Viva Chávez!Kerry Bolton
Translations: German, Portuguese
“Eventually responsible leadership for a restive mass of some 180,000,000 Latin Americans will evolve. Already the seeds of revolt against Jewish-American economic domination have been sown. Witness Cuba.” — Francis Parker Yockey, 1961.
The vultures have been circling around Venezuela for over a decade, waiting for an opportunity to swoop down upon a nation that had stubbornly maintained its sovereignty under the inspiring leadership of a latter-day Perón, Hugo Chávez. To bogus “conservatives” Chávez was just another Marxist tyrant, a designation that is applied to anyone remotely critical of US global hegemony, whether politically, economically, morally or culturally. However, he was something other than just another “Third World’ dictator; like Perón he was committed to an Idea, and while that might be described as from the “Left,” it was far from Marxist. Rightist political realists such as Yockey, his colleague H. Keith Thompson, and the Belgian Jean Thiriart, would have readily seen greatness in Chávez, around which an anti-globalist axis was being forged in Latin America and further afield.
Yockey, in collaboration with H. Keith Thompson, penned his last essay that acknowledged the importance of the “the formation of nationalist, neutralist regimes” in the Third World, and had no compunction about describing certain darkies in his own time as “brilliant statesmen,” in which he included for example Nkrumah of Ghana. “These personalities,” they wrote, “embody an Idea, none are out for money or publicity. They live simply, work for and live for their ideas. One such man, in a position of leadership, is a world-historical force.” Can anyone really object that if Yockey were alive to day he would have seen in Chávez anything other than a “brilliant statesman,” and a “world-historical force,” and might very well have joined Ceresole in going to Bolivarian Venezuela, as he went to Nasser’s Egypt?
Chávez, who had reached the rank of lieutenant-colonel, had participated in a failed coup in 1992, was jailed and then pardoned in 1994. He had spent his time formulating his political ideas, and was a student of history. The Revolutionary Bolivarian Movement–200 (MBR–200) had been formed by radical army officers. As the name indicated, they honoured Simon Bolivar, not Karl Marx, and they had a wider vision for Latin America. Despite the opposition parties combining against him, Chávez won the presidency in 1998 with 56% of the vote.
The name of the state was changed to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.
Resisting Culture Distortion
While it is a great myth to regard the USA as instinctively opposed to any regime that is “Leftist,” the Chávez regime was certainly a significant bugbear to the US regime. Like Perón, Chávez was no run-of-the-mill Marxist. The alarming direction of Bolivarian Venezuela soon became apparent to the “regime of the culture distorter” when Chávez declared a Kulturkampf exactly at them: the “culture distorters.” The “spiritual syphilis of Hollywood,” to use a Yockeyan term is a primary means of subverting a nation and dragging it down into the globalist quagmire headed up by the USA. Asked why he was launching a film industry in Latin America intended to rival Hollywood, Chávez explained: “It’s a Hollywood dictatorship. They inoculate us with messages that don’t belong to our traditions.”
A film studio was opened by Chávez in 2006 with funding of $11,000,000. It produced films about Latin American history. The first was “a series about Francisco de Miranda, who fought for Venezuela’s independence from Spain in the 19th century and one of Mr Chávez’s heroes.”
Chávez was fully cognizant of the forces at work behind the US regime and globalization, and its Hollywood arm. Hence the opposition he encountered from Jewish sources and his outspoken condemnation of their influence. In 2006 no less than the Simon Wiesenthal Center accused Chávez of making “anti-Semitic” remarks and — laugh now — “demanded an apology.” In his 2005 Christmas Eve speech Chávez said that “minorities, descendants of those who crucified Christ … have grabbed all the wealth of the world for themselves . . . ‘Our center strongly condemns his anti-Semitic declarations. This insult to universal humanitarian values demands an immediate retraction and public apology.’”
The center’s International Relations Director Shimon Samuels and its Latin America representative Sergio Widder also sent a letter to Chávez demanding an apology, according to the center’s statement.
They said they would call on the governments of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay to suspend Venezuela’s entry into the Mercosur trade bloc until Chávez apologizes.
The center said ‘the reactionary and medieval rhetoric’ echoed that of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who last month expressed doubt the extermination of Jews by the Nazis known as Holocaust occurred and suggested the Jewish state be moved to Europe.
Chávez, a vocal critic of Washington, has recently been fostering ties with Iran as he builds political and trade alliances as an alternative to U.S. influence.
In November 2012 the Wiesenthal Center lambasted Bolivarian Venezuela again because of violence directed against a synagogue in Caracas, when “an enraged mob chanted ‘Jews are murderers, damn Jews, stop killing innocent people’, anti-Israeli slogans, and launching firecrackers.” SWC Director for International Relations, Dr. Shimon Samuels, in keeping with a tendency for philo-Semites to exaggerate a tad, compared the incident to Nazi Germany and accused the Chávez Government of tolerating the acts, a previous incident having occurred in 2009:
Anti-Semitic incidents in Chávez’ Venezuela were already labeled as human rights abuses by the OAS’ Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The current Maripérez Synagogue behooves the Organization of American States to intervene in ensuring a full investigation and prosecution of those responsible.
An Alternative to the “New World Order”
Clearly Chávez was regarded as an enemy of World Zionism and of World Jewry, alongside his ally, Iranian President, Ahmadinejad. In particular, Chávez had a grander vision that embraced not only the whole of Latin America but also the world. In opposing the USA and globalization Chávez countered with an alternative that accorded with a growing body of political and academic opinion in Russia, based on “Eurasianism” and the “Fourth Political Theory,” the most well-known exponent of this in Russia being Professor Alexander Dugin of the Center for Conservative Studies, Moscow State University. The theory is broadly advocated by President Putin, and Chávez sought a close relationship with Russia as the axis for a global reorganization based on geopolitical blocs and alliances or what Dugin calls “vectors.”
For Chávez’s part he advocated a Latin American bloc or “vector,” in Dugin’s terms, which was the foreign policy initiative of his “Bolivarian Revolution.” This had indeed brought the alignment of other Latin American states into “The Bolivarian Alternative for the People of Our America.” I have describe this briefly elsewhere:
A Latin American bloc is emerging around Venezuela. Combined, a Latin American bloc will have immense resources. A “Bolivarian” revolution is taking place throughout Latin America under the inspiration of Hugo Chávez of Venezuela. This Latin American bloc is forming in defiance of North American hegemonic ambitions, and was launched as “The Bolivarian Alternative for the People of Our America” (ALBA) in 2004 by Venezuela and Cuba as an alternative to the US—backed “Free Trade Area of the Americas.” By June 2009, ALBA had grown to nine member states, and the name was changed to the “Bolivarian Alliance for the People of Our America.” A Latin American bloc will seek alignment with Russia to counter US pressure, and Venezuela is already doing so.
Chávez seems to have been informed by the emerging current in Russian geopolitical thinking and endorsed a “multipolar” world in which the Bolivarian bloc would play its part aligned with Russia. He stated early in his presidency that this would not be “the new American century” but one of various power blocs. It reflects the grand geopolitical thinking of Haushofer, and post-War the ideas of Thiriart and Mosley, the latter also including what he had seen during the 1950s as the emergence of “syndicalism” in Latin America (particularly under Perón) as the foundation of a Latin bloc that could be aligned with Europe.
Chávez was well versed in political ideology and the history of political ideas, and quoted a variety of intellectual sources in his articles and TV talks. He was no dumb Spic as some “Rightists” would have it, on the basis of one’s skin shade. He wrote of his geopolitical vision:
I want to resume what I said in the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia: Today we can say that the world has stopped being unipolar. But there is not a bipolar world, nor are there clear signs of the creation of four or five great poles of world power. It is clear, for instance, that the organization of Our America in one single political bloc is not in the immediate horizon: It will not come true in the short term. But the same happens in Africa, Asia and Europe.
What we do can currently see is a number of growing geopolitical cores on the map of a world that we could now call the New World. It is a multipolar world as the transition to multipolarity.
The acceleration towards the transition to multipolarity will depend on the political clearness, will and decision made by the countries in each core. …
It will be difficult for them to silence the multiple chants sung by multiple nations, which, face with the hegemonic globalization imposed by capitalism, have started to build counter-hegemonic globalizations. Here I use the terms of Portuguese Professor and Intellectual Boaventura de Sousa Santos when, in his book Epistemologies of the South, he proposes us to think about a new multinational democratic movement. In this sense, I felt, with the same spirit among the fraternal peoples of Libya, Algeria, Syria, Iran, Turkmenistan, Belarus, Russia and Spain, that isolated efforts are not enough to fight the world crisis.
In the same article, Chávez spoke of the plight of the Palestinians, and of the “war on terrorism” that was being used to impose globalization, “which has allowed the empire to run over peoples and sovereignties with impunity.”
In 2010 Chávez visited Iran where loyalty between the two nations was pledged, and joint oil and other agreements were ratified. It was a pact that greatly worried Israel and the USA. The visit to Iran was part of a tour of numerous states, where he promoted the idea of a “multipolar world,” referred to in his article above.
That year also Putin visited Venezuela to sign an energy accord. Chávez, who visited Russia many times, stated of the Putin visit: “We’re forging a new multipolar world and Russia plays a big part in that process.”
Chávez: “I am really a Perónist”
Chávez, I feel, is the first Latin American leader to fill the shoes of the great Juan Perón. More than similarity in origins and style, both Perón and Chávez had a common adviser in Norberto Ceresole. In a 2008 meeting with Argentine President Christina Fernandez de Kirchner, Chávez cited a speech by Juan Perón, and said: “I am really Perónist. I identify this man and this thought who asked that our countries are no longer factories of imperialism.”
Norberto Ceresole has been described as both a communist, because of his association with Chile’s Allende, and with Cuba, and as a “neo-Fascist” (because he was a “neo-Fascist”). The communist label comes about through the cerebral retardation that afflicts the “Right,” particularly in the USA. (I recall years ago hearing a GI solemnly state that he was going to Iraq to “fight Communism”). Quite a lot has been written about Ceresole as Chávez’s “Rasputin,” as someone whose influence gave the varied but aligned forces of evil the nervous jitters.
Ceresole (1943–2003), a political scientist and sociologist, was born in Argentina, studied in Germany, France, and Italy, and began his career as a political adviser with the Leftist regime of Juan Velasco Alvarado, after the coup in Peru in 1968. During the 1970s he was a leader of the Montoneros, who had fought for the return of the exiled Juan Perón, and went into exile in Spain in 1976, after the overthrow of Isabel Perón. Ceresole became the main spokesman for Perónism and was particularly influential among military officers throughout Latin America. He also promoted a Latin American alliance with the USSR.
While this would be seen by retarded elements of the “Right” as evidence of Communism, from the time of Yockey, and even during the time of Spengler, advanced Rightist thinkers were seeing the USSR as developing in altogether a different direction, and during Ceresole’s own time such an alliance was certainly being advocated also by Jean Thiriart and even by old veterans such as Maj. General Otto Remer, who never stopped advocating an alliance with Russia.
Ceresole became a member of the Institute of Latin American Studies of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, and maintained contact with Cuban and Arab officials; again something that Yockey also did on both counts. After a 1987 revolt he returned to Argentina to advise Aldo Rico and other officers, whose movement later merged with the Perónistas. In 1994, through military contact, Ceresole met Chávez.
In 1995 Ceresole was deported from Venezuela because of his links with the Chávez group. With Chávez’s election in 1998 Ceresole returned, after having published a book in praise of Chávez, Caudillo, Ejército, Pueblo: la Venezuela del Comandante Chávez, in 1999.
Chávez had already mentioned his ideological debt to Ceresole in regard to geopolitics, writing in 1998 in Habla el Comandante that he “was reconsidering the ideas of Norberto Ceresole, in his works and studies, where he planned a project of physical integration in Latin America . . . this will be a project which will integrate the Continent along Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina and their ramifications.” Despite pressures from inside the regime that prompted Ceresole to leave Venezuela in 1999, his influence on the regime was lasting and he stated: “I am profoundly proud, for example, that the Venezuelan system of military intelligence was restructured following the strategic guidelines that I proposed at the time.”
Although there have been suggestions that Ceresole was repudiated by Chávez, this is not the case, and the Commandante stated in one of his broadcasts in 2006 that Ceresole was a “great friend”, and “an intellectual deserving great respect.” He recalled their meeting in 1995 where geopolitical strategy was discussed.
Ceresole returned to Argentina and continued advising the Perónistas until his death in 2003. Here he established the Perónista Institute of Education and Training Policy.
Cersole has been “accused” of being a “Holocaust denier” and an “anti-Semite,” and indeed he wrote books on both subjects, including: Terrorismo fundamentalista judío, nuevos escenarios de conflictos (Madrid: Libertarias, 1996); El Nacional-judaísmo: un mesianismo post-sionista, con prólogo de Roger Garaudy (Madrid: Libertarias, 1997); España y los judíos, Expulsión, Inquisición, Holocausto, 1492–1997 (Madrid: Amanecer, 1997); and La cuestión judía en la América del Sur (2003), while also writing on political nationalism and geopolitics. One of his books is entitled Perónism: Theory and History of National Socialism, the latter term being what Perón himself used to describe his doctrine of Justicialism.
That old war-horse of Jewish-Marxism, The Jewish Daily Forward, lamented of Chávez:
Anti-Semitism is on the rise in the Hispanic world. At its heart is Chávez’s anti-Zionism, which, of course, isn’t new. Nor is the Venezuelan president’s ire directly only at the Israeli state. His anti-Zionism is just one manifestation of his anti-Semitism. Famously, in a Christmas 2005 declaration, Chávez announced that “The world has enough for everybody, but some minorities, the descendants of the same people that crucified Christ, and of those that expelled Bolívar from here and in their own way crucified him . . . have taken control of the riches of the world.” Like his ally Mahmoud Ahmedinejad of Iran, Chávez portrays Israel as a genocidal state that survives only because a cabal of wealthy Jews in the United States, through the media, controls the world’s public opinion.
After commenting on the dwindling of the Venezuelan Jewish community and anti-Zionist actions, Forward describes Chávez’s advisor:
To understand the roots of Chávezs’ animosity toward both Israel and the Jewish people, it is essential to follow the path of one of his close allies and confidants, Norberto Rafael Ceresole. Creosole’s potent mix of nationalism, populism, and anti-Semitism has provided the Venezuelan president with a convenient way to unite the disenfranchised poor under a common enemy. . . .
. . . Rather than a Cold-War ideologue supporting, depending on the occasion, the extreme left and the ultra-right, Ceresole may best be defined as a populist inspired by Juan Domingo Perón, Ceresole’s all-time hero (he spent time with the deposed Perón in Madrid). One of his central theses, if one is to be distilled from his almost three dozen books, is that the only redeeming institution in Latin America capable of bringing the region out of its “somnambulist status” is the army.
Ceresole, states The Forward, was thoroughly anti-Marxist, despite his support for “Leftist” causes as well as those on the Right, seeing Marxism as alien to Latin America, and was able – like Yockey, it can be added – to cultivate contacts in both the USSR and Cuba, despite his anti-Communism. The Forward quotes Ceresole as warmly remembering his first meeting with Chávez in 1994 just as Chávez recalled more recently and just as warmly, his meeting with Ceresole:
When I met Chávez I felt a revelation, that is, I saw a character that somehow I had imagined. . . . I had imagined [him] as a possibility. I had a negative experience with some Argentine military and when I saw Chávez it was, frankly, like a blow of fresh air. I immediately understood his lefty-wing line, which I didn’t like, and therein emerged the fraternal struggle between Chávez and Ceresole.
The Forward comments that despite Ceresole being pushed to leave Venezuela by the Vice President in 1999, “Though Ceresole did leave Venezuela, he remained close to Chávez until his death.” The influence certainly endured through Ceresole’s ideas on geopolitics, his opposition to Zionism and the influences of Judaism, and his conception of a civil-military state. In a 2000 interview, states The Forward, Ceresole
said that Chávez was eager to comprehend the role of a technologically-advanced army in the implementation of an equitable society and he and Ceresole discussed these ideas frequently. He explained how he told Chávez that all dissidence needed to be abolished in Venezuela in order to prevent a civil war. And he stated that Jews were foreign agents intended on perpetuating a false myth of the past. . . .
. . . In 1999, Ceresole released a book, Caudillo, Ejército, Pueblo: La Venezuela del Comandante Chávez (Caudillo, Army, People: Venezuela under Comandante Chávez), emphasizing Chávez’s promise as a panacea to the country’s ills. With this book, he won the heart of Chavismo. The title’s triptych quickly became the unofficial motto of the Chavista revolution.
Such great men that occasionally are produced by history and then in turn shape history, leave a catastrophic void when they die. Often their long labors and great sacrifices are undone if they are unable to bequeath what they create to someone of similar greatness. Chávez always insisted that this is not the case with Venezuela. He did not believe that is centered on his personality. Certainly we can expect to see the globalists, Zionists, and their Venezuelan collaborators looking for an opening to strike and bring Venezuela back to the fold of the “new world order.”
Venezuela has, since the rise of Chávez, been marked as one of those states in need of one of those “spontaneous color revolutions” of the type that has brought so many states back into the fold of international capital. One of the most obvious places to consult if one wishes to know what states are targeted for destruction by international capital is its revolutionary arm, the post-Trotskyite National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which is assiduous at keeping an updated hit-list, and in boasting of its work for the global democratic revolution. Hence under Venezuela, NED lists its contributions to sundry subversive projects:
Center for International Private Enterprise, $376, 765 to promote free-market economics among Venezuelan businessmen and workers. $180,000 on “accountability,” for the purpose of interfering with Venezuela’s internal politics; $777,609 on “Civic Education,” that is, programs specifically targeting youth for subversion and manipulation. $117,920 on “Freedom of Information” aimed at manipulating journalists. $65,000 on “Human Rights” to fund a programme to use “Afro-descendants in public institutions,” and to indoctrinate policemen. $39,300 to “strengthen political institutions,’ again targeting police officials, and community leaders. $220, 417 for “strengthening political institutions,” that is, interfering with the electoral process, and manipulating youth as a voting bloc.
Given that the NED has followed precisely the same procedures and funding strategies for all other states in which they have fomented or attempted to foment, “color revolutions,” the aim of toppling the Bolivarian regime is obvious enough, and outright interference has caused the NED to be kicked out of Russia and Iran.
In 2010, Chávez identified Venezuelan journalists being paid by the NED to agitate against the state. It is an example of what the NED euphemistically refers to in its funding as “freedom of information.” In 2010, a US journalist found that the US State Department was channelling funds to Latin American journalists in Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, via fronts such as the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor and the Pan American Development Foundation. He wrote of documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act that:
Thus far, only documents pertaining to Venezuela have been released. They reveal that the PADF, collaborating with Venezuelan NGOs associated with the country’s political opposition, has been supplied with at least $700,000 to give out journalism grants and sponsor journalism education programs. Until now, the State Department has hidden its role in funding the Venezuelan news media, one of the opposition’s most powerful weapons against President Hugo Chávez and his Bolivarian movement. . . .
. . . Before 2007, the largest funder of U.S. “democracy promotion” activities in Venezuela was not the State Department but the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), together with the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). But in 2005, these organizations’ underhanded funding was exposed by Venezuelan American attorney Eva Golinger in a series of articles, books, and lectures. . . . After the USAID and NED covers were blown wide open—forcing USAID’s main intermediary, Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI), a Maryland–based contractor, to close its office in Caracas—the U.S. government apparently sought new funding channels, one of which the PADF appears to have provided.
. . . PADF proposes targeting not only universities in the capital city of Caracas, but also regional ones in “the Andes, Center East, Zulia and the Western region of the country.” In each region, “the local partners will sign agreements with academic institutions that teach social communications.” The revelations of U.S. funding of Venezuelan journalism comes on the heels of a report released in May by the center-right European think tank FRIDE, which found that since 2002 the United States has spent an estimated $3 million to $6 million every year “on small projects with political parties and NGOs” in Venezuela, with funds distributed through an alphabet soup of shifting and intertwined channels.
Venezuela stands at the crossroads. The Bolivarian regime provides the nexus for the Latin American bloc that is forming in alliance with Russia and Iran against the “new world order.” Its demise is crucial to the recapture of Latin America for the plutocrats and globalists and will delight World Zionism. Chávez was the pivotal figure in this new bloc. Will Venezuela produce another great leader, or will another arise from elsewhere in Latin America? Or will the region revert to colonial status behind the façade of “democracy,” “human rights,” and the market economy that is regarded as their necessary pillar?
 F. P. Yockey and H. Keith Thompson (1961), The World in Flames: An Estimate of the World Situation, VI; Yockey: Four Essays (New Jersey: Nordland Press, 1971).
 Cf. K. R. Bolton, Revolution from Above (London: Arktos Media Ltd, 2011), inter alia.
 “Chávez Bid to Counter Hollywood,” June 4, 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5046080.stm
 “Wiesenthal Center Slams Chávez Anti-Semitic Talk,” Reuters, January 4, 2006, http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200601051120 (The site is Vcrisis, dedicated to opposing Chávez).
 “Wiesenthal Center Slams Venezuelan Authorities on Mob Violence against Caracas Synagogue: Chávez’ Proactive Support for Hamas, Hizbollah and Iran Conciously [sic] Incites Against Jews Everywhere,” SWC, November 24, 2012, http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=4441467&ct=12506007#.UTerUDcr3T4
 K. R. Bolton, “An ANZAC-Indo-Russian Alliance? Geopolitical Alternatives for New Zealand and Australia,” India Quarterly: Journal of International Affairs, June 2010, vol. 66 no. 2 183-201, http://iqq.sagepub.com/content/66/2/183.abstract
 Susan Bryce, “Russia vs. the New World Order,” New Dawn, January-February 2001, p. 25.
 Hugo Chávez Frías, “Chávez Lines–the Multipolar World–The New World,” Latin American Herald Tribune, http://www.laht.com/article.asp?CategoryId=13303&ArticleId=343985
 Anna Mahjar-Barducci, Gatestone Institute: International Policy Council, November 10, 2010, http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1653/chavez-visits-iran
 Daniel Cancel, “Putin Visits Venezuela for First Time to Sign Energy Accords With Chávez,” Bloomberg, April 3, 2010, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-04-02/putin-visits-venezuela-to-sign-energy-defense-finance-deals-with-chavez.html
 “Chávez: I am really a Perónist,” lanacion.com, March 6, 2008, http://www.lanacion.com.ar/993340-chavez-yo-soy-peronista-de-verdad
 Cf. K. R. Bolton, Stalin: The Enduring Legacy (London: Black House Publishing, 2012).
 Chávez broadcast, Aló Presidente #255, May 2006.
 Ilan Stavans, “Hugo Chávez’ Advisor: The Anti-Semitic Path of Norberto Ceresole,” Zeek (The Jewish Daily Forward), July 1, 2010, http://zeek.forward.com/articles/116835/
 National Endowment for Democracy, “Venezuela,” http://www.ned.org/where-we-work/latin-america-and-caribbean/venezuela
 Jermey Bigwood, “Buying Venezuela’s Press with US Tax Dollars,” NACLA, July 15, 2010, https://nacla.org/node/6663
Nueva Derecha vs. Vieja Derecha Capítulo 2: Hegemonía
Remembering Louis-Ferdinand Céline (May 27, 1894–July 1, 1961)
Úryvky z Finis Germania Rolfa Petera Sieferleho, část 2: „Věčný nacista“
Liberal Anti-Democracy, Chapter 5, Part 1: Democracy Against the People
Liberal Anti-Democracy, Chapter 4, Part 2: The Post-War Consensus
Vliv Howarda Phillipse Lovecrafta na okultismus, část 2
Orgasmus coby zbraň? Pornografie jako židovský antifašistický aktivismus a kulturní terorismus, část 1
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 531 Ask Me Anything with Greg Johnson and Pox Populi
If a person reads political articles with some degree of alertness and perception, they will often see the between the lines message of the writer. It was obvious in the case of Chavez, that he was extremely hated by the neo-cons and deluded right, in the U.S. Always painted the buffon in right wing articles, nothing could have been further from the truth. He was an educated and perceptive man.
Great piece Kerry, I even feel enclined to replace the paper you sent for “Finis Mundi” with this one.
As Bane the Elder would say, “admirable… but mistaken.”
There’s a thing you don’t seem to be aware of: for Ahmadinejad et alii, it doesn’t matter that our ruling class is poised to destroy us. When they talk about the “Atlanto-Zionist axis,” they think… of us. That the truck driver in Nebraska or the sausage-maker in Poland are not responsible for their imaginary plight is beside the point. They hate Whitey, and for them The Ben Bernanke is as White as any of us.
That being said, we should tirelessly point (to White people) that we are not our governments, and our governments are not us. That may seem obvious to us, but in White nationalist circles in America and Europe, many people seem to be unable to understand that if their government does not represent them, then it’s the same for their White neighbours. Many Euro-nationalists in my former country say that Sarkozy was not their president, but they can’t imagine that American people can think the same of Dubya.
After all is said and done, the guy was still a non-White who hated Whites. The Enemy of your Enemy isn’t automatically your friend. Perhaps he isn’t your enemy either, or maybe he is. Can he be used for propaganda points though? Absolutely. On this level, I agree with the essay.
As the previous poster reminds us: we are Americans and even other Whites hate us. Even other White Nationalists! They could discriminate between us and our goverment, but they don’t want to. Hating us is too much fun. Neither men of science nor men of God can help us – we are Alone. And Alone we must secure our Survival.
I’m not American, and yet I’m able to discriminate between you and your government. The problem — and all White nationalists are responsible for that, European and American — is that there’s almost no reflection on what Charles Maurras called the divide between the real country and the legal country. Whenever another White country than one’s is concerned, you see the White nationalist say “the Americans,” “the French,” “the British,” “the Germans”… enough with that! I repeat: we are not our governements, our governments are not us. This is valid in Europe and in America as well. It’s time we stop being jingoists who happen to be White, and become White nationalists… therefore, Pan-European nationalists.
To diplomatically address one misunderstanding Roman Bernard seems to be laboring under:
Roman Bernard in blockquote:
This is a distinction made often at counter-currents. The dramatic separation of the State from the Nation in our lifetime has been breathtaking. Harold Covington has addressed this at length, and defined the best solution, in his Northwest Republic series of novels. Excellent “reflections,” indeed.
Yet, politics, by nature, abhors a vacuum. The overarching theme – such as Durgin and his Fourth Way analysis describes – that is needed has been systematically undermined by the Adversary, as tools of the Corporate State. The development of the organic State to complement the organic Nation is the diligent work of generations, and requires the metapolitical focus that counter-currents offers, to be effective.
Developing that focus requires money.
Have I mentioned that now would be a good time to contribute to counter-currents?
Jaego in blockquote:
Respectfully, I think Dr. Bolton addressed your concerns. He is not claiming Chavez was one of US. As I read him, he is claiming Chavez is not one of THEM, that he – and other innovative South American leaders, like Lula and his successor – are not falling for the false dualities that are the hallmark of most political analysis. They are seeking a Boliviaran Path – something the Jefferson of the Americas would feel quite comfortable with in a contemporary context.
One example might be the work of systems genius – not a term I use casually – Stafford Beer, who took the Chilean economy under Allende, reduced it to a handful of variables, defined the relationships between the variables and the control points between them, and restructured the Chilean economy. The damn thing WORKED. That, in no small part, is what scared the American leaders. A true, technologically sophisicated Third Way was not only feasible, but offered a better alternative than we or the Marxists had to offer.
That is a singularly heartening statement. We ARE Alone, save that we are sustained by the Gods who want Mankind to succeed. This intangible, no less real support, will help us to develop our own leaders, and our own frameworks for governance.
Speaking of support, might I mention that this new month is an excellent time to send money to counter-currents?
Jingoism, plain and simple. What’s happening here? Isn’t this webzine supposed to be inspired by Guénon, Evola, Yockey, Spengler, Nietzsche?
Roman: some of the people here are. Not all.
Excellent article, thanks.
Anyone who bases his opinion on whether or not someone is an effective or good political leader solely on the question of whether or not the leader would personally like him or his race/religion/whatever should seriously consider going back to kindergarten.
What a parody. No one ever said that this should be the sole concern (as you put it), but that it should also be taken into consideration. And by the way, the question is not whether Chavez was a good political leader, but whether he should be a model for White nationalists.
Precisely, Izak. We should be dealing at all times with realpolitik, already shown in our own times by Thiriart and Yockey et al.
Mr. Bolton, I certainly won’t dispute your expertise on Yockey, but Yockey was a man of the 40’s-50’s. He always remained an anti-communist (as you note in your article), and his so-called “pro-Soviet” position should not be misunderstood. He was “pro-Soviet” only in so far as he thought that if the Washington regime was expelled from Europe, Europeans would be able to push back the communists, which they couldn’t during WW2 because of the Anglo-American invasion (that’s exactly what he wrote in The Enemy of Europe). It’s not something I would call a pro-communist position…
By saying that Yockey was a man of his time, I also mean that his thought should be updated to ours. Yockey clearly underestimated Americans and overestimated Europeans. He thought that the former would be incapable of opposing their alien ruling class, while the latter would rise up in arms againt their puppet governments. By doing so, he exaggerated the differences between Americans and Europeans… most have been complacent to their elites, and only a minority of them, on both continents, have been opposing them.
Roman Bernard is right. His first comment above is right on.
Perhaps you should consider a return to pre-school.
Anyone who thinks every non-white leader who squares off with the empire is necessarily our friend should start from the beginning. If that wasn’t your point, then what was your point?
Exactly. We all have to go back to the basics of self love, love of family, love of clan, love of our own Race, love of our Nation, and love of our Civilization. This is the currency of the world. This is what other races do and why they will live and we will die unless we change. I know this is unsophisticated, but sophistication per se is killing us. And Folks, don’t assume all the Authors and Commentators who write here are White Nationalists – some of them would eschew such an unsophisticated title with horror. Human Beings are frail and make mistakes. The answer to problems is usually to take a few steps back. In our case, many steps – back to things we should have learned in kindergarten if you will.
When Gadaffi was killed, there was a similar outpouring of sympathy. Apparently the man was an original thinker outside the box of either Capitalism or Marxism – and was also learned in Islam. All very well – I had no idea I admit. I just pointed out his frequent statments lauding Black Africans and how they would triumph in Africa AND IN LIBYA. And he was bringing them into Libya in large numbers. What did you all expect the Caucasians of Libya to do? Why no sympathy for them? Too unsophisticated? And this hero was also beloved by our Black Enemies here at home. Now if America was ever to collapse and we were ever a real force to be reckoned with, by all means we could talk to Black Leaders if we had reasons to – AS EQUALS – not as FANS.
I probably said good things about Gaddafi myself, and on reflection I regret it.
Gadaffi gave millions of dollars to the Nation of Islam, an organization led by a man who thinks in terms of blue-eyed devils.
Most of these racial / cultural aliens are fundamentally anti-Western in the wrong sense, and they do not distinguish between us and the global elite.
Roman is right about that, and Gaddafi is the perfect example. He struck at the West by sponsoring the bombing murder of 270 white people over Lockerbie, Scotland.
We ought to be looking at these conflicts with an eye toward our interests only.
We in America have millions of white folks being exploited and abused by plutocrats every day. The only place outside of nationalist circles where I’ve seen people talking revolution is at Susan Webber’s Naked Capitalism blog. They don’t see the race / Jewish angle, but at least they get the main point, the two parties are a sham, plutocrats run the system, and it cannot be reformed.
I’m beginning to view globalism versus the non-white cultural the way I look at Judaism versus Islam. No dog in that fight. I’ll my sympathy for the Nebraska rancher getting the Keystone pipeline driven over his lands by TransCanada, or the farmer put out of business by Mosanto.
Absolutely. When I hear David Duke complain about the alleged “plight” of Palestinians (whose population has decupled since the establishment of the Israeli State… so much for the “Palestinian Genocide”), I wonder if Mr. Duke has already spent some time in Malmö, Birmingham, Marseille or Rotterdam, with these Muslims he says he wants to live in peace with. Maybe he’ll only understand when his neighborhood will be flooded with Muslims.
This problem concerns, reversely, European nationalists who should spend some time in Brooklyn, NY to widen their worldview a bit.
You have to have a heart of stone not to pity the Palestinians, who live under Zionist occupation, just like we do. Beyond that, it is impossible for me not to admire them for recognizing that reality (unlike most whites) and for taking up arms and laying down their lives to fight the enemy, or at least supporting those who do (unlike most whites).
That said, I do not want the state of Israel to disappear, because I want all Jews to go there. And I want a sovereign Palestinian state right next door, so the Palestinian diaspora can return there as well. Neither group has any business in Western lands once they have a secure homeland to live in.
There is no contradiction in this position, since all points flow logically from the principle of ethnonationalism.
I have said time and again that White Nationalists who wish Israel’s destruction hate Jews more than they love their own people.
Palestinians already have their State: it is the kingdom of Jordan. When the British mandate over Palestine ended, the Arabs got the larger part of it, with the main part of oil fields. It was Jordan.
Though Palestinians already have their state, the neighboring Arab countries (Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and, thus, Jordan) chose to let the Arab refugees stay in camps instead of welcoming them to their lands. Then, they could show to the world the images of poor Third-World people oppressed by a “Western” State. Because, make no mistake: when Arabs and Muslims complain about Israel and Zionism, they complain about what they see as White hegemony. The fact that Whites also suffer from Jewish domination is, again, beside the point. They hate us more than they seek justice for their people.
These are almost verbatim Zionist talking points. I smell a rat.
I was never sure and still aren’t sure on what to make of Chavez. They say when in doubt judge a man by the company he keeps. He loved Nelson Mandela ( I wonder how many times he read Mandela’s, ‘How to be a good Communist’) and that should really tell us all we need to know. His best Buddy was Castro. Oh sure there has been a smoke and mirrors game going on about bad Cuba the past 50 years in Washington, but think of this when the U.S was sending millions of troops +billions of dollars of equipment 10k miles away to Vietnam, 90 miles from the U.S’s shore Communist seiged Cuba wa never,ever touched. You tell me that wasn’t a shell game. Just punch up on youtube 1950’s Cuba and see what a booming,vibrant, productive,advanced contry that was. And of course do the same with South Afrika.
In the Congo,Angola,Rhodesia,German South West Afrika all had Cuban troops invading,training and arming SWAPO,ANC and other destroyers of civilizations. 10’s of thousands of troops and millions worth of weapons landed on Afrikan shores, yet not one was ever sunk or boarded at sea by the so-called Western powers that told you they are against communist aggresion.
It has all been one big game of smoke and mirrors by them. Chavez may have been their useful idiot, much like Che Guevara or so many others that their usefulness to them had come to an end. Again I am not 100% sure on what he was all about, but rest assured when he was hugging Nelson Mandela and laughing with his handler Joe Slovo, you can bet he was Anti-White and that is the only measuring stick I go by these days.
Yes, many here confuse being on the Third Path between and above Capitalism and Communism with White Nationalism. Third Path Nations can and will fight each other. And to be a believer in the Third Path does not make one a lover of the White Race. I’m for the White Race and the Third Path insofar it helps secure our suvival. Means and Ends – we’ve got to keep thems straight.
That and only that will enable us to build the Imperium. Getting bent out of shape about what people of other races are doing is just more of the same old failure – the inability to mind our own business. If we have common interests fine – we can trade or even fight together. In prision, the Whites and some of the Mexicans are allied against the Blacks.
Building Yockey’s Imperium sounds certainly great, although Yockey restricted it to Europe and excluded his homeland, in which he was mistaken. Hope American Yockeyites won’t do the same mistake in reverse.
It would be interesting and worthwhile to map the sequence/pattern jews use in controlling and influencing nations from the us to european countries, to “Mao’s” china, China now, Iran, Nigeria, to every country in the world.
Once this is done, it’ll be easier to catch them out and spot their doings.
I guess some people here do not know who Peron was. Do they not teach world history in the United States?
Dr. Bolton. I just read your book The Psychotic left. It is fabulous. There were so many characters that I knew! I am so glad I ran away from them. I read Political Ponerology a few years ago and did not really understand what he was saying, but you have given me a perspective now I can use. Thanks.
Alot of the ‘good ole boys’ if they have heard of Peron would dismiss him as a ‘mud person’, with the same disdain they have for Chavez .
Thanks for your comments about my Psychotic Left book. My new one on banking and the Right goes to press today. Your anecdotes on the Left would have been of interest when writing the Psycho book.
This has been an age of Ideology and apart from its biological moorings, the Third Way will be just one more. Whites have neglected their genetics for many centuries now – and it shows. We have to postively affirm our racial heritage first and foremost, with culture second, and economic and political idealism a distant third. That’s the proper order for us here and now. I know the Economics are crucial but unless there is a change of heart, the needed reform will never be undertaken.
The racial focus is the American contribution to the Imperium. It is crucial – othewise we’ll end up with Black Irishmen etc. For Culture and Economics, the Europeans may well lead us. I’m fine with that, as long as our Contribution is made. If it is rejected, then there is no meeting of minds, no Imperium, and Western Europe goes down forever into the mud.
Just in case there is a misunderstanding. I did not know the people in your book, but with the group I was in, those characteristics were very evident.
Jingoism, plain and simple. What’s happening here? Isn’t this webzine supposed to be inspired by Guénon, Evola, Yockey, Spengler, Nietzsche?
Yeah, well I don’t get this. There is just some basic misunderstanding, I think.
Where is the jingoism? I don’t see it.
Let me ask this question as clearly and directly as I can:
Under the perspectives you obtained by following the Nietzsche, Spengler, Evola, Yockey, Traditionalism path of analysis, what do you feel American nationalists ought to be doing that they’re not doing?
From your POV, where are the errors, where are they looking at it wrong, what do you recommend they do to correct the errors in their views?
The expectation seems to be that white Americans ought to back “the world against America strategy.”
They should do this even though:
1) the people who are against America never distinguish between the government and the people.
The consequence of this, in turn, can be events such as the 9/11 attacks and the Lockerbie bombing, i.e. the targeting of people who had no say in US government policies and who weren’t responsible for whatever the US government did to provoke the attack.
2) aligning with the rest of the world, even only at the level of discourse and the promulgation of ideas, means focusing on, dwelling on and drawing the emphasis toward the situation of racial and culturally alien peoples, rather than our own situation.
There are Pakistani rape gangs running around Europe raping teenage white girls, and the idea seems to the worldwide nationalist community needs to put some focus on US government-Banking Cartel crimes in Libya and Venezuela.
The more I think on this, the more it seems a fundamentally strange way of looking at things.
Lew in blockquote:
I always suspected counter-currents would attract more trolls who were more sophisticated than we have seen before. You have nailed Roman Bernard with this.
Look at Roman Bernard’s comments to Greg Johnson in this thread at March 10, 2013 at 12:38 am
Greg Johnson’s response nailed it:
Bernard’s comments are classic conservative comments, which demonstrates that, at the end of the day, he swings “conservative.” What seems to inspire this shift from Traditionalism might be the love he feels for the Zionist entity, Israel, a love so strong that it seems he reflexively, without thinking, responded as he would on more “conservative” WN boards.
Lew nailed the appropriate response, taking the focus from the soft safety of intellectual discourse to the realpolitik focus of political effectiveness ‘ “What do YOU think we should do?”
That Roman does not address this substantial issue in substantial manner, or any matter at all, for that matter, seems to be all we need to know.
Their sophistication suggests that what we are doing is working more than we know.
This is all the more reason to contribute to counter-currents, each and every month.
It might not seem to us that we are winning, but to The Adversary Forces, we are doing a much better job than they will admit by their words, and will demonstrate by their deeds.
Yes. I’m not clear on Roman’s perspective either. His Zionist comments read like something straight from hannity.com which is very suspect. At the same time, he accused you or Jaego of jingoism which I think is comical to anyone who knows either of your comments.
I should point out that Roman cannot reply to you because I have banned him.
I was surprised by Roman Bernard’s pro-Zionist comments, for in his previous comments he came across as a genuine nationalist. Of course, one can pretend to be many things on the internet, and it’s impossible to say whether he is a conscious or unconscious troll. Some people act consciously as trolls for reasons of ethnicity, ideology, money, or a combination of these things; others act unconsciously as trolls because their minds are poisoned or perverted. The former may work to direction, the latter may work spontaneously. But all trolls should be banned upon detection, regardless of what type they are.
Although Roman Bernard has been banned here, one can be sure that he’s active on other websites. This website might not only attract trolls who are “more sophisticated than we have seen before” (i.e., more clever, more articulate, and more ostensibly civil), it might also attract trolls who are better organized than we have seen before, which means that we are not dealing with one or two trolls, but an apparatus of trolls. If you have such an apparatus, you can replace trolls who have been banned with others and have them follow the same script, and you can have your own “extremists” and “moderates” squabble with each other in artificial disputes designed to divide and demoralize others.
The following article shows that Zionists maintain apparatuses of trolls:
However, it should be noted that this article is somewhat dated, and focuses on trolling in its crudest and vilest forms (“depraved sexual insults, bile, bigotry, threats, disinformation and character assassination”) on the part of hasbarats. As the Jews are a clever and industrious people, and as the internet makes it relatively easy and inexpensive to maintain “agents of influence” in many places, I think we need to account for the second generation of trolling.
The Occidental Observer is such an important website for our cause, and it deals almost entirely with Jewish issues, so it stands to reason that it was targeted by some highly sophisticated trolls. To test this hypothesis, I spent some time looking at some of the more contentious and lengthy discussion threads, and I formed opinions about who the trolls were. When Kevin MacDonald mentioned thinking about shutting down the discussion board, I encouraged him to. The place needed delousing.
Trolls slip in here from time to time too. When I am satisfied that I have caught one, I ban him, and then I go back and re-read all of his other comments to see if I can discern patterns.
Generally, trolls fall into two categories: crazy people who just want to stir up drama and agents of the enemy who want to derail discussions. Usually, their trolling is crude. They simply want to create the atmosphere of a madhouse, sewer, abbatoir, etc. to drive away sensible and sane people and attract crazies. The goal is to create a movement that remains marginal and stooopid.
If one makes that kind of trolling impossible, they become much more sophisticated: they promote divisive inter-white religious and ethnic conflicts; they “concern troll” to induce paranoia and self-censorship; or they simply plant false premises into the debate. The real chessmasters among them will plant false premises that only remotely entail the destructive conclusions they wish to steer us toward.
One technique that trolls use initially is to butter up the moderator or author. We all have egos, of course, and it is nice to be appreciated. In a couple of instances, trolls began with fulsome praise of me.
Once I am satisfied that someone is a troll, I don’t just ban him, but I delete all his previous comments.
I am not sure about Roman, but I will keep an eye on him.
If Roman lives in Europe, maybe he has seen the wrong side of Islam up close. I have a friend who was beaten in Lebanon for having a white face in the wrong neighborhood. Because of this, even though he is left-wing on most issues, he is now reflexively pro-Israel. I was sympathetic to some of Roman’s points up until the Zionism comments.
… I formed opinions about who the trolls were
Care to name names?
I see that Roman Bernard has a new blog at:
My guess is that his mind has been infected by philo-Zionist propaganda on the French right. If this is so, I hope he overcomes it.
From time to time, philo-Zionism has manifested itself on the French right. I believe that Nicolas Lebourg has noted that philo-Zionism was fairly strong on the French right following the Algerian conflict and the Arab-Israeli War of 1967, and that François Duprat played an important role in opposing it.
I have heard that the author Alexandre Del Valle was acting as an “agent of influence” among identitarians until his Zionist connections were exposed.
Every now and then, some rightists seem to think that they can take a shortcut by taking a Jewish road. They fail to heed Julius Evola’s remark that “all Jewish roads lead to Jerusalem.”
Lew, I see no upside to following your recommendation, which amounts to thinking small and, what’s more, the standard WN moaning about the latest non-white atrocities . . . followed by . . . moaning about the next set of atrocities, and nothing else.
I don’t need to hear about the latest Negro atrocity. I got the message and hung up the phone. I am more interested in laying the intellectual foundations of an alternative world view and, eventually, an alternative world. And that requires thinking globally about our problems and solutions.
We need to appreciate people like Chavez who, even though they do not intend to help whites, and may actually harm them in specific instances, do serve the objective global interests of our race by weakening global capitalism and Judeo-American hegemony.
Sure; but that’s not what I meant (think small and fixate only on the latest atrocities and dystopia). I understand the need for a new foundation but struggle in seeing how a Chavez’s activities fit into that. You answered it though. I’ll continue to think on it.
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