Print this post Print this post

The Totemic War Against the Islamic Caliphate

933 words

More mush from the chimp: Obama declares war on ISIS

More mush from the chimp: Obama declares war on ISIS

The sudden enthusiasm of the Obama regime for a war against the Islamic State (IS) is interesting because it seems so out of character. The timing is particularly interesting because up until recent weeks the US government had been doing all it could to back out of the Middle East. It is also well known that IS and its predecessors (ISIS and ISIL) had been butchering and raping with impunity, and, either directly or indirectly, had been supported by the US and its allies.

Furthermore, it is the political consensus between informed and disinterested parties almost everywhere that whatever America does in this latest conflict, it will not bring order or solve the basic problem. Even if IS can be destroyed, its destruction will be meaningless because America has no intention of filling the resulting a vacuum and is reluctant to allow the rise of any state that can.

So, why is America pointlessly intervening again in the Middle East again? Some will see it as part of a new geopolitical Chaos Theory aimed at serving Israeli interests, the idea being that Israel, in order to survive, needs to be “vacuum-packed” by the chaos of its Arab neighbours, as this both weakens them while also galvanizing Israelis to support their own geopolitically bankrupt state.

This is a cute theory, but ultimately unconvincing because chaos was doing just fine without further US involvement. The simple choice on the table was Middle Eastern chaos involving America and Middle Eastern chaos not involving America.

But, if the point of the exercise is not to stop the chaos or win any meaningful victory, there can be only one possible deduction: the point of this so-called war is simply for America to be involved in a war (or something that can plausibly be called a war). America has to be seen to be fighting a war. That is the point of this latest conflict.

Many people will find this hard to fathom, but a war against ISIS has many advantages. Firstly, it is a war fought in the wide open spaces of desert countries with plenty of scope for US armaments to explode impressively and without too many civilian casualties. Secondly, it is a war fought against an almost perfect pantomime villain (only actual Nazis with monocles would be better). Thirdly, American forces are unlikely to be defeated or even seriously embarrassed, especially as most of their fighting will be by remote control, from high in the sky, and by special ops. Their affirmative action hirings and women soldiers are unlikely to be anywhere near the action. Fourthly, like a race in a more progressive children’s school, there is no finish line.

America doesn’t have to win to say they won. They just have to generate a lot of “sound and fury signifying nothing.” The fact that the conflict is three-cornered, with Assad’s Syria also involved, and is also complicated by the involvement of several other mutual rivals – the Kurds, Iran, and various Gulf states – can only help this obfuscation of decisiveness.

What this war does is allow America to thump its chest and holler. The more timid members of the international community might even mistake this for strength. The President can do his sub-Churchillian act to the teleprompters; the media can make references to our “brave allies” and “evil enemies”; misdrawn maps can pop up on CNN demonstrating American power extending into unknown regions; armchair generals can rake over new grainy footage of ghost-like figures being annihilated by laser-directed strikes, etc., etc. Pass the popcorn.

But even without significant casualties such entertainment works out expensively. Why this sudden decision for America to strut its stuff and flex its increasingly saggy muscles? The answer is that this war is essentially totemic – a chance for America to construct a Potemkin village of Superpower power – a thin, plywood version of real strength and power. And the reason this is happening now is because the American deep state has been made to feel weak, impotent, and on its way out.

It is no coincidence that the sudden enthusiasm for this war followed directly in the wake of the resurgence of the Russian position in the Ukraine.

America was never going to fight a direct war against the Russians, but there was a feeling that by supporting Poroshenko and applying sanctions and diplomatic pressure the brakes could be slowly put on the Russians, while the Ukrainians did the dirty work of finishing off the rebels. The events of recent weeks, when Russia turned up its dial of support for the rebels, showed that this was not to be the case. It became clear that Putin was prepared to do whatever was necessary to get a positive result for his Kremlin state, and was doing this in just the right way to maintain support at home without provoking too much opposition among Europeans and other third parties. America realized it had lost this struggle.

Then like some pathetic suitor who had been turned down by a woman out of his league, America felt emasculated and need to prove its masculinity once again. This is why America has made a sudden and unexpected return to the political whorehouse of the Middle East, the place where a big boy with plenty of petrodollars can be made to feel like a real man again by banging some unwashed, sloe-eyed little slut who might claw his back and hiss like a bitch while he does it.


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


  1. Franklin Ryckaert
    Posted September 15, 2014 at 3:14 pm | Permalink

    “…chaos was doing just fine without further US involvement…”

    Not true, there were a lot of stable (and secular!) regimes in the Arab world before US involvement : Iraq of Saddam Hussein, Tunesia of Ben Ali, Egypt of Mubarak, Libya of Qadhafi and Syria of Bashar Assad.

    Israel does have a “Chaos Theory” as a plan for ME hegemony : the infamous Oded Yinon Plan. See : “Greater Israel”, the Zionist plan for the Middle East,

    The recent US declaration of war against ISIS in Syria is only a subterfuge to topple Bashar Assad, which was foiled by Putin in 2013.

    There is no US policy in the Middle East that does not serve Israeli interests. To suggest that the recent move of the US was made only for psychological reasons ignores the underlying realities of Jewish power in the US.

    • Colin Liddell
      Posted September 17, 2014 at 11:08 pm | Permalink

      I can’t be expected to precisely define each statement beyond all ambiguity all the time. That would make any article unreadable. An article is ultimately a dialogue between the views expressed by the writer and the reasonable understanding of the reader. So, yes, there will always be room for willful misunderstandings like yours.

      In the context of the article it is obvious that by “US involvement” I am referring to direct military involvement of the type declared by Obama. No doubt, in a number of nefarious ways, the US has been continuously involved in the events in Syria and Iraq for some time. This is all obvious and doesn’t need to be spelled out as if teaching remedial class.

      You also say that America is only doing this to help Israel. That idea is addressed in the article. The Middle East already has sufficient chaos at the moment, so it would be uneconomic, even for an entirely Jewish-controlled America with a policy of a chaos buffer zone for Israel, to waste chaos-creating power by making yet more superfluous chaos.

      • Andrew
        Posted September 23, 2014 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

        I find this article to be unconvincing. The author’s main point seems to be that the U.S. is involved in the Middle East in order to “thump its chest and holler”, which I take to mean that the U.S. is seeking to gain or maintain status and the appearance of strength and relevance as an international power.

        I think that the evidence of Israel’s near total control of America’s Middle East policy is so overwhelming that to discount it renders any analysis of the subject incomplete at best. Some important points that may not have been fully addressed in this article are:
        1) A great part of political funds come from Jewish sources in the U.S. (over half of the Democratic party’s funding according to reliable reports accepted by the mainstream). These sources are overwhelmingly supportive of Israel.
        2) Israel is pursuing it’s interests in directions that it feels is best. Israel is run by highly intelligent and sophisticated leaders and planners. It’s policies are not accidental or random.
        3) Destabilizing hostile neighbors is an ancient policy, used generously by the Romans, for example, in dealing with their potentially fractious and hostile neighbors throughout its history.
        4) The presence of the mainly Jewish neo-cons in formulating U.S. policy during the Bush Jr. era, and the current presence of powerful pro-Israel Jewish figures in the current regime is very well documented.

        With this in mind, the theory of “American chest-beating” as proposed by this author, in my view, is far less convincing than the theory of “Israel is in the driver’s seat”.

  2. Colin Liddell
    Posted September 17, 2014 at 11:18 pm | Permalink

    Thanks, James. My idea is not so much that it’s connected to the electoral cycle, but more a question of maintaining US “mojo.” Gangsters always have to look mean and tough, even when they’re not, because the knives are always waiting. America’s economy – essentially the dollar – is intrinsically linked to a totemic image of America as supreme superpower. It is a reputational superpower. After proving impotent in the Ukraine it needs to be seen quickly slapping someone else, anyone. Not so different to how apes behave.

  3. John Doeman
    Posted September 18, 2014 at 11:14 am | Permalink

    I think there is some substance to the theory that these wars serve Israeli interests. While it is true that there would be chaos in the region with or without American involvement. U.S. intervention has been used to topple Arab-nationalist leaders like Saddam and Qaddafi, who could pose a greater threat to Israel by forming an Arab Union. This theory would explain why the U.S. tried to topple Assad. And, most likely, if the U.S. were to take out Assad, it would then go after Iran. Also, attacks on these guerrillas would be more politically acceptable than attacks on a sovereign state. They could be cut down like insects without much outcry from the “international community.”

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

    Here’s the Thing

    Trevor Lynch: Part Four of the Trilogy

    Graduate School with Heidegger

    It’s Okay to Be White


    The Enemy of Europe

    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