Print this post Print this post

The West Against White America:
Hail the Russian East!

pb-130617-obama-putin-meeting.photoblog9004,681 words

The empty-suit occupying the cockpit of American power has just suffered a massive defeat in the courts of international and domestic opinion.

Though the real struggle for the coming world order still lies ahead and though the wanton destructiveness of the United States government will undoubtedly continue at the expense of further Syrian suffering, future historians may well interpret September 10, 2013 (the day the affirmative-action hiree was forced to abandon his AIPAC-inspired scheme for World War III) as marking the point when the tide of history, however incrementally, finally turned against the world’s great evil.

The two-year-old proxy war between Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian government and the Salafi/CIA organ-eaters—a war now fully integrated into the larger crises battering the “West” —is (and has been) about more than the neocon campaign to realize Israel’s vision of a “Greater Middle East,” secure certain pipeline routes for American, Qatari, and Saudi oil men, or occupy Spykman’s Rimland.

It’s a proxy war between Israel and Iran, and behind them, the US and Russia, which makes it preeminently geopolitical in the classic sense. It’s also about America’s effort to prevent alternative power centers (states, as well as certain international bodies) from challenging its self-designated right to do whatever it wants, and thus, ultimately, about delaying the inevitable decline of its imperial power (a decline, not incidentally, hastened by its shock-and-awe unilateralism, its decade of wear and tear in Iraq and Afghanistan, its bankrupting usury, the illegitimacy of its “global electronic gulag,” its bomb-and-rocket democracy, its anti-national/anti-family economic policies, its genocidal immigration, and most fundamentally, the perversity of its moral/ontological order).

But more than all this, the Syrian war is about the growing and erratic irrationality of America’s counter-civilizational system, as it—like the Titanic, on the high seas of its arrogant hyper-power—approaches a collision with certain realities it would prefer to ignore. In this sense the principal forces shaping US policy in Syria, and elsewhere, might better be seen as metahistorical rather than geopolitical—i.e., the US is being driven less by rationally-conceived goals of a geopolitical nature than by forces over which it has little or no control.

Since at least 1989, this system associated with the Americanosphere has refused to accommodate rival centers of power and authority, as it extends its menacing tentacles across the globe and into virtually every realm of human existence. The entire course of history, the system holds, legitimizes not just the righteousness of its liberal modernity, but obligates it to remake the whole world in its image: a Wal-Mart and Burger King in every town and village across the planet.

Once Russia under Vladimir Putin’s leadership began to recover from the Soviet collapse, she became again a high-level object for “containment.” This was evident the moment the nationalist-minded former KGB officer (with a Ph.D. in international law) tried to rebuild the Russian state system – in order to halt Wall Street’s and the oligarchs’ plundering of the country’s wealth; restore Russia’s national sovereignty; and cut the anaconda encirclement threatening her southern flank, particularly in Chechnya’s Saudi-financed/CIA-managed insurgency (not unlike the present Syrian situation).

Then, in 2008, when Washington’s system of global usury experienced a sudden collapse, these skirmishes (beginning with Georgia’s US-supported but failed aggression on South Ossetia) became significantly more violent and destabilizing. Conquest and plunder have since become central to the maintenance of the American empire (like Ancient Rome), given its economic bankruptcy and lingering military prowess.

Supported by its French and English “poodles” (though canishe might perhaps be more accurately translated as “bitch”), the United States in recent years has successively escalated its revolutionary liberal (i.e., capitalist) wars of pillage, interfered in Russian civil affairs and elections (as if its own electoral system were a model of probity), used its meddling NGOs to foment various “color” revolutions promoting national suicide, etc.—all in a vain effort to impose itself everywhere, as it simultaneously endeavors to shore up its already crumbling foundations.

Given, though, the system’s Judeo-Puritan heritage—and thus its compulsion to act as if it’s a light to the “rest of the world,” even as it goes about destroying it—the American system always needs some Biblical justification for its marauding affairs. Through the various agencies of the United States government, it therefore thinks nothing of fabricating lies and deceptions (from the Gulf of Tonkin incident to the non-existent Iraqi WMD) to justify its imperial campaigns.

Its proposed missile strike on Syria, as most of the world quickly realized, was, however, potentially more catastrophic and consequential than previous US aggressions, for this time it threatened a possible apocalyptic clash with Putin’s nuclear-armed Russia, which had announced she would stand with her long-time regional allies: Syria and Iran. This immediately escalated the menacing potential of such an intervention, not least because the Carthaginians would have no cakewalk there and would thus need to take especially extreme measures.

Out of this dramatic standoff between the havoc-wreaking forces of the declining empire and Putin’s defense of national sovereignty, in which the Russian leader emerged triumphant and the American with egg on his face, there beckons, I believe, the possible emergence of a new international nomos: one offering Europeans the prospect of another—a fourth (after their Ancient, Christian, and Modern)—civilizational order, based on the principles and interests presently arming Russia’s anti-liberal resistance to the demonic congregation that has become America’s counter-civilizational system.


During the Syrian crisis, a great many of the system’s chickens came home to roost. For in its course, it became indisputably clear that the counter-civilizational nomos the US had imposed on the American-led West after 1945 was no actual nomos, but a predatory disorder, spawned from the lies and deceptions of its fraudulent metaphysics. (If there were any lingering doubts about this, Edward Snowden’s exposure of the “global electronic gulag” should put them to rest.)

This postwar Western nomos was born in the course of America’s world war on its mother soil and father culture (Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe), when its previous European Christian heritage was inverted and transvaluated to justify the mass murder of civilian populations (Dresden, Hiroshima, etc.). Henceforth: whatever was once thought good thereafter became bad and what was once bad became good. To prevent any doubt as to which was which, the system would establish a Correctorate (situated in its media, schools, and leading institutions) to help guide those confused by its transvaluations.

Given the perversity of this nomos, the system’s rule (in many cases its absence of rule) has come to threaten not only world peace and the survival of white America, but virtually every nation and state, every belief or way of life, refusing to submit to its will.

The system is programmed thus to oppose organic or historical forms of order and authority—for the logos such forms represent inevitably contradicts its own misbegotten rule.

Indeed, everything this counter-civilizational system does (or has done)—with its war-mongering compulsion for globalization, consumerism, open borders, free trade, Third-World immigration, social engineering, homosexuality, and feminism—is necessarily evil, because it is motivated by the lowest, most egoistic facets of man’s animal or material existence—and stands, as such, opposed to whatever is highest or noble in him.

Having an inorganic, ahistorical character, this counter-civilizational system—with its numerical technologies and usurious enterprises, its rackets and mafias—is animated by a mechanistic materialism, devoid of spirit and religion, that views its disenchanted world solely as a source of money and power (Heidegger’s “standing reserve”). It therefore recognizes no authority that can’t be counted and spent; it privileges “having” to the exclusion of “being”; strives for omnipotence; and destroys whatever obstructs its manic destructions—including, eventually, itself.

This evil system is run largely by Jews, at least in the US and in the various international bodies the US created to regulate its world order after 1945. More “exceptional” even than the Americans, there was indeed no one better situated to manage such a perverse, predatory system. But (contrary to the reductionism of certain slower members of our community) the system is not actually “controlled” by them (Jews), except to the degree it favors their immediate interests and powers. (Essential to liberalism’s naïve metaphysics, inherently Judaic, is the notion that the world can be controlled and steered by human reason alone, even a reason at odds with nature and history.) In any case, who but the Jews would want to “manage” such a system?

The system, accordingly, is its own reason. Its entropy is what, generally, dictates to its putative dictators—the latter being the system’s exemplars and executives. (Our African president, whose philosophy is to avoid making key decisions and resolving major problems, is thus no mere CIA/Wall Street stand-in, but entirely emblematic of the system’s automatism.)


During “the 30 glorious years” (c.1945-1975), overlapping its formative period, the system (having physically destroyed its rivals during the world war) was able to provide the middle strata of American and then later European societies with a relatively decent living-standard—which gave it a certain legitimacy in the popular classes. But this is now ceasing to be the case, as the system’s central pillar (the middle class) slowly succumbs to poverty, resentment, and, if we’re lucky, rebellion.

The system’s inherent problems and failings are also becoming conspiciously more unmanageable and oppressive, especially as it herds the masses (“the 99%”) toward a new “medieval” age of renegade hierarchies.

This neo-medieval age the system plans can only be a totalitarian nightmare—part Orwell, part Huxley, part Burgess—in which everything is programmed, monitored, simulated, and sexualized, for the sake of exploiting the greatest number for the greater happiness of the chosen few.

With its hundred-storied glass and steel tributes to corporate power and greed, the system in its new age tolerates no ghettos or discriminations, no qualities or qualifications, for Jews and Judaified (i.e., money-grubbing) gentiles are encouraged to pursue a single goal: to maximize the wealth and power of the 1%—at whatever the cost—because the system judges right and wrong, good and bad, solely in terms of dollars and cents.

This doesn’t mean that America’s counter-civilizational system is specifically Jewish in origin, but rather, instead, that it is one in which Jewish values and practices are foremost. In this context it is worth remembering that the Rockefeller clan is as wealthy and powerful as the Rothschild clan, and every bit as subversive of the white man’s ethno-racial identity. Jews dominate this American system because it is animated by Judaifying (materialist or economic) principles. It has not been taken over by these schemers (however much they do scheme and take over), but is, rather, a creation of American gentiles (originally the country’s Judeo-Puritan founders), whose highest concerns were materialist and economic—in effect, Judaic.


Such an amoral, usurious, and Judenfreundlich system, which relentlessly calls for lower labor costs and new conquests, has increasingly become a danger to the world, as it strives to reshape the universe in its own narcissistic image: Syria being the case in point.

Nevertheless, in the course of the first great diplomatic drama of the 21st century—and this, I think, is what has been most significant about the international events of the last couple of weeks—our side—the side of Vladimir Putin, the side of Russian civilization (however flawed and problematical, but still healthy and vibrant compared to the decaying corpse of Western culture); the side countering America’s counter-civilization—has succeeded at last in outmaneuvering the white man’s principal enemy: America’s counter-civilizational system.

In opposition, then, to the system’s inherently disordering nomos, there has appeared now on the world stage the increasingly confident assertion of Russia’s counter-nomos: affirming not just her own sovereignty, authority, and faith, but such principles in general. This seems evident in the following polarities:

  • Against American materialism and nihilism, Putin’s Russia identifies with the transcendent and the sacred, as she, in however secular a manner, defends her Orthodox Christian Church from the forces of Western desecration and, alone in the international arena, seeks to defend Christian communities threatened by murderous Islamicists.
  • Against American media posturing and manipulation, which has our black Jesus walking on water, Russia revives the art of diplomacy—which has made Putin and Lavrov the first two great statesmen of our new century.
  • Against America’s society-destroying crusade for Gay Pride and Human Rights, there is now Russia’s heavily-financed pro-family policies, her rejection of Western decadence and vulgarity, and her affirmation of national sovereignty.
  • Against the televised obscenities of American-Jewish backed Femens, there is Russia’s two-year jail sentence for the CIA-linked Pussy Rioters, as well as her legal prohibition of Pride Parades (often enforced through non-legal or direct methods).

In opposition, in effect, to the concerted onslaught of American degeneracy and criminality, Russia—like an old, deeply-rooted oak braving a terrible storm (or perhaps I should say: like a S-400 SAM clearing the sky of American projectiles)—stands upright, defending an order based on sovereign nations and the rule of law (“law” here meaning not American/Jewish law with its imputed universality, but law established by and agreed upon by the appropriate national and international bodies accepting its jurisdiction).

Finally (and probably most importantly), against the system’s American-Israeli-Sunni terrorist axis (the coalition of evil), there has emerged a Russian-Chinese-Iranian axis, representing the alternative forces of multilateralism, diplomacy, and international law.


As America’s “controlled chaos” has become progressively more uncontrollable, so too are the blowbacks and reversals of the Syrian crisis. For example, during the crisis, the American Right (traditional home of militarists and usurers) became momentarily anti-war, isolationist, and populist, while the Left, the one-time defender of the popular classes, shamelessly donned the mantel of America’s war-mongering shock-capitalism. Equally remarkable, the extremes of both parties came together against the centrists to defend the system from itself.

A similar process is affecting the reigning perceptions of East and West—Russia and America—Putin and Obama—with the latter (Obama’s America) seen more and more as an arrogant force fostering international havoc and disorder for the sake of whatever momentary aggressive impulse arouses it—and the former, the Russian-led East, associated with stability, authority, and certain self-conscious principles rejecting Western nihilism (which have destroyed Spengler’s Faustian Culture).

In step, thus, with the “humanitarianism” of its cruise missiles and the great unearned wealth of its usurious Ponzi economy, the “land of the free and the home of the brave” function more and more like a postmodern police state, though one still subservient to Zionists, bankers, and the military-industrial complex. Russia, on the other hand, has become the refuge of American whistle blowers, German holocaust revisionists, and other hounded freedom fighters—i.e., a refuge of the free and the brave.

The contrast—between the befuddled Noble Peace laureate, blaming “everybody or anybody for everything” (“I didn’t draw the red line”), and the Russian leader appalled by the confusion and insensibility of his American counterpart—ought to encourage white men everywhere. For no matter how marginalized they have become in today’s world, it is clearly not their size or number, but their quality that counts. For it was Russia, with a tenth of China’s population and a mere fraction of its power-house economy, that led the world’s threatened nations and states through the Syrian crisis, as it stared down the world bully, forcing it, for the first time since 1989, to retreat from its imperialist aggressions.

In re-assuming a world-historical role in the course of the crisis, Russia has obviously been strengthened by identifying with her deeply-rooted Greco-Slavic-Christian heritage (one of the last unconquered remnants of European identity). By contrast, almost in inverse relation to it, the United States has sunk perceptibly deeper into its rootless, radical rejection of the country’s European patrimony, as it continues to dismantle and dissolve whatever traditional or conventional forms that might mitigate its perverse effects on the international arena. As Pat Buchanan puts it: those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.

If I were the Count de Maistre, I might think Holy Russia has re-appeared on the world stage at this moment expressly to save the white West.


To situate the recent Syrian crisis mainly within a traditional geopolitical perspective (as some have) misses, I think, its most significant facets—which are not about the strategic and cultural antinomies of land and sea powers (tellurocracy/thalassocracy), though there is obviously an aspect of this in it.

More fundamentally, the crisis has been driven by the deep rupture in the world’s nomos: for it (the crisis) stems, in the last instance, from the inherently self-destructive nature of the post-1989/post-2001 stages in the system’s expansion, as its vocation for omnipotence evolved into a force for impotence and disarray, and perhaps impending collapse.

Said differently: what is happening in Syria is not a repeat of the geopolitical antagonisms of the Cold War. For both the dynamic and the goal of the conflict are qualitatively unlike what went before.

The system in Syria is reacting not in the way you would expect a rational, calculating actor to react—rationally (in the instrumentally logical sense) for the sake of certain strategic objectives.

There is something else at work here, more powerful even than the geopolitical: it might be called “the logic of system collapse.” (The Maistrians in our ranks call it the providential or metahistorical.) For given that the system (bankrupt, discredited, and increasingly unable to provide basic services, like security) has apparently entered its terminal stage, the forces of death, dissolution, and destruction issuing from the evil bred of its materialism are now fully in control of the system.

According to Brendon O’Neill (8.28.13):

The most startling and unsettling thing about the clamour among some Westerners for a quick, violent punishment of the Assad regime is its nakedly narcissistic nature. Gone is realpolitik and geostrategy, gone is the PC gloss that was smeared over other recent disastrous Western interventions to make them seem substantial, from claims about spreading human rights to declarations about facing down terrorism, and all we’re left with is the essence of modern-day Western interventionism: a desire to offset moral disarray at home by staging a fleeting, bombastic moral showdown with “evil” in a far-off field.

O’Neill’s emphasis on the “nakedly narcissistic nature” of system-actors like Obama and Kerry (“blasé barbarians,” totally clueless, yet nevertheless committed to extending/globalizing the system’s principles because they lack the stature to rise above its entropic dictates) gets, I think, to the heart of the Syrian crisis—which is as much about the system’s demented psychology and the uncontrollable effects this psychology is having on its controllers, as it is about the system’s predatory geopolitics.

This counter-civilizational system does not behave, then, like other great powers of the modern period, but as something unique (and hence monstrous). A state, for example, concerned with displaying its alleged “moral decency” by bombing another state situated in the world’s tinderbox, and doing so with absolutely no strategic objective and without the slightest thought of its regional or international consequences, is not a political system motivated by any recognizable geopolitical consideration—but rather one geared to its own fabricated narrative and the thanatic forces it fosters. For even in the hottest periods of the Cold War, US behavior was never so disengaged from the realities it sought to influence as it is today.

In this spirit, Obama, Kerry, and their European counterparts talk and behave as if Syria is all about the West’s “moral compass” and not about its specific regional interests. There is no apparent geopolitical consideration at all; instead, the war is allegedly about them and the “moral integrity” of their system. To quote O’Neill again: “Like Narcissus, the beaters of the drum for war on Assad are concerned only with their own image, their own reflection, and the question of whether they’ll be able to look at themselves in the mirror if they fail to Do Something.”

Most of this moral posturing is of course simply eye-wash for the controlled media (how “moral” can the pioneers and foremost employers of depleted uranium munitions, white phosphorous shells, napalm, Agent Orange, and other such weaponry actually be?). At the same time, however, their hypocrisy and posturing suggest that the system’s actors lack a specific strategic perspective and are impelled mainly by the entropic imperatives they themselves or the system has fostered. For such a mentality, the principal response is inevitably to bomb or destroy whatever fails to confirm to its virtualist narrative—and if that doesn’t work, then to pretend it doesn’t exist. In no case can the present Syrian crisis be seen in conventional strategic terms.

Talk of the West’s “moral impulse” or its defense of the “common human heritage” may lack authority, but the nauseating prominence of such rhetoric confirms not only that the American-led West lacks strategic perspective, but that its so-called “moral compass” is a smokescreen for its lack of purpose or mission: the system leads, but blindly and automatically, for in itself it lacks all meaning, being simply a sort of sci-fi version of Heidegger’s Gestell and its poisonous effect on human being. Chaos and disorder are the rule, not sober geostrategic considerations. We are, in fact, a long way from the Cold War’s classic geopolitical standoff. Nous sommes en 1914.

Those doubting the determining power of a system’s entropic forces might want to consult Christopher Clark’s The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914 (London, 2012). And it’s not just the Great War that eludes conventional historical or geopolitical explanation: the unpredictable chaos of 21st-century America is a mystery to its own policy-makers. Russian diplomats, for instance, are known for complaining about the absence of strategic logic in America’s various world engagements (i.e., about their lack of rhyme or reason)—which again suggest there is something other than Realpolitik motivating American activity on the world stage.

That the two-stepping Obama, tangled in his absurd rhetoric and unable to “tell the difference between showbiz and strategy,” jumped at Putin’s offer to remove Syria’s chemical WMD suggests he had no other way to extricate himself from what Peggy Noonan calls the “historic incompetence” of his “self-made mess.” There is, as such, nothing specifically rational, logical, or even interest-motivated in his or the system’s behavior—whether in Syria, in its relations with Russia, or elsewhere—for the American system, in its self-view, operates beyond such mundane geopolitical realms.

This is not to say that the East-West clash between Russia and the United States in Syria lacks a significant geopolitical front. Only that the American system is being driven less by geopolitical realities than by the simulated perceptions generated by its “deception machines” (media) and virtualist ideology (“yes we can”), as these two forces shape and dictate the system’s reactions—which in the case of someone like Barack Obama means that his approach to the world is inevitably determined by the flickering images coming from the machines and ideologies prompting him.

The virtualities or illusions reigning in Obama’s America—the sad culmination of what was once a vigorous white republic—stands today in sharp contrast with Putin’s Russia, which calmly and firmly, followed “the path of civilized diplomatic” procedure, as she sought to re-establish some modicum of stability and order amidst the conflict—highlighting in the process all that has come to distinguish the Russian East from Obama’s West. Even Ronald Reagan in his dementia was never so erratic and irrational.

The biggest and most welcomed surprise in this is that increased numbers of American conservatives (most recently the Illinois-based World Congress of Families), who have long accommodated the system’s Russophobia, are, in conscious opposition to their own government, beginning to identify with Russian policy—for Russia, they see, defends not just a stable, lawful international order (or nomos), but, domestically, promotes the interests and welfare of the family and, internationally, defends endangered Christian communities. Just, hours after Obama announced his proposed strike on Syria, Matt Drudge, who owns the conservative, tweeted: “Putin is the leader of the free world.” Shortly afterward, the former Reaganite, Paul Craig Roberts, repeated Drudge’s comment, adding that Putin was “the defender of the rule of law.” For anyone familiar with traditional Right-wing and American Russophobia, this is a sea change.

As the alienation between Imperial Washington and white America continues to grow and as Brzezinski’s feared “Global Awakening” spreads, conservatives as a whole may soon acquire a powerful new ally in their war with liberal nihilism.


It was only after 1945 that the United States formally rejected its European Christian origins. The ensuing counter-civilizational system has since sought to demolish the country’s organic and historic hierarchies. Initially, this was a matter of laying the foundations for a National Security State.

The radical potential of the system’s deconstructionism, though, was much restrained by the Cold War, which required a good deal of consensus. With the fall of the Soviet Union, however, its perversions and destructions were unleashed, as the one-worlders began addressing the deep structures of US life and society. This meant, among other things, eliminating those differences that divide sexes, races, and nations and discrediting the historic identities associated with them—as feminism, homosexuality, free trade, multiculturalism, anti-Christianism, anti-white racism, etc., became state doctrine. The ensuing devastations were further compounded by the anti-terrorist hysteria following “9/11” and then again in 2008, when the greatest economic crisis since 1929 ended up bankrupting the economy.

The counter-civilization is now without solid moorings, thoroughly disconnected from the real world, and on life-support. Given the character of its entropic forces and the hysteria of its deformed psychology, it can only approach the world like a bull in a china shop.


The trajectory of America’s counter-civilizational system in the last quarter century is the near antithesis of Putin’s Russia.

Since the collapse of Soviet Communism (whose tenets in many respects were less radical than the present counter-civilization), Russian elites under Putin (despite a sizeable pro-Western, liberal element in their ranks) have sought, in their efforts to restore and modernize the country, a different path from their liberal counterparts in the West.

For if the Communist experiment taught Russians anything, it was that the forces of family, tradition, religion, and nation alone balance and civilize modernity’s inherently revolutionary transformations.

This is not to say that Putin is some sort of anti-liberal savior or that Russia has gotten everything right where the United States has gotten them wrong. Rather, Putin’s Russia today stands for much of what we white Americans once stood for—while the United States has come to stand for our impending extinction as a people.

In his opinion piece in the New York Times, following the crisis, on September 11, Putin congratulated Obama for coming to his senses, but, in its best part, he criticized the Judeo-Puritan ideology America’s first post-American president evoked to justify his “thoughtful reconsideration” of the issue.

As if he were Hester Prynne’s lovechild, Obama framed his “jeremiad” on the world stage in terms of “American exceptionalism”—for high and noble concern about things like WMD is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional”— as his heart bled for “the poor Syrian children” gassed by the organ-eaters—never who was responsible for it—especially never mind that once upon a time this exceptional country used its flying “Liberators” to incinerate 700,000 German women and children.

Putin’s response to Obama’s argument was characteristically moderate and compromising: “It is extremely dangerous,” he wrote, “to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.”

Yes, God created us “equal”—not in rights and capacities, of course, but in our desire to be ourselves and defend our differences. As Putin hints, the exceptional and the chosen, the Puritan and the Jew, foster catastrophic illusions that foul the international arena and deny us our right to be who we are.


As white Americans struggle for their identity in what is bound to be an ever-more challenging future, they may be hearten that the chess-playing sovereigntist in the Kremlin is a more likely ally than the war-mongering stuffed-shirt in the White House, whose color, name, and vocation stand for everything they are not.

More than ever, the sun rises in the East.


This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. rhondda
    Posted September 17, 2013 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

    Oh, thank you for this. The only thing missing is that Putin wrestles bears, you know. Obama, well, …. Where is that thin red line anyway?

  2. Mike
    Posted September 17, 2013 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

    Great article, but everyone should read the posts on Stormfront about Putin and the many Jewish billionaires on his cabinet. He is strongly disliked by Russian Nationalists. Putin’s Russia is very Muslim and non white immigrant friendly, and very anti white.

  3. Józef Piłsudski
    Posted September 17, 2013 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

    Way too much Putin praise in this article. I feel the author is suffering from a similar feeling that WN who wanted Romney to win the election, or who gave money to Ron Paul (like Jamie Kelso). They want to see a white-faced guy stand up against this system, desperate to find someone that’s winning, forgetting that those who they praise want NOTHING to do with us. Russian nationalists on the internet hate Putin and from what they say, he and his ilk are doing their best to turn Moscow into a central Asian colony and resurrect some kind of multicultural-multiracial Eurasian empire.
    After the George Zimmerman trial, the Iranian government released a statement condemning white Americans for their racist judicial system, yet I still see praise for Iran from WN circles.

    We don’t have to be for this system, but let’s start making OUR own victories in our communities rather than vicariously getting them from the Republicans, the Russians, Iran, Alex Jones, George Zimmerman, Ron Paul, etc.
    Get married, have children, get influence over your friends (not strangers) by helping them with their car or computer. Then you can be a leader. Try to create parallel societies like the Mormons, the Amish, the organic farmers, and others do.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted September 17, 2013 at 11:50 pm | Permalink

      Putin is working to limit the global power of the United States, which is the principal enemy of white people everywhere. That is a good thing for White Nationalists. And it is still a good thing for White Nationalists even if Putin is not a White Nationalist (which he is not).

      The idea that White Nationalists cannot approve of current events if the principals are not White Nationalists (Putin) or not white (Zimmerman) or do not reciprocate our regard (as if they even heard of us) strikes me as extremely small-minded and short-sighted.

      Do you seriously expect the leaders of Iran to care about a movement as marginal as White Nationalism? And do they have to care about us for us to care about them?

      One of the signs of moral immaturity is the attitude “Sure, it is the right thing do to. But what’s in it for me?” The same thing is true here. To the extent that Putin is limiting American power, he is a force for good in the world. It is beyond absurd for me not to say that on the grounds that Putin might not reciprocate my regard.

      Right now, White Nationalism does not exist as a political force in the world. We have no power. All we have is the truth–which is what the rest of the political spectrum is fleeing. The idea that we should put restrictions on the one advantage that we do have in the name of Realpolitik is a self-defeating absurdity — just another version of the retarded “mainstreamer” advice to coopt ourselves, censor ourselves, and go to work for our enemies.

      • Peter
        Posted September 18, 2013 at 12:51 am | Permalink

        I think I agree with everything you wrote. I’m not a white nationalist, but I have joined the ranks of those who object to multiculturalism’s destruction of the world’s different cultures, primarily white European cultures. If we are successful in reversing this deliberate destruction of cultures (being pushed by Jews), I hope we can build friendships and work to together with other cultures to make the world a better place.

        In my opinion the USA isn’t only the principal enemy of whites everywhere, but also Muslims. I’m thinking of the middle east where a new country is bombed to smithereens every year or so. In my opinion, the USA is an enemy of anyone Jews perceive to be their enemy.

        Unfortunately, while I believe public opinion is beginning to change in its attitude toward Israel and Jews, a majority of people still support both. This means that while on the internet you can read intelligent articles such as on this website (and others), the mainstream media is still in control and they largely form public opinion with their propaganda. This means many whites support the bombing of Arab countries because they simply don’t know the real power behind these policies.

        Also, most people want to support their gov’t, I guess until they perceive the gov’t as their enemy and then they might revolt. But until that time they are loyal to the country they live in and this allows the propagandistic media to exploit them.

        I vioew it similarly to how Winston Churchill lied to his people to create a world war with Germany. The British historian explains it in fascinating detail. Before the war there was a strong peace movement in England and the King visited Hitler and got on well with him. This was a problem for Churchill who was being financed by Jews to bring a war against Germany.

        While Hitler repeatedly made attempts at ending the war, having German diplomats approach the British, Churchill forbade British diplomats from speaking to their German counterparts. Then Churchill began his attacks against German civilians. When the Luftwaffe attacked England it strictly attacked military targets, whike Churchill continuously ordered the RAF to drop bombs on German civilian areas in order to anger Hitler into retaliating. Hitler finally made a rousing speech saying Germany had enough and if England did this again, Germany would “eradicate” England’s cities. Churchill had the RAF drop bombs on a German civikian area the next day, killing many Germans and then Germany finally retaliated and attacked a civilian area of one of England’s cities (it might have been Coventry). Irving explained this is exactly what Churchill wanted. Churchill crushed England’s peace movement with this and by claiming Germany wanted to conquer England and “take over the world.” All this while Germany was frantically trying to keep peace in the west and then end the war after France and England declared war against them.

        That is how you exploit people’s loyalty to their country, the same way American’s loyalty is exploited against Muslims.

      • Lew
        Posted September 18, 2013 at 1:41 am | Permalink

        I’ll take a crack at answering this.

        The problem with this line of argument is that it contains a problematic implication that these anti-American governments around the world are our allies, or that their success against America necessarily means our success due to a general reduction in American global power. The problem is that a favorable outcome is treated essentially as a certainty by people who take this position when it isn’t. Or, at least, this is how I perceive it (maybe incorrectly).

        In Putin’s NY Times editorial (focus group-tested, written by a PR firm and long on universalist moralizing), he bragged about America and the Soviet Union collaborating on defeating German. Putin just cut a deal with America to disarm Assad while America’s client states continue to arm Assad’s enemies with Putin’s knowledge.

        In Iran, their newest leader is moderate by Iranian standards, and he has been sending signals that Iran’s leadership might work with the United States on nuclear proliferation. Russia, Iran or both nations might nations turn on a dime and begin working with the United States rather than against it if the US government makes them the right offer.

        Suppose, in the best case scenario, that Putin succeeds in increasing Russia’s power at America’s expense. America declines, and Russia, China and Iran rise. In this case, the net effect will be a transition from a unipolar world dominated by one anti-white government to a multi-polar world dominated by a set of anti-white governments.

        So these governments are not run by nationalists. They’re not reciprocating any sympathy with even moral support. And any success they may have in weakening America won’t help us because they are anti-white too, most especially the Russian government under Putin.

        Given all of these things, the benefits of situating or orienting WNsm within a larger global context just aren’t clear. Yet many people write and argue as if the opposite is self-evidently true.

        An alternative, non-parochial, forward-looking, global strategy IMO would be aggressive outreach, networking and interlocking mutual support of nationalists groups worldwide for each other against America and globalism. This could, in theory, include groups in Europe, Russia, Eastern Europe, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and everywhere else that whites may be found. It seems to me that Russian nationalists that Putin is persecuting deserve more support from American and other nationalists than Putin himself does.

        Do you seriously expect the leaders of Iran to care about a movement as marginal as White Nationalism?

        I don’t expect Iran’s leaders to care about WNsm or white folks in general, and it is clear that Iran’s leaders don’t. Press TV promotes the Jewish narrative by calling Golden Dawn Nazis. And, again, Iran’s leaders just took the side of the “principal enemy” of white folks everywhere in the Trayvon Martin debate, that is, the anti-white Jewish side. Iran’s leaders did it despite being at the very top of the Jewish/US government hit list.

        It shows that Iran’s leaders definitely don’t care that white Americans are suffering along with them under Jewish/American hegemony. And if they understandably haven’t heard of WNists, they surely have heard of white folks in general. If that symbolic entry into American race warfare doesn’t settle the question about where Iran’s leaders stand on the fate of white Americans, then I don’t what would.

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted September 18, 2013 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

          An “alliance” requires several things:

          1. common interests
          2. awareness of those common interests
          3. the ability to mutually advance those common interests — something to trade

          I believe that White Nationalists have common interests with anti-globalization and multipolar movements and forces around the world. I wish the best for Syria, Iran, Russia, North Korea, Venezuela, and any other nation that challenges Judeo-American hegemony. I think it is important to register that fact and cheer them on when appropriate.

          That said, I see no reason to expect an alliance between White Nationalists and any of these nations, since (a) they do not understand our common interests and (b) we have nothing to offer them.

          Perhaps someday, if we raise their conciousness and turn White Nationalism into a real political force, that will change. Until then, however, all we can do is tell the truth.

          The leaders of Iran and Syria, like Saddam Hussein, seem astonishingly naive about Jewish power and motivations. If they understood how the real world worked, surely they would be paying agents to snuff out neocons, AIPAC lobbyists, and others who are trying to murder them and their peoples.

          Beyond that, White Nationalists need not receive direct aid from any foreign power to benefit from the decline of American power. Limiting American power abroad can weaken it at home, for instance, which is good for White Nationalists. Aside from sending Lenin home, the Germans did very little to directly help the Bolshevik Revolution. But they rendered it immense indirect aid by defeating the Tsar’s armies.

          There is, however, a very dark part of me that thinks that maybe US wars in Syria and Iran, although they would be launched by evil men with evil ends and cause untold suffering, might hasten the day when the American empire collapses. And that would be to the greater good of our race. That is why I, personally, have no preferences in the Syria crisis or the Iran crisis beyond the ultimate weakening of Jewish-American hegemony.

      • Sandy
        Posted September 18, 2013 at 4:04 am | Permalink


        I hope we can build friendships and work to together with other cultures to make the world a better place.

        The Philippines would be a good place to start.

      • Peter
        Posted September 18, 2013 at 8:49 am | Permalink

        David Irving is the British historian.

      • Lew
        Posted September 18, 2013 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

        The leaders of Iran and Syria, like Saddam Hussein, seem astonishingly naive about Jewish power and motivations.

        You may be right about this, although, Ahmadinejad might be a counter-point. He was, basically, a holocaust denier. Israel has been assassinating Iran’s nuclear scientists. They surely must have some idea of Jewish power and how they operate.

        As much as I hate to say it, my conclusion (for now) based on the public facts is that Shia Iran’s leaders understand the Jewish agenda in America at least in broad strokes and simply do not care how Jews use their power against us (white folks in general not WNsts). They may even support it.

        I don’t want to belabor the point or flog a dead horse, so I’ll close out with this anecdote on Iran. It just so happens there are major developments underway in Greece right now involving Golden Dawn. Apparently, there are riots underway all over the country. A member of Golden Dawn supposedly murdered a prominent leftist. Along with Western media, Iran’s Press TV for English-speaking elites is already piling on with the “Golden Dawn are neo-nazis” narrative.

        I try not to get upset over these day-to-day outrages, but this one really gets under my skin. Golden Dawn’s leaders have been really supportive of Iran in their struggles against Zionism, and Iran is stabbing them in the back using smears straight from the Jewish playbook.

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted September 18, 2013 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

          Cheap, short-sighted rhetoric, not unlike David Duke harping on the evils of Jewish racism and nationalism.

      • White Republican
        Posted September 19, 2013 at 1:51 am | Permalink

        “Cheap, short-sighted rhetoric, not unlike David Duke harping on the evils of Jewish racism and nationalism.”

        I haven’t been paying a lot of attention to David Duke, but has his focus been on the fact that Jews practice racism and nationalism (which needn’t be objectionable in itself), or that Jews practice a peculiarly hypocritical, deceitful, and malevolent form of racism and nationalism (which is what makes Jewish racism and nationalism so malignant)? As William Pierce wrote in his article, “The Nature of the Beast”: “Their aim is not merely the survival of their own race-nation, but also the destruction of every other. This is the key to understanding the nature of the beast.”

        To compare racism and nationalism among Whites and Jews is like comparing apples with oranges, or edible mushrooms with poisonous toadstools. Perhaps Duke isn’t making the distinctions and qualifications concerning racism and nationalism that he should be using.

      • Greg P
        Posted September 22, 2013 at 4:52 am | Permalink

        I want to make a few points:

        1. A distinction should be made between Jewish/constitutionally anti-white elites and indifferent /relictant elites who are anti-white only because it is convenient and personally benefits them. From what I have observed, it seems like the (non-Jewish) elites in Russian are in the latter category. The policy’s, attitudes, and ideas they’ve let be promoted indicate that they are willing to do what is adventageous to them, as opposed to the irrational policies pursued the “Western,” Jewish-led elites that are motivated by a genocidal hatred for our people. So if it is beneficial for them to be anti-white, they will be anti-white. If it is beneficial for them to be pro-white, I believe they will be pro-white.

        2. The unipolar world, if it succeeds, will be led by the American/Jewish elites that hate us and do everything they can to perpetuate their progrom of white genocide. A multi-polar world, on the other hand, will almost certainly have at least some elites that are indifferent towards white people, and will thus be open to mutually beneficial agreements/alliances with us.

        3. Greg Johnson pointed out that pro-whites are not in a position offer anything in return for Russian (or Iranian, Venezuelian, Chinese, or any other country’s) elites taking a pro-white stance. All the wishful thinking in the world won’t change the fact that white and non-white elites only care about their self-interest.

        4. Instead of whining and complaining about it, or even worse, theorizing and fantasizing about a different world, we should accept reality and use it to our advantage.

        Huey Long was asked what Political Leadership is, and he gave a frank and accurate reply:

        “You find out the direction everybody is going and you run out front.”

        What did Long’s statement and the reality it reflected mean to a young man who was hungry for POWER instead of public office?

        To others Long’s statement was a confirmation of their own opinion of politicians, insincere and all that crap.

        To me, it meant that politicians give up real power to be Leaders. What mattered to me was not who walked in front but why the crowd was marching in that direction in the first place.

        THAT is POWER.

        So where does that leave us? What does that mean for us? It means we need create the conditions for which it becomes convenient for indifferent and foreign (possibly sympathetic) elites to be pro-white. It means we should find ways to increase our collective strength and influence. And it means we shouldncontinue to cheer on the emerging multi-polar world, emphasizing our common interests (so our people understand) to set the stage for future cooperation in ending white genocide.

      • Fourmyle of Ceres
        Posted September 22, 2013 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

        Greg P:

        Minor moment of pedantry.

        Your blockcited quote is from Bob Whitaker.

        I wish I had his books and columns to read when I was in junior high.

      • Greg P.
        Posted September 23, 2013 at 1:22 am | Permalink

        Fourmyle of Ceres,

        Yes, the blockquote is from Whitaker. I borrowed his words to make a point. Some people are biased against him, so thought I would let the words speak for themselves, to the point, without the baggage of the messenger. It’s easier to stay on topic that way.

  4. Jaego
    Posted September 17, 2013 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

    I agree about your diagnosis of us. But the Jews aimless? And the Corporations? No, they work in tandem, with our Western cluelessness as a cover for their precise though differing aims. Greater Israel means to take down Iran. They meant to start in Syria. Nothing fuzzy or incoherent about this at all. The Corporations seek the profits that come from War and access to oil. Rational if heartless. And the two come together as One in their vision of the future: the West must fall so the World State may arise. War with Islam is the means. And Obama a most valuable tool of destruction as well.

  5. Walter
    Posted September 17, 2013 at 8:48 pm | Permalink

    Good article. If one looks from above upon the meaning of things, then it is seen that beginning with the Second War the decline of the Western powers has gained momentum. The beginning of the end was the First War with the unconditional will to destroy the Central Powers in Europe and the lunatic conclusion of that campaign with the dictate of Versailles. On the height of power, it seemed possible and arrogantly possible to break all ideas of morality and fight against women and children by bomber fleets. I am reading right now the nauseating book by J.M.Spaight “Bombing Vindicated” where it is made visible how immoral thinking was seeping into military thought through politicians who were thinking of unconditional surrenders, victory at any prize and in simplistic terms of extinguishing whole nations, eliminating them first from the political, then economic and finally biological and historical sphere. This unconditional surrender thinking is the basis of Western politics to this day.
    The West has become the intolerant, brutish blackmailer who intends to re-shape the world so as to make it its own reflection. That the small and shrinking West against a growing non-West is on a path that leads to defeat seems to not have occurred to those at the center of power. There, everything seems still possible, but the West has proven that it is destructive, forcibly makes people unhappy everywhere and has no intent to respect (the favorite word of the Western democrats) anything anywhere and is making its advances unwelcome everywhere. The economic model of the West really isn’t that successful in comparison to that of, e.g. China and was losing against that of NS Germany even then. Right now, the West’s power rests in the gun barrels, not on conviction. That is a sure sign of eventual failure.
    Too bad that power fell into the hands of people who have no sense of proportion or for history.

  6. rhondda
    Posted September 17, 2013 at 8:59 pm | Permalink

    Russian Nationalists may hate Putin, just as we hate Obama. The international game is different from the domestic one. On the international scale Putin made Obama look like a wimp. Those of us outside of America loved that. At last someone taking on American hegemony. It is a double edged sword for Americans — being patriotic versus the bigger game. I don’t care what Putin does domestically. What happens in Russia is none of my business. I do care though about Europe and and my country Canada as to how we are beholden to an American hegemony which threatens all sense of affinity with Europe and the traditions that we belong to and are ours and are being destroyed by walmarts and macdonalds and every other international corporation who do not give a shit about whom they destroy. What Russian corporations are destroying peoples? The Russian nationalists I am sure will get their way. Are we going to get our way?

  7. Sandy
    Posted September 17, 2013 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

    It strikes me that North American White Nationalists are a long way from power when they can praise the enemy of the empire in which we live. Not even the NANR if it came to power could say “I’m sorry” and go home and not expect repercussions for the sins of the past. Methinks it would be more productive to write essays on what we would do when we come to power. Just don’t ask me as I wouldn’t know where to begin.

    • rhondda
      Posted September 17, 2013 at 10:42 pm | Permalink

      I guess you have not read Yockey hey Sandy who talks about the soul of a people. Have you seen or heard of the programs by the archeologist Francis Pryor about pre-Roman Britain? Marvelous stuff. It is not taught in school or church for that matter. That terrible person Varg Vikernes put them up on his blog. Define enemy for me please.

      • Sandy
        Posted September 18, 2013 at 3:53 am | Permalink

        Hi, I first read Yockey 30 years ago but I can’t say I am not familiar with Varg Vikernes or Francis Pryor. I’ll Google him. Have you read Homer Lea? He was a military genius out of San Francisco that advised both sides prior to the outbreak of WWI. He wrote the Valor of Ignorance and The Day of the Saxon. He died before he could write his third book regarding our perpetual enemy, the Russia octopus? Not that that matters for however you cut the cake as the American Empire goes so goeth we. It is not going to go away and we have to live within it. We are part of it. IMHO.

  8. Brian
    Posted September 17, 2013 at 10:42 pm | Permalink

    The U.S. got Assad to agree to give up the only deterrent he has. This wasn’t a blunder, nor was it a goal. The bad guys could either directly attack Syria or snatch its only deterrent and bleed it further. It was always win-win for them. The objective is Syria and elsewhere is to soften centers of power for an eventual expansion of Israel. They’re on track.

    This is The Good, The Bad & The Ugly played out in the ME. Everyone gets hurt, save for the guy playing all sides (hint: he’s very Jewish).

    I think it’s far too soon to call the top on this beast. We’ve got decades and decades of absolute torture before us, so stay firmly mounted on your tigers, fellas.

    • rhondda
      Posted September 17, 2013 at 11:04 pm | Permalink

      Wait a minute, it was Putin who suggested it, the US did not. The US had to agree to save face.
      Nice try.

  9. Justin Huber
    Posted September 17, 2013 at 11:24 pm | Permalink

    I still take my inspiration from Adolf Hitler. Russia and the Russians leave me cold. Not a bad essay though.

  10. Lew
    Posted September 17, 2013 at 11:35 pm | Permalink

    Józef Piłsudski,

    Here is one WNst who has never praised Putin or Iran. Everyone please read, and reread, and then read again, comments # 2 and # 3 above.

    I don’t agree with the claim that Putin and Russia made the US government back down. The American people did that, with an eruption of anti-war fervor that caught the elites off guard. The Saudis and especially Israel and AIPAC are the only parties in the world who wanted an attack on Syria, and Obama didn’t give it to them when he could have.

    I don’t see where the facts support the claim that Putin is an ally of white Americans or white folks anywhere, including in Russia, or that Russia is poised to challenge America on the world stage. I’m open to being convinced otherwise. But, in point of fact, Russia has a smaller economy than Italy and is is led by a man who works with Jewish billionaires, supports immigration, signs incitement laws that make it a crime to criticize Islam, and, from what I have read here on CC, jails Russian nationalists.

    • It is I only
      Posted September 18, 2013 at 1:45 am | Permalink

      What do you think of V Putin pro minority immigration speech.
      Quote:On February 4th, 2013, Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, addressed the Duma,
      (Russian Parliament), and gave a speech about the tensions with minorities in Russia:

      “In Russia live Russians. Any minority, from anywhere, if it wants to live in Russia, to work and eat in Russia, should speak Russian, and should respect the Russian laws. If they prefer Shari ‘a Law, then we advise them to go to those places where that’s the state law. Russia does not need minorities. Minorities need Russia, and we will not grant them special privileges, or try to change our laws to fit their desires, no matter how loud they yell ‘discrimination’.

      We better learn from the suicides of America, England, Holland and France, if we are to survive as a nation. The Russian customs and traditions are not compatible with the lack of culture or the primitive ways of most minorities. When this honourable legislative body thinks of creating new laws, it should have in mind the national interest first, observing that the minorities are not Russians.

      The politicians in the Duma gave Putin a standing ovation for five minutes!

      • Lew
        Posted September 18, 2013 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

        I’d say those comments must be weighed against other things Putin has said and done like his ongoing support for as I understand it liberal immigration policies.

        One must read mainstream elites carefully and with skepticism. Assuming Putin said that, that the translation is accurate and that relevant context is not missing, it sounds like Putin saying non-Russian minorities are welcome in Russia as long as they learn Russian and respect Russian culture.

        Please let me know if your thoughts.

      • Razvan
        Posted September 18, 2013 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

        “Any minority, from anywhere, if it wants to live in Russia, to work and eat in Russia, should speak Russian, and should respect the Russian laws.”

        Why should a minority live in the Russia proper? Why wouldn’t everyone live in his own homeland? Putin’s discourse is a simple rhetorical trick. He is talking about forced integration (forced to accord with some Bolshevik reflexes), nothing else.

        You have two things here.
        1. Or the “capitalists” of Russia (jewish or not) need a cheaper workforce against the Russian workforce.
        2. Or it is about the old Russian imperialism trying to denationalize the minorities (white or not but, living in their ancestral homelands) and make the Empire survive. The national elites are literally awash with riches.

        No matter what, these two situations are utterly destructive against the Russians, and against many other whites whose cultures are obliterated – including by immigration and integration.

        The “Russian” imperialism serves the interest of the Russian people in the same degree as the “American” imperialism serves the interests of the American people.

        The two Empires are still serving the jews and they are Judenfreundlich to the same degree.

        OK, Syria is not destroyed (which is a good thing) but I think it is pretty much neutered. Who really won?

      • Lew
        Posted September 18, 2013 at 5:43 pm | Permalink

        I agree. It looks like a threadbare rhetorical trick to me, but maybe there is some nuance there I’m not appreciating.

        It’s unlikely we will ever know the actual reasons the US abandoned its war plans. The real decisions happen behind the scenes. But it’s hard to go to war with zero international support and zero domestic support. The anti-war outburst inside (which I was vociferously a part of) must have made a difference.

        I do think we can rule out the idea that Russia “faced down” the US and that this is some kind of global turning point. On the contrary, there is evidence that Russia and US have been collaborating on taking Assad’s chemical weapons for over year. The popular narrative that Putin extended Obama an offer to save himself at the last minute doesn’t make a lot of sense for this reason. The theory is based on the idea that John Kerry made an 11th-hour “gaffe” about calling off the attack if Assad gives up his chemical weapons. Lavrov supposedly seized on this, and then quickly agreed to it, and then the US supposedly took him up on it creating a surface appearance of Russia initiating the offer that deescalated tensions. It’s comically implausible because veteran liars like Kerry don’t make “gaffes” ever in high stakes diplomacy on the eve of launching a war. Kerry said that intentionally.

        More likely, I’d conjecture, Putin and Obama worked together on a mutually beneficial outcome. Obama has succeeded in disarming Assad without firing a shot. Putin gets to appear strong, while taking away his supposed ally’s equalizer against Israel. Behind the scenes, America is continuing its covert war against Assad. Putin knows this of course and seems fine with it, at least in public.

        As far as I can tell, the only faction that’s unhappy with this outcome are the Jews. Although AIPAC and the neocons were 100% behind attacking Syria, Obama did not go through with the attack. Obama went against the Israeli position. That’s something that rarely happens either. It’s another indicator there is more going on here than the usual US pushing its weight around the globe.

    • Justin Huber
      Posted September 18, 2013 at 10:55 am | Permalink

      Lew is absolutely correct. It was the anti-war feelings of the American people that made the attack on Syria suddenly go sideways.

    • Nitpicker
      Posted September 18, 2013 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

      The Russian economy is about 1.5 times bigger then the Italian, and the 7th largest in the world (beating the UK but just falling short of Germany). While the GDP per capita is far from Western European levels, Russia under Putin is catching up.

      Just a nitpick.

    • Razvan
      Posted September 19, 2013 at 3:26 am | Permalink

      Lew, your last analysis is very sharp indeed. In fact it is the only one where all the bits fall into their own place. Congratulation for your anti-war stance. I am sure that the internal opposition to war (both the people and the army) silenced the vivandieres.

      I only hope that everyone will understand that Putin’s eulogy is in fact a fatal blow against the Russian nationalists and not against the US imperialism. I understand what real-politik is, but I am also old enough to know how it can turn against you and bite back in unexpected ways.

  11. Vacant Serif
    Posted September 18, 2013 at 1:53 am | Permalink

    To the Author: YES, YES, YES AND YES!

  12. Donar van Holland
    Posted September 18, 2013 at 7:27 am | Permalink

    We can never let the Jews off the hook. They hate us with unrelenting hatred and will do anything to destroy us. Never forget, never forgive. I reread Tim Wise regularly to remind me of that. Or watch some good Holocaust revisionist videos.

    However, O’Meara offers a hopeful perspective on the weakness of the system the Jews are using to destroy us. I am not sure if liberal metaphysics is inherently Judaic. The Reformation and the cult of Rationalism have a lot to answer for. But we do understand liberalism to be exceedingly blind and naive, being based “on the notion that the world can be controlled and steered by human reason alone, even a reason at odds with nature and history”.

    Liberalism is for whites a kind of Pangloss on steroids. As for the Jews, I am reminded of Jewish Bible exegesis, digging up all kinds of unrelated and far-fetched texts and commentaries to construct an extremely sophisticated explanation that can make any text say anything. The essential religiosity of Judaism is not cult, prayer or meditation, it is this kind of “study”. If you are used to this kind of scholarship, or better: sophistry, liberalism comes natural. So does intrigue and deceit. Wormtongue is a Jew.

    Fortunately, reality (the so-called “irrational”) has ways of asserting itself that are unexpected, though seldom comfortable. This system is heading full speed for the ravine. But that which is falling should also be pushed. And I welcome Vladimir Putin with all my heart as he joins in the effort.

  13. Morgan
    Posted September 18, 2013 at 8:09 am | Permalink

    Pat Buchanan may have said “those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad” , but if he did, surely he was quoting J Enoch Powell?

    Excellent analysis, also. Always great to see Dr. O’Meara.

  14. Peter Quint
    Posted September 18, 2013 at 9:57 am | Permalink

    From what I read of the article I agree with it. I have to scan over articles quickly because I go to the local library for internet access. I am too poor to afford internet and it also frees up funds for investment in our cause. Anyhoooo, I want to object to the first line of the second paragraph; the new world order is already in place, has been since 1945. Once the jews have established a one world currency and a central bank in every country their power will be complete and they will commence “mopping-up” operations. An analogy can be found in the establishment of the christian religion, once it was firmly in place they killed millions of our people through witch hunts. As always I am the biggest fan of counter-currents and I will endeavor to contribute more in the future. One last question does anybody know how many countries are left that don’t have a central bank controlled by the jews? I think North Korea is one of them.

    • Sandy
      Posted September 18, 2013 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

      When Iraq was invaded there was a list circulating on the net that it was one of the few countries still outside our banking system. There was only six or seven odd ball countries still to be mopped up. The Vatican wasn’t on the list but much of the hatred towards the Catholics is that the official Catholic stand is still against usury – even though the Vatican tries to live in the world. The Sudan comes to mind and North Korea was probably on the list. It would be interesting to know if Syria’s central bank is part of our system or if we are to bomb Syria to save the petrodollar.

  15. Posted September 18, 2013 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

    My small thoughts on this general issue. I have concluded that a hierarchy within the Jewish population want an end-goal of being the only race on the planet. I think Jews have an inherent, genetically-based cognition of paranoia, ‘exceptionalism’, and misanthropy. I think that is why SOOOOOOO many of them act (within their positions of power in government; media; and corporations across the western world), towards the same interests of destroying white people (literally), and furthering Jewish power.

    White people are inherently Jews best enemy in terms of keeping them from world-domination. The Chinese are also, so far, a successful natural enemy of Jews.

    So, I don’t think Jews all over the world, in their increasing dominance of positions of power, are acting blindly with their efforts generally asserting Jewish dominance over the human population and eradicating White people’s population. I think those in power are aware of what they are working towards, and this is a trait (I think), that is only seen in the Jewish sub-species. No one else has that kind of unity. Perhaps because no one else is that in-bred.

    I have no idea what Putin’s end-game is, or whether he has one. There is a list on Stormfront of Jewish people in positions of power within Russia, and it is an ever-expanding list.

    The Jews obviously have a long-term plan, because they cannot win militarily in the destruction of the White race right now or any time in the past. I think they have a 200-year plan to eradicate us off the face of the planet. Russian domination is necessary to complete that plan. I don’t know what side Putin is on.

    I think the solution for us is to start being unabashedly vocal is our understanding of reality to everyone we come across. To everyone we talk to. We cower. We are afraid, and we are few in number (although growing per our White-world population).

    • Stronza
      Posted September 19, 2013 at 1:37 am | Permalink

      I have no idea what Putin’s end-game is, or whether he has one…I don’t know what side Putin is on.

      Exactly right.

  16. Frankc
    Posted September 18, 2013 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    “Those whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad. ” This is a case of Pat Buchanan quoting Enoch Powell quoting Euripides. Good company all.

    • White Republican
      Posted September 19, 2013 at 2:10 am | Permalink

      I think Revilo P. Oliver once paraphrased the saying as “Those who the Jews wish to destroy, they first make mad.” One might say that the Jews have weaponized insanity and superstition.

  17. WotanJugend
    Posted September 18, 2013 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

    It is under Putin’s regime that a russophobe’s article 282 was added to the criminal code and thousands of white nationalists (and I literately mean thousands, the number of right-wing political prisoners has reached 4000 in 2012) were prosecuted for their thoughts and actions. Just saying…

  18. Lew
    Posted September 19, 2013 at 11:54 am | Permalink


    The Russian economy is about 1.5 times bigger then the Italian, and the 7th largest in the world (beating the UK but just falling short of Germany). While the GDP per capita is far from Western European levels, Russia under Putin is catching up.

    Thank you. I stand corrected. Accuracy is important.

    The chart starts at 2001 and makes projections through 2018. Russia has definitely moved up under Putin. Russia didn’t hit the top 10 in world GDP until 2008 and is projected to be the 6th largest economy in the world by 2018. The projected order in 2018 is the US, China, Japan, Germany, Brazil and then Russia.

    Being cynical, however, I can’t help but immediately raise this question.

    How much of Russia’s growth stems from implementing Western economic methods, such as, for example, cheap immigrant labor? As is well known, Putin locked up some of the oligarchs that were exploiting Russian resources, but he works with others. If there really is an “ever expanding” list of powerful Jews around Putin, then that is very bad news.

    At the moment, I don’t have to time to research it; however, it would be interesting to learn how much of Russia’s recent growth has benefited ordinary Slavic Russians as opposed to oligarchs and the well connected with no interest in helping traditional Russians. With the American economy, it’s common knowledge that a tiny few at the top capture most of the benefit. This tiny few is among the most virulently anti-white people in the world.

    So who, exactly, within Russia’s elite circles is this Russian economic growth empowering? If it’s not empowering Russians whose goal it is to preserve and defend Russia’s historic Slavic core and culture, then Putin is not resisting Western globalism in defense of his people so much as setting up an alternate form of it. If this is the case, then white nationalists around the world looking to Putin and the East as alternative to American/Western globalism looks like a problematic position to take to me (with respect to Professor O’Meara).

    I have no way to verify this and do not know if it’s true, but a friend of mine who does business in Russia claims that Putin’s anti-homo laws, his support for the Orthodox Church, and his superficially appealing but non-substantive anti-immigrant rhetoric are window dressing for his real agenda. Putin promotes these things, according to my friend, to keep the Slavic masses behind him while he goes about implementing an economic agenda that harms them.

    On a related point, Brazil is an interesting case too. Brazil didn’t hit the top 10 in world GDP until 2005 and is projected to be the world’s fifth largest economy by 2018. It has to be one reason the American NSA has been spying on Brazil’s president and the Brazilian oil company Petrobras (and who knows who else among Brazil’s elite).

    American elites think of everything to their advantage. They appear to be working to get the upper-hand on Brazil. They have total control of the world’s financial system. They have the most powerful military. They control a literal Orwellian spy network, and they have the best propaganda machine pumping poison into the global consciousness 24/7/365. But for US elites, these things STILL don’t provide enough of an advantage. They also engage in corporate espionage and outright thievery.

    World leaders that work with the US and its close allies have to be doing so under coercion or must be incomprehensibly naïve just as GJ said.

    • White Republican
      Posted September 21, 2013 at 12:00 am | Permalink

      “I have no way to verify this and do not know if it’s true, but a friend of mine who does business in Russia claims that Putin’s anti-homo laws, his support for the Orthodox Church, and his superficially appealing but non-substantive anti-immigrant rhetoric are window dressing for his real agenda. Putin promotes these things, according to my friend, to keep the Slavic masses behind him while he goes about implementing an economic agenda that harms them.”

      If this is the case, parallels could be drawn between Vladimir Putin and Margaret Thatcher, with her phony patriotic credentials (embellished with the Falklands War), her comments on immigration and multiculturalism (which implied she was critical of these things, although she did nothing to stop or reverse them), her social conservatism of a symbolic and insubstantial nature (such as with Clause 28 against homosexual propaganda in schools), and her economic policies that enriched a small, often alien minority.

      By the way, whenever you hear references to the economy, you should ask “whose economy?” Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s remark that laws are “spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of government” is eminently applicable to economic relations.

  19. Gladiator
    Posted September 19, 2013 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

    Fantastic reading, excellent as usual. Nous somme en August 1914! Wow, exactly as I thought during those hectic September days when the white house butler had his fingers on the trigger. We are living a in a dangerous time as the powers that be react for the sake of reacting, oblivious to the aftermath.
    I think we came close to the WW3 like the October crisis of 1962!

  20. Arindam
    Posted September 19, 2013 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

    If there is one article that sums up, not just the Zeitgeist but the Zeitkrieg (i.e. not just the spirit of the times, but the war of our time) – this is it.

    [I’m not a German speaker, so I’m not sure if there is a word called ‘Zeitkrieg’ – but there ought to be.]

  21. Vick
    Posted September 21, 2013 at 9:41 pm | Permalink

    Reading these comments, I’m struck by how much more important Lew’s acknowledgment of what’s going on in Greece is over this vague geopolitical strategery going on vis a vis Putin and Obama. I mean, who cares?

    Greece is where pro-whites need to be watching and learning. For the collapsists – here’s a perfect case study. It’s happening NOW.

    I’ve heard a lot of great populist, third way-style economic policy ideas put forward on Counter-Currents – is there any way that these ideas could be given to Golden Dawn? Does anyone have a sense of whether Golden Dawn is up to this moment in history that they’ve been given? Are they worth supporting? How can we support them?

    Here’s a pro white party with real power facing an existential struggle but with real prospects for gaining more power. If there was a “WNN,” the situation in Greece would be running wall to wall.

  22. M.O.
    Posted September 22, 2013 at 2:06 am | Permalink

    Whatever Vladimir Putin’s failings, he alone on the world stage stands for order.

    That’s why he’s so important to us. We European Americans have been assaulted by the most vile of satanic disorders: America’s counter-civilizational system, whose rule is based on breakdown, dissolution, destructuration, and a hundred forms of disorder and inappropriate behavior that violate the sacred, prevent all resistance to its demented projects, and steer us toward the abyss.

    (Also, IMO, Thatcher was a prostitute, but Putin seems his own man.)

  23. Chinese John
    Posted September 22, 2013 at 2:10 am | Permalink

    Just to be clear, Syria’s primary deterrent against a NATO air attack is not its chemical weapons arsenal but the toll that its Russian-supplied SAMs could take on attacking NATO planes, and the prospect of the Lebanese Hezbollah raining thousands of rockets all over Israel.

    Nor is an Israeli nuclear attack on Damascus (as opposed to Tehran) much of a possibility given how close Damascus is to Israeli territory. Therefore, the Syrian chemical arms are arguably not needed to deter an Israeli nuclear attack. Based on what happened in 1973, the Israelis are not likely to nuke Syria unless they were facing massive conventional defeat.

    Furthermore, air attacks alone cannot route a conventional army. This was most recently shown by how the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 did little to degrade the JNA. Rather, Milosevic was tricked into accepting a peace plan that allowed NATO troops to garrison Kosovo as he had little effective foreign support. Assad is unlikely to fall for the same trick and he has solid foreign support from allies capable of intervening on his behalf. Nor are the Turks or Israelis likely to mount a ground invasion of Syria. Faced with these realities, the US military high command opposed military action and Putin’s proposal of internationally-supervised elimination of Syria’s chemical arms provided Obama with a face-saving way to at least delay such action.

  24. White Republican
    Posted September 22, 2013 at 3:51 am | Permalink

    I think what many commentators seem to miss in discussions of personalities such as Vladimir Putin, and whether they’re acting for or against us, is that one needs to address the matter from the perspective of realpolitik. What exactly are they doing, and what does this mean for us?

    I’m not sure what to make of Putin. He’s no White nationalist, but if Michael O’Meara is right concerning Putin’s geopolitics, he might prove to be the “icebreaker” of the “order” imposed by America. In historical terms, this would be far more significant than the current advances made by Golden Dawn in Greece, which is not to dismiss or belittle the latter.

  25. Lew
    Posted September 22, 2013 at 11:22 am | Permalink

    I think GJ is right that as incredible as it seems from a WNst POV a lot of people around the world must be very naive about how the Americans who hold the power positions operate.

    There is an article on Reuters about how the “Syrian” rebels and their Sunni sponsors feel betrayed. The US promised an attack on their behalf but did not deliver. Yeah, well, what did you expect when you got into bed with Americans? Those dumb ass jihadis apparently think that Americans are seriously interested in helping them as opposed to using them.

    That Russian foreign minister Lavrov doesn’t seem like a fool. Surely that man must realize that Americans will break any commitments that they made that redound to Russia’s benefit at the earliest opportunity.

Post a Comment

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.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace