts, the files show. Some of the surveillance gave MI5 more details about their targets’ personal lives than any threat to national security.
The files, released at the National Archives on Friday, reveal the extent to which MI5, including its most senior officers, secretly kept tabs on the personal and professional activities of communists and suspected communists, a task it began before the Cold War.”
(4) Right leaning The Spectator (Atlanticist, pro-Israel, and Eurosceptic) magazine heavily influenced by American Neocon Irwin Stelzer, recently wrote that Hobsbawm was “arguably our greatest living historian—not only by Britain’s standards, but the world’s.”
(5) The Daily Mail reported that the Left wing Guardian filled a “front page and the whole of an inside page but also devoted almost its entire G2 Supplement to the news of his passing. The Times devoted a leading article to the death, and a two-page obituary.”
(6) According to Wikipedia, professor Tony Judt, who passed away in 2010 was a “British historian, essayist, and university professor who specialized in European history. Judt moved to New York and served as the Erich Maria Remarque Professor in European Studies at New York University, and Director of NYU’s Erich Maria Remarque Institute. He was a frequent contributor to the New York Review of Books. In 1996 Judt was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and in 2007 a corresponding Fellow of the British Academy.” Professor Judt was also a harsh critic of Israel, openly condemning the Jewish State’s exploitation of the Holocaust, and allegations of anti-Semitism to silence the Jewish State’s critics. He, in my opinion, is one of the world’s great European historians. However, due to his criticism of Zionist and American hegemony, he will never be seen as such.
(7) As per “Julia is the world’s first professor of Networking, having been made Honorary Visiting Professor by London’s Cass Business School….She speaks to corporate and public sector audiences alike about her key topics of networks, networking and Social Health; Inclusion in the workplace; and entrepreneurialism. Recent keynotes, panel appearances and presentations include; Accenture (multinational management consulting); Barclays Plc (Bank);’s The Next Billion conference; EY; IKEA; SONY; INFORMA Plc (multinational publishing and events company); WPP’s Stream (advertising and public relations company); Foreign & Commonwealth Office….” Some Marxist!
(8) George Orwell once stated that “however silly or sentimental, English patriotism is a comelier thing than the shallow self-righteousness of the left-wing intelligentsia.” George Orwell penned those powerful words three quarters of a century ago. However, I for one, think it is high time we pay heed to his wise words.

Taken from Orwell’s review of Malcolm Muggeridge‘s The Thirties, in New English Weekly (25 April 1940).

And Then They Came for the Tech Workers

via RightOn

For years I’ve been complaining that low-wage workers in the United States are getting crushed by the continual disruption of the labor market that globalization and indiscriminate immigration wreak. For just as long, I’ve heard all those arguments shouted down as the bigotry of the unwashed.

Y’all in Europe might find it a challenge to accommodate all of your new friends right now, but there’s hope: on this side of the pond, the native-born American worker just scored a massive coup, I tell you what.

A couple of weeks ago, there was a bit of a hullaballoo when SunTrust Banks in Atlanta decided to take advantage of our government’s generous H-1B special occupational visa program. The H-1B visa is a great boon to the American economy, allowing companies to replace their spoiled, entitled, costly native-born skilled labor force with cheaper, more compliant computer programmers, IT assistants, and scientists from countries like India.

It’s not that Indian people are innately more charitable toward their great and benevolent employers than Americans, mind you; but people who are in the country on an H-1B visa can’t change jobs without risking deportation, so they have to shut up and take what they’re given. The ideal employee!

But that wasn’t what made the news; such abuses of the H-1B are becoming commonplace. Just as humdrum was the way SunTrust humiliated the American employees they were firing by making them train their own replacements.
But then SunTrust pushed their luck a bit too far.

Showcasing both their lack of esteem for the American employees’ years of service and their lack of confidence in their cheap new workers’ ability to hit the ground running, SunTrust stuck a “continuing cooperation” clause in the severance agreement.

If they wanted severance pay, the rejected workers had to agree to donate their own time to step in and provide emergency help if something went wrong—for NO ADDITIONAL PAY.

Let’s mull over what SunTrust was doing here. They didn’t want to continue paying for the level of expertise and familiarity with the system that their American workers had developed over years of service—but they weren’t above tacitly admitting that throwing away all that expertise was monumentally stupid, and they were getting what they paid for.

As one commenter remarked, a bank’s IT system takes so long to master that there was no way the new workers—particularly if their English skills were deficient on top of it—could handle a serious data-security situation without calling upon the folks they shoved out of a job to pull their asses out of the fire. But company officials figured they could get away with extracting the cost of their own cheapness and stupidity from their outgoing workers.

Apparently these brilliant managerial types forgot about the Internet. (This is why IT guys get the big bucks—or why they used to, anyway.) It also apparently failed to occur to them that being treated like chess pieces would piss the workers off—and others like them.

When Computerworld online got ahold of the story, the geek community blew up. Computerworld’s story painted SunTrust officials as entitled, ungrateful, and apparently convinced that no one would ever figure out what they were trying to get away with.

As the scandal spread, Computerworld continued to report on SunTrust’s lame attempts to make it sound like they weren’t trying to scam free labor: ‘The bank’s statement said any request for help will be a “rare occasion” and “infrequent,” but the cooperation clause as it currently stands offers no such assurance.’

In other words, the bank’s public relations cooed that this was just a courtesy, and no one would likely be forced to provide free labor—but the legal language in the actual document they were making people sign if they wanted a parachute gave the company the right to demand just that.

A few days after the Computerworld article, the company was finally shamed into doing the right thing: they removed the offending clause. Not that they seemed to agree it was offensive; as they sullenly put it: ‘”We understand that a clause in our severance agreement was misconstrued versus its use in actual practice, and therefore, we have removed it,” said a bank spokesman in an emailed statement.’

So, voila! A victory for American labor! The laid-off employees will enjoy a generous severance package of two weeks’ pay for every year of their lives that they pissed away at SunTrust—without having to help their replacements for free!

Sure, their jobs are still gone. Yes, when the severance pay dries up, they’ll face a market where every imaginary deficit in the labor supply can be filled with H-1Bs (though the H-1B visa is ostensibly there to fill in shortages of skilled labor, corporations are routinely allowed to abuse it while the government looks the other way). But at least they won’t be slave labor. EXCELSIOR!

Unfortunately, the bank and the workers are left with an expertise problem that cuts both ways. Now that SunTrust has been shamed into cutting their bullshit safety line—but not into rehiring their experienced staff—I would never in a million years let them handle my money. But they’re not as screwed as the American workers they left by the wayside.

If a system takes years to learn, then every year an IT guy spent working at SunTrust was time he could have spent acquiring expertise at a company that would have rewarded his loyalty (assuming such a company still exists). He wasn’t getting any younger while he was working for them, and most jobs these days are a young folks’ game. SunTrust is like a guy who dates a girl when she’s young and dumps her when she’s too old to find anyone who will stay.

But now that I’ve completely excised my tongue from my cheek, allow me to indulge in a bit of schadenfreude.

Heh, heh.

A lot of the IT workers I’ve known are lukewarm liberal types, who Think the Right Things politically and then go about their day—which usually consists of greasing the wheels for some evil corporation or government tentacle. Live and let live, I suppose. But I’ve heard more than one of these folks gloat about how those yahoo racists who are paranoid about the Messicans taking their jobs are simply being bitched by karma when precisely that happens. Should have gone to coding school, dumbass!

I understand. It’s sweet—imagine I said that in an Eric Cartman voice—to see the big dumb jocko homos who beat you up in high school get theirs.

But not all nerds grew up to be above the fray when it comes to having to compete with immigrant labor. Being a book geek who relied on manual labor gigs at the turn of the century was no walk in the park, believe me. Individually I seem to have landed on my feet—knock on wood. But if I were a young’un currently, I would be insane to try to learn any language that isn’t spoken by a computer.

And that’s assuming prudence would even help: as SunTrust illustrates, low-info yee-haws and bookish modern monks are no longer the only ones who have to kneel in the mud and watch as the people who’ve already got theirs pull the ladder up behind them.

For years I’ve been complaining that low-wage workers in the United States are getting crushed by the continual disruption of the labor market that globalization and indiscriminate immigration wreak. For just as long, I’ve heard all those arguments shouted down as the bigotry of the unwashed.

There are even artsy fuck-ups like comedian Doug Stanhope—who, despite taking stupid chances, miraculously makes a decent living in entertainment—with the nerve to gloat about how people who lose jobs to immigrants must somehow deserve it.

Yeah, Stanhope is talented, and usually pretty entertaining; but not every accomplished arteest gets a financial reward in any timely fashion—and isn’t it funny how progressives suddenly believe in bootstraps when it suits their issues? He argues that if a guy with no connections or English language skills can beat you out for a job, you should be too humiliated to even complain. Just starve to death, retard! Hilarious! I would be more amused by watching my cat lick its asshole for an hour than listening to this bit.

He means to insult poor white people; it’s his way of pawning off his share of the collective guilt, I suppose. He doesn’t seem to realize he’s calling a lot of black people worthless as well.

As Progressives for Immigration Reform (I love these guys—progressives who actually give half a damn about the people they say they care about; who knew?) explain in this video, connections are actually one of the main reasons immigrants are beating out native-born black people in the labor market. Once the foreman at a job site is an immigrant, he tends to hire his pals and neighbors. And due to positive stereotyping of immigrants and negative stereotyping of African-Americans, the former are more likely to get the foreman gig. It’s not like immigrants are moving here alone without a support system; like the rest of us, they have a preference for people they know.

For natives and immigrants alike, to watch a bottomless supply of job-seekers continually pour into the market is to watch employers get a better and better deal. You can’t hold out for higher wages when the company can simply shrug you off and bring in another truckload of migrants. Even the foreign-born who have been here for a while often see that the floodgates need to close eventually.

And now—despite having made all the right choices, despite their IT experience, despite their sincere desire to soullessly suck money from the system while having their progressive Facebook-post cake and eating it too— Americans who have the right skills for the right jobs are facing the same rigged labor market that everyone else has been dealing with for decades.

Kinda sucks, huh? Who’s the yahoo who can’t compete now?

Once they come for the stand-up comics, maybe we’ll finally close the borders and let the market stabilize for once.

Fiction for Our Folk: A Review of Paul Christensen’s Books

via Renegade Tribune

Being the head of Renegade does not come with a whole lot of perks, except once in awhile I get sent some great books to add to my collection. Most of the time the books are things people think I should read, which seem to always be non-fiction, sometimes from the authors themselves. However, I was recently asked to review two fictional books. I was happy to help the author, Paul Christensen, as I love good fiction, especially if it relates to our struggle. Also, we need to support our culture creators in every way possible.

I read the books very quickly as they were hard to put down. Granted, they are short, but not to their detriment. They are the perfect length, not wasting the reader’s time with unnecessary filler, while also allowing for proper character and plot development.

The books are well-written and meaningful. While they do not immediately hit the reader over the head with our worldview, making them a good way to reach some less radical friends and family, it will become readily apparent to those “in the know” that the books are reflecting the ideals of our struggle. Although they are works of fiction, the ideas presented in these books are very real and important.

While some misguided souls may scoff at fiction as being something of a waste of time, choosing instead to immerse themselves in massive tomes on history and philosophy, it is often fictional works, such as George Orwell’s Animal Farm and 1984, which can truly reach through to people, get them to think, and inspire them to action.

The Hungry Wolves of Van Diemen’s Land (2014)

hungry wolves

As you might be able to discern from the title, the story is set in Tasmania, which once served as a prison colony for poor Whites. The narrative is told through the recollections of two teenage lovers, Sean and Maddy, going back and forth between the two. The story is pieced together from a prison psychologist, as we know from the beginning of the book that the two have ended up imprisoned for their activities.
We start by learning of their separate alienation from family, school, and society at large. The two meet each other in a homeless shelter and then move onward from there with a mission to set things straight. The idealistic and rebellious lovers find a few other like-minded youth and begin a campaign to revive their ancestral ways and spirit. In order to do this, they also have to wage war against their adversary, which is manifest all around. The anti-nature agenda is pushed through an association of academia, law enforcement, art institutions, government, corporations, and especially mass media.

Through elaborate pranks and assorted mischief, the “Hungry Wolves of Van Diemen’s Land” (as they come to be known) seek to unmask the sinister plot of the world controllers, whose tentacles are reaching into their island, destroying their people and culture. They succeed in getting media attention, but the reports are inevitably biased hit pieces and they are always falsely painted as “Nazis”, which causes antifa attack dogs to turn rabid with hatred for the Wolves. The culture war quickly escalates to violence, and although the Wolves are caged in the end, they certainly get their licks in. Most importantly, their heroic actions and spirit serve as an inspiration for something greater.

The Heretic Emperor (2015)

heretic emperor

This story unfolds in the same world as The Wolves, which is essentially our world, only in the near future. The narrative revolves around Maximillian Scarlotti, the upstart emperor, but only the first chapter is told from the protaganist’s perspective, with every other chapter written by different people who are witness to the emperor himself or to the events that he unleashes upon the world.
Scarlotti tells us of his days in the elite globalist training school, which is full of White students but instructed by jews, where he is head of his class, and how he awakens to essential truths about the world, ethnic identity, and spirituality. After his quick inner transformation, Scarlotti continues within the globalist system, seeking to transform the outer world with his new found understanding by using the global power structure. He gains a significant amount of influence and followers through his charismatic presence and powerful vision. He is even joined by a group that was inspired by the Wolves of Van Diemen’s Land, which had been waging a culture war before Scarlotti ever came on the seen.

Scarlotti’s plans quickly arouse the anger of the globalist cabal, forcing him to form his own breakaway globalist government. Unlike his adversaries, Scarlotti embraces real diversity and seeks to use his global power to ensure the survival not only of his own people, but all people. However, it is his support and defense of his own people that gains the respect of other people around the world, who see this as honorable and righteous, rather than “racist”. Basically he is like David Duke, but on spiritual and political steroids. Of course such sense is not allowed to exist in a world of nonsense, ruled by jews, so worldwide war ensues.

At the very moment when the world rulers think they have everything locked up, one man upsets the whole apple cart. It is a fascinating and fast-paced tale of worldwide revolution, stitched together with many smaller stories taking place all around the world.

Final Thoughts

Both books would do well as feature lengths films once we form our own production company with sufficient resources. The former would be easier to accomplish than the latter, which is much larger in scope and scale. I mention this because making such movies needs to be the next step in our culture war. Short videos and documentaries are great for educating our folk, but we need to inspire their imaginations through creative storytelling. This is how our enemies have been controlling our minds for centuries.

I should not put the cart before the horse, though. Even if the movies were currently available, I would recommend buying the books first, as words (whether written or spoken) allow people to actively engage with the story and paint the pictures in their minds, with every individual having a different vision of how the same story plays out. A good storyteller like Paul Christensen is able to spread ideas with fiction, changing our factual future. This is an essential part of our counterculture, which needs to be supported.

Buy the books, read them, and then share.

Our Reptilian Rulers

via Alternative Right

Alternative Right Editor's Note: The following is an excerpt taken from a soon-to-be-published longer work by Andy Nowicki, tentatively titled Conspiracy, Compliance, Control, and Defiance.

So what are the makings of a true Reptilian, be he scaly-skinned in his authentic body, or merely cold-blooded in spirit?

We must make distinctions. Not everyone said to possess “sociopathic” traits can be called a full-fledged Reptilian. It is not enough merely to be cruel, conniving, and empathy-deficient; one must also be smart, well-connected and utterly ruthless to qualify. To be sure, it helps to be born into a powerful bloodline, but failing that, there must be other ways to opt into the ruling reptoid caste. Of course, I must plead ignorance regarding how such matters fall out in their finer details; I have not had even the remotest brush with this phenomenon. Yet I comprehend, I think, the manner by which a person can grow overfond of the prospect of possessing something that he was previously sure he had to do without. In fact, even temporarily possessing something desirable, which one had forever previously felt destined to having to do without (and in the process, finding that one didn’t necessary have to do without it in the first place, as one had previously believed)can have a plainly intoxicating effect upon one’s soul.

That I know this, albeit on a mere “micro” level, enables me to sense how such a principle would prove to be even more true if the stakes were higher, at least in the perception of someone whose unbridled ambition and determined campaign for traction have so far yielded disappointing results. I like to style myself a stoic, but I strongly suspect that if the prospect of real power and its attendant perks were dangled before me, I’d have great cause to pause. Temptation is real, understandable, and relatable, yet what is (humanly speaking) supremely alienating to contemplate concerning the Reptilian’s state of soul isn’t merely the aspect of the one who has given in to a grave series of temptations, but instead, the contemplation of one who has traveled so far down the trajectory of corruption, committing acts so vilely grotesque that he is barely recognizable as a member of the same species as oneself, and instead appears to have become an altogether different being entirely, one of a patently non-mammalian cast, who may still possess a warm-blooded body, but whose soul has assuredly assumed room temperature.

It is indeed a state of being that an exorcist might term a “perfect possession,” one in which the subject in question is so fully gone that he can be said to have come back around again, albeit in a very different form. He is humanoid in shape, but demonic in essence. He now seems utterly impervious to such recognizably human reactions as guilt, remorse, and pity, yet at the same time, he has become remarkably adept at feigning such emotions, even to the point of being able to frame whatever display may be needed from moment to moment; in fact, he has such responses on automatic inventory, ready to be summoned forth whenever necessary. These displays, viewed properly, are in fact chillingly contrived in their execution, at times almost comically so. Yet the Reptilian feels no shame for the easy, casual manner with which he dons and doffs his phony faces, nor is he necessarily even aware of his own propensity for ill-timed gaffes—moments, that is, when his adopted viperous nature manifests itself brusquely, and his human mask slips severely, and very nearly shatters.

Reptilian trick: wiping away a non-existent tear
He might, for example, go “off script” for an unguarded moment, causally revealing something which had never before been spoken, a mistake which later necessitates his having to backtrack and “clarify” his earlier, careless remark. He attends to this ritual of “clarification” dutifully, almost robotically, again hitting allof the requisite notes of contrition for their manifestly improper insensitivity or thoughtlessness, all the while retaining an essential air of detachment from this prescribed penitential gesture, which in his heart he finds deeply irritating, if not intolerable, to have to perform. He is in fact contemptuous of the notion of ever having to be apologetic or contrite for his behavior, which he instinctively take to be self-justifying, regardless of the circumstance. Power, after all, is to him its own reward, a means and an end, the be-all and the end-all; still, he knows that power, while highly desirable, is not self-conferring—else he wouldn’t have to endure the vexing but necessary rituals that accompany the campaign to achieve good “PR.” For this reason, and this reason alone, he maintains his delicate dance of mummery, masquery and deceit, keeping his contempt desperately contained under a carefully constructed veil of seeming earnest benignity, even as the arrogance of his hatred pulses fiercely against the very people whose trust he pretends to solicit.
That scaly grin.
Calling such behavior “sociopathic” is accurate enough, but not fully adequate to the task. Those designated as “sociopaths” are known primarily for lacking a conscience, for displaying behavior that is manipulative, conniving, and calculating, and for possessing no semblance of empathy for others. Shame, guilt, and remorse are for them utterly exotic concepts. All of this also holds true for the Reptilians, as I have envisaged them here; generally speaking, there are surely so many overlaps and parallels between these two groups-- the one discussed much in mainstream pop-psychological circles, the other’s existence darkly hinted at by some conspiratorially-minded “alternative” news enthusiasts—that it may well be said that every Reptilian is a sociopath; still it most emphatically should not be believed that every sociopath is a Reptilian. In fact, most sociopaths, however deficient in conscience, possess neither the requisite intelligence, nor the capacity to forge elite-level alliances, nor the sheer, unalloyed black-hearted, single-minded ruthlessness, to be enabled to ascend to such an exalted post as those held by our scaly-souled, black-hearted rulers.
Many sociopaths, in fact, entertain little real ambition at all; they are not so much moved by the allure of possessing power as they are by the appeal of managing to elude it; they lead the existence of a “catch me if you can” drifter, daredevil, or con-artist, indulging their fearsome appetites without consequence and using people however it suits them to do so, yet for most sociopaths, this aimless, lawless trajectory doesn’t amount to any sort of wide-ranging, far-reaching design upon becoming a “master of the universe.” Far from seeking to take his presumed rightful place as a demigod among mere mortals, the run-of-the-mill socio only sees himself as a man among men; if he even bothers to take any kind of reflective vantage point whatsoever, it is generally a rather humble one. The fact that he feels nothing for his fellow men, and that he can be brutally callous in his general behavior attitude towards them, has no necessary bearing upon how he conceives of his standing in the world; though conspicuously different in temperament—apparent from the fact that he lacks conscience, compassion, and empathy—he isn’t one who views himself as superior, nor does he have an aspiration to enslave others (though the idea doesn’t appall him on moral grounds, since he has no interest in, or engagement with, morality).
The standard-issue sociopath: categorically different than the Reptilian.
For these reasons, the standard socio will always be a marginal figure, prone to the commissions of petty crimes or inconsequential swindles, but bound to be ignominiously forgotten just like every other “nobody” who “struts and frets his hour upon the stage” for his appointed time, before being laid into the soil to feed worms. The Reptilian, in contradistinction, aims to achieve immortality, and seizes upon a patently grandiose notion of domination. He regards himself not just as different from, but as qualitatively better than the bulk of humanity, a species he resembles only in form, not in essence. The Reptilian has massive goals, sweeping ambitions, expansive and intricate schemes—he would never settle for being just another low-level grifter! Thus, in a certain ironic sense, the Reptilian could be seen as a sort of “role model” for the simple-minded, unambitious, no-account socio; he is the sociopath “made good.” 

Understanding the War in Syria

via Counter-Currents

The recent intervention of the Russians in Syria raised hopes among many in the Alt-Right that ISIS (a.k.a. Israeli Secret Intelligence Service) would be swept away like dune dust, and President Assad restored to his adoring people. Since the Russians got involved, however, not much has really changed. Assad may be looking a little more stable and one or two villages may have changed hands, but the country remains a chaotic mess. Why, one wonders, is this the case?

The truth is because – unlike normal businesses, which now rely on practically Communist level of support through financial chicanery, bastardized Keynesian economics and a consumerist economy bloated in various unnatural and ungodly ways – the military sector in most countries remains a rigorously efficient and economical entity that has to scrape by with limited supplies.

This might sound surprising, given the fact that there are now so many actors involved in Syria – the West, the Russians, the Israelis, the Iranians, the Turks, the Kurds, Hezbollah, the Saudis, and various other Gulf States – but for a war with so many participants it is also a remarkably small war.

The large number of participants is also the reason why not much real progress is possible. Each player in this game knows that if it ups its stake drastically, the other players will respond with the result that the stalemate will persist, but with a mutual loss in wealth and resources to both. Putin’s recent move was more an act of shoring up Assad than resolving the crisis in one fell swoop, as it was wrongly seen by many in the Alt-Right-o-sphere.

There are a number of obvious cost-saving mechanisms that have become apparent as the war has progressed – a preference for aerial combat, the use of proxies, and allowing front lines to evolve an ethnic or sectarian character.

Aerial combat may sound expensive, and indeed not everyone can afford the start-up costs, but contrasted with the alternatives, it is actually one of the cheapest forms of warfare. A warplane flying over hundreds of square miles and dropping a payload on a weapons dump or hospital is the cheapest way of sending a “war signal” to the largest number of people in an area.


The use of proxies is another effective way of economizing. If Russia brought in actual Russian frontline troops in significant numbers, they would clearly roll up the anti-Assad elements fighting against them. But introducing such instability would not go unchecked, and would lead to the deployment of troops capable of stopping the Russians, whether Turkish, Western, or Israeli.

Putin knows this and so the battles will continue to be fought by Middle Eastern troops – Arabs, Kurds, Iranians – fierce looking bearded fellows, who nevertheless shoot high or shoot round corners without looking, and who run away when it suits them and cry like babies when captured.

The third way of “economizing” the war is to let it develop an ethnic character. Good old-fashioned “fear of the other,” and the possibility of seeing one’s sisters, daughters, and mothers raped, is the best way to keep the lackadaisical Middle Eastern militia man at his post and performing his desultory military duties cheaply.

This is the reason the frontlines in Syria are such a mess, because in ethnic terms Syria itself is a bit of mess. ISIS and the al-Nusra Front, whatever their outlandish Islamic excesses, are simply the Sunni team. The Kurdish areas of Syria are almost completely under Kurdish control, while Assad’s own Alawite people provide the heartland of his territory with a few tribal clientist excrescences extending into Christian and Sunni areas.

Let’s be clear, then, this is a war that no-one is now trying to win, as that would be (a) expensive and (b) provoke counter-moves by the other players, that would (c) make it very expensive and pointless. The question then is, if the war is going nowhere, why do the participants continue with it at all?

One answer is that pulling out would be a defeat. Assad falling would be a defeat for Russia and even Israel, which stands to suffer from having a strong radical Sunni state on its North Eastern border. On the other hand, the destruction of ISIS, or whatever rebranded Sunni movement takes its place, would be a defeat for the Saudis, Turks, and the Gulfers.

The other answer is that the war is not actually going nowhere – over time it is slowly sorting the country into more solid ethnic and sectarian blocs that can increasingly operate apart from each other and form the basis of future statelets.

But this is not that important for most of the participants. The Russians, the Saudis, the Israelis, and the West have little interest whether this particular village or that particular suburb is under Druze, Christian, Sunni, or Kurdish control. The main exception is the Turks, who are reluctant to see a Kurdish statelet crystallize along their border.

The real game that is going on – and the essence of the Syrian conflict – is the struggle to resolve competing economic interests. The Russians are the de facto leaders of an alliance (Assad, Hezbollah, Iran, & Iraq) that can be characterized as “Shiite,” but this is only due to circumstance and opportunity. The Russians know that in order to benefit from the conflict in Syria, they will have to reach “across the aisle” to Sunni elements.

The real coalition of interests in this conflict – and the one that will ultimately decide it – is that between the oil and gas interests of the main players, namely Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Gulf States.

Both the Russians and the Middle Easterners want to improve their access to the European markets. The Russians want to revive their South Stream pipeline project, which aims to transport natural gas through the Black Sea to Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, Slovenia, and Austria. This was stopped by the EU in the wake of the conflict in the Ukraine, but Russia hopes that resolving the Syrian conflict might lead to a new agreement with the EU on this. There is also another proposed pipeline, the Turkish Stream, which means that Russia and Turkey have mutual interests.

But the main coalition of interests is that between the Russians and the Saudis coming to an understanding on the pricing of these commodities. Recently there have been several scare stories about the Saudi economy being in trouble. These no doubt originate in Moscow and are mere propaganda, but the truth is that Russia and Saudi Arabia coming to a deal on oil would suit both their interests.

In late 2014, the Saudis flooded the oil market in a move designed to hurt their main Middle Eastern rival Iran by crashing the price of oil. But this also hurt Russia (not to mention the US fracking industry). This was what probably pushed Putin towards a more proactive policy in the Middle East.

The Russians decided that they needed a more direct means of exerting pressure on the Saudis, and so escalated their support for the failing Assad regime. The Saudis for their part have been disappointed with America’s conciliatory attitude to the Iranians, something that has pushed them closer to Israel. But their position remains fragile in numerous ways, so improving relations with fellow oil exporter Russia makes sense.

To the man on the street Syria is the place where gays are thrown off tall buildings, women are sold into slavery, POWs have their heads removed by chainsaws, and the source of many of Europe’s future rape gangs. But it is also the fulcrum in which a game of “war poker” is being played with plenty of bluff, winks, under the table dealing, and chips correlated to the price of oil.

The determinants of war and peace will not be the self-determination of the Syrian people or the nature of Islamic radicalism – these are mere pawns – but the degree to which cynical Russian, Iranian, Saudi, Israeli, and Turkish interests can coincide and coalesce.

The groups that stand to lose the most in this combined poker and chess game will be the various Syrian ethnicities caught up in it, and those countries most adversely effected by the flows of refugees. This at least will incline the EU to accept a wider deal when it emerges.

As for America, with little inclination to get involved militarily and no direct economic interest of the sort that Russia has, it is in danger of being sidelined in a way that may involve a loss of face for a so-called superpower.

U.S. Defense Secretary Laughably Refers to U.S.-Israel Defense Cooperation as “a two-way street”

via The Realist Report

United States Defense Secretary Ashton Carter has laughably described American and Israeli “defense cooperation” a mutually beneficial arrangement, noting the countries’ cooperation is “a two-way street.” Carter’s comments come at a time when the Jewish state is demanding American tax-payers fork over even more money to Israel.

To this writer’s knowledge, Israel does not provide the United States with billions of dollars every year for military hardware and other defense equipment. It should be obvious to any clear thinking American that our official political, diplomatic, and military relationship with Israel is most certainly “a one-way street,” with the Israelis receiving all of benefits, money, and support.

The Jerusalem Post reports:
Defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is a two-way street, with both contributing to the security of the other, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said in an interview published on Wednesday.
His comments to the Atlantic were in praise of Israel’s technological advances in warfare, specifically in cyberspace and in countering improvised weapons technologies from non-state actors.
“It’s a two-way relationship,” Carter said. “There’s no question that it’s not symmetric, but it is two-way— we really do get things from the Israelis in technology.”
“I hesitate to make invidious comparisons, but if you’re making comparisons to, say, the European legacy arms [industry], the guys who have made the tanks and planes and ships in Europe, they’ve been very slow to come out of the industrial age,” he continued. “The Israelis you will find to be more clever and more innovative.” […]
US congressional sources said on Wednesday that Israel has made an initial request for its annual US defense aid to increase to as much as $5 billion when its current aid package, worth an average $3 billion a year, expires in 2017.
Israel wants $5 billion per year in military aid for 10 years, for a total of $50 billion, the congressional aides said. It has been signaling that it wants more money to counter threats it says will arise as a result of the international agreement on Iran’s nuclear program, which Israel’s government has staunchly opposed. […]
One US official said the Obama administration was unlikely to fully meet the Israeli request, and predicted the sides would settle for an annual sum of between $4 billion and $5 billion.
Israel has also secured hundreds of millions of dollars in additional US funding for missile defense in recent years. […]
Who does Carter think he is fooling? The U.S.-Israel relationship is entirely asymmetrical, with Israel and the Jews getting whatever they demand. In fact, it’s downright parasitic, with the Jewish state and organized international Jewish community parasitizing off of its primary host in the Western world, the United States of America.

It’s becoming more and more obvious with each passing day: #WithJewsWeLose, and we always will. It’s time to dump Israel and put American interests first.