Standing With Syria

^[1]3,325 words

It’s not that America shouldn’t get involved in Syria. It’s that we are on the wrong side.

Most analysts of American foreign policy are divided into two camps. On one side are those who believe that the masters of the world’s greatest military are Machiavellian geniuses, brutally crushing all resistance to the American imperium in the name of the greater profits for corporate America and more power for the ruling class.

On the other hand are those who believe American grand strategy is either hopelessly incompetent or simply nonexistent, as the world’s “indispensable nation” blunders from crisis to crisis with seemingly no goal in sight, making new enemies and squandering scarce resources as it goes.

Within mainstream American politics, progressives largely come from the first camp, and non-libertarian conservatives from the second. Even now, as the Minority Occupation Government of Barack Obama moves forward with plans to crush what remain of white communities, liberals, “activists,” and whiny journalists are already protesting another war on behalf of “oil companies” and the allegedly white Christian male corporate ruling class.

Meanwhile, conservative intellectuals (such as they are) are excitedly whipping out their Risk boards and tossing around flowery critiques of Barack Obama’s lack of a “grand strategy” and the risks to American “credibility.” Conservative opposition to Obama from the likes of Dr. Strangelove Charles Krauthammer derives from their belief that Obama is not fully committed to removing the “dictator Assad.”

Both sides miss the point of what Obama – and by extension the United States of America – really is. As Peter Hitchens wrote on November 10, 2008, the election of Barack Obama meant that “America had finally switched sides in a global cultural war . . . the US . . . has begun the long slow descent into the Third World.” Though these tendencies were always present in the American experiment, the American “creed” is now being worked out to its logical conclusions. The United States is a revolutionary leftist power on a scale that dwarfs anything seen since the days of the French Revolution. It funds opposition to all traditional social systems, it openly defies international law in the name of a more primal creed of universal human rights, and it consistently applies diplomatic, economic, and eventually military force against what remains of Western Civilization.

Such a system contains contradictions. The United States of America, in order to maintain its power, needs skillful businessmen and brave soldiers. This means white males will still have a place within the system, however limited and supervised. The superpower still needs to cultivate a warrior spirit within certain elements of the population. The United States Marine Corps, the Army’s elite units, and the Special Forces and Navy SEALs will still appeal to traditional masculine ideals of heroism, even though feminists are increasingly besieging the gates.

The United States also has to attack and occasionally kill though those who openly defy it. Contra some of the more imaginative critics in what passes for the mainstream American Right, there’s no reason to believe that Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton are indifferent to the threat of terrorism or that they were hesitant or ashamed to use force to finally eliminate Osama Bin Laden. Many of America’s enemies will still come from the Third World, meaning that the lazy will always be able to chortle that America loves “bombing brown people.”

America will protect its economic interests, meaning that progressives will still charge that Washington DC is simply sending out “Economic Hit Men.” There will still be the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, the patriotic cult of the flag, and the appeals to the American past. There will still be exercises of power and calls to duty and sacrifice. While progressives are more suspicious of such nationalist gestures, they will still embrace them or even celebrate them provided they are dedicated to their preferred ideological ends.

However, the demands of self-interest and the remnants of traditional institutions don’t change the logic of the System. The federal government has openly declared its intention to eliminate white communities, exterminate social forms associated with whites (including traditional European Christianity), and persecute hierarchical cultural norms. Incredibly, American conservatives seem to envision their role as protecting progressives from themselves. Rather than thinking seriously about what their country has become, they want to ensure that “we” remain the global superpower, as if the 1950s never ended and “Christian America” was still standing up against “atheistic Communism.”

What conservatives fail to see is where this is all going. The endgame is obvious because it’s the End of History itself. It is a world of deracinated, atomized consumers, with nothing in between the managerial elite of the government and economy and the disenfranchised denizens of a global marketplace who are told they are “free.” Relationships are transitory, gender is negotiable, religion is absent (unless it serves as a safety valve), nationality is abandoned, organic culture is utterly abolished. The only purpose of life allowed is to consume the products of a degraded anti-culture.

In this world, the role of whites is to serve as the kulaks, the high functioning slaves, the despised rich peasants, who if they utterly sacrifice everything within themselves may be rewarded with a small taste of material prosperity, before they can die to the relief of those who rule them. And while there may be some economic opportunity, the instant a white man or woman shows signs they are thinking above their station, they will be utterly destroyed. Ever increasing amounts of supervision, regulation, and media sponsored hysteria against dissenters will ensure that there is no escape. As is already occurring, real romantic partnerships, families, a spiritual life, and community are becoming more and more difficult, and will gradually become impossible. We are driving towards a world of consummate meaninglessness.

America is the engine behind this global transformation, the iron fist in the velvet glove of liberal democracy. While other nations see liberal capitalism as either an inevitability or a reluctant necessity, America sees it as a sine qua non for its existence. Whatever the country once represented, whatever the United States of America could have been, today America is defined by multiculturalism, materialism, social decadence, egalitarian quasi-religion, anti-white bigotry, and the willingness to kill anyone who stands in opposition to this System. Syria is so important because it reveals like no other issue the utter bankruptcy of the arguments for American global domination.

First, there is the argument for democracy. Like the Spaniard in The Princess Bride, one is tempted to say of the media’s use of “democracy” that “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means ^[2].” The overwhelming majority of the American people do not want any part of military intervention in Syria. A Pew Research Center Poll released on September 3 shows that 48% of adults are against military strikes, with only 29% in favor. However, Eric Cantor, John Boehner, and the GOP’s 2004 standard bearer John McCain all have come out in favor of military action in Syria. Needless to say, the Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, have also all fallen in line.

The public’s response is a mixture of apathy and amusement. There is a broad popular consensus that a broad popular consensus simply does not matter on the critical issues of the day. As John Derbyshire has observed, on the really important issues, such as war, immigration, or core issues of government responsibility, the public’s input really, truly, does not matter. On the more transient issues, “public opinion” is easily manipulated by controlled media, push polls, phony publicity campaigns from large donors, and “astroturf” activists of the type backed by financiers like George Soros.

In a deconstructed nation, the idea of democracy as the “people ruling themselves” is more than a joke, it is a nauseating, self-conscious lie. However, this doesn’t mean that “democracy” is meaningless. Democracy, in its real contemporary usage, is a regime, a system of control whereby “marginalized” communities are mobilized or sometimes even created out of whole cloth in order to break apart traditional institutions. It is the use of “Egalitarianism as a Political Weapon,” in Sam Francis’s phrase, in order to strengthen the power of the managerial elites.

Witness the prissy hysteria (the default mode of the American media) over Russia’s campaign against homosexual propaganda. The law in question prohibits the kind of permanent activist campaigns that in America enjoy millions of dollars in government and tax exempt funding and employ thousands of the top graduates from American universities. Rather than seeing this as an attack on homosexuals, the law should be seen in the same context as Putin’s earlier efforts to ban foreign nonprofits from organizing on Russian soil. Russia’s real agenda is to prevent the “color coded” revolutions that swept Eastern Europe and the social engineering campaigns that dominate the lives of Western populations.

As Paul Gottfried has shown in works such as After Liberalism: Mass Democracy in the Managerial State ^[3], the kind of invasive social conditioning we take for granted in the West goes beyond anything even the Bolsheviks attempted. However, Western populations are so trained to associate the feel-good word “democracy” with empowerment of “minorities” that questions about the power of the state, control over the economy, or rights of free speech, freedom of association, or cultural autonomy are simply dismissed as irrelevant.

Democracy simply means empowering those dependent groups that can be relied upon to destroy anything that stands in the way of the Last Men. Thus, Western politicians can without irony speak of banning popular political parties as a necessary step to “protect democracy.” The word “tyranny” is used to refer not to acts of extreme government intervention, but expressing opposition to homosexuality, anti-white racial preferences, feminism, or whatever other sacred cause is being promoted this week.

Syria, like its protector Russia, stands for something different. It stands for autonomy – a responsible governing class that identifies its well-being with that of continued survival of the state and the national population, not just some economic system or abstract creed. It holds that traditional social forms and cultures have a right to survival. It is under the “dictator” Assad that marginalized but longstanding groups like Middle Eastern Christians or minority Islamic sects can survive in relative peace and security. It is under American-backed “democratic” regimes that such populations are either persecuted or destroyed.

Finally, as suggested by the founding Baath ideology of Assad’s government or the “sovereign democracy” of Russia, dissenters from the American world order value national independence and the freedom of peoples to govern themselves as peoples, rather than collections of victim groups or individual consumers. It is the nation as an idea and the nation as an autonomous form of political organization that cannot be tolerated by American foreign policy. The argument for “democracy” is in reality, the argument against the nation itself.

The second argument being raised for intervention is the specific charge that Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons. The facts here are still in dispute. What is clear is that Assad had no motivation to use chemical weapons, as his forces had the strategic advantage at the time the supposed attack took place. Both Syria and Russia have demanded that the United States produce its supposed proof of the attack, but the American government has so far demurred. What evidence has been produced suggests the possibility that if Assad’s forces did indeed use chemical weapons, it may have been a mistake or the action of a rogue military leader, rather than a deliberate choice by the national leadership. It may also be the case that chemical weapons were used not by the Syrian regime’s forces, but by the so-called “rebels,” who have so far been associated with killing civilians, persecuting Christians, and even cannibalism.

Either way, the rationale for American intervention is confused and unclear. President Barack Obama arguably blundered into a “credibility trap” when he stated months ago that use of chemical weapons would constitute a “red line” for American intervention. Thus, even if bombings are pointless and ineffective, America must be seen to do something in regard to Assad’s actions if American credibility is to remain intact. However, if this is the case, it is unclear why the American government is so insistent on military action without determining the facts, especially when the rest of the world is right to be suspicious about supposed American evidence about “weapons of mass destruction” in the wake of Iraq.

Furthermore, the United States of America is simply incapable of taking military action without turning it into a moral crusade. Thus, they lured Secretary of State John Kerry away from his role as an extra in The Walking Dead to make the moral case for intervention in Syria. Kerry pronounced that President Bashar al-Assad has joined the likes of “Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein” for his use of chemical weapons.

Of course, this historical analogy is literally the exact opposite of the truth. Adolf Hitler never used chemical weapons, probably as a result of his own memory of being gassed and temporarily blinded during World War One. Hitler was also an opponent of deliberately bombing civilian population, only allowing the Luftwaffe to begin the “Blitz” of London after Winston Churchill adopted the strategy of targeting German civilians. Had the Allies lost the war, Churchill, Curtis LeMay, and the other butchers of Dresden would have been tried for war crimes. However, we can’t expect John Kerry to know basic history. After all, even possessing a rudimentary knowledge of the facts of World War II is to confess dangerous revisionist tendencies, justifying either professional retaliation or outright criminal penalties in the name of democracy.

As for Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi leader was a de facto ally of the United States of America at the time he was using chemical weapons. More importantly, the United States knew Saddam was using these weapons and still continued to support his war against the Iranians. And yet, only a few decades later, an American official, one actually in government at the time when Saddam Hussein was an ally, can stand before the world and claim America stands against the absolute evil of chemical weapons.

A third rationale for military action is the supposed humanitarian cost. Of course, just as in Iraq or Libya, the most likely outcome of American military intervention is to increase the number of refugees and displaced persons. Furthermore, Western governments see these helpless and dependent non-white immigrants as valuable weapons in the war against their core populations. The government of Sweden has already agreed to take as many Syrian refugees as possible. This provides no benefits to Sweden – indeed, proponents don’t bother to make any arguments. Instead, it is a duty imposed on the Swedish people for their crime of existing.

One can expect the American government to follow course shortly, as they did with Iraqis and other peoples. These populations serve as government assets in the regime’s plan to destroy white communities, as the federal government did when it imposed parasitical Somalians on towns like Lewiston, Maine, and Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Instead of waging war in order to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, one could suspect that Western governments want to bomb Syria in order to create one, so they can impose the costs on the hated whites in their own countries.

A fourth rationale may be so powerful that it could explain the whole thing – organized Jewish power. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is now aggressively lobbying for bombing Syria, and as even mainstream commentators are pointing out, this is simply an obvious gambit for eventually expanding the war into Iran. The Anti-Defamation League, which hyperventilates about internet postings and activists who are supposedly linked to “extremists,” now demands that Americans kill and die in order to help zealots who literally eat the organs for their enemies. In the game of “links” and connections the ADL loves to play, the ADL is now openly linked to terrorists, to the indifference of the(ir) media.

Though the last few years have seen the collapse of neoconservatism as a mass political force and the rise of non-interventionism within the Republican Party, public policy has gone almost entirely unchanged. Liberals have, if anything, become more pro-war. The Republican leadership may tolerate a few grumbles from the base, but when it comes time to deliver, the GOP leadership is eager to let President Obama do what he wants, and the Beltway Right only criticizes him for not doing enough.

GOP puppet-master and major donor Sheldon Adelson, who supports border security for Israel and open borders for America, is now aligning himself with President Obama over Syria. Even supposed non-interventionists like Senator Rand Paul, in the name of “playing the game,” declare that “an attack on Israel is an attack on the United States.” The assumption that American forces must defend the Jews’ ethnostate is now so deeply internalized that it passes without comment, and open recognition of it is a confession of “antisemitism.” Thus, to prove you don’t hate Jews, you are required to support the United States becoming, as Senator Ted Cruz put it, “Al-Qaeda’s air force.”

The final argument is little stated, but may be a key motivation – the war is about oil. It is not about securing the raw material per se, but about securing key routes for pipelines that remain under American control. The goal is to undermine Russia, which depends on control of pipeline routes for a great deal of its geopolitical sway over Eastern and even Western Europe. It’s no exaggeration to say that the regime of President Vladimir Putin is more dependent on securing Russian oil revenue than it is on the outcome of the various Kulturkampfs Putin is waging in regards to Orthodoxy, homosexuality, or Russian patriotism.

This raises the real question of what side Americans – real Americans – should be on. The system of free trade, international finance, and the debt driven economy powered by the Federal Reserve is dependent on the outcome of geopolitical struggles such as the war in Syria. That system powers (and is simultaneously dependent on) the politics of open borders, white dispossession, and egalitarian agitation.

The Russian (and Syrian) alternative is not perfect. It is highly dependent on raw materials, is open to cronyism and corruption, and is at best only a partial exception to the global economic order being pushed by Washington. It is not the kind of system we should seek to emulate. However, it is an exception, and it is tied to hierarchical social systems, a renewal of Tradition, and at least leaves open the possibility of a renewal of patriotism and white racial identity.

Americans are as much victims of “American” economic and foreign policy as anyone else. They have their jobs exported, their homes ruined by mass immigration, their culture and families deliberately deconstructed, and their children sent to die for the system that hates them. The culture that demands their genocide is dependent on a political and economic system reliant on American hegemony. For that reason, just as the Germans under Napoleonic occupation had a duty to resist their “own” supposed governments, American patriots have to think critically about which side they are on.

For Westerners, for Christians, and most importantly, for whites, which system is more likely to allow you to survive? Which System uses the power of the state to destroy you? Which System offers even the possibility of a future?

The choice is obvious. For whites and the civilization they created to survive, the current system must die. That means, as a first step, it must be resisted. Right now, the same System that attacks American whites is attacking Syria. We have to break that System before it breaks us – and right now, it can be broken on the battlefields of Damascus.

Non-intervention isn’t enough. He’s not perfect, but Traditionalists should stand with Bashar al-Assad.