Two Cheers for ChávezGregory Hood
Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has died after a long battle with cancer. He was 58. Predictably enough, the castrated elephants of the American Right are squeaking with unseemly delight.
While it is far too soon to predict what effect Chávez’s death will have on the future of Venezuela’s “Bolivarian Revolution,” American opinion seems to be that the death of this man constitutes some kind of victory, particularly for neoconservatives.
Chávez was not a model leader. Venezuela’s crime rate has soared under his rule. Street gangs act as a de facto part of the Venezuelan government, corruption is rampant, and unfinished skyscrapers have become nests for squatters that look like something out of Dredd. While Chávez has been able to reduce poverty in the country, this is a fairly straightforward accomplishment for the fifth largest oil producing country in the world at a time of high prices. Chávez also made the claim that he would have voted for Barack Obama, if he could.
Nonetheless, there are reasons to admire Hugo Chávez. Chávez always inspired more hatred and fear from the neoconservative press than even paranoia could justify. This alone serves as a sign of contradiction that Chávez should be examined carefully. While it’s at least theoretically possible for a nuclear armed Iran to threaten Israel (or, of secondary importance to our press, America), it’s absurd to think of Venezuela as a military rival. Despite the absurdity, Americans have been treated to lurid articles about Muslim terrorists (!) setting up shop in Venezuela, even while Chávez littered his speeches with more references to Christ than Barack Obama ever would.
In truth, Venezuela did serve as a critical component of the emerging “anti-American government” bloc in world affairs. Chávez maintained close ties with Cuba, and more importantly, with Russia and China. Venezuela even expressed its willingness to host a strategic nuclear base for Russian forces. Chávez forcefully condemned the American supported “terrorists” in Syria fighting to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad. Chávez will be remembered around the world for his forceful condemnation of American foreign policy, particularly the invasion of Iraq, and his quip that he could “smell the sulfur” after George W. Bush spoke at the United Nations. American conservatives, some still stubbornly defending the disaster in Mesopotamia, have neither forgiven nor forgotten.
However, what is at the root of the hatred of Chávez is his willingness to maintain Venezuelan independence from international finance. Chávez defended Muammar al-Gaddafi till the bitter end, making the link between the American government’s desire to protect its debt driven empire and Washington’s sudden concern with democracy. Just as Gaddafi was brutally tortured and killed for daring to revolt against Washington’s global order, much of the hostility against Chávez was driven by his desire to maintain Venezuela’s oil revenue for the Venezuelan state. The American supported “democratization” movement against him, just like that directed against Vladimir Putin, has more to do with ensuring the continued hegemony of globalism than with a sudden concern for individual liberty. As in Russia, the international community’s cries for “liberty” really mean a desire to protect the culturally alien oligarchs.
Chávez’s “socialist” revolution always contained powerful nationalist and even traditionalist overtones. “Bolivarianism” emphasized Latin American unity, strength, and above all, sovereignty as an independent economic and political bloc against the new order of globalization. He attempted to mobilize the masses behind a patriotic identity, imbuing them with a sense of mission and national pride that transcended class. While Chávez’s opponents conspired with foreigners to overthrow him, Chávez broke with neoliberal orthodoxy to build a what he called a “Third Way” that would put Venezuela first.
It’s no surprise that the Tribe was famously hostile to Chávez because his “Bolivarian Revolution” was the wrong kind of socialism, the kind they could not control. Chávez was slammed by Jewish organizations for warning that those who “killed Christ” were in charge of the global economy – although he was grossly misquoted. For their part, pro-Chávez groups and newspapers have distributed the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, called for the “expulsion” of Zionist organizations from the country, and monitored the “subversive activity” of Jewish organizations. The Jewish neoconservative magazine Commentary wailed that Chávez’s “redemptive nationalist movement” saw the “Jewish financial mafia” as a threat. Seeing as how financial interests within the country and neoconservatives outside have both called for American military intervention, Chávez’s forces may have a point.
Would I want to live in Chávez’s Venezuela? No, of course not. However, I don’t want to live in an alien ruled America either, and yet here we are.
White Nationalists and Hugo Chávez share common interests and a common enemy: global capitalism. As long as the world is dominated by neoliberal economics directed by the axis of Washington, New York, and London, any Traditionalist, pro-white, or nationalist program is destined to be strangled in the cradle.
Furthermore, so-called “globalization” is an open door for Jewish financial and cultural domination, and the eventual eradication of any Traditionalist order. For that reason, proponents of Alexander Dugin’s “Fourth Political Theory” see Hugo Chávez as a hero, a wrench in the machinery of the financial order that is crushing us.
Finally, it is Wall Street and the capitalist elite – not so called “anti-Americans” like the late Hugo Chávez – that are importing the non-white masses to serve as cheap labor and dispossess Western peoples from their homelands. Americans should sympathize with Third World anti-colonialists like Chávez, since our country too is now merely a colony of global capital. For that reason, Traditionalist geopolitics must take as its primary focus dismantling the neoliberal financial order – not because it is an example of American “imperialism,” but because it is an enemy of the real America.
Hugo Chávez was an ally in that fight. His Bolivarian Revolution is not something we would wish to emulate. But it does deserve our support and respect.
Rest in peace.
Nueva Derecha vs. Vieja Derecha Capítulo 2: Hegemonía
Remembering Oswald Spengler (May 29, 1880-May 8, 1936)
Remembering Louis-Ferdinand Céline (May 27, 1894–July 1, 1961)
Úryvky z Finis Germania Rolfa Petera Sieferleho, část 2: „Věčný nacista“
Remembering Richard Wagner (May 22, 1813-February 13, 1883)
Remembering Dominique Venner (April 16, 1935–May 21, 2013)
Remembering Julius Evola (May 19, 1898–June 11, 1974)
Liberal Anti-Democracy, Chapter 5, Part 1: Democracy Against the People
One of Chavez’s early advisers was a Neo-Fascist philosopher from Italy [correction: Argentina].
With his death, now look for the vultures directed from NED, Freedom House, USAID etc. try and foment a ‘colour revolution’.
Whether Chavez’s motives were pure I cannot say, but repatriation of Venezuelan gold was from the clutches of the Rothschild tentacles should also be noted.
I more or less agree with Gregory’s analysis, but it should be noted the favorable coverage that the American liberal media is giving to Chavez. When Pope Benedict put forward his resignation the liberal media immediately began publishing negative coverage of his papal reign, casting him as nothing more than a pedophile-excusing, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, reactionary old man; Chavez is treated as a gentle soul working toward the socialist, democratic ideal. Why is Benedict treated one way and Chavez another?
Probably because Chavez never missed a bond payment.
These were precisely my feelings on him. One need only look at the current situation in Argentina regarding the bombing investigation to realize that Palestine and America aren’t the only occupied territories. This is of course not to minimize the nature of the foul boot resting on Palestine’s neck, but I think you understand my point.
His death is a irreparable loss. Besides being a good leader, he was generous with all the countries in this continent that needed him. May his soul rest in peace.
Gregory, thank you for this. It’s a relief to read an homage to Chavez from the Right, rather than the usual anti-“commie” rhetoric from those who are still trapped in a simplistic, ill-informed Cold War mentality.
Kerry, who was the neo-Fascist philosopher who worked for Chavez?
Is not Italian is Argentinian of Italian descent.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend…I don’t think so, because two wrongs still don’t make a right.
Whoo-hoo! This is way out of the mainstream! Should go viral. I’ve quoted, linked, and commented here:
I thought it was a great coup that Chavez pulled a few years ago when he offered the cheap heating oil to low income American households. That program was supported by Congressman Patrick Kennedy. lol
An excellent article, Gregory. Even though Chavez may have sometimes made anti-white statements from time to time, I respect him in the same way I respect Louis Farrakhan. They are both telling the truth about the Jewish Money Power that is destroying all Nations, races, and peoples. Also there is strong evidence that Chavez may have been poisoned by CIA/Mossad agents. Chavez was a great man in life and a martyr for Truth in death. The world has suffered a great loss.
If Hugo Chavez supported Barack Obama his understanding of America must have been superficial. He throws off the scent of sulfur too. I have a friend who teaches Spanish literature and language at the university level. He claims Hugo Chavez’s tenure has not been good for the Venezuelan poor, that is, the folks who probably cleave closest to traditional modes of living in that region. He bases his opinion on years of reading Venezuelan blogs written in Spanish.
Why, exactly, do the regime’s enemies of deserve our support? When have their leaders ever expressed sympathy for us? They don’t seem very concerned that their enemies are also destroying white civilization. No top leader within Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Palestine, Russia, Syria, Hezbollah or Hamas to name a few has ever expressed sympathy for us that I know of.
“Taking our own side” should include avoiding misplaced out-group altruism directed toward people who don’t care if we live or die.
Maybe Chavez supported Obama for the same reason you did: because he is bad for America, which is good for the rest of the world.
There’s no altruism here. We’re not talking about sending money to Venezuela or importing its poor. We’re talking about a selfish confluence of interests between the New Right and left-wing anti-globalization movements (which end up being de facto and de jure nationalist movements, because the natural limit to globalization is the nation).
I don’t think it matters if these people reciprocate our sympathies. We are powerless anyway, so it is not like there can be an actual alliance. But it is important to get the FACTS and the PRINCIPLES straight, which is the best a movement largely confined so far to cyberspace can do.
In addition to fighting the cancer of international capitalism, another admirable aspect of Chavez’s rule was his sensible land reforms, under “Plan Zamora”, in which he gave over 5.5 million acres of arable land to peasants and others who were capable of farming that land, thus solving the problem of local food shortages and making the rural areas, and nation more independent overall. Chavez believed it was his “Christian duty” to assist the rural poor, dispossessed of land. Hilaire Belloc would have been proud!
This would NEVER happen here. Our government would happily watch rural folk starve to death before offering them a small patch of land (obviously a piece of Federal land or land owned by some corporate mega farm) in order to simply feed themselves!
Chavez’s passing is indeed a loss for us all. I fear the worst for Venezuela. The vultures have been circling for years, and it will not be long before some kind of puppet leader is propped up for the benefit of the ruling plutocrats.
An excellent article and tribute to Chavez. It’s refreshing to see objective and fair-minded writing untainted by dogma. Thank you
Per World Bank statistics, Chávez cut poverty in half and extreme poverty by 70 percent. Regardless of the fact that the country has huge oil reserves, bear in mind that the elite that ruled the country for decades before Chávez never saw fit to use oil revenues for anything other than enriching themselves. It is not a coincidence that U.S.-approved “democratic” leaders like Carlos Andrés Pérez ended up hiding in Miami because they were facing corruption charges in their home country. If you want to know more about economic progress under Chávez, economist Mark Weisbrot has published a number of studies and op-eds on the subject. They are well worth reading.
One thing missing from the article is mention of the botched, U.S.-backed coup against Chávez in 2002. It’s amazing that to this day the American government acts as if it cannot understand the reasons for Venezuelan anti-Americanism. While it’s true that Chávez said he would have voted for Obama (Ghadaffi also made similar statements in a naive attempt to ingratiate himself with the U.S. government) he also made numerous critical remarks about him, including mocking his Nobel Peace Prize. And while it’s correct to say that Chávez was critical of the Israeli regime (he expelled the Israeli ambassador after the 2009 IDF massacre in Gaza) he never talked about a “Jewish financial mafia” nor did any major in Venezuela newspaper ever distribute the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. The latter two are canards put forward by the same neocons who tried to depict Venezuela and the Tri-Border area as Islamic terrorist hotbeds.
BTW, Norberto Ceresole ended up leaving Venezuela in 1999 after he had a falling out with prominent Chávez supporters. His role in the Bolivarian regime is only marginal. Chávez did speak fondly of him years after the Argentinean intellectual died, but the truth is that Ceresole distanced himself from Venezuela spent his last years as an adviser to several regional Argentinean politicians.
This GDP data from the IMF suggests Chavez did a lousy job. Venezuela underperformed Chile, Columbia and Peru over the period Chavez was in power. Some commenters criticize the author for assembling a misleading chart; others claiming direct experience in Venezuela agree Chavez did a bad job.
G / March 6, 2013
To all those dreamers thinking that Chavez was some sort of Robin Hood, you got it all wrong, I have traveled extensively and the country gets worse and worse by the second in all aspects, the economy is ruined, security is awful, corruption is rampant….GDP has stagnated, Inflation is very high, there are permanent shortages of food, and electricity, the economy in general is very distorted…GASOLINE IS CHEAPER THAN WATER that will tell you a lot, yet the poor can not enjoy this subsidies as cars are VERY expensive,…it is all upside down…all those that think that this was a great government are completely wrong…go there, experience it you will reach the same conclusion
dimaj / March 6, 2013
I´m from Venezuela. I read a lot of comments about Chavez´s gobernment and the economy inside my country. I gotta tell you, is a disaster, you go into a supermarket and can´t find: milk, soap, powder, etc. Hugo Chavez regimen always manipulated the people, they try very hard with propaganda and they have succeeded by changing people´s mind over this 14 years. In a couple of days the prices of every product rise a lot.
If I start talking about violence, crime, corruption… could write a book
It’s not the IMF, it’s the World Bank but, more importantly, the data does not suggest that Venezuela underperformed other economies in the region. You are comparing apples and oranges. The Chilean economy is far more modern than Venezuela’s and it’s an economic model that has been in place since at least 1985, when it started enacting free market reforms more aggressively. Chavez, on the other hand, took over a country whose riches had been squandered by the two parties that alternated in government for the last several decades. It’s absurd to try to compare the society that Chavez inherited from his predecessors with other countries that had a considerable head start.
Your other piece of evidence is anecdotal. Most of the people that benefited from Chavez’s regime were poor and extremely poor, not the upper middle and upper classes which consistently supported the opposition (comprised in great measure from people from the same parties and circles that sat on oil riches for decades). Yes, the country became more violent and nobody is saying that Chavez was perfect, just that he was not given his due and that the American government and media demonized him through grotesque lies (for example, that Venezuela a hotbed of Islamic terrorists or that the country posed a security risk to the U.S.).
The bottom line:
Unemployment went down from 14.5% (1999) to 7.6% (2009)
Infant mortality went down from 20/1000 (1999) to 13/1000 (2011)
Poverty went from 23.4% (1999) to 8.5% (2011)
GDP per capita went from $4,105 (1999) to $10,810 (2011)
The source is, again, the World Bank, hardly an ally of Chavez or his economic reforms.
Please note that I’m not saying he was great or that his economic system was an example to follow. I’m simply giving him his due for making one fundamental change from the way Venezuela had been ruled until then: using government money and oil revenue to benefit his own people instead of a wealthy few and foreign corporations. If you don’t refute the numbers, the rest is just noise.
Great article, thank you. We have very few real world politicians who represent pro-white points of view, so in their absence I don’t see any problem in favorably discussing politicians who, while not pro-white, have something to teach us. In this sense, Chavez is a worthy subject.
The interesting and laudable things about Chavez are well summarized by Hood. His defiant outspoken resistance to playing the neoliberal globalist game, his meshing of nationalist with socialist themes in his economic policies, his possible Jew awareness – all good things.
There are bad things too: for example, the anti-white politically correct left loves him and sees him as a force against “white hegemony in the Americas” and so on. Make no mistake that when it comes to much of his social policy he was in favor of policies that would lead to white disposession. A devout Cultural Marxist.
On a side note, it strikes me as rather pathetic that the fifth-largest oil producing country in the world is as poor and crime ridden as it is. I’m not sure this is a reflection on Chavez as much as it is an an observation of typical Latin American dysfunction. The Great Spanish-European/Amerindian/African genetic experiment hasn’t produced very admirable societies by any measure. Sadly, we’re in the process of seeing whether importing tens of millions of these experiments to the US will make the US any better.
I had a breakfast with a friend who knew a white Venezuelan who moved to USA. I was told that this white Venezuelan is very Nordic looking and grew up in a white middle-class neighborhood there. During his younger days there, his family’s house would get water and power certain times of the day and get shut off each evening by 9 pm. When he came here, he couldn’t get over the fact that he can use power and water 24/7. The very rich Venezuelans get water & power 24/7, but not the rest of the country.
I think I understand your point, though, respectfully of course, I’m not sure I’m in full agreement with this particular NANR principle (support all nations against globalism), at least not yet.
My view of the principle is this. We share a common enemy but not common interests, two very different things. The opposite from common interests is true in most cases. The various nations and groups that oppose the regime, again, usually oppose white people too, or at best they are indifferent.
Unless I’m misunderstanding you, you’re proposing the nationalist principle ought to be support racially alien people who oppose us or don’t care about us. I don’t want to caricature it, but if that’s a misreading and I have no doubt it’s my fault if it is, how is it a misreading?
The North Koreans just threatened to target white Americans with nuclear weapons. Maybe that was diplomatic bluster; maybe they don’t have the ability to do it anyway. Or maybe they meant it and will do it one day if they have the ability and feel they have no choice. It’s not clear to me how euro rightists have common interests with the North Koreans.
Another factor to consider is this. In very tangible ways, I think it helps us for the regime to spread over the globe quashing enemies. The more resources the regime has to spend quashing people around the world the less time and resources they have to focus on us.
Suppose the US government decided to shut down every military base outside of Europe and the US. The cost savings from such a move would probably give the US government a financial shot the arm for maintaining its grip on North America and Europe, maybe for another 100 years.
The US seems to be pulling out of Afghanistan. It’s a victory the Taliban and a defeat for the neocon wing of the regime. Ok, fine how does it help us? The regime’s defense savings from AfPak might be used to expand DHS who happens to work closely with the SPLC (There is speculation about this out there).
If the Obama reverses himself and decides to commit American forces to bombing Pashtuns for another 20 years, how does that hurt us? (Those are rhetorical questions.)
These people could definitely help WNism if they wanted to, and the fact that they don’t to me suggests hostility.
They could do it with moral and symbolic support not even necessarily with money. At the UN a few years ago, Hugo Chavez held up a book by Noam Chomsky on the world stage. He had the global spotlight all the time to make his points. Yet for all Chavez’s talk about opposing Jewish finance and Zionism, he never once held up a copy of Culture of Critique for the global media.
In the 1990s, Muammar Gaddafi tried to give millions of dollars to the relatively powerless, despised and marginalized Nation of Islam, and none to the National Alliance, David Duke or anyone supporting WNism.
Gaddafi wanted to give Louis Farrakhan so much money to build up black nationalism in America Jews had to step in to block it (via decrees issued by Clinton administration).
Gaddafi’s idea of helping anti-Zionists in America was giving millions of dollars to blacks who think in terms of blue-eyed devils.
Despite this, I saw many people on the white right express great sympathy for Gaddafi upon his death. I probably did myself. Reasonable people can disagree, but on reflection I’m not sure the impulse behind such sentiments makes much sense or is a healthy outlook to have circulating in the movement.
The New Right as I define it supports nationalism for all nations. Meaning that we recognize that all peoples have their own interests and ways of life and need national sovereignty in order to secure and advance them.
The way I see it is that the true enemy of whites and all distinct peoples in the world is globalization/cosmopolitanism and the elites that carry it out. We have a common enemy and because of that we have common interests, namely the destruction of that enemy. Thus I applaud the efforts of all peoples around the world, from North Korea to Afghanistan to Syria, to fight globalization and cosmopolitanism. Becuase they are fighting and weakening our enemy as well.
I don’t want the existing globalist regime in America to enjoy a moment’s peace because you are right: if they had peace abroad they could accelerate their efforts to destroy our race here in America. I would be all for American isolationism if we were in power, but we are not, and therefore it is in the interests of whites worldwide that non-whites around the world are fighting against our oppressors — particularly since our “superior” white race is far less aware of its real enemies and far less willing to court social disapproval, much less spill blood, to end their power over us.
The core of your objection seems to be that people like Quaddafi and Chavez think that all white people are their enemies rather than the globalist/capitalist elites who live here for now and get white people do do their fighting for them. Well, the only solution to that problem is to educate these people about the true situation.
War is when the government chooses your enemies. Revolution is when you choose your enemies for yourself. We have to stop letting the system choose enemies for us. Of course the problem is that even if we do not choose to be enemies of people like Chavez, sometimes the enemy chooses you. The only way out of that problem is to go further into it, i.e., to educate these people so they recognize the real enemies that we have in common.
We can share the same planet with many different peoples, despite real conflicts of interest, as long as well all stay in our places. But before we can get to that situation, we ALL have the fight the globalists that refuse to leave any nation alone in pursuit of a blended humanity. Of course the Jews, who are now the senior partners in the globalist coalition, have no intention of disappearing as a people, but they desperately want whites and other higher races to be blended out of existence so their own existence and hegemony will be free of all potential challengers.
I’m skeptical these people can be educated in the sense that matters.
We’re talking about non-whites, racial aliens, peoples who are distinct from us on a biological level. They’re rational and intelligent people who have built advanced civilizations, but fundamentally they do not think like we do, or share our sensibilities on justice and fairness.
The argument runs:
1. Globalism is destroying our nations.
2. Globalism is destroying your nations.
3. We share a common enemy.
While that is very convincing to me and I suspect to most nationalists based on our perspectives on justice, it seems to rely on an assumption about them that just doesn’t appear to be true.
Globalism is only our COMMON enemy IF they care that globalism is destroying OUR nations. It is very possible they care that globalism is destroying THEIR nations but not OURS, in which case we don’t share a COMMON enemy.
The traditionalists are not going to be able to educate them into seeing common cause if they don’t care. They may never care given that their strong cohesion, awareness of ethnic interests, and indifference to out-groups is probably partially baked into the cake at a biological level.
Not that any of this matters at a practical level. Like you said, WNism is mostly conversations on the internet at this point.
Side Note re: North Korea
This rhetoric from North Korea plays into Washington DCs narrative that North Korea is an evil regime. North Korea’s leaders are announcing to the world they’re open to the mass slaughter of American civilians who have no say in what the US government does or doesn’t do.
As with Hugo Chavez, it seems that these non-white regimes with very real and legitimate grievances against the Empire are not very adept at discerning the real nature of who runs things in America.
This isn’t 300 AD. The same information that is wide open to us exposing who really runs things in America is wide open to them. They’re either not discerning enough to pick up on it, or it’s a distinction they care about.
North Korea vows nuclear attack on US, saying Washington will be ‘engulfed in a sea of fire’
We can resolutely retaliate against our enemies and turn the United States into a sea of flames.
Due to the fact that we lose a certain amount of credibility by allying with regimes like North Korea’s, Iran’s or Qaddafi’s, I don’t think the common cause of opposing globalization is enough to justify such alliances, alignings, and so on. At most we can speak favorably of them in certain limited contexts, such as their admirable defiance to the globalists on the geopolitical stage.
Yes, we shouldn’t cede the field of public opinion to Big Global Media, and we certainly won’t change any minds or challenge our enemies by remaining silent, but at the same time we have to recognize the character of these regimes in their own right and decide how much we want to be associated with them. We might see ourselves as forming a kind of Front Against Globalization – Jews, on the other hand, happily see us walking stupidly into the trap of identifying with some of the most repressive (in Iran’s case) and craziest (in N. Korea’s) regimes in the world.
There are anti-globalization movements both large and small all over the world. We can afford to discern the worthy ones from the repressive and batshit crazy. In this sense, “officially” admiring Chavez is a worthwhile pursuit. Chavez resisted being completely demonized in popular consciousness by the Jewish international media because he genuinely wasn’t a cruel and crazy despot and his regime genuinely wasn’t repressive.
Chavez was also buddies with Norberto Ceresole, who was somebody considered naughty by the folks who brought you our current mess.
Globalization is here to stay. There is no National Power in the world today that can stand against it. The question is; Who will control the globalization process, or rather is there any race that will be strong enough to wrest power from the Jews and create a constructive rather than a destructive Global World Economy. There are only three races mentally capable of world domination; The White Race, the Northeast Yellow Race, and the Jew. Unless either the White and/or Yellow races are able to develop a Global system based not on Jewish Usury, but on the productivity and creativityof the higher races, the Jews, because of their destructive inner nature will put an end to all races and all civilization. One hundred years ago the White Race dominated the world. The Jews, through their deceit and deception stole our birth right. Can we become strong enough to take our Power back? An Aryan Global World Order is the only solution.
Communism was here to stay too, until it wasn’t.
Globalization in the end will be no more stable. It is merely a process by which parasitic financial elites liquidate the capital accumulated by traditional or protectionist economies and plunder the resources of countries too weak or corrupt to utilize them for the common good of their peoples. When the locusts strip everything bare, they move on.
Japan, China, and South Korea have built up their economies through globalization, but they are not going to allow themselves to be deindustrialized and plundered like the United States. Who is going to force them to open themselves up to that? The United States? Will the Chinese loan us the money to do it?
Any country with a billion+ people and a nuclear deterrent can veto globalization. India and China both fit that description. Even smaller countries with nuclear deterrents and relatively autarkic economies could do it. France and Russia could today. Japan and Germany could go nuclear virtually overnight.
White world domination is a rather fatuous aim, given that we don’t even rule our own homelands anymore. Imperialism seems glorious when you focus on the phase of expansion:
But events have a way of reversing themselves, and the colonizers sometimes end up being colonized in turn, as is happening today:
A man who declares the world his birthright announces to his neighbor his intention to be a murderer and a thief.
“An Aryan Global World Order is the only solution.”
What is an “Aryan Global World Order” ?
Will an “Aryan World Order” produce justice guaranteeing that no one is mistreated and those who need the most help get the most help ?
The Iranians know-but you have some beef against them as well.
Iran is an exception. Unlike North Korea, they’re not threatening attacks on Americans.
I have no beef with the Iranians. I admire them. I disagree there is evidence they care that white civilization is being destroyed by the same forces trying to destroy them or that they can be convinced to care. For this reason, I see the massive sympathy Iran sometimes gets in these circles as misplaced.
Let Iran offer a billion dollars to find WNism in America then I’ll change my mind. It’s happened before. The anti-Zionist Ghaddafi tried to give NOI that amount. His anti- Zionism and opposition to the empire translated to an offer to help our enemies.
You persist in allowing our regime to choose our enemies for us. That has to stop.
It’s a tricky issue. While I don’t follow him closely, David Duke seems to have transitioned into placing less emphasis on white people per se, and more on the right of “all people” to their own homelands, and/or focusing almost entirely on “Zionist extremists.” Of course, I don’t disagree with Duke’s basic ideas, but to me it comes across as somewhat weak tea. Sort of a “Me too! Don’t forget me! Come on guys, play fair!”
That approach may or may not have its place, but it’s not going to gin up the kind of movement that can win a homeland. What Covington has done, by contrast, is to at least create a mythos surrounding a white homeland, bringing that land to life in the imagination. Of course, in his fictional universe, the new white nation expresses nothing but utter and implacable hostility and animus toward non-whites, which I don’t think is necessary. But fundamentally, he’s got it right.
The dream trumps appeals to fair play. Always has, always will. Hell, pretty much anything trumps appeals to fair play.
In other words, our overwhelming focus needs to be on us – our aspiration, our love, our hate, our grievance. Lofty intellectualism mixed with animal passion is a wonderful concoction. Exciting us, enraging us, inspiring and edifying us. I think it’s obvious that Counter-Currents does just that (minus the enraging – but I think we have quite enough sites covering the latest horror stories).
Still, I enjoyed the article. I’m heartened by other anti-globalist forces.
I’m also fully cognizant of the fact, and you are entirely correct in bringing it up, that our movement doesn’t receive a single red cent from any of these forces, even though many are rich. We should therefore never fool ourselves into believing that they are friends in a meaningful sense. They are not (though I’d love for a rich sheik to prove me wrong).
But there is a very real possibility that, if our movement can show some promise, assistance may reach us from some very unlikely sources. We need to let them know that we are open to that (education), not just mindlessly hostile per the Hollywood stereotype. Of course, even when/if assistance arrives, the movement’s non-white benefactor will simply be using us for its own practical advantage, just as we look to the practical advantages offered by various non-white forces opposed to globalism. Nothing wrong with that.
So yeah, I think Hood has it about right. Two cheers. Or maybe, for me, just a polite golf clap. Chavez always reminded me of an Orc, so it’s hard to get but too inspired. If he hadn’t risen to political prominence, he would have had at least some sucess as an extra in various Lord of the Rings films. Forgive me the petty digression.
In any event, golf clap it is. But nobody claps for losers, which is what we are now.
Bottom line: it’s about inspiring us first, and creating a dream worth sacrificing for. Then, when we’re actually worth something approximating our salt, I’m guessing we’ll find a few friends in high, low and some rather unlikely places. Maybe some will even look like Orcs. But nobody’s going to give it to us from scratch, that much is clear. Again, I’d love to be proven wrong about that.
I agree with you, but I’m not going to let the regime pick my friends either…
David Duke seems to have transitioned into placing less emphasis on white people per se, and more on the right of “all people” to their own homelands, and/or focusing almost entirely on “Zionist extremists.”
Right. Zionism in this context is about the Israeli government policy, not Jewish power over white lands.
The problem with too much focus on the Palestinians and Iran is you end up focusing on what Jews are doing to them rather than us. And our main concern has to US.
Some focus on Zionism is good because highlights Jewish double-standards (ultra-nationalism for jews, multiculturalism, capitalism, feminism, miscegenation, Hollywood vulgarity for everyone else).
In fairness to Duke, if he is still living in Europe, he may have to tread carefully to avoid running afoul of hate crimes laws. It might be easier to attack Zionism because that is about attacking a nation’s government and its policies. Zionism is political, and there are many non-WNist critics of Zionism in Europe. If Duke tried to go after Jews generally, a particular ethnic group, that might get him into trouble.
I admired Chavez, I would like to see mre leaders standing against the jew World Order.
“You persist in allowing our regime to choose our enemies for us. That has to stop.”
Dr Johnson, Gaddafi chose us as his enemies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTsy8VP1eXg
“…Muhammad is the prophet of the people in Scandinavia, Europe…”
“We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe—without swords, without guns, without conquest. The 50 million Muslims in Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.” 2:57 – 3:23
This was followed with cheers in the crowd and chants of “Allah Akbar”
Also, notice how he wants globalization (2:17-2:28)? Most of these people do. They are our enemies’ twins, not their polar opposites. Same ends, different means.
Islam in Europe is my enemy. Islam in any white land is my enemy. But Islam in the Islamic world is not, indeed, it opposes and weakens the greater enemy: international Jewry and the United States government and ruling elite, without which Muslims would not be in Europe in the first place.
Latin American “chavismo” and similar political movements in this Continent are driven by intense anti-white resentment and hate. No constructive alliance is possible with them. The Russians support them for geopolitical reasons, but would they let them in into Russia? Of course not. Worse, the only network Moscow has in South America are pre 1991 communists and they promote them to pay back American policy in the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. The Russians do as the Kaiser did sending Lenin to Russia to topple the Tsar. It seems Hood has not read Spengler about the revolution of coloured peoples, nor Heinz Guderian’s “Conflict perspectives of the West”, written a few years after WWII. It would be enough to read “Mister” by Alex Kurtagic to rethink his flawed perception on possible world alliances with the coloured leaders of South America. The very “American” political propositions of Hood mean death for white people in South America, as it meant death for them in Rhodesia and more slowly in South Africa. Think twice on the descendants of the Conquerors of South America that have kept their blood untainted. To do so, racial consciousness and well thought marriages have been made through generations.To us, Hood’s Power Politics proposals not only make no sense, but are destructive of White people.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment