1,294 words
I’d like to say that the assassination of Qasem Soleimani isn’t the end of the world, but it’s too soon to say, because World Wars have started with similar provocations.
It is, however, safe to say that Donald Trump has made his dumbest foreign policy decision yet, for the same reason he made all of his other dumb foreign policy decisions: listening to the Israel First lobby (“neocons”) who basically control the Republican Party when it comes to foreign policy.
Assassinating a foreign general is an act of war. It doesn’t matter if Trump denies that. It doesn’t matter if he says it ends here. That is not in his hands. Whether it ends here is now in the hands of Iran, and the Iranians say they want revenge. If Iran — or its proxies, or its allies, or independent sympathizers, or even Israelis acting under a false flag — assassinate an American general or carry out a terrorist attack on American soil, then the US will retaliate. Trump has already promised to destroy Iranian targets, including — taking a page from the Taliban and ISIS — important cultural sites.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The White Nationalist Manifesto here
The stupidity of risking war with Iran was made crystal clear by the announcement on December 30, 2019, of a Taliban cease-fire in Afghanistan as a prelude to signing a peace treaty with the United States. The Taliban is an Islamic political movement that ruled Afghanistan from 1998 to 2001, when the US overthrew them. George W. Bush was told it would be a “cakewalk” and that Americans would be “greeted as liberators.” But the Taliban smoothly transitioned from ruling government to guerilla insurgency. And 18 years later — after more than three thousand US coalition deaths, uncounted injuries, uncounted Afghan deaths and injuries, and billions of dollars in expenditures — a few thousand medieval fanatics have fought the United States to a draw, and we are now contemplating a peace agreement with them. (Because negotiating with terrorists is something that we do all the time.)
The same people who sold George W. Bush on the idea that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would be cakewalks are steering Donald Trump toward a war with Iran. Iran has a mountainous terrain similar to neighboring Afghanistan. But the similarities end there. Iran is a nation of 82 million people. It has a huge standing army with high-tech weapons, which the Russians and Chinese are eager to resupply. Iran has allies all over the Muslim world and beyond. There is also an Iranian diaspora in Europe and the United States (two million in the US alone), some of whom are Iranian government assets and many more of whom would side with Iran if the US started attacking their cousins. Does the United States, a nation that is now politically divided about even having a border, have the political will to intern two million Iranians?
Beyond that, when the US attacked Afghanistan and Iraq, it enjoyed a great deal of international sympathy due to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That good will has been spent. Moreover, the US was united behind George W. Bush. Trump is a highly polarizing figure, at home and abroad. He simply does not have the capital to start a war, unless he wants to sacrifice his reelection bid and his place in history to the Moloch in Jerusalem. (He might.)
You can buy Greg Johnson’s Toward a New Nationalism here
America is a much weaker country today than in 2001, in large part because of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. A war in Iran might be the last straw. This could be the end of the American Empire, and there is reason to wonder if the regime at home could survive the collapse of its empire.
In the eyes of people all over the globe, Trump’s assassination of Soleimani makes America look weak rather than strong. That’s why Iraq’s parliament has voted to expel the US from its soil. As soon as the US is overextended in Iran, expect terrorism, revolutions, coups, and insurgencies in every outpost of the American Empire.
So, at the very least, we can say that an American war against Iran would have a much worse outcome for America than our war in Afghanistan.
But we all knew that something like this could happen from the very start of Trump’s candidacy. Despite his promises of an America First foreign policy, Trump parroted the worst neocon talking points about Iran. I still supported Trump, however, because on balance the rest of his policies were good — some of them decisive breaks with Republican orthodoxy. Beyond that, the alternative was Hillary Clinton.
I take solace in the fact that the pain we are feeling at every new blustering Tweet — the embarrassment, the cringe that reaches to our very core, continuing on into the subatomic level — must be what Leftists are feeling every single day.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s Confessions of a Reluctant Hater here
So what should White Nationalists do about this horrible blunder?
First, we take stock: there are some things we can do, and some things that we can’t.
We have a shrinking number of beleaguered outposts on the internet from which we can speak the truths that the establishment denies. And despite all the attempts to deplatform us, our audience and our credibility are growing. This is where we need to concentrate our efforts. No matter what Trump’s blunder leads to, we can turn it to our advantage by using it as an opportunity to speak forbidden truths.
In this case, the most target-rich environment is on the Right. Soleimani’s assassination is a great opportunity to educate our people about:
- Jewish influence on American foreign policy: how the preferences of more than 60 million Americans who voted for an America First foreign policy were canceled by a few Jewish billionaires like Sheldon Adelson who want Israel to always come first
- The bloody-minded stupidity of Republicans who are cheering on the most reckless foreign adventure of the last fifty years
- The bloody-minded stupidity of the Republican grifters who have taken over the MAGA movement and made it indistinguishable from the neocons who brought us the disasters in Afghanistan and Iraq
- The truth about people who might be mistaken for our allies but who are now taking positions indistinguishable from neocons, e.g., Nick Fuentes, Curt Doolittle, Anne Marie Waters, Katie Hopkins, Tommy Robinson
We will never have a genuine National Populist movement and an America First foreign policy until we clean house of the people who have polluted the American Right with neocon talking points, bellicose delusions about American exceptionalism, and the idea that America’s status as the vanguard of liberal degeneracy gives us the right to force it on the rest of the world at gunpoint.
For the most part, our forces are doing a very good job so far, but I have three caveats.
- We lack the numbers, money, or legitimacy to constitute a voting bloc, so pretending that we are going to punish Trump by throwing the election to the Democrats just makes us sound like hysterical fantasists, which undermines the credibility that is one of our biggest assets.
- Right now, the United States is in the intolerable position of being merely a plaything of Jewish interests. It is a failure to take our own side, however, if we simply reflexively take the side of our enemy’s enemies.
- Suggesting that we should put the likes of Elizabeth Warren in the White House because of Iran is tantamount to saying that we would hasten to destroy America because we suddenly identify with a Muslim nation — or, what is closer to the truth: that we hate Israel more than we love ourselves.
While the rest of the world loses its head about the new Iran Crisis, we need to keep calm and exploit this golden Iran Opportunity.
57 Comments
I was waiting for you to write an article like this explaining how this can be a game-changer for us if we play it right.
A lot of faux-right wing grifters are going to get found out sooner or later this year because where they stand on this issue is a real litmus test. I’ve come to a full understanding of the JQ later than a lot of people on here but spreading awareness of the nature of Jewish power is everything, and there’s never been a better chance to educate people as to why Trump’s done a 180 on his campaign promises with this being election year and everything.
Full ethnonationalism is the logical next step once the Zio right loses all credibility. Interesting times!
Dr Johnson,
Can you expand on the comment about people who we think are our allies taking neocon positions?
Nick Fuentes? Curt Doolittle? Are they taking pro-war stances?
I’d also like to understand whats going on there.
Well then go and find out. A simple YouTube (Fuentes) or Facebook (Doolittle) search will do.
Well put. I see this assassination as yet another move in a pattern of escalating antagonizations against Iran on the part of the US and it’s proxies, similar to the seizure of the Iranian oil tanker earlier this year. Any of these acts could be a cause of war or lead to a retaliation which could escalate into a casus belli. The pattern has been going on since immediately after the Iraq war with an escalating intensity. A constant rolling of the dice, as it were.
It was exactly the same in the ten years leading up to the Iraq invasion for those readers old enough to recall that period. There was always something in the news, e.g. a scud missile retaliation against Iraq because of an alleged assassination plot against bush 1, as word of mouth as I’ve ever heard, but we trusted our government more in those days. The strangulation blockade was in place, all the same as they’re doing to Iran. Of course Iraq was a bit weaker and Hussein a genuinely wicked character, so we are told.
It creates in the public mind the idea that “Iran is a growing problem and has it coming.” Partisan lines are formed, as one can’t feel a good maga or trump supporter without supporting his actions. I bet we will be at war with Iran in 10 years or so.
“Iran is a growing problem and has it coming.” The media did the same thing to Germany in the years leading up to World War One.
And World War 11.
Mr. Johnson, you write “We have a shrinking number of beleaguered outposts on the internet from which we can speak the truths that the establishment denies. And despite all the attempts to deplatform us, our audience and our credibility are growing.”
The silver lining here is that WN content necessarily becomes less mercurial as it is relegated to fewer and fewer sites. There is an advantage in not being so balkanized – less “signal jamming” and more authoritative voices. It’s not ideal, but the goal is to spin difficult circumstances to our advantage, as with Machiavellian virtu or the Roman maxim amor fati.
Glad you mention Fuentes. Sad and bizarre to see him shill for this, but he has hitched his wagon too firmly to Trump. While the Groyper War was refreshing, Fuentes was never going to be a long-term leader, because he’s more Catholic Integralist than WN.
Alas, it’s not just Fuentes. Over half of his Groypers and followers seem to support him. That shows you what Groyperism really is. If that many of them show support for this, can you imagine how many more would fall for other, less egregious, but still awful things.
Groyperism is just the flavor of the month. Fuentes’ MO is to tear down the movement to build his own cult of personality. He can do that for a while, because a huge part of the movement consists of bored online nihilists who want to join the latest sociopath’s cult of personality. But fundamentally selfish people can’t build anything that lasts. It didn’t last for Spencer and it won’t last for Fuentes. After trashing people’s lives like a tornado ripping through a trailer park, Fuentes will crash and burn, and his followers will move on.
I just watched a stream of Nick Fuentes taking an anti-war stance, and yet people call him a neocon shill.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JZlgyyoMsdA&t=10s
1 hour and 38 min in is his statement on the war with Iran. Is there something i’m not getting here?
Nick is all over the place. He is not to be taken seriously. Imagine getting to 1:38 of listening to Fuentes. Life’s too short.
Lol i agree. I found the 1:38 mark in the comments and only listened to that part. I’m not a fan of Nick’s but i think he has some value in the movement, atleast to newcomers.
it would be interesting to see where he actually says the things he is accused of.
What specifically has he said that is in any way neoconservative or neocon-adjacent? I’m confused.
“What specifically has he said that is in any way neoconservative or neocon-adjacent?”
Nothing. Watch his latest stream.
Scroll up. He’s a blovating burgertard.
Yikes not a good look for him. I’m sure most of those cultural sites probably came from pre-Islamic Persia too, and their loss would be terrible.
I’m willing to forgive the over-the-top statements of a 21-year old though. I have younger brothers who say dumb shit. He still has done some great work
I’ll tune back in in a few years.
He’s not really “shilling” for it. Spencer, Hunter Wallace, et al, are straw-manning him. The screen shot of Fuentes’s Telegram account making the rounds is not supporting war with Iran, he was merely saying that of all the reasons to oppose it, kvetching about cultural sites, violating fictitious international law and bypassing Congress in killing Soleimani are all very weak (and stupid) ones.
This rhetoric is full burgertard cringe.
I’ll tune back in in five years to see if this punk has grown any.
Until then Fuentes is on snooze.
I encourage everyone to read The Transparent Cabal by Stephen Sniegoski if they haven’t already.
Thank you. I had not heard of this book.
The BBC interviewed three people about the Trump murder, on the one o’clock news today – Dominic Raab, Jack Straw and Tom Tughendat. All of them Jews.
Awe, the “wonderful” Jews who support Israel’s “sniping at the eyes” campaign against civilian protestors of all ages in Gaza and their ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Christians. What an evil group of people.
Greg, you write: “In the eyes of people all over the globe, Trump’s assassination of Soleimani makes America look weak rather than strong.”
Let me put the counter-argument here. The people who run the American Empire have the same mind-set of all – successful- rulers, “Let then hate, as long as they fear.”
Let us imagine how this war might play out: The rulers of Iran have publicly threatened revenge. Suppose they attack and destroy a US military base in the Gulf, Bahrain possibly. There is then the possibility that the US response may take the form of a strike on Iran’s Fordow Uranium enrichment facility at Qom, Iran. American Zionist leaders and Israeli politicians have been agitating for such an attack for years. To be effective against the Fordow facility, buried as it is in the side of a mountain – such a strike would have to employ a nuclear weapon
The world would of course stand aghast: there would be plenty of hatred aimed at America, but also a great deal of fear. That’s how empires are ruled.
This title of this article is : the Iran opportunity.
I think that the lesson that the wise may learn from the present debacle is that bombs and bullets , military might is not the answer to US hegemony. As I wrote the other day on your site: the earlier president of Iran, Ahmadi-nezad , had the right idea when he organised a free debate on revisionist history back in December 2006: the late great professor Robert Faurisson was one of the participants: speak the Truth and shame the Devil: St. John chapter 8 verse 32.
I think that if Iran were nuked, Jews would be lynched from the lampposts of New York City. Their power is ocean wide but very shallow. The smart ones know that. But it would not be the first time they overreached. But such a course as you describe would not be a carefully calculated one but a gamble or aa blunder.
One might also add that America’s military adventures, to which the UK usually subscribes its own woefully-equipped troops, have been of questionable benefit to European nations.
They invariably add yet more tributaries to the flood of (genuine or bogus) refugees seeking to enter our Continent. Existing Muslim minorities become restive and emboldened by public sympathy. ‘Terror’ resumes the agenda and liberties are irreversibly jettisoned to combat the ‘threat’.
There is a case for the safeguarding the flow of still vital natural resources in the MENA geopolitical theatre, but beyond that history teaches there is only ruin in attempting to micromanage that region’s fractious nations and ethnicities.
“…Suggesting that we should put the likes of Elizabeth Warren in the White House because of Iran is tantamount to saying that we would hasten to destroy America…” Are you encouraging people to vote for Trump? It’s unclear. This seems very vague.
Well here’s the tit in response to the tat
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/politics/rockets-us-airbase-iraq/index.html
Whelp, here’s another opportunity, looks like! What would you guys do if there was a draft?
The thing about Trump is he is a master of hiding his intentions and a master of rhetoric. Politics between world leaders is like a game of poker. Trump, quite frankly, is a master of this. He used this strategy against North Korea brilliantly. Remember the hell and lakes of fire talk?
Iran payed attention to that, and they noticed Trump used no violence against North Korea, so they probably decided Trump bluffed – or maybe Trump assumes they think this. So what taking out this general is, is Trump projecting an “unpredictableness.” And Iran suddenly thinks he wasn’t bluffing about North Korea.
I think we need to stop wetting ourselves every time Trump drops a bomb. I understand why people are upset- I’m against war too, but America has to project strength while at the same time, winding down our empire – which is indeed happening, btw. Otherwise, it’ll be a rout which will be extremely demoralizing and our enemies will sense this and strike wherever we are.
We are negotiating with the Taliban atm, we will also negotiate peace with Iran as well, probably soon. Meanwhile, our “movement” will look silly and weak for freaking out over very little. Trump is no idiot and we are still naive when it comes to real politic.
The thing about Trump is he is a master of hiding his intentions and a master of rhetoric. Politics between world leaders is like a game of poker. Trump, quite frankly, is a master of this.
Not really. It only looks that way to some people. He is not “playing poker”; his brain and character are diseased and disordered – he doesn’t know what is going to emanate from his mouth next any more than we do.
The Ron Paul types are 5 to 10% of the overall electorate, so in that context “we” can doom Trump AND the GOP, but they are accomplishing that themselves.
The real question is do you or I want to be trapped in a padded cell with a lot of these “glass parking lot” types and “rapture / Jeebus” types that Trump’s Folly has stirred up?
When the nation arises / for the nation to arise we must teach our children power which includes wisdom, not this filth.
What exactly is wrong with Nick Fuentes?
He responded to Trump’s tweet about destroying Iranian cultural sites as “Epic.” That was an exceptionally bad take from a guy who has mostly been pretty good with the hot takes. But understand that Fuentes has also referred to Greg Johnson as an “irrelevant egg-headed intellectual,” (I’m paraphrasing but I think that’s essentially the language he used) despite CC publishing several articles in support of Fuentes and the Groypers while he was being attacked from all sides.
@RobBottom: That egghead remark is actually quite flattering to GJ, since it implies a civnat cultural cringe. Fuentes just wants to be a feisty young conservative, tossing easy spitballs in hopes of becoming another Tucker Carlson (1990s vintage): bratty, but safe enough for cable chatshows.
It’s been extremely disappointing reading the insane responses to this assassination by people within the “conservative movement” on Twitter and Fox News video comment sections; I kinda thought we were passed the “lets turn them into glass” nonsense. Someone on Hannity actually said “we may need to fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here,” yikes. However, I am happy that Tucker and Ann Coulter have defied the narrative along with, shockingly, Charlie Kirk.
Also, were all of you aware that, according to Mike Pence, Shi’a Iran planned 9/11 with Saudi Sunni Wahhabis’?
This is what it must have been like for the Romans to be ruled over by Elagabalus and think to themselves “wtf is going on?”
That Charlie Kirk has taken that stance with Tucker and Coulter makes Fuentes look really stupid.
If white nationalists always kept the 14 words uppermost in their minds, we could stay focused on what really matters. Why must the pro-white movement even have opinions on everything?
What matters is ending nonwhite immigration; deporting nonwhite illegals; documenting scientific and sociological racial realities; discouraging miscegenation; and encouraging white natality and the defense of white rights and interests. I appreciate the work of Kevin MacDonald and others of his bent, but I think the whole JQ is a waste of time (let alone controversial discussions of political economy and foreign policy) when set against our true priorities. If we simply build up our own race pride and identity and strength, the JQ will eventually be minimized as a matter of course. OTOH, if we do not stop immigration, miscegenation, and the continuous reduction in white racial-communal liberty, then redpilling on the JQ will have no lasting consequences.
And you seriously believe this laudable White agenda you outline can be addressed without addressing the JQ? You are quite a character. A very suspicious one I would say.
Anglin has a very sage article up about sedition. I think it is important for people to heed his warnings.
https://dailystormer.name/if-war-is-to-begin-youre-going-to-want-to-not-commit-sedition/
Mr. Wilkinson,
I disagree. You say killing Soleimani was a blunder because of his status as a general. Do you think he should have been allowed to continue murdering and mutilaing Americans via his proxies?To continue his whirlwind tour of terror around the world? Him and his cronies were also murdering fellow Iranians and Iraqis. Not a nice guy.
I think Trump via his intelligence sources were right. Soleimani was about to do something really bad. Fuck his status as a general or a well liked hero among his psychopathic religious fanatics, which is what rules Iran to the chagrin of most Iranians. So I do not think most Iranians in the West would stand behind such a regime and would be ecstatic to see it fall.
When you play with the big boys and go around murdering people (which is morally wrong) then what do you expect? For everyone to say we do not want to upset the apple cart and therefore we will not do nothing and allow you to continue your butcher spree in the name of your fanatical ideology because God forbid if we upset you and your followers. The Bastard had it coming! Those that live by the sword; die by the sword.
Jewish influence is powerful but I do not think every decision is made to keep Jew or Israel happy. Killing the Bastard most likely saved American lives and sent a clear message to quit doing it. It should have been done sooner. I am sure a lot of Iranians are happy he is dead. As the Bible say; When the wicked perish, there is shouting.
Black Elk
“Do you think he should have been allowed to continue murdering and mutilaing Americans via his proxies?”
I don’t know. From their perspective America is the invader, not the other way around. Have they got it wrong? Murderer is good – who started murdering whom first and revenge thus on the same level (eye-for-an-eye). Someone is suckering someone by means of disinformation (“active measures” – look up this term on Wikipedia).
Just turn the tables around geographically – USA is Iran or Iraq, and then comes across the ocean with its army to the USA. No offence meant. I am looking for answers. I understand your emotions. One does not want your people to be killed. Nor would I have mine killed. The buck stops at the top and the lower ranks are unfortunately cannon fodder, lacking the information the people have at the top. Look how the Soviet common soldier had to go to war to liberate Afghanistan or for that matter closer to South Africa, Angola and the poor Cuban sod who had to die for his master was shot by us to pieces, not exactly knowing what was going on but was told it was for his country. Or Stalins Great Patriotic War. WWI and WWII, lots of examples. Very careful that the US patriot (the normal US John Citizen is the good guy but mislead) does not land in the same position. Right still remains right and wrong remains wrong. People of Middle Eastern origin less civilized warfare, the Mullahs, etc. That is their way, who are we to judge. Did they invite the USA? Our blacks have the same problem. Those are traits. And they can’t fight back in the sam manner -they don’t have the vast resources of the US, so they return to a guerilla war (like with us in Namibia back then – SWAPO – and most of the time in Angola).
But still one has to untangle this mess like a court case who is the culprit, otherwise we might all land in a global dictatorship. As I understand it we now stand in the Endgame phase of the globalists, the longterm plan being the Middle-East part must be subjected to a softening-up barrage according to the Yinon plan that aims at a balkanisation of the Arab world and the forming of a Greater Israel.
All part of a bigger plan of the globalist toward a World Republic. Also see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_P._M._Barnett
“Him and his cronies were also murdering fellow Iranians and Iraqis.”
What were the exact circumstances? I cannot find a source which explain those actions from their perspective. Perhaps there was a good reason, perhaps not. I never hear their side. One must always listen to both sides. no matter what. Sounds to me like South Africa back then – a world wide complete blanket of silence on the Apartheid government perspective.
World Republic – the main target is however not the Middle-East. It is Europe, the heartland of western civilization of the historical germanic people (i.e. your blood, you, the whiteman), there where the American roots are (America and South Africa are colonies of the peoples migration from heartland Europe where civilization started). The heartland is represented by where the greatest potential threat due to its historical role is seen by these globalists if it would arise again, namely the centre of Europe, that country surrounded by 8 EU countries. If it falls (economic giant/EU milk cow, political dwarf), the rest falls. We are talking here of perceptions where people might differ, but these perceptions are not completely without a foundation. Apartheid South Africa had some similarities, thus also had to be removed from the scene. One does not want to have a country and safe base with strong personalities in it which could become a second America but with the wrong kind of ideology (for the globalists) running it.
Yes, it is the “world Republic” the globalists are striving to establish, and that means the destruction of Europe. America, not necessarily the American people, are at the vanguard of that evil enterprise.
Two world wars were orchestrated to bring Europe to its present condition, but I’m uncertain as to how a war with Iran will cause weakening of Europe, other than by instigating a massive refugee crisis within Iran or causing a political upheaval in Algeria, which has no links with Iran?
Where Iran fits in: not a middle-eastern vasal state of Israel, thus in the way of the Yinon plan.
Barbara Lerner Spectre in a 2010 Israeli Broadcaster interview, she advocated an Europe in which the jews should play a leading role. So as to combat anti-semetism, the European nations have to be dissolved and mixed with masses of migrants from the globalised world. This is not only historically inevitable, but a moral imperative.
Freemasons in step with the official strategies of the EU:
28 European grand lodges demanded in a press communication on 7.9.2015 that all member states of the EU to receive migrants in unlimited numbers.
The ultimate goal: cultural genocide by islamisation.
I’m not sure I follow. You disagree about Anglin’s sedition article?
Though I do certainly have an opinion about Trump assassinating a foreign leader, I haven’t expressed it in the comment you reached to.
Thank you
I assume you are addressing Black Elk. The Daily Stormer link – it is always an issue to keep in the back of ones mind. I know what happened in the USA and UK during WWII during martial law.
What worries me more is this one:
https://dailystormer.name/77-of-americans-still-cant-identify-iran-on-a-map/
Thanks for the referral. Makes sense. We don’t want to end up like America First during WW2
1933 Judea declares war on Germany and her people.
1945 The Jew-instigated terror-bombing of German cities is in full swing culminating in the actual “holocaust” of the city of Dresden.
The real issue is: what can the Nationalist movement do to politically exploit any US war with Iran?
There’s been some commentary that the situation post-Soleimani is similar to that following the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. Well, not really, January 2020 is not August 1914. Perhaps the situation can be likened to August 1964, the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Regardless, a war can become a political crisis which divides ruling elites and radicalizes a wide sector of the middle class.
World War I ended with the downfall of various European monarchies, the discrediting of parliamentarianism, and the ascendancy of ideologies like communism and fascism to state power. The political effects of Vietnam are well known: the rise of the counter-culture, the downfall of two presidents, and campus upheavals which laid the foundation for the current leftist hegemony over American society.
In the short run, President Trump’s military action has rallied much of the pro-military sector as well as those Americans still smarting over the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979-81. This may also be a “Wag the Dog” moment which will hand over the coming presidential election to Trump.
Would the US actually try to occupy Iran? More likely, a military campaign would revolve around selected missile and bomber strikes, the Navy clearing the Persian Gulf of Iranian shipping, special forces supporting anti-regime insurgents, and a cyberwar offensive.
In the long run, this could be a war too far. It could discredit the System regardless of the military outcome and Red Pill more Americans. On the other hand, the Iranian situation might fizzle and become last week’s news.
What’s needed among Nationalists is a debate on tactics given the possibility of war.
What’s this about Curt Doolittle espousing neocon lines?
Well I’m won’t vote for him again, not that that matters considering the state I live in. Interesting about Fuentes. His colors are known now. The business about bombing cultural sites was beyond the pale. Perhaps Fuentes doesn’t realize that those are mankind’s cultural sites, which includes stupid Americans like him.
“Fuentes” doesn’t sound very American, though …
Reference found on David Irvings fpp.co.uk website (it is really worthwhile to now and then to read his observations):
“The assertions being repeated today seem based on apparently groundless claims from twelve years ago by the same people who said Iraq possessed weapons, weapons programs, and weapons systems that were such a grave threat that they ignited the U.S.-Iraq war.”
https://progressive.org/dispatches/-no-evidence-iran-is-responsible-for-the-deaths-of-hundreds-of-americans-zunes-200107/
This post sums up the Iran situation:
https://www.culturecritique.com/politics/more-jewish-war-in-the-middle-east/
Nice to see the American far right and far left continue to agree on things…which isn’t to say I don’t agree, except of course there is a difference between the goals of the (political and military) State of Israel/The Likud and the goals of Geddy Lee’s bass playing style. Sheeesh…