The opinion polls in the US show broad based support for escalation with Iran amongst the Republicans (84%), despite their drift towards “America First”. 
Although some marginal libertarians, paleocons, and Alt Righters (such as Richard Spencer) may have stridently opposed this, all of this is perfectly compatible with mainstream Republican voters, including the nationalist/America First elements (as reading the standard Alt Liters like Ari Fleischer, Posobiec, Ian Cheong, Andy Ngo, Paul Joseph Watson, etc. will quickly reveal).
In contrast, it is the hard left in the US that takes the most consistent stand against escalating in Iran. The popular leftist subreddit /r/ChapoTrapHouse upvoted “seditious” calls to side with Iran to the top throughout the crisis.
But at least the US has some genuine beef with Iran (if for retarded reasons), and it is Europe that will bear most of the consequences (e.g. refugee outflows) from a large Middle East war. In fact, the more aggressive and cynical American nationalists may consider weakening Europe – and, potentially, China, should the Strait of Hormuz be shut down – as feature, not bug. But nationalists in Europe have no such excuse. Logically, then, it should be the national populists who are most opposed to it. Right. Right?
Well, not in Italy, at any rate…
Most of Italian politicians call to make every effort to avoid further escalation after #Soleimani’s death. #Salvini tweets his wholehearted endorsement of #Trump air op and disappoints sections of his sovereignist followers, who condemn the #Usairstrike https://t.co/lLLFPZ224P
— Ugo Gaudino (@GaudinoUgo) January 3, 2020
UgoGaudino: “Most of Italian politicians call to make every effort to avoid further escalation after #Soleimani’s death. #Salvini tweets his wholehearted endorsement of #Trump air op and disappoints sections of his sovereignist followers, who condemn the #Usairstrike”
And I do suspect it might reflect underlying voter preferences. For instance, as I pointed out during the last major crisis in 2017, Front National voters in France were as hawkish as Macron supporters on Syria:
62% of Front National voters and MLP supporters supported the strikes – that is virtually the same as those evil “globalist” En Marche!/Macron supporters.
Ergo for Fillon/conservative voters. Hamon supporters were 50/50, while Melenchon voters were actually opposed, at 45% to 55%.
This raises a disquieting scenario. Assume Marine Le Pen was to get into power by some miracle, and were to find herself hobbled by the universal hostility towards her populist-nationalist program from within and without.
What could she then do to break the deadlock?
Well, if the Trump experience is anything to go by, why not bomb some brown people in the Third World in the wake of the next round of dubious atrocity propaganda, with the quiet approval of her own electorate and the jingoistic cheers of the “moderate” centrists, who will go on to reward her “Presidential” actions with a few weeks of support before digging in their talons again.
OK, perhaps these views are based on arcane Galaxy Brain calculations that the refugees a new war will bring will be what finally tips the electoral scales in their favor.
But I suspect the more banal reality is that such people are just pretty low IQ, more bloodthirsty, and as susceptible to propaganda (of the Ziocon variety) as the “normies” they otherwise mock.
What makes this all the more ironic is that even purely ethnonationalist considerations aside – many of these people, of course, are culturalists and/or Christian nationalists of the Bannon variety, not racialists – these are generally the only political groupings that make a big deal of the plight of Christians in the Middle East. But it is Iran, and men like Soleimani in particular, who have played an inordinate part in safeguarding at least some Christians in Iraq and Syria, while it is what Iranians call the Great Satan and the Little Satan who had been most assiduous about sponsoring their jihadist tormentors. But when the Good (Persian) Samaritan comes in conflict with that Synagogue of Satan, it appears that all too many European “nationalists” consider it just swell to plump for the latter.
I was hoping that Russian nationalists are at least more based, since at least (a) they have more reasons to resent the US than most European nationalists, and (b) a US-Iran war, at least assuming it remains contained, should be good for Russia in a way that it will not be good for most Europeans. Oil prices will go up, the refugees will go to Europe, not Russia (where they will galvanize European nationalists), and there’ll be more freedom of action in the Near Abroad. That’s a cynical way of looking at things, sure, but it’s not like nationalists have much of a reputation for being nice anywhere.
And they are more based… but not by that much.
According to an n=216 poll in a Russian nationalist chat on Telegram (there are several such groups on social media like Telegram and Discord):
- 27% sooner support Iran
- 13% sooner support the US
- 38% wish a “pox on both their houses”
- 22% for “peace in all the world”
The US supporters (13%) tend to be low information people who unironically believe Trump is championing the white race against the Mohammedan terrorists (or occasionally more esoteric/”powerful” reasons, such as avenging the Griboyedov murder of 1829).
There were twice as many (27%) who would presumably agree with the following take:
https://twitter.com/vilevarangian/status/1213626234564947969
Vile Varangian: “The Iranians never sponsored liberal NGOs in my country. The Iranians never armed the Kiev regime. The Iranians never bombed Russian warriors in Syria. The Iranians didn’t hold Maria Butina as a hostage for two years. The Iranians aren’t waging an economic war on my country.”
The majority hold to varying degrees of negative or positive neutrality. The former can be justified through cynicism/Realpolitik, while the latter is justifiable on ethical grounds. But unironically shilling for the US is so many levels of cucked for any Russian, let alone a Russian nationalist.
Believe it or not, but there are MIGA fans even in Serbia.
On Jan 8, a Serb nationalist friend wrote to me, “Mentioning this on the brink of an all-out war between the US and Iran may sound trivial, but there are some Serbian alt-right Trump fanatics that are actually supporting him in this madness, their reasoning being Quds supported Muslims against Serbs in Bosnia.”
Very big brained take to be sure.
Admittedly, it’s pretty funny that American far leftists are principle be more opposed to US imperialism than Russian or Serb nationalists.
This is all pretty depressing and blackpilling, since it’s just one more example of the Right’s acute human capital problem. At least the Americans have some excuse, but what about the Europeans? Not to mention the third of Russian nationalists with a non-neutral position on the US vs. Iran question??
Perhaps they deserve to keep losing to GloboZOGoHomo, over and over again?
Please keep off topic posts to the current Open Thread.
If you are new to my work, start here.
Iran and the states it has influence in (Shia crescent and Yemen) have not recognized Kosovo
At the moment it’s favorable for Serbs to support Iran over the US, though there’s little we can do either way
Just as Americans had no problem getting cozy the Chinese despite the Korean War or the Iranians themselves had no problem working with Great Satan against Sunnis
WW2 allies understood this perfectly, anything that can damage the main adversary is good, I think it was Churchill that said “If Hitler invaded hell, then I would at least make a favorable mention to the Devil” in response to criticism with working with mean ol ‘ Joe Stalin
It is good to be flexible in Geopolitics, but one should not be stupid either, once the US is out of the picture and Iran starts backing Chechen separatists then Russia should start making Shia martyrs in response
If Russia started avenging every Griboyedov then it’d have zero countries to ally with, that Army/Navy quip is 100% true
Bingo. What goes around, comes around. It takes two to show solidarity. I recall Palestinians dancing in the streets during 1999 Nato bombing of Serbia.
The pattern among the Third Worlders, including the ones who have flooded to the West, is that they turn very quickly on any white outsiders and often fanatically support the bloodiest policies by the neo-con establishment against dissenters who happen to be white, be it Serbs or Russians. They often show more hatred and more ignorance and proudly spout the official line hoping to be accepted. The infamous Pakis around BBC corridors are a classical example.
The Western empire builders and the pathetic Third Worlders become best friends – and not just with the likes of Clintons, but also with the military power-hungry types ala Trump. We get the assorted Pakistanis cheerfully saying about the Serbs: “we should bomb them“… and the fanatical energy of the Russia-gate madness was also driven by a disproportionate number of POCs.
So why should we care?
Another way to look at it is that mutual antagonisms have always been the Achilles’s heel of all national movements, it comes with the territory.
The American right is less jingoist now than it was in 2003.
Mainstream pundits such as Tucker Carlson, Ann Coulter and Michele Malkin, for instance, have all converted hard to Buchananism.
Fox News, Breitbart and American Greatness may be pro-war, but they let the anti-war right voice its point of view.
Libertarians, and everyone who is as nationalist as or more nationalist than Tucker Carlson (which is to say, real nationalists), are antiwar.
15% of the Republican Party is a vast number of people.
The Palestinians are chronic backstabbers, and perhaps the Iranians don’t do themselves many favors supporting them, but I don’t recall Iranians playing any significant role against Serbs, Russians, etc. These were all Sunni Arabs – Saudis, Egyptians, etc.
I think the term “nationalist” is out of place here. A real “nationalist” is concerned with the “nation” that is the people with shared experiences living in the defined geographical area of a country.
Nationalism requires that what is best for “the nation” be for the benefit of all, not the few, and it is irrelevant where that solution lies on the now outdated left/right paradigm scale.
What nationalism definitely is not is globalist. Attacking another country halfway around the world is in no way, shape, or form “nationalist”. Sending your navy fleets around the world, is not “nationalist”, not is renegotiating free trade deals. Cancelling them, however, would be. Stopping all immigration until full employment is achieved would be nationalist, as would returning the control of money to the government.
I’m not going to suggest that there haven’t been excesses by nationalist governments, but they are certainly no worse than the excesses of our current (((Western liberal democracies))).
It’s possible to be less dismayed by globohomo if one sees it as a necessary phase, a reaction against the emptiness of bourgeois culture, and a sort of creative destruction – the old, empty forms are destroyed so something new can be born.
Bertrand Russel was forced to reconsider his understanding of human nature when he saw the excitement of a crowd of British soldiers at a railway station embarking for the trenches of France in 1914. He had thought that people enjoyed bourgeois comfort most.
Pick up any book from the late 19th century, by Flaubert or Balzac, Schopenhauer or Baudelaire, Wilde or Ibsen, for instance, and there is a general weariness with bourgeois culture, with its material comfort and safety.
Something had to give. Of course, if you think of globohomo as an end state, then its understandable you might feel yourself in a bad nightmare.
While Salvini’s reaction could be disappointing it should not be surprising.
Matteo Salvini Is Key For Bannon’s Strategy In The European Elections
https://www.forbes.com/sites/annalisagirardi/2019/04/22/matteo-salvini-is-key-for-bannons-strategy-in-the-european-elections/#5fc7526c3ed3
The same goes for all the New Right (nationalist) movements in Europe. They are all Zionist. They replaced the Old Right’s anti-Semitism with Islamophobia.
More for amusement than anything else, I once acquired a book called ‘Ratko Mladic: Tragic Hero.’ Curious, I wanted the hardcore Serbian take on things.
This book made it clear that the average Serbian nationalist agrees with you: the book lists copious examples of Sunni Muslim aggression and many atrocities, but nothing by Shiites.
On the other hand, I know plenty of paleocon type Americans, at least, who can’t distinguish between Sunni and Shiite.
And Trump remembers “Muslims dancing in the streets of New York” after 9/11.
No. Iranians were the major player in Bosnia.
Iranian influence was curtailed post-1996 (SDA Muslim party top circle had Iranian proponents but they were sidelined due to Western pressure) though remains significant to this day.
Soleimani himself and Quds Force were in Bosnia, they confirmed that personally (Red Crescent cover as well) – besides, Israeli services aided Serbs through equipment and intelligence.
In fact, Americans/CIA and Iran cooperated to supply Bosniaks/Muslims and Mujahedeen in Bosnia – Croatia was naturally included – the deal was 1/4 to 1/3 of all shipments was kept by Croats for “transit rights”.
Bosnia and Afghanistan saw Sunnis and Shia cooperating.
Bosniak Muslims have internal geopolitical divisions – the cynical (most intelligent) ones recognize their HausMuslim/Pet Muslim role for the Angloatlanticist West, and are totally
subservient to USA and Britain, Western interests and takes. They also indulge in taqqiyah of “antifascism” and “multiculturalism” displays for their masters.
The second group is Sunni Internationalists that have since fractured due to Turkey (their previous favourite) approaching Russia – they now have Turkophiles/Osmanophiles and Arabophiles. Gulf money streams work wonders.
The third, smallest group are the anti-Zionist, anti-West. Sympathies for Gaddafi, Assad, Yemen, Iran – resistance to “Western injustice and imperialism”, calling out KSA, UAE and other sell-outs to Israel and West. This crowd contains the pro-Iranians as a subgroup.
I believe Trump claimed it was in New Jersey. And about it I know nothing.
There were massive street celebrations among Palestinians, in Lebanon, in Karachi, and in London where Moslems marched in support of Nato bombing. It was shown on TV and nobody at that time found it particularly unusual – there were also Western morons, e.g. German Greens who were giddy with excitement that the “bad people” (Serbs) were being bombed. This is not a hyperbole, it was widely covered, even celebrated – you must remember that at time Moslem-Neocon alliance was still going strong.
There are fewer Shias than Sunni, and the elites in the Sunni states have alway been fully aligned with the West. But Iran was also vocally supportive and sent arms to the ‘mujaheddin’ in the Balkans.
My point is about regular people one encounters; almost without exception all Moslems at that time – and this was academia, so presumably more educated ones – were supporting bombing Serbs because their ‘brethren were in danger‘.
They bought the propaganda because they wanted to. Some told me later that they were lied to, my response is that it takes two to lie: the lier and the one who wants to believe the lies.
The Brits have recently declassified some interesting documents regarding Srebrenica and Mladic.
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C17071119
They are full of shit, but nevertheless.
It was not 3 months of attacks, but 3 years of attacks. On Christmas Day of 1993, Bosniaks burst into a Serb village and murdered everyone present.
Over 3 year span, 3000+ Serbs fell to Bosniak attacks from UN protected “demilitarised” enclave.
Obviously it was a bait (taking into account how West couldn’t care less for UNPA zones in Croatia) but once the decision was
made to destroy the pocket, there should never have been prisoners – elimination of Orić’s corps, preventing their breakthrough at all costs, and not taking any prisoners – repaying their practice in kind.
I recall contemporaneous reports about some Iranian structures supporting Bosnian Muslims. I forgot details but I still remember the funny “does not compute” reaction of the American media.
Norwegian “Social Democrats”, German “Greens” , “Social Democrats” along with usual suspects (French leftists and Jews – Chirac, BHL, Kouchner…) were the loudest.
Serbs have the distinct honour of being targeted by the combined might of Islamist International (Gulf, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, SE Asia even!)post-1992, right after Germans/Benelux/EEC, Angloatlanticists and Vatican started their separatism support in 1991.
To which I say: Go Africans, go Arabs, go Maghrebis, go Somalis, go minorities in Germany!
Well said.
Every victorious movement in history won because it had human capital – smart, educated, talented, wealthy and influential people.
Are there any in the ranks of alt-right? No.
Is there any viable plan to attract them to the ranks of alt-right? No.
One of few exceptions are the Bolsheviks – they were mostly dregs and rejects of all classes. Bolshevik victory was made possible by towering genius of Lenin, towering stupidity of everyone else at the time, very special historical conditions that cannot be repeated, and loads upon loads upon loads of luck.
It is not funny. It is completely serious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_defeatism
As knew great Vladimir Ilyich, in the time of war, duty of all true revolutionaries is to work for defeat of “their” country, because nothing than defeat in war is better for creating revolutionary conditions.
If you are serious about revolution, waving “our flags” and supporting “our troops” is the last thing to do.
If you ignore the train full of gold that the Germans gave them to kickstart their sabotage of Russia, and the Ashbergs and the various New York tribals sending them funds
Gonna give you a LOL for that one
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-12-23-mn-11958-story.html
https://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/10/weekinreview/the-world-what-s-iran-doing-in-bosnia-anyway.html
Fake news – time capsule.
Riiiiight. Also – “Bosnians” huh?
https://www.voanews.com/world-news/middle-east/voa-news-iran/ex-general-says-irgc-was-bosnia-disguised-aid-workers
There are Quds Force pictures and videos in Bosnia.
It’s actually not true that only Sunni Muslims fought against Serbs in Bosnia. Almost everyone severely underestimates Iran’s role in the Bosnian War (even some Serbs, like I used to) and Iran’s presence in Bosnia and the Balkans in general.
In Bosnia from 1992-1995, the whole Muslim world teamed together against Serbs. Yes, the whole Muslim world, from Turkey to Malaysia, by providing weapons, aid, training and fighters (Of course, this was all possible because it was allowed by USA/NATO). It’s what people don’t understand about the aggressive, militant, violent and universal nature of Islamism. Muslims of Sunni, Shia or other variations (over many races and ethnic groups) have always shown much greater unity and cohesion when dealing with other religious/civilization groups than Christian Europeans.
Just a little bit of info on Iran’s role in the Bosnian War and presence in the Balkans:
https://www.voanews.com/world-news/middle-east/voa-news-iran/ex-general-says-irgc-was-bosnia-disguised-aid-workers
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-04-23-mn-61733-story.html
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-04-05-mn-55275-story.html
http://serbianna.com/blogs/savich/archives/56
https://theglobepost.com/2018/12/10/iran-stealth-presence-balkans/
I remember some time ago in one of Saker’s articles about Iran, there was some Serb shilling for Iran against USA in the comments section, but then I briefly reminded him of Iran’s involvement in Bosnia. It even personally took me some time to fully realize the sheer extent of Iran’s role in Bosnia.
Just like I told my fellow Serb commenter in that comment section that there was no need for Serbs to shill for Iran against USA/Israel, I guess someone needs to tell those Serbs with a “Very big brained take to be sure.” that there’s no need for Serbs to shill for Israel/USA either.
Neutrality is by far the best and smartest stance for Serbs to take on this issue. Honestly, I’m personally fine with whatever happens here as long as my fellow diaspora Serbs are not conscripted to die for USA/Israel and no nukes are used (that would have bad global consequences).
It’s also not a good idea for a small people (relative to their global place in the world) like Serbs to bark too loudly and attract unwanted attention, especially when it’s completely unnecessary.
The Germans were supporting many rebel and revolutionary groups against the Entente. Most of these moneys just vanished, but with Bolsheviks they hit the jackpot.
If money was all that mattered, why wasn’t British Empire overthrown by the Irish rebels?
LOL indeed. How many revolutions and civil wars have you won, against overwhelming odds? 😉
https://l-art.kiev.ua/image/catalog/00846.1.jpg
White cons get kicked around by Jews, blacks, and homos. So, they bark at Muzzies.
It’s so pathetic. Suck up to Jews, lose their women to blacks, get replaced by browns at behest of Zio-Globalism. But their idea of toughness is barking at Muzzies.
And we are in the world of spite.
The combined attack on Yugoslavia (specifically on the Serbs) was an all-aboard crusade where everyone cheered on the killing in the name of human rights and eagerly swallowed obvious media lies. Once the damage was done they scattered away never wanting to talk about it. It has been deemed a non-subject and everyone pretends that it didn’t happen, or that – in the infamous words of a State Dept official – it was just ‘one off‘. Nothing to see there.
The people in those countries made it possible because they didn’t care, were too stupid, or some were outright evil. So it is perfectly ok to return the favor: you wanted ‘bombing‘, well, here it comes, US was just getting started. You wanted freedom for separatists, here comes Catalonia, Crimea, Scotland… You wanted Moslems in power – guess what, they are taking over your cities now, and you don’t know how to handle it.
The world of spite can be a lot of fun, you just have to wait long enough. But it is a downward spiral.
The fact that the Brits have “declassified” this shows that they’re cooling off from their 2015 UNSC resolution “Srebrenica wuz genocide n shieeet” approach since it’s just so untenable and disconnected from reality. They’re still trying to peddle lies, falsehoods and distortions about the matter, but just less aggressively and directly than before.
Is this really about people’s views on the killing of Soleimani, someone no one had ever heard of a week ago? I’d say not.
Like almost all political polls in the US today, it’s nothing but a proxy for pro- or anti-Trump. The value of the data is limited for anything else like measuring views on Invade-Invite.
(Other distortions are introduced when there is even a limited form of new-war-fever. Even Ilhan Omar tweeted out “Support Our Troops” Jan. 7.)
The latest and most important news from Balkans:
https://www.gazetatema.net/en/khamenei-mentions-albania-the-small-and-evil-country-which-harbours-irans-traitors/
All Albanians are now united like one man, united to defend their honor and country against Iran.
Iran is finished.
https://twitter.com/EuronewsAlbania/status/1214950912088825856
One of the developments since the end of the Vietnam War was the tendency to root for(or at least not oppose) war IF the commander-in-chief happens to be your guy. To the credit of the American Left, it opposed the Vietnam War when LBJ, a Democrat, was president, and then it opposed the war under Richard Nixon. There was a certain consistency in their position. But a narrative developed since then that the Progressive opposition to a Democratic administration led to the rise of Richard Nixon and Silent Majority. Therefore, the new strategy was one of vociferously opposing wars by Republican presidents while supporting or at least not-opposing wars by Democratic presidents. GOP, in turn, was likely to be far more supportive of GOP-led wars than Democratic-Party-led wars, but overall, its ‘support the troops’ mentality meant that its anti-war stance was weak at best. And so, Bill Clinton got away with lobbing bombs and missiles all over the place. And there was virtually no opposition to Barack Obama’s war on Libya, coup in Ukraine, and aid to terrorists(labeled ‘moderate rebels’) in Syria. But then, Trump Phenom happened in 2016, and incredibly enough, it seemed as though American Conservatives could be the new anti-war voices and on principled than mere opportunistic basis. This was most welcome since the kind of people who are most likely to get killed in war are conservative white men. Furthermore, the Invade-Invite Strategy undermines American nationalism. By invading and destroying other nations, US loses moral credentials on nationalism, i.e. why should Americans have right of nationalism when their government violates and tramples on the sovereignty of other nations? Furthermore, the US strategy has been to give its invasions a human face with the invite-policy. “We may destroy your nation, but we are so warm-hearted and welcome you displaced folks to our nation.” This has been going on since the Vietnam War. Kill millions over there but put on a human face by taking in untold numbers of refugees. This policy is especially damaging to American Conservatism since most of these newcomers end up voting for Democrats. One reason is the Democrats are for more immigration, but the other reason is, despite the fact that Jewish Democrats are the biggest globo-imperialists on Earth, the Democratic Party pays lip-service to concerns of People-of-Color and has at least some factions that speak up for Palestinian rights and oppose war(though never effectively). Thus, Democrats can enjoy their wars and imperialism while feigning ‘progressive’ credentials of peace and tolerance. In contrast, the GOP comes across as entirely pro-imperialist and pro-war. This was precisely why Donald Trump was so threatening to both Democrats and Republicans in 2016 when he ran, more or less, as a Peace Candidate. Though he projected power & pride(unlike spineless George McGovern in 1972) and supported the US military, he said all the wars in Middle East and North Africa have been disastrous, leading to more terrorism, more instability, more dead soldiers, more dead civilians, and the demographic invasion of Europe via Libya. He took a hardline position on Iran(unfortunately) and promised to reverse Obama’s semi-conciliatory policies, but overall, he totally went off the GOP reservation to the ire of Neocon Never-Trumpers. And the passionate support for Trump among many American Conservatives(who cheered in the South when he said Bush family is responsible for the disaster in Iraq) suggested a sea-change in popular opinion. Could it be that American Conservatives are becoming Anti-War in principle? Could it be that Peace, Conciliation, and Diplomacy will become conservative positions while deranged Democrats will clamor for more wars(and cold wars)? Will American Conservatives break with the contemptible tradition of “War’s okay if my guy’s president, war’s not okay if your guy’s president.” And for awhile, it seemed that way. Whenever Trump said he’s about to pull out troops from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, many on the New Right cheered whereas Democrats, wenches like Rachel Maddow, and Never-Trump Neocons crowed. It seemed as though the Progs really were stuck on More Wars whereas the New Right was set on No More Wars.
But as Jews run the US, Trump has been unable to make peace with Russia. Not only did the Jew-run Media blast Trump for any sign of thawing with Russia but the hysteria of Russia Collusion Hoax made sane diplomacy with Russia impossible. After all, if half the nation is convinced that Trump is Putin’s Puppet, Trump will be denounced as traitor for any overtures to Russia. And despite his many noises, Trump hasn’t been able to pull out troops out of Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan because the military-industrial complex and Jewish faction in the GOP are too powerful. Still, the fact that Trump managed to avert a new major war was seen as something. But perhaps it’s the ‘beat the wife and kick the dog’ syndrome, the one where the man who is berated by his boss at work goes home to mete out violence against weaker members. Trump, having had his manhood taken away by Jewish Zionists and Globalists, is now a castrated and cucked man. As Jews have subverted and destroyed much of his first term, the logical thing for him would be to denounce Jews and maybe bomb Israel for its endless aggression and provocations against Syria, making it more difficult for the US to bring about any closure in that part of the world. But as we know, US is idolatrous of three groups as holy-schmoly — Jews, Homos, and Negroes — , and that means the Holy Holocaust People cannot be opposed or even criticized no matter what they do. So, even though Jews have been breaking Trump’s balls from day one, he has to suck their cock and bend over to take it up the ass. Having been thus emasculated, how does Trump go about demonstrating his manhood? He plays dog to the Jews and mauls Arabs/Muslims or barks at Russia(or China). But no matter how loud a dog barks and how hard it bites, its ‘toughness’ is in service to its master.
This pre-Trump poll on “what to do about Iran” is likely a lot closer to the true split in the US on the “Invade The World” question:
CNN/ORC Poll. Feb. 10-13, 2012. N=1,026 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
“What do you think the United States should do to get Iran to shut down its nuclear program: take military action against Iran now, use economic and diplomatic efforts but not take military action right now, or take no action against Iran at this time?”
Answer choices were:
– Military action
– Economic and diplomatic efforts
– No action
– Unsure
In four polls between 2006 and 2012, the mean result was:
Military action: 17%
Economic and diplomatic efforts: 63%
No action: 17%
Unsure: 2%
Likewise, a CBS poll that ran 13 times between 2006 and 2011 found only 15% (mean) support for “Military action now.” And “Not a Threat” + “Unsure/No Answer” consistently ran at 25–30%.
These results are recorded at http://pollingreport.com/iran.htm.
See also “The Los Angeles Times Poll. April 2-3, 2003,” for how surprisingly little partisan divide there was on Iran back then. (fwiw, the first episode of Donald Trump’s tv-show “The Apprentice” was filmed in Sept. 2003; first aired Jan. 2004, nine months after this poll.)
Turns out the Globohomo isn’t completely wrong (in their suspicion) and Nationalists everywhere in any time period ain’t totally different from that of Weimar Republic.
Cliques of crazies and a big ocean of fools.
Positions on “Invade the World, Invite the World” and proposed representative groups:
= narrow-minded militarists; some Neocons; some of the Washington Establishment
Pro-Invade, Pro-Invite:
= Most Neocons; dominant strain in the Washington Establishment and US “regime media” (Hollywood, CNN-MSNBC, MSM in general); important strain in the EU Establishment
Pro-Invite alone (do not care/neutral/other about Invade):
= Narrow ethnic activists who are NOT from to-be-invaded regions; important strain in the EU Establishment
Pro-Invade, Anti-Invite:
= stereotypical Fox News viewer, and the type of person highlighted by this post; some of the new right-wing forces in Europe (e.g., Geet Wilders; and apparently Salvini, if Anatoly’s quotation here accurately reflects his views) — sometimes persons who are motivated primarily by Anti-Invite drift towards this category, thinking it safer, less likely to be suppressed, if they attached themselves to Pro-Invade’s prestige
Anti-Invade, Pro-Invite
= Most of the mainstream Left in the US/Canada/Aus./NZ and Europe; also ethnic activists from to-be-invaded regions; a secondary force in the EU Establishment but much more important there than the equivalent in the US is to the US Establishment (which has long been pro-Invade);
Anti-Invite alone (do not care/neutral/other about Invade)
= Some of mainstream Right, some of the blue-collar old-Left; some nationalists; usually unrepresented in standard politics and discourse
Anti-Invade alone (do not care/neutral/other about Invite)
= Mixture of left-wing ideologues and various forms of libertarian (e.g., Justin Raimondo, r.i.p.)
Anti-Invade, Anti-Invite
= Nationalists of left and right, including but not limited to Ethnonationalists; usually unrepresented in politics and discourse; the most common type found on most parts of the Unz Review.
Trump’s base in 2015 and 2016 was (6), (7), and (8); he won be tapping the substantial-in-size, unserved market of (6) and (8) especially.
He’s not wrong. Lenin was a vile creature but sly as shit
Also to be fair, Lenin controlled the Industrial heartland of the RI. Youd have to be braindead not to win in his position
Iran sent arms to the Bosnian Muslim nationalists via Croatia.
At the time, every outside observer expected that Bolsheviks are doomed, no one seriously expected them to win, the only question was how much destruction will the war cause to Russia (not unwelcome prospect for the western allies).
https://i.imgur.com/pRVvQkj.jpg
Concerning that point, which was done with Clinton regime approval:
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=tyAYXpGILumm_QbzkZDYAg&q=iran+arms+bosnian+muslims+via+croatia&oq=iran+arms+bosnian+muslims+via+croatia&gs_l=psy-ab.12…1602.15188..17748…0.0..0.265.2508.36j0j1……0….1..gws-wiz…….0i131j0j0i3j0i22i30j33i160j33i299.GWpIF3t5Yc4&ved=0ahUKEwjRv-_JuvjmAhVpU98KHfMIBCsQ4dUDCAs#spf=1578639562525
“Perhaps they deserve to keep losing to GloboZOGoHomo, over and over again?”
People are stupid and would make poor choices if given the power to do so. Fortunately, in the case of Russia, they have no such power.
Lenin also had the support of the railroad unions adding to his already shorter internal lines. Also the competent Sukhomlinovtsy faction of officers in the Tsarist Army headed over to the Red Army, their more incompetent opponents to the Whites.
” every outside observer expected that Bolsheviks are doomed” except for the people who invested into the revolution and expects to get big return, not just political but lots of money form looting Russia.
I doubt it
Western Media still casually throws around “Bosnian Genocide” when talking about the war
I know at least one case where a Paki decided to become a terrorist because he kept hearing about a Muslim Genocide in Bosnia going on
European movements have to deal with the reality that the United States has enormous power and influence and you can’t survive without cutting a deal with at least some sympathizing faction in Washington.
Salvini, Orbán and everyone else who tries the same would have been targeted hard if Clinton had won. Trump is still extremely valuable to European movements by giving them cover from an otherwise immensely hostile American elite class so it’s not surprising that Salvini toes the line on most issues that aren’t directly important to him.
There’s not going to be any non-Zionist movement as long as NATO exists and the Americans have veto power over anything that happens in Europe. The left gets to have its “white Israeli colonists are being mean to Arab people of color” movements that never actually do anything more drastic than boycotting Israeli oranges and that’s it.
The simplest and most obvious reason is that right-wingers tend to be men, particularly the more manly breed of men, and men tend to like boom boom shooty shooty.
95% of all people, nationalists included, don’t look at these things with any more complexity than the immediate emotional reaction. For leftists it’s probably ‘brown people die = sad’ for rightists it’s probably ‘brown people die = lol.’ Barely anyone looks at these things from a wider strategic angle until it’s too late.
I don’t buy it. Why can’t Salvini just stay silent on issues not directly relevant to Italy and supportive of Trump on issues more relevant? Rather, it seems Salvini is confusing his own interests for the interests of his ally’s ally. Never mind that his ally’s ally wants to destroy him and will drop his ally
once he is no longer useful.
ZOG ueber alles.
I didn’t say that they’ve given up on it. I just commented that slowly but casually, it seems that certain interested parties are beginning to cool off from the “Bosnian Genocide” nonsense.
Well, they’re Muslims lol. What do you expect when they’ve been un-ironically and uncritically fed the narrative that Muslims were “poor and innocent genocide victims” in Bosnia for the past 25+ years …
They’re either simply too hot headed or low IQ (it’s both in many cases) to even critically consider inconvenient facts like the one that Alija Izetbegovic started the war with violent secession-ism from Yugoslavia (also dishonoring by withdrawing his signature from the Carrington-Cutileiro agreement on terms for Muslims and Croats to secede from Yugoslavia agreed with Serbs) in order to form his “greater” Bosnian Islamic state as per his Islamic Declaration.
It’s also rather inconvenient for Muslims that they were the first to begin attacking JNA (Dobrovoljacka Street and Tuzla column) and Srpska soldiers, committing atrocities against Serb civilians and POW’s (Joint Croat-Muslim massacre and rape of Serb soldiers and civilians at Sijekovac was the de facto start of Bosnian War), and ethnically cleansing Serbs from their ethnic areas (Sarajevo pogroms, “Bosniak” Patriotic League’s Officer Murat Sabanovic “Leave this unit if you’re not ready to slaughter any and all Serbs” terrorizing Serbs around Visegrad by flooding the local dam to destroy Serb villages and etc) …
Russians who self-identify as “nationalist” are cucks of the Catalan/Scots variety of “enlightenment Europe nationalism” strain; that is, pathetic stooges of globohomo.
So, the surprise is that their support of neocon agenda is so low. Probably a case of Trump derangement syndrome throwing a wrench into their NPC programming.
Martyanov, is that you?
Such noises are costless, especially by nationalists in opposition. Orbán was more circumspect (he condemned the “attack” on the embassy, but stayed silent on all the other issues), partly because he’s always been more skeptical of the neocon agenda, but mostly because he’s in power and so has to be more careful. But it’s not like whatever Orbán or Salvini say have any relevance to the course and outcome of these events.
Salvini could stay silent, but I think he wants to specifically praise Trump on this issue. These noises are aimed at several groups:
people who are afraid to vote for a nationalist party because “nationalism bad” – they need to be given talking points how Left R Real Anti-Semites, that way they can support the nationalist party more easily
Trump himself – though as you point out, other Trump policies could be supported rather than this one; nevertheless, it probably works with Trump to praise his neocon policies
Atlanticist cucks, who are eager to explain away these politicians friendly overtures to Russia (“See, we’re still supporting the American Empire!”), there are still such people in Fidesz
The overall policy mix is not much affected, but they do need to behave that way, because you need to have some Jewish allies, and large swaths of the population are conditioned in a way that having Jews on your side is a sign of the holiness of your cause for them.
Yes, I’d like it to be toned down (though it probably cannot much be toned down in the case of Orbán), but its impact is still small, as of now.
Those are not nationalists, they care more about Israel than their own country. As for Salvini or Le Pen, they are probably doing it to get money, I dont think they like jews that much.
I find it bizarre how the sorts of people who are against mass immigration are also usually against isolationism as a political policy and generally support invasions of Middle Eastern countries, etc, the sorts of actions and wars that create millions of refugees, and often these refugees believe the West owes them and has a duty towards them for destroying their nations.
I find it odd how many if not most “conservatives” seem to support policies that are playing a big role in the demise of their nations.
Anti-Muslim sentiment is the only bit of resistance they can get away with, because it fits into the Zionist agenda to portray Muslims and therefore Palestinians as bad. These anti-Muslim civic nationalist types really are the most pathetic people.
If you mention problems caused by any other racial or religious group most of them will deny that there is any problem and maybe call you a racist, most of them see the world in terms of Muslims vs Everyone else. They’re the sort of people who will say they couldn’t possibly be racist because they have a black or Sikh friend, it’s rather sad that these people are by far the most common sort of “nationalist” in Western nations.
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/001/220/820/399.jpg
Funny thing is though that the Zionist Tommy Robinson & Co. are the single most persecuted political faction in the UK.
Their domestic Islamophobia is perfectly understandable and legitimate BTW, they took the lead in uncovering the Paki grooming scandals, and are anti-immigration in general, but then they project it to shilling for Israel and neocon foreign policy.
We are conflating too many issues when looking for a pattern here. It is is perfectly consistent to oppose mass migration to Europe from the Third World (only partially a Moslem issue), prefer Trump to any current alternatives, and not take sides in the Middle East internal fights, incl. Izrael. I also think the moniker Zionism has become too broad, there is clearly a lot more going on there. But it is their fight.
I don’t know much about Middle East, other than that everyone there given a choice will take side against my core interests. They will either attack directly as the Ottomans did in the past, or they will cheer on Western attacks on us, from Hitler’s Islamic allies to Balkans. They intuitively rank our interests below anything else. When given a choice to be used by the West, even in the most outrageous and murderous Western attacks, they will join in. And often act as the shock troops.
I suspect it is a desire by most Moslems to fit in some way with the West in spite of all their disputes. Plus an exaggerated sense of victimhood that is easily manipulated. All I know is that they will cheer on bombing people like us as they cry over being attacked by the West themselves. One has to respond to that, it is visceral. Maybe Orban and Salvini see it the same way.
Most blacks also want to see the West, ie white nations, destroyed but people don’t see the threat they pose in the same way because they’re not as organised in the same way as Muslims are. However, blacks are certainly very racially aware, probably the most of any race and will almost always back their own people against whites even black criminals.
So far majority black nations are the only countries that have implemented deliberately anti-white policies at the government level, most notably South Africa and Zimbabwe. People who think blacks won’t do this in Western countries when they’ve got enough of their own in positions of power are delusional. Yet most people deny the reality of black anti-white sentiment, even so called “nationalists”. A few people might concede that blacks are genetically more likely to commit violent crime, but it seems almost no one wants to acknowledge that there is an organised and political element to black crime and violence against white people in the way they see Muslims as being organised and politicised.
I tend to agree. Amongst anyone leading an effort to preserve their people there needs to be much more of a strong moral emphasis while also being able to admit mistakes (so as to correct them) and have the ability to display empathy. That, and a lot less demagoguery.
As imperfect as each no doubt was, Charles Lindbergh and Alexander Solzhenitsyn comes to mind as the type I’m describing. Though, I disagree with much of his personal politics as most here probably do, George Orwell too had those moral characteristics
Kosovo police arrested a woman on Tuesday accused of inciting terrorist acts for social media comments against the United States over the killing of Iranian Commander Qassem Soleimani.
Kosovo Prime Minister Ramush Haradinaj said: “Kosovo stands firm in support of the U.S. in its right to self-defense.”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-kosovo-iran-crime/kosovo-arrests-iran-supporter-over-comments-after-soleimanis-death-idUSKBN1Z62AH
I am intrigued by the mentioning of the IQ in this posting. As Schiller wrote, “Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.”, “Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain”.
You have studied the problem. My interest is the impact of higher male variability on the poorer male health outcomes. Do you know of any serious studies on the matter?
Great post agree agree agree
He also had tens of millions of rubles to pay his rent a mobs. He used the same strategy the French revolutionaries did. Seize the Capitol, other major cities and a few major Atlantic channel and Mediterranean ports first.
That’s how to win a revolution.
Capture the important cities first. Then let the defeated hole up in the swamps or mountains where they can’t do a thing.
“Such noises are costless, especially by nationalists in opposition.”
In this case, no, not at all. All European nationalists need to be firmly against further war in the Middle East and North Africa, since even if they could be confident that they could secure their borders in case of another influx of refugees, securing them would be expensive, both materially and politically.
No one was “sending” anything to the Bolsheviks, it was good capitalist business. Food, guns and ammo, artillery, automobiles, machinery, boots and uniforms – everything that army needs – for gold sold at discount prices.
https://i.imgur.com/ZWcDGEN.png
Olof Ashberg was indeed the main one of the capitalists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olof_Aschberg
According to Meekin, he was as crucial for victory of the revolution as Lenin.
https://www.amazon.com/Historys-Greatest-Heist-Looting-Bolsheviks/dp/0300135580
http://csio-ops-csio.blogspot.com/2019/09/historys-greatest-heist-looting-of.html
Maybe, when Mr. Karlin overthrows Putin and restores Russian Galactic Empire, it will be time to demand reparations not only from the Balts, but also from the Swedes? 😉
One shouldn’t assume that everyone who participates in such online polls is an actual Russian nationalist. I know for a fact that Russian-speaking Jews are very active in political discussion groups, and in such a small sample they could easily influence the outcome.
BTW, do you know that today is International Nonbinary Day?
#IAmNonbinary is trending on Twitter, worldwide. I hope you all celebrate too.
https://twitter.com/hashtag/iamnonbinary?f=tweets&vertical=default&src=hash
https://twitter.com/icedcitruss/status/1215696280023781376
See? Iraq War was not fought in vain, and Iran War will be even more awesome!
You could easily be correct, but you use the wrong arguments.
The nationalists make no difference to the policy decisions. Middle Eastern wars will or will not happen regardless of what nationalists are saying, whether in government or in opposition.
So they shouldn’t necessarily oppose those wars simply because they are wrong, both morally and in their consequences, even for specific nationalist reasons. As I said, making neocon noises can have lots of benefits.
The big possible disadvantage is that once you loudly supported those wars, you will find it much harder to oppose accepting the refugees.
I certainly would like to see it toned down. But I don’t think it’s possible to get rid of it fully.
Anyway, Trump had a strong case. Soleimani was plotting to blow up the American embassy. According to Trump, that is. He was also heard shouting “this is Mullah Country now!”
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/09/politics/trump-soleimani-us-embassy/index.html
YA GOTTA BELIEVE!
Undercut by the frackers, Iran won’t have the money for making a nuisance of itself, they have had to raise the price of fuel recently. No invasion. Leave them to stew in their own pauperised juice.
https://youtu.be/7C_8pbbR6r8?t=92
The migrants in Europe are almost entirely economic and sexual (excess young men from a youth bulge in countries with polygyny). Anyway, Iran’s terrain, relatively huge and homogenous population, and Shia suicide ethos make it a non starter for invasion or destablisation.
Pompeo: “there were a series of imminent attacks, we don’t know when, we don’t know where.
https://twitter.com/sparksjls/status/1215473896654364672
He shouted “This is Ayatollah Country now!” Or something. This must settle the issue.
If it was the embassy at Baghdad, it would have taken a lot of explosives.
The Germans didn’t give them the gold, they gave the train, with the gold and revolutionaries in it, safe passage through Germany from its Swiss starting point.
If the where and when are unknown, how can they be “imminent”?
– late Middle English: from Latin imminent- ‘overhanging, impending’, from the verb imminere, from in- ‘upon, towards’ + minere ‘to project’.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imminent
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/imminent
Ah, the politics of “negrify thy neighbor” – petty nationalism in all its idiocy.
Yeah dude, an islamified, negrofuxxated Germany is bound to be a great friend to Serbian nationalism, lol.
I don’t think they are so pathetic. For one thing, anyone with the guts (and brains) to “hate” an identifiable out-group today is more deserving of praise than of condemnation. And I dare say most of them are much closer to racialism than the average normie and are much more likely to make the full transition.
Are you autistic? You seem to miss a lot of more subtle interactions that suffuse American politics. Whites are extremely wary of being ruled by blacks it was a principal reason for white flight and the development of suburbia where whites could insulated themselves even from black rule on a municipal level. All it took was one demonstration by black panthers brandishing weapons for Ronald Reagan to drastically curtail gun rights in California. Most white people are likely a little smarter and a lot more self controlled than you so they don’t have to shout I hate nig&$s like you seem to enjoy but they largely agree with your perception of blacks. Whites like blacks to the extent that they are completely defanged but still exciting like a cobra who has had its poison removed.
Let’s just put aside that American blacks have fought on the side of the US in every major war except the American Revolution. At no point did they use the existence of a war to launch an uprising against American whites. Meanwhile the first war this nation fought was against Muslims and Muslim hostiltiy to the US is widespread and expressed in particularily blatant fashion.
The separate issue is that blacks are in demographic decline there is absolutely no chance that blacks will dominate the USA. So what they would do if they were in power it’s never happening.
Exactly what is he doing. Shit talking the deplores just like the most cosmopolitan of lefties would do. He’s a white Uncle Tom who doesn’t even realize how much he loves globohomo.
https://twitter.com/DeplorableChoir/status/1215762759641718784
That’s what happens to you if you hate America for its freedom. Soleimani shouldn’t have shouted “This is Mullah Country now!”
There is a lot of similar talk in Hungary. “The French brought us Trianon, now they will get flooded by Arabs and Negroes lol! They deserve it!”
I actually read an article by a nationalist writer a few years ago about the idiocy of all this. He pointed out how bad it would be if France and Germany collapsed. Hungary won’t be just an island of peace next to the Islamic Republics of Germany and France.
If the where and when are unknown, how can they be “imminent”?
From “Lies, the Bethlehem Doctrine, and the Illegal Murder of Soleimani”, by Craig Murray, former UK diplomat (including Ambassador to Uzbekistan) — Daniel Bethlehem was the external lawyer brought in by Tony Blair to provide the legal cover for UK participation in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/01/lies-the-bethlehem-doctrine-and-the-illegal-murder-of-soleimani/
Germany, France, UK will never become Islamic, African etc.
What will happen, though, will be the eroding of their power projection (increased need to devote resources and attention to domestic affairs, economic decline, reduced human capital etc), homogenity/social cohesion and possibly, a coup/civil war.
Last time I checked, weakening of your historical enemies is a sensible thing to wish for.
Especially when you are betting on China, Russian Federation and other revisionist countries.
The lackeys and lapdogs of declining and decaying Great Powers must be terrified of this prospect.
The average conservative is indeed a low IQ meathead who will gladly fight another conservative as long as they’re from a different country. They will never understand ideological solidarity. I’ve actually heard retarded boomercons claim that Islam is a form of socialism and the Mullahs are “just like SJWs” and thus have to be destroyed
These people make up the majority of the right, sadly
On the subject of suppressing national identity:
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/01/11/politics-behind-banning-russia-from-olympics/
American Right is not Right, in historical and European sense.
They are ideological descendants of Liberalism.
American Conservatives “conserve” American Liberal positions of 20-30 years ago.
European Right is ethnic, collectivist, authoritarian/hierarchic and/or moralist.
American Right is civic, liberal/libertarian, individualist and hedonistic.
They have no shared history, traditions, actual culture to rely on, as opposed to Europeans. Whoever tries to push “internationalist Right” and “internationalist nationalism” in Europe is either foolish or a plant.
Right wing intellectuals are sadly few and far between, most tend towards warmongering and aggression as lower IQ people generally do. The more intelligent and well educated a person the more likely they are to be left wing/liberal in my experience, at least in Anglo countries.
I find the typical comments on sites like the Daily Mail and Breitbart largely stupid and low information and those sites are the main outlets that represent the mainstream right in Anglo countries. Intellectual right wingers who support non-interventionism and an isolationist foreign policy are incredibly rare.
It depends on how we define intelligence and IQ. If we go purely by tests, reading and erudition, you are right. If you go by meritocratic results, it is also true that those people tend be liberal; liberal-globalist system plays to liberals’ strengths. They are simply self-serving.
But there is in my view a deeper definition of intelligence based on one’s ability to function in an evolutionary successful way. This is based on being a viable human who establishes a family, has children, raises his and hers next generation and owns the future. And I mean a viable family, not the dysfunctional stuff that we see among the genetic losers and dead-enders, or among some ethnicities, e.g. sub-Saharan don’t seem capable of this and increasingly others are following this self-destructive pattern.
How are you really ‘intelligent‘ if your life is a desperate struggle not to drop to the lower parts of the food-chain? How are you successful if you don’t even control your own time or what you can say? And how smart can you be if you fail at the core purpose of life to keep our existence going?
People who are better at handling those things tend to be more traditional and conservative. They are also almost never the warmongering type.
The effective re-defining of “imminent” recalls to mind the famous quote of Karl Rove, consigliere to George Bush the Younger:
Some people are right like a broken clock. The people who are “right” in this instance are congenitally opposed to nationalism, but their instinct could not be more destructive.
That’s not to say nationalists can’t ever get it wrong. For instance, a lot of people on the Right had trouble believing the My Lai Massacre actually took place. But better “My country, right or wrong” than “Won’t you please improve my shameful country by invading it?”
Besides, I think it is the neocons who really have a monopoly on invasion. It is not particularly something endemic to nationalism. The nationalist answer to the Middle East is “Let them kill each other.”
Anatoly, did you ever consider that European nationalists might be playing 666-D chess by supporting a US conflict with Iran? After all, just like the influx of Muslim refugees into Germany in 2015-2016 helped to significantly strengthen the AfD, maybe European nationalists think that an influx of Muslim Iranian refugees into Europe will likewise significantly strengthen their own support among European voters?
But in reality, nationalists are too dumb for 666D chess maneuvers.
There is growing African immigration to the US and unlike other sources of immigrants, Africa’s population won’t peak soon.
I promise you, they do not make the connection. I am around them day in and day out and hear all of their hot takes on current events. There is zero awareness, much less comprehension, that the constant, wholesale destruction of lands occupied by millions of people creates refugees (and a strong distaste for america).
Every GOP voter I know regards the refugees and the middle east invasions/occupations as completely unrelated topics. If you ever spend serious time around middle to upper-ish middle class GOP voters in flyover country, you will be dumbfounded by both their worldview and total, blank ignorance of absolutely ANYTHING outside of their occupation and whatever hobbies they have. It truly is shocking. Almost all are exactly as ignorant of the outside world as anyone you will find in the ghetto, and just as suseptible to believing anything a politician tells them. To be a supporter of the neocon GOP increasingly demands congnitive dissonance on a level that leaves me in total disbelief. For example, they all have frequent temper tantrums about high taxes, but are instantly hostile to anyone who points out that much of that money is wasted on bloated military contracts acquired via open corruption and bribery (lobbying), no matter how gently you might try to point this out.
For a long time, if I was told that a person frequently has childlike tantrums when their utterly incoherent, inane, crass political beliefs were challenged, I would assume you were talking about a typical democrat voter. That is no longer the case.
Interestingly, I was recently at a baseball game in which GWB was in attendance and recognized by the announcer during a break. You would have thought God himself was being shown on the big screen. These people either don’t know that horrifying numbers of children and civilians suffered and died because of him, or don’t care. By contrast, anytime I am around overwhelmingly democrat voters, they are exceedingly pleasant and genuinely friendly (this is the south however, so your mileage may vary). Obviously, nearly all of their economic beliefs are completely ridiculous, along with climate change propoganda, but most are just going with what everbody else says or what they are told over and over by schools or whatever they read in MSM sites. They are at least not bloodthirsty and outright hateful like the GOP voters I know.
The most persecuted groups in Britain are still the National Front guys and their associates.
Tommy’s group is allowed to exist because it is approved by a powerful faction in the elite Jewish coalition that mans the right side of the kosher sandwich of Jewish-approved British political opinion. He’s the pressure release valve for Anglo identity on the right.
I don’t know a single American of any faction who sees “weakening Europe” as a benefit to America, be they globalists, Empire patriotards or dissident Right nationalists.
95% of U.S. patriotards aren’t meta enough to be accelerationists, if that’s what you’re getting at. WYSIWYG.
There are many among the patriotard faction that see harming a Chinese ally as a plus, but they’re useful idiots for globalism, not “nationalists.” As others have pointed out, there is no genuine national interest of the United States which the assassination promotes. Nationalists here are well aware of this.
Thanks to ghetto gopnik social norms, not biology. In sub-Saharan Africa proper, things can be completely different where there is peace and material well-being above survival level. Some nuggets of information from Russian people living in Ghana:
A comment to the last post says the poorest Ghanan neighborhoods look much tidier than their counterparts (downright horrifying) in India. Keeping clean takes effort and discipline. One can oppose Africans on any possible grounds from economical to environmental to aesthetic, but not that they are disorderly beasts by nature, which is demonstrably false and dumb-racist. Gopnikization, of course, should be fought ruthlessly in populations of any color.
But the Iranians at least had no involvement in either Chechnya war
Serbs are more for the “plague on both their houses” option. Iran for their past misdeeds, and America for obvious reasons.
A more likely outcome is simply the increase of repression in Germany and France, rather than disintegration. Within living memory, Egypt had a power projection ability well beyond its borders.
I think hailing the advance of Globohomo as some victory for yourself is rather misguided, especially since it’s destroying your country right now. The small countries will simply switch sides, when (or rather if) the great realignment of power happens, but don’t hold your breath. It’s not like Russia or China have wonderful demographics. Nor Serbia, for that matter.
Hungary had a smaller war next door in the 1990s, it only had negative consequences for us. A big German civil war, especially if it was replicated in Austria as well, would be very bad.
It would be very bad for Hungary because of Hungary’s close ties, EU-membership and investment of German industry.
Other countries are less integrated into the local hegemon and would have less to lose and more to gain.
It would be very bad because of our geographic proximity. The economic integration is mostly an artifact of geographic proximity, too. For example our trade outside of Europe is mostly conducted through German and Dutch ports.
Anyway, as I said, it’s unlikely that the collapse of Globohomo will be sudden or fast. They will keep projecting power and enforcing globohomo for a long time in the foreseeable future.
That sounds more like a counter-example.
Geographic proximity would mean that Hungary would trade with people outside of Europe primarly via Adriatic ports/Danube.
Maybe. I’m just wondering which ports Serbia uses. I wouldn’t be surprised if the same as Hungary.
Germany is an interesting country to watch. Some see positive signs – positive in that they are negative – more trouble with migrants over New Year’s (demonstrates lack of ability to integrate). The German economy seems to be heading toward a major recession, which ought to put the breaks on more invites. Healthcare costs are rising because of migrants. The cost of consumer goods might rise significantly, if China stops making cheap exports.
But honestly, I don’t see much that is positive. Merkel was recently talking about importing healthcare workers. I think that ideologically they will continue to import people in order to undercut wages, just as long as they are able to, which could be a very long time.
When I was in Germany last, which was a long time ago, there was surprisingly very little police presence at public events, where there was a lot of drinking. I can see them making a transition to more of an American system with heavy police presence, to suppress the bad behavior of migrants.
I think there is very little chance of civil war because of low TFR.
So without American influence, European countries would push for the dismantlement of the Jewish state? Where would Israel’s Jews go?
Not sure if anyone is still reading or cares anymore.
Still, it turns out that Soleimani was basically the leading guy in Iranian assistance to the Bosnian Musilms War effort against Serbs from 1992-1995. He was personally there in 1992 and 1994-1995. His units took part in atrocities against Serbs and he is responsible for crimes against both Serb soldiers and civilians (especially the many wonderful cases of beheading).
http://thesrpskatimes.com/dzaferovic-met-with-suleimani-during-the-war-in-bih/
The current Bosniak member of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s presidency was also personally in touch with and worked with Soleimani during the war. That’ll be a bit awkward for Sefik Dzaferovic (he always sounded 110% Islamic Jihad with his name and whenever he spoke) as he’s an American puppet managing their Bosnia protectorate.
Anyway, I know I’m certainly not going to miss Soleimani.
More about Soleimani and Dzaferovic actively taking part in cutting the heads off from hundreds of Serbs during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War:
http://thesrpskatimes.com/qassem-soleimani-shipped-weapons-to-mujahideen-in-bih/
False dichotomy.
You mean they’d all be killed in Israel, thereby finishing what Europe started?
No. I mean that your argument was dishonest or stupid or both. There are many other choices besides supporting all of Israel’s policies and actively trying to destroy it, and your type of argument by reducing the possibilities to just two choices is commonly called false dichotomy.
Israel is a nuclear power whose conventional forces are also significantly stronger than those of all of its neighbors combined (so there’s no way it’s going to get destroyed), and its interests regarding Iran and other Middle Eastern countries (apparently, spreading chaos and destroying Iran through maximum pressure policies by the US) are against our interests, so there’s no need for us to support them.
Indeed. The idea was that if European nationalists will wave Israeli flags and loudly support Israel, Israel will support European nationalism.
Not going to happen, Israel never asked for their support and is not returning the favor.
To wave Arab, Iranian and Palestinian flags and suppport the other side would be even more idiotic.
Better to stay out of the Middle Eastern issues at all. There is nothing to be gained there.
And by loudly supporting stupid (or outright evil) Middle Eastern wars, European nationalists will paint themselves into a corner where it will be politically difficult for them to oppose accepting refugees coming from countries destroyed by wars they supported.
Some support might be inevitable due to the (minimal) cover Trump and Netanyahu provide them, but it should be kept to the minimum.
are against our interests
Assuming “our” is Hungary (not certain that’s what you mean), why would it be in your interests for someone like Saddam Hussein to be in control of ME oil?
I mean Europeans and European nationalists in general, this includes Hungary.
It’s not in our interest to create chaos in the Middle East, rather we’d like stability. Israel apparently supported most things resulting in chaos if it felt it furthered its interests. The Iraq War, the Syrian Civil War, and especially the potential Iran War.
These things result in instability, higher oil prices (already bad enough for Hungary), and a flow of refugees, which is difficult to reject for people who supported those wars in the first place.
You well know that there is no such thing as pan-nationalism.
Summarizing your reply: Yes, having Iran in control of ME oil is okay with me.
Iran won’t be destroyed through economic pressure. While the mullahs might be overthrown, no one is looking to invade and conquer Iran and either expel or exterminate Iranians. Where Israel’s Muslim neighbors have been looking to drive Israeli Jews into the sea pretty much since its inception.
https://www.algemeiner.com/2014/02/20/did-arab-states-really-promise-to-push-jews-into-the-sea-yes/
The amount of Jew hatred remaining in Europe is astounding. It’s not enough that Jews have largely been exterminated or harassed into leaving the continent. It is necessary that they be exterminated in their historic homeland. It is becoming clear why an Israeli theorist once pondered a Samson option for Israel. In the event that Israel is about to be overrun, a brace of nukes might target every European Axis power involved in the Holocaust, as well as Germany’s willing European collaborators, in addition to the Muslim capitals involved in the invasion of Israel.
Your genocidal fantasies are noted, but what do they have to do with my comment, which was about not helping horrible wars and civil wars merely because they are supported by Israel. Israel’s existence is not in question for almost half a century now (seriously, even in 1973 it didn’t come into question, but since then, there has never been an even remotely existential crisis for Israel). Anyway, it’s highly questionable if Arabs ever intended to exterminate Jews, mostly there was talk about making them leave (but even that has been called into question, for example Arafat once proposed to create a unitary state of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim population, with himself as head of state; even Hamas proposed talks based on the 1967 borders), “extermination” is probably projection by people with actual genocidal fantasies (like yourself).
That’s fair enough, I certainly don’t begrudge Serbs looking at this like Soleimani getting his just desserts.
Still have been nice if it happened for that reason specifically, as opposed to opposing the Great Satan.
That’s certainly a good enough reason for Serbs to hate Soleimani. In the grand scheme of things, it was the Americans who were mostly responsible for things like that (they could’ve shut Soleimani down easily, probably, had they wanted to, back then – but they supported the Bosniaks), but Soleimani and the Iranians certainly had their own responsibility for this.
In the context of the Middle East, however, Iran and Soleimani have probably protected hundreds of thousands or even millions of Christians from being ethnically cleansed or even exterminated, and I appreciate their opposition to the Globohomo Empire. But yeah, I wouldn’t be enthusiastic if I were Serb, and to be honest, I’m not that enthusiastic about the Islamic Republic regime at all, it’s a regime totally alien to me.
But that’s only on average, no? Surely there must be some smart nationalists who are capable of playing 666D chess–even if there’s a much smaller percentage of them than smart liberals. (After all, this is how the bell curve is structured–where even low average-IQ groups have some smart people and even a few geniuses.)