The West Against White America:
Hail the Russian East!

pb-130617-obama-putin-meeting.photoblog900 [1]4,681 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:

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 [2]: “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.