These commies see woke leftism as becoming unpopular. Therefore they’re trying to hijack the backlash to it and redirect the public’s anger away from the leftist (Marxist) ideologues who created it all (Critical Race Theory, Gender/Queer theory, intersectional feminism, BLM/Black Power, etc.) and push that anger towards the traditional enemies of Marxists (the “capitalists,” “corporations,” “bankers,” “property owners,” “landlords,” etc.) They do this by scapegoating these corporations for the introduction of leftoid woke ideology into society, which was conceived in the Marxist-dominated universities and then filtered out into all sectors of public life. The Marxist-socialist Frankfurt School – a fountainhead of early ‘woke’ anti-racist, feminist and diversity ideology – were certainly not “capitalists” or free market enthusiasts.

Corporations who have adopted woke bullshit in marketing are Johnny-come-lately opportunists who are trying to capitalize on trends to move product. It’s far more a case of virtue signaling than genuine belief, although there has been some infiltration of these companies at the highest levels by woke ideologues who are willing to sacrifice profits to push political agendas. The Disney writing staff is (according to an insider) dominated by literal homosexuals who are pushing gay themes into the company’s content for ideological reasons. But that’s really no different than state-owned media ventures like BBC doing the same or the culture departments of various governments subsidizing woke modern art exhibits, woke museums and woke cinema.

But none of this woke shit (CRT, Transgenderism, BLM, etc.) was cooked up in corporate boardrooms. Some of these companies are realizing that they made a big mistake by backing leftist initiatives like DEI and are reversing course because it has hurt the business.

While these big companies absolutely bear some responsibility for amplifying the leftist mind rot and funding it (I’m not excusing their behaviour), it’s a fallacy to suggest they are the origin point of these beliefs or trends and that the “solution” is simply getting rid of large companies or having the Leftist state take them over, which will change nothing. A Joe Biden-run publicly controlled X would be much worse than an Elon Musk-run private X, for example. Even as a private company, Elon’s X is facing intense government regulation efforts to censor it.

BLM itself was started by three black lesbians who identify as Marxists. They hate capitalism. They got their start with the Bus Riders Union and crucial mentorship by Jewish socialist Eric Mann.

Socialist labour unions, for example, are just as “woke”/leftist as the queer-dominated corporations and they lobby politicians to introduce anti-White CRT/DEI and gay agendas in the workplace. Most socialist-leaning politicians and parties are, needless to say, all in for woke leftism (Democratic Socialists of America, Labour Party in the UK, etc.).

The State itself enforced much of this leftism on society through legislation like civil rights acts, hate speech laws, diversity quotas, etc. Public schools, run by the state, are hotbeds of leftoid ideology and brainwashing. State-owned enterprises like the NHS and BBC in England are notoriously anti-White, pro-diversity and pushing woke transsexual and gay agendas.

Other so-called “capitalists” supporting leftist political trends financially (George Soros comes to mind) are doing so mainly for non-economic ideological reasons. Soros’s son Alex said that his father does this because he’s Jewish and wants a world “safe for minorities”. That’s a fundamentally ideological motivation. Soros even attacked capitalism in an article titled “The Capitalist Threat” in which he argues for more government interventionism, social welfarism and redistributionism. Peter Sutherland, an Irish Catholic multi-millionaire who backed mass migration, seems to have been motivated by humanitarian (thus ideological) concerns stemming from his Christian beliefs in charity and helping the oppressed. Donating hundreds of millions to leftist causes and NGOs is not an economic investment since there is no economic return (Soros is losing money by doing so). It is a social investment. James Pritzker, a Jewish billionaire who funds much of the Transsexual Agenda, is a literal transsexual who calls himself Jennifer now. Another case of an ideological motive behind left-wing philanthropy. Perhaps there is some money to be made on trans surgeries and other medical procedures, but the market for that is so small that it seems unlikely that would be the only motive a wealthy billionaire like James Pritzker would be subsidizing it.

So this Marxist line, which has been smuggled into right-wing discourse by crypto-Marxist fascists, that woke leftist ideology or trends are the exclusive brainchild of corporations or “capitalists” is a distorted and twisted narrative that suits their socialistic economic agenda. They simply hate capitalism and market economics itself and will throw any dirt they think they can throw at it to undermine what’s left of it.

The only particular social issue that big businesses are expressly interested in promoting for motives of profit is immigration. It’s fairly apparent that large businesses, especially in the agricultural sector, fast food sector, and other sectors that employ low-skilled labour, want more immigration to get more workers in their low-paid, high turnover industries. But you can see that they are not alone in this desire as the big labour unions and big churches also want more immigration to fill up their own organizations and pews with new bodies. More people equals more potential union members, more potential church goers, etc. More people also means more voters and more tax payers feeding the social welfare state, which peaks the interests of politicians and the State. NGOs back it for ideological/humanitarian reasons. There are multiple factors and layers to the drive for mass immigration, both ideological and economic.

To solve the latter issue one need only impose an immigration moratorium, shut down the borders, deport all illegals and then ignore all of these lobbyists on a political level. Hell, ban lobbying entirely. Or one could implement a robust guest worker program, properly enforced, that could solve any potential labour shortages in the low-skilled industries who can’t find enough domestic workers.

Evil Marxist shitheads like Hinkle and Haz exist as Trojan Horse enemies within the gates. As anti-White, anti-Western agents they’re pursuing most of the traditional objectives of Soviet Marxist Communism: the destruction of Western civilization, the weakening of Western economies and militaries, the abolition of NATO, the abolition of capitalism and private property, the political and economic empowerment of non-White Global South nations, etc. All of that is manifestly evident in their perverse belligerent support for all Third World communist, socialist and Islamic governments and groups who are enemies of the West and their cheerleading for Russian imperialism in Ukraine and Chinese imperialism against Taiwan, Tibet, etc. Like Putin, they dress up their anti-Westernism in some performative anti-wokeism to make it more sellable to gullible conservatives who aren’t clued into all of these ideologies and the agendas behind them.

If you enjoyed this article and wish to see more, consider a small contribution.

TIPS

What I first noticed about the article is that it is mighty low on actual quotes from me and heavy on Steuben’s own polemics. He only quotes me briefly once at the beginning and then the rest is his own commentary. This tends to be the case when people are trying to rebuff what I’ve been saying about fascism. They don’t quote me in full context or they misrepresent my actual positions, usually resorting to making straw man arguments or assumptions about what I support. Normally this takes the form of putting any critic of fascism in the “libertarian” camp when this is not necessarily the case. I’ve pointed out before that this is a Vaushian debate bro tactic from the fascios when confronted with evidence of their intense similarities with Marxists and their ideology’s deep roots in Marxism (Mussolini was a staunch Marxist socialist before creating his hybridized Marxist-Fascism).

I’ll do Steuben the service of quoting him at length and responding to each point.

Steuben writes:

Recently, Martinez Politics, whose commentary I usually enjoy, assumed a strong stance against fascism. Here are a few snippets from his Telegram posts on this topic:

Same end goal: “everything in the State, nothing outside the State” aka Communism.

Fascism says the State is supreme and you cannot rebuke it. There’s no reason to believe that only means specific states that you selectively choose to be loyal to, but all States. . . . But the people touting this Supreme Statist ideology don’t apply any of these standards consistently, but selectively/tactically, because they don’t actually believe in these principles at all. If they’re only applied selectively, then they’re not real principles but tactics.

It is surprising how many people on the Right have fallen into the inaccurate leftist Bernie Bro/Chomskyite worldview where they think corporations that have no power to

1) initiate force

2) tax the populace

3) print money

. . . is somehow more powerful than the State which has all of those powers.

A fundamental distinction should be made between what I will call capital-F “Fascism” and lower case-f “fascism.” Capital-F Fascism is indeed “everything in the State, nothing outside the State,” with a perfect synthesis of state and corporate power. By contrast, lower case-f fascism is more of an aesthetic than an ideology. It is not particularly concerned with the dismal science of economics, which it correctly sees as merely a means and not as an end in itself.

I don’t really get the esoteric point being made here. Fascism is a pretty comprehensive ideology so there’s no need to split hairs about variants of it. Fascism actually is concerned a lot with the “dismal science of economics”. Mussolini seemed consumed almost exclusively by economic questions in his earlier days as a journalist and activist. He was a labour union organizer and strike leader. He advocated for Italy to enter World War I because he, like his prophet Karl Marx, believed the war could bring about revolutionary conditions that would facilitate a socialist takeover of the State. Everything he did was geared towards bringing about the economic order outlined in the Communist Manifesto.

This from Wiki:

Mussolini initially held official support for the party’s decision and, in an August 1914 article, Mussolini wrote “Down with the War. We remain neutral.” He saw the war as an opportunity, both for his own ambitions as well as those of socialists and Italians. He was influenced by anti-Austrian Italian nationalist sentiments, believing that the war offered Italians in Austria-Hungary the chance to liberate themselves from rule of the Habsburgs. He eventually decided to declare support for the war by appealing to the need for socialists to overthrow the Hohenzollern and Habsburg monarchies in Germany and Austria-Hungary who he said had consistently repressed socialism.[52] …. He argued that the fall of Hohenzollern and Habsburg monarchies and the repression of “reactionary” Turkey would create conditions beneficial for the working class… Thus he claimed that the vast social changes that the war could offer meant that it should be supported as a revolutionary war.

So even his split with the Italian socialists on this issue was not rooted in an abandonment of socialism but a commitment to it. Mussolini said Karl Marx was his prophet:

“It was inevitable that I should become a Socialist ultra, a Blanquist, indeed a communist. I carried about a medallion with Marx’s head on it in my pocket. I think I regarded it as a sort of talisman… [Marx] had a profound critical intelligence and was in some sense even a prophet.” 

Source: Talks With Mussolini, Emil Ludwig, Pg. 38

Steuben writes:

It is epitomized by the anarcho-fascist commune of Fiume, in which the government’s functions included poetry and fireworks; or by the Futurist Manifesto’s values or speed, youth, and militarism. This fascism could be summarized in a single word: life.

What Steuben is doing here is trying to extricate Fascism from its roots in Marxist economics and make it all about philosophy. But philosophy is a vague side point when it comes to politics. No amount of philosophizing will erase the fact that Fascism is, at its core, an economic and political doctrine of Total State authoritarian economic socialism, the same system brought about in the USSR under Lenin and Stalin.

Steuben writes:

Capital-F Fascism is a means, and lower-case fascism is the ultimate end. The end goal of Communism 1.0 was a materialist workers’ paradise in which death and dissolution are a means, and the end goal of contemporary “woke” Communism is dissolution and death, even if their stated goal is different. We can therefore rebuke the assertion that fascism and Communism have the same end goals. In fact, their goals are diametrically opposed.

The end goal of both Communism and Fascism was an egalitarian economic order of wealth redistribution and the elimination of economic classes, all Italians and Germans on equal footing. Both employed progressive discourse of “social and economic justice,” the same stuff you hear from modern progressives constantly whining about income pay gaps between men and women as well as Whites and non-Whites. Hitler appropriated that economic egalitarianism and applied it to one ethnic group (Germans) and Mussolini to one nationality (Italians).

Hitler said this in 1943:

“All the more so after the war, the German National Socialist state, which pursued this goal from the beginning, will tirelessly work for the realization of a program that will ultimately lead to a complete elimination of class differences and to the creation of a true socialist community.” – Adolf Hitler’s Speech for the Heroes’ Memorial Day (1943) 

Mussolini explained his political end goal of abolishing most free enterprise and private property in the 1943 Verona manifesto:

“On February 12, 1944, Mussolini’s cabinet approved a bill of “socialization” that spoke about the “Mussolinian conception on subjects such as; much higher social justice, a more equitable distribution of wealth and the participation of labor in the state life.” Mussolini claimed that Italian capitalists had betrayed him after they had gained immensely from fascism, and that he now regretted his alliance with them and rediscovered his old socialist influences. He claimed that he had intended to carry out a large-scale nationalization of property in 1939–1940 but that the outbreak of war had forced him to postpone it, and promised that in the future, all industrial firms with over 100 employees would be nationalized. Mussolini even reached out to ex-communist Nicola Bombacci, a former student of Vladimir Lenin, to help him in spreading the image that Fascism was a progressive movement.”

So by the 40s, both Hitler and Mussolini were making clear that the final destination of fascism and National Socialism was the complete State takeover of all private affairs, “nothing outside the State”. That’s not meaningfully distinct from Marxist-Leninism.

Steuben writes:

But despite the fact that one is a means and the other an ends, “Fascism” and “fascism” are not wholly compatible with one another. Julius Evola observed that many of the Italian Fascists who had been idealists in the beginning ended up as boring party apparatchiks. This fact would appear to support Martinez’s position. But it does not. Fascism was a means that went too far and became an end in itself. As with many issues, this issue can be easily resolved through Aristotle’s golden mean. Anything taken to an unnatural extreme becomes a warped parody of its former self. Additionally, a great amount of slack must be given to the Italian Fascists, who found themselves overwhelmed by hostile powers and who had less time to realize their dreams than the Communists ended up with.

This is overly verbose bafflegab. Fascism did become a parody of itself and ended up plunging Europe into a bloodbath because of the vainglory of Mussolini and Hitler who thought they could bend the whole world to their own selfish whims. That’s the inevitable outcome of unchecked State power. The fascists were not “overwhelmed by hostile powers” they were themselves hostile to any State that was not ideologically fascist, invading and seeking to overturn them. Fascists don’t believe in nation-states or sovereignty they only believe in the ideology. Those not of the ideology are “heretics” and any sort of violence is justified against them, similar to radical Islam.

Steuben writes:

Additionally, if fascism and Communism had had the same goals, it would have been much less likely that they would have fought — and continue to fight each other — so vehemently. The Communists would have allied with the Falange against the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War. Many of the Sturmabteilung had originally been Communists, just as many Alt Right fascists had originally been libertarian because they were disillusioned with the mainstream options presented to them. Nevertheless, the violence between the former two in the Weimar Republic was not a farcical misunderstanding.

This is a red herring. Remember that Hitler had severe bloody quarrels with other Natsocs and fascists, culminating in the Night of the Long Knives violent purge. Were those he purged not also Natsocs? Nazis assassinated Dolfuss of Austria, who was also a fascist, because he wanted to keep Austria independent of German rule. Mussolini nearly went to war with Hitler to defend the sovereignty of Austria. Stalin purged out scores of other Bolsheviks, culminating in the execution of Kamenev and Zinoviev and assassination of Trotsky, yet they were all communists. Ideologically similar groups often do bloody battle against each other, the same way gangs of a similar nature war over turf.

This source says that more than 50% of recruits to the SA in general were ex-communists and as many as 70% of new recruits to the SA in Berlin were communists, hence why they were called “Beefsteak Nazis”. Mussolini was a diehard Marxist socialist, Hitler was involved in the Soviet Bavarian Republic and attended the funeral of Jewish Marxist Kurt Eisner.

The Strasser brothers, both prominent members of the NSDAP who shaped the party’s ideology, were committed economic socialists of a Marxian bent. Goebbels said that next to Hitler, Vladimir Lenin was his greatest idol and that the difference between NS and Communism was “very slight”. Joachim von Ribbentrop, Germany’s foreign minister, said that Bolshevism was a “kind of National Socialism”. So if you have Nazis themselves attesting to their intense similarities with communists, then this debate is over.

Steuben says that, “The Communists would have allied with the Falange against the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War”. Let’s hear what Hitler himself said about this:

“Early in November 1937 Hitler told his staff that an outright Franco victory in Spain was not desirable: ‘Our interest is in maintaining existing tensions in the Mediterranean.’ That Franco was fighting the Communist-backed Republicans was of only secondary importance. In April 1938 Hitler would muse out loud to Reinhard Spitzy, Ribbentrop’s private secretary: ‘We have backed the wrong horse in Spain. We would have done better to back the Republicans. They represent the people. We could always have converted these socialists into good National Socialists later. The people around Franco are all reactionary clerics, aristocrats, and moneybags — they’ve nothing in common with us Nazis at all!”” – David Irving, Hitler’s War & the War Path

So Hitler himself secretly wanted to align with the Reds against Franco because Franco wasn’t economically socialistic enough for his Marxian tastes. But pragmatism brought him to support Franco, which he regretted later when Franco refused to appease Hitler’s war aims in the Second World War. The Soviets didn’t align with the Falange probably only because they incorporated Catholicism into its doctrine, but on economic questions, the Falange was indistinguishable from the Reds they were fighting. Steuben also fails to mention the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression and commerical trade pact of 1939 and Italo-Soviet friendship and trade pact of 1933 which aligned fascism with the USSR. If they were diametrically opposed, why the friendliness and collaboration?

Here’s a quote from a commenter on Steuben’s article illustrating my point:

As a Fascist at heart I agree with most of it. As a teenager I was a Socialist, of the eco-type who wanted only to provide support for the poor and stop the ravaging effects of global capitalism on the natural world. Nothing about that has ever changed. Then, as I grew up, I simply added to that list a desire to protect the native European peoples and their cultures, and voila, I was now a Fascist. The step from well-meaning Democratic Socialism to Fascism is much smaller than anyone dares admit. Looking through the early 20th century with clarity, it’s plain to see how Mosley came from Labour, Mussolini came from the Italian socialist party, the NSDAP came from the German Labor Party. Fascism is a labor movement.”

So what he’s saying here is that fascists like himself remain economic Marxists and merely add a patriotic national sentiment to the discourse aka National Marxism.

Steuben writes:

Next, I completely agree that most fascists use Fascism selectively. I simply disagree with Martinez about whether this is the correct course of action, because fascism — or life and truth — should be our guiding principles, and not Fascism as a party program.

So if fascists use fascist doctrine selectively, then it’s not a doctrine of “truth” but cynical falsehood applied only when it’s convenient to do so. It’s like saying: “I believe in your free speech….but only when you agree with me”. I pointed this out about the fascist maxim of “States have rights over individuals (i.e. citizens)”. If applied universally, this would mean that right-wingers have no right to oppose our modern leftist States on anything they’re currently doing, like imposing transgenderism, diversity, hate speech provisions, wars, covid tyranny, etc. Fascists have no response to this philosophical quagmire because it nullifies the central premise of fascism, namely that the State is supreme and the citizen has no rights unless he agrees with the State (aka citizens can’t disagree with the State without severe punishment). If that logic doesn’t apply to all States, then it shouldn’t apply to any State.

Steuben writes:

For example, I have personally seen an anarchist punk skater become a bootlicking toady praising Ashli Babbitt’s executioner. I was initially shocked, but there is really no contradiction or hypocrisy. The enemy is a conduit of chaos, with dissolution as his ultimate goal. When they are out of power, they will be punk skaters; when in power, they will indulge in unmitigated anarcho-tyranny and statism. We should copy this winning strategy in the pursuit of fascism: While we are out of power, we should be libertarian in our methods; once in power we should, at least initially, be Fascists.

So when you’re out of power you will preach libertarian ethics? I don’t see many fascists actually doing this though, they ridiculed anyone on the Right who wasn’t gung-ho for “total Statism” in the face of covid tyranny and the scientific dictatorship being imposed by the WEF, UN and our national governments. They mocked the Canadian truckers and anti-vaxxers who opposed the “power of the State” to trample over the “liberal rights” of citizens. So by their own logic, the Great Reset tyrants have every right to jab your kid with Pfizer’s toxic brew because “the State has rights over individuals”. I don’t even disagree with the general sentiment that when we have power we should use it against the Left. That’s pretty much common sense, but we find ourselves in a moral quagmire by feigning beliefs we don’t actual hold.

Steuben writes:

This naturally leads to the argument that in doing so, we will become what we are fighting against. But statism is not like Sauron’s ring of power, regardless of what the libertarians claim. Otherwise, all of the governments in history would have descended into evil. The anti-statist sentiment which defines America is a relatively recent phenomenon spawned by the Enlightenment’s hatred of monarchy, which by the 1700s had degenerated into a parody of traditional kingship. This overreaction had some merit in its day, but is now an anachronism.

All governments have descended into some form of evil, actually, and only recently was their power checked. The greatest genocides in history were conducted almost exclusively by States with unchecked power to imprison, kill and enslave. Stalin’s Gulags, Mao’s Cultural Revolution and Pol Pot’s killing fields are classic examples of the end result of unchecked State power. The end result of Hitler and Mussolini’s unchecked State power was the bloodbath of the Second World War. I’m saying this not as a rejection of Statism but as an observable fact. States have a monopoly on the use of force and can take that to extremes if they wish to. With that said, States can also do good by protecting its citizens from foreign invaders and criminals. It all depends on who’s running the State. States in the right hands are necessary to sustain law and order and impose a moral guide for society, but States must also be regulated and checked by men of good moral character to keep it from going off the deep end into barbarism and tyranny. If business power must be checked, so must State power.

Steuben writes:

Furthermore, nature abhors a vacuum, especially in regard to power. The odd allergy to state power is only found on the Right. The Left has no qualms about it, and thus has had great success. The attitude that power corrupts only serves to ensure that those who are inherently corrupt wield power unimpeded while those who are virtuous render themselves unable to exercise their virtue in the political realm.

I don’t disagree with that statement and right-wingers should probably let go of their allergy to using State power in the name of good. But none of that changes the fact that unchecked State power does not usually bode well for anyone. If there must be limits on business, there must be limits on the State. Libertarians want a minimal state, fascists want a total state, and I reside somewhere in the middle there. So both of them try to throw me into the other camp because I reject the precept of both libertarianism and fascism.

Steuben writes:

The third point I wish to address is the idea that corporations cannot perform traditional state functions, such as the use of force and the enforcement of taxes. At first glance this appears to be a strong argument. But who ultimately wields more power, the President and Congress or the various private interests they must court to get elected and remain in office? Why run for Congress when you can make a Congressman your pet poodle? George Soros has worked to ensure that state power is used almost exclusively against his enemies, and rarely against his friends and pawns. And the fact that mega-corps design tax loopholes has become common knowledge even among the most apolitical.

The President and Congress undoubtedly wield more power and can do what they wish once in power. They don’t need to go begging to corporations to pass legislation, they just do it. The corporations are the ones who have to grovel before the politicians to get favours. If the corps had more power than politicians, then explain why the US Justice department just launched an anti-trust lawsuit against Google. The EU fined Google under its anti-trust laws. Microsoft nearly got broken up. AT&T was broken up under Reagan. If the corps had the power advantage here, none of that would happen. Soros can throw his money around at politicians, but so can labour unions, foreign country lobbies, charities like ADL and ACLU, etc. They’re all lobbying to get favours and laws passed, but none of them directly control the government. They must beg the State, not the reverse. Soros’ organizations were banned from Hungary, so obviously Soros is not dictating terms to every State, if he was then he’d just ignore Orban’s State orders and keep doing what he wants. It just happens that most of the political class agrees with the ideas of Soros on many issues.

Mega corps don’t need to design tax loopholes they just exploit ones that are already there. They get their fancy lawyers to pour through tax law to find the loopholes, which the government can then plug up at any time if it wants to. Average citizens can also try to exploit tax loopholes to shelter some of their own money from the tax authorities, it’s not only corps that are able to do that. If the corps had full control of the government, they’d just abolish the corporate tax, capital gains tax, etc. and not have to worry about finding loopholes to avoid paying. Still, you have not described how the State with its power to tax, wage war, print money, imprison citizens, and initiate force is less powerful than corporations. Corps can only wield such powers through the State, so the real power lies with the State.

Steuben writes:

There is also the matter of a potential power vacuum between the state and business. A perfect balance between state and corporate power would be ideal, but such a thing would be too delicate to last, anyway. One must eventually predominate over the other, like one side in a game of tug-of-war. It is simply the nature of the dynamic.

The State already predominates over business, if it didn’t then there’d be no anti-trust laws, regulations or taxes, all of which inhibit business. They’d all be abolished tomorrow. A perfect example is the covid tyranny. States forced all private businesses to close down for a year, causing thousands of them to fail. The ones who failed to comply were hit with fines. If businesses had power over States, then they’d have ignored all the lockdown orders and continued doing business. The State would have been powerless to enforce lockdowns if business had the upper hand.

Steuben writes:

The question is thus whether the state will rule business or vice versa, and to what extent. The threat of business conquering government is the Achilles’ heel of any liberal democracy. As Oswald Spengler explained in The Decline of the West, “It is symptomatic that no constitution knows of money as a political force, it is pure theory that they contain, one and all.” The state must rule business, or business will rule the state. It is a zero-sum game.

I don’t disagree that the State should have final say over business, but like I said, it already does in most countries other than extremely weak and lawless ones in the Third World. Business has influence on the State, just as labour unions, foreign countries, charities and voters do too, they’re all jockeying for influence with the State which has the powers to tax, print money, regulate, and initiate force. But the State has the upper hand over all the influence peddlers. Private citizens and private businesses must comply with State orders and laws, or they are punished, but the State doesn’t seem to have to follow its own rules. Only States can punish other States, like you saw at Nuremberg, but States rarely punish or regulate themselves. No Soviet mass murderer ever went to prison, unless put there by Stalin or one of his successors in a power struggle. You see that with the Intelligence Agencies and National Security State in many countries. They can get away with breaking the law (spying, assassinations, coups, war crimes) and few government law-breakers are punished, whereas even wealthy private citizens don’t often get away with murder, extortion, or other serious crimes. Justice even caught up with Epstein. There should be strong campaign finance laws and conflict of interest laws that separate the State and business as well as lobby groups of any kind.

Steuben writes:

It is therefore better to embrace a political order in which the state openly and honestly rules over business, but in which there are limits as to how it does so. Attempting to achieve a balance will invariably slide into the nearly absolute rule of the state by private business. The state being predominant is not a perfect option, but it is preferable, since government is nominally public and business is private.

We already have a political order where the State predominates. Maybe not to the extent you like, but that’s what we have. If we didn’t then why are the FBI and regulators telling Mark Zuckerberg what he’s allowed to have on his website? Hate speech laws and civil rights laws in Canada, Australia and Europe are directed by the State against private citizens and business, a clear case of the State being in control.

Here’s a very recent example of this:

Last week, a Manhattan jury awarded $11.25 million to 39-year-old Röbynn Europe, a black woman who sued her former employer, Equinox gym, saying she was unjustly fired for sexism and racism. Equinox claims she was fired for being late 47 times over 10 months, a fact that Europe acknowledged as true. According to the New York Times, Europe believed “her lateness was merely a pretext for discrimination.”

So the State has been weaponized by the privileged minorities against businesses. That is not a political order in which business predominates, but the State in favour of minority “rights,” in this case the right to be a lazy bum and not get fired for it.

Steuben writes:

One could counter that the current governments throughout much of the West are objectively evil, but this came about precisely because private interests of a Jewish nature were able to hijack the American government due to its weakness.

Jews can also hijack the government by directly entering the government, as they have done. By this logic we should abolish the government, so Jews can’t hijack it from within. Applying the term “private” to Jewish interests here seems superfluous. White nationalist organizations are also “private” since they’re not part of the State, but I doubt you’d argue against White nationalists exercising “private” rights to influence public discourse or policy. The issue with Jews is not one of public vs private, but of the battle of ethnic groups. Jews will infiltrate the State and use it to their own group advantage and they’ll do the same with business, and so should Whites. Preventing Jews from influencing Western States is a perfectly reasonable policy that I concur with. That has little to do with economic policy though, that’s in the realm of social policy.

Steuben writes:

A state should be an extension of the people. Our current government is indeed an extension of a people — the Jewish people, rather than its white founding stock. The US constitutional order abhors national government, and thus deracinated white business interests such as banks, railroads, and the industrial robber barons were able to corrupt it soon after its inception. The Founders’ naïve hope that ambition and private enterprise would check each other backfired and ultimately aggrandized those interests. As a result, these same greedy industrial interests hijacked the federal government in order to launch their war against the South, which permanently injured the states’ rights that the Constitution was ironically designed to protect. It was then quite easy for the Jews to insert themselves into this corrupt state of affairs a few decades later.

As far as I’m aware there was also Jewish influence in the American South, so framing the North vs South thing in Jewish terms is off base. The Jewish takeover of politics is the result of allowing Jews in politics. High-IQ Jews are able to take over any type of system, including authoritarian ones like the Soviet Union which they were predominant in. But they tend to thrive especially in the “liberal democratic” environment because it affords them the rights to organize for their interests. The remedy to this is not becoming communists who abolish business but becoming ethno-centrists aware that Jews do not share our interests and excluding them from the table of governance.

Steuben writes:

Furthermore, one of the best American presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, aptly wielded state power in domestic affairs in order to bust trusts, found the national park system, and pass the Meat Inspection and Pure Food and Drug acts while increasing US naval power abroad. It would be accurate to describe President Roosevelt as a proto-ecofascist. That Teddy is remembered as a beloved leader and not as a dark lord should thoroughly rebuke the claim that the use of state power inherently corrupts.

This example contradicts your previous claim that business is more powerful than the State. If it was, then Teddy Roosevelt would not have been able to bust trusts or pass regulations that harmed business interests. That’s proof that the State was in control and that big business power does not overtake the State. Roosevelt’s also known for aggressively supporting the Spanish-American war with the dubious sinking of the USS Maine. So once again we have unchecked State power taking its usual course towards war and expansion.

Theodore Roosevelt, as the U.S. rapidly built a powerful naval fleet of steel warships in the 1880s and 1890s. Roosevelt served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy in 1897–1898 and was an aggressive supporter of an American war with Spain over Cuban interests.

Steuben writes:

One could point to numerous examples of businesses having to kowtow to woke ideas such as diversity and equity, which had already been around in less virulent forms for decades in the form of human resources commissars. Isn’t this an example of government bullying business? Actually, no — it is woke businesses bullying other businesses that are not in lockstep with their agenda. Such enterprises simply fall outside the current Fascist synthesis of state and corporate power.

There are examples of both government and other woke businesses bullying other businesses to “go woke”. But that all started with the 1964 Civil Rights Act which forced businesses to kowtow to diversity and inclusion ideas, making it illegal to discriminate. That was replicated in Britain with the 1965 Race Relations Act and the Canadian Employment Equity Act, all of which are State-mandated diversity and wokeism. The Democrats and Labour were the ones who passed these acts in the US and UK, both of which lean towards anti-business economic socialism. Another recent example is the British government nudging the big CEOs to start diversifying their companies, which State enterprises in the UK like NHS and BBC already do.

To suggest that the State isn’t involved in imposing this is clearly wrong and it’s no surprise that fascists are the most enthusiastic deniers of the State’s role in this since they are ideologically pro-State and anti-business, hence their attempts to scapegoat leftism on business and absolve the State. Everything from gay marriage, transgender and LGBT equality laws, anti-racism, hate speech, feminist supremacy, foreign wars and mass immigration are achieved through the State and have clear benefits to politicians. I don’t deny that largely Jewish-run big businesses have co-signed these leftist agendas, often for ideological reasons and not purely economic factors since they’re willing to take temporary losses to push some of this stuff, but I don’t buy into the fascist argument that the solution is to abolish all private business and hand over unlimited powers to the State. If the State is run by leftists, then this achieves nothing. If it’s run by right-wingers, then we can achieve all the social stuff without banning private enterprise. By the same logic the solution is abolishing the State so it can’t impose any of this stuff on us. But I don’t think that’s the solution either.

Steuben writes:

A point which Martinez did not bring up but which I wish to address is the claim that “the bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.” There is actually some truth to this when Fascism abandons the Aristotelian golden mean and goes awry. All things else being equal, it is more efficient for issues to be handled at the lowest level possible — i.e., by the citizenry or local government. But civil society in America has all but withered today. Government overreach is one reason for this, but not the sole reason. One need only live for a brief time in a European country to observe the marked contrast.

Fascism negates localism and self-rule. It’s all about stiff centralization of power in a Federal Government. There are no provincial or states rights under fascism. If leftists control this type of State, there’s no opting out of their agendas.

Steuben writes:

The inverse of this dictum is also true. The lack of civil society requires a strong government to kick-start it, and then gradually back off. For example, the Third Reich enriched its people through sporting and cultural events following the social devastation of the Weimar era. A responsible nationalist government would do the same in the US today, and encourage people to be free and happy to the extent that state encouragement is needed.

You don’t need a fascist style of government to have sporting or cultural events. Even our left-wing States have ministries of culture that subsidize cultural events and projects.

Steuben writes:

I do not claim that Fascism is an ideal form of government. However, no ideal government can exist in the Kali Yuga — or in the post-modern/post-industrial world, if one prefers to discard Traditionalist metaphysics. But Fascism is at least functional, which is the best we can currently hope for. And while Fascism comes with the danger of falling into excess, the excesses of liberal democracy and unfettered capitalism have proven to be far worse, both in probability and magnitude. It is they who have become indistinguishable from Communism.

So you admit it’s not the ideal form of government and lends itself to overreach and tyranny, but advocate for it anyway because you can’t think of anything better. There are many more options than “fascism or liberal democracy,” narrowing politics down to these two options is a red herring. We don’t have unfettered capitalism today, we have some of the most regulated, taxed and socialized economies we’ve perhaps ever had. There are no income taxes, capital gains taxes, corporate taxes, property taxes, sales taxes and a regulatory agency for every industry under the sun in “unfettered capitalism”. What we have now are Keynesian mixed economies, which ironically is what some fascists claim to support, so we already have the “third position” they aspire to yet they’re still unsatisfied because they’re not even Keynesians they’re Marxists.

Steuben writes:

I am writing this partly out of respect for Martinez Perspective, and so would like to humbly and cautiously offer an explanation for his strong criticisms of Fascism. Recently, a number of individuals of the “zigger” community have become obnoxiously loud in praising Russia’s vanilla statism and casting Putin as a savior. This is particularly annoying given that Russia Today constantly runs anti-white propaganda, such as by attacking Daniel Penny for exercising his right to defend himself. The only justification offered is dismissive handwringing over geopolitics.

The strong support for Putin among fascists gives away the mindset they have. They want a powerful dictator with unchecked State power who wages war on his neighbors for Lebensraum. There’s very little difference between Putin’s Lebensraum and Hitler’s Lebensraum, one is cultural and the other ethnic. Fascism glorifies war as a form of national rebirth and rejuvenation, another maxim they use selectively since they’re always going off with Third Worldist rants about how much they hate American and Israeli war-making. They love Putin’s war-making because they believe it’s being done in opposition to the “liberal order,” even though Putin is himself a multiculturalist opposed to the neo-Nazism these people profess, giving away the accelerationist nihilism of these modern neo-fascist supporters of Putinism and Eurasianism. They don’t care about White people and will co-sign and vengefully justify any violence against White people done by governments not aligned with America and NATO.

Steuben writes:

A blanket dismissal of “statism” might trigger ziggers on Telegram, but it is not a serious position for a race-conscious white to take. There is no non-statist solution to the problems whites face today. If Martinez wishes to criticize Fascism, he is entitled to do so. Quite frankly, those who advocate Fascism and National Socialism today often tend to rest on other people’s laurels. But this will not be a serious debate until Martinez offers a statist alternative that better serves the interests of whites. Otherwise, he risks retreating into stale libertarian and conservative talking points.

I’ve never made a blanket dismissal of “Statism,” quite the contrary. Once again the fascios misrepresent my position to straw man it. If I rebuffed Statism en toto then I wouldn’t be supporting Ron DeSantis in his war against Disney, which is a case of the State lording it over woke business. I believe that the State in the right hands should impose a moral order, including over business, but that need not necessitate the fascist-communist program of “nothing outside the State”.

I believe that only through the State can we solve many of these social problems we face today, which would make me a “Statist” in the eyes of Libertarians. Immigration and the social order can only be solved on a wide scale via the State, but that doesn’t mean I want a Totalitarian State that can get hijacked by bad actors and turned against us.

I’ve also critiqued the apathy of Libertarians towards the plight of the West and Whites and their lack of moral direction. But because I also rebuff the hyper-Statism of the fascios, they put me in that camp in an attempt to hollow out the middle ground between Total Statism and Libertarian Anarchism. A competent and morally-grounded State need not be tyrannical or averse to the views of the common man. I don’t believe that the State has inherent rights over citizens, it only has the raw power to enforce its will insofar as citizens are inclined to obey it or powerless to oppose it. When the State oversteps its bounds, the citizens can and should rebel against it. If fascios don’t believe that then they should give up their current rebellious trajectory against our modern States and just obey like the good cattle that they are.

The lying hypocrite Eskin then hubristically complained about Poland’s new law forbidding suggestions of Polish culpability in the Holocaust, even while his fellow Jews have forced laws on dozens of European countries forbidding skepticism about the highly questionable Holocaust narrative.

Eskin is a close confidant of fellow satanic kabbalist Dugin and the Eurasianist movement. He promotes Russian expansion into Eastern Europe in order to exact revenge on the descendants of “Nazi collaborators” there.

Another prominent Jew who supports Dugin’s Eurasian project is Rabbi Avrom Shmulevich, who attended Dugin’s founding congress for the Eurasianist Russia-Wide Political Public Movement (OPOD) in 2001, representing Russia’s chief rabbi and Putin ally Berl Lazar at the conference.

Shmulevich said that “participation of the Jewish population of Russia in the “Eurasia” movement is explained by the strengthening of the relations between Russia and Israel and by the fact that the idea of eurasianism finds active support in Israeli society.”  He opined that “eurasianism gives the possibility of preserving for all peoples, including Jews, their identity.”

Sean Jobst extensively covered the Jewish links to Dugin and Eurasianism on our website, revealing how Eskin referred to both Jews and Russians as “chosen peoples,” and how Dugin praised Jewry’s blood-drenched role in Russian Bolshevism.

Dugin is not a white nationalist, writing in Foundations of Geopolitics that Russia “never made its goal the creation of a mono-ethnic, racially uniform state.” Putin made similar comments in a 2013 speech. “Nationalists must remember that Russia was formed specifically as a multi-ethnic and multi-confessional country from its very inception,” Putin said. “Nationalists must remember that by calling into question our multi-ethnic character, and exploiting the issue of Russian, Tatar, Caucasian, Siberian or any other nationalism or separatism, means that we are starting to destroy our genetic code. In effect, we will begin to destroy ourselves.”

Dugin only wishes to manipulate some gullible and shekel-hungry Western white nationalists as useful idiots in his “chaos” plan of backing both sides against the middle, all part of his spiritual warfare scheme against Western countries, endeavouring to break them apart by stoking racial and religious tensions among whites.

The fact is that Dugin is a mad occultist hell-bent on bringing an end to the world. He’s certainly no “ally” of Western patriots trying to preserve our heritage… in fact he wants us all dead.

But Nazbols, Duginists and alt-right Putin cucks won’t tell you that.

Virtually all of the foreign fighters for Novorossiya are open communists, socialists and “anti-fascists,” including non-white ones from South America. The following video has foreign militants testifying to their “anti-fascist” mission in Ukraine, some sporting communist flags in the background:

Here an Italian “anti-fascist” band plays Marxist tunes for their “comrades” in Novorossiya:

One of the Russian rebel leaders was nicknamed “Lenin”:

Commies, antifa and assorted trash were attracted to the conflict due to the open displays of communism and Stalinism in rebel-held eastern Ukraine, and also because they bought the Putin media narrative that the Maidan uprising and new Ukraine government were led by “Nazis”. Putin’s rebels openly glorify Stalin in their strongholds, putting up posters of the tyrant in public. They even named their stolen territory the Luhansk and Donetsk People’s Republics, a communist term. Many communist states call themselves “Peoples Republics.” Both communist China and North Korea have that in their official title.

The Guardian covered the “cult of Stalin” sweeping over rebel-held territory and the communist bent of the militants themselves, noting:

Three portraits of the former Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin are on display in the centre of Donetsk, the rebel capital of eastern Ukraine, as the separatist authorities fuel a mood of Soviet nostalgia.

The Stalin portraits have been placed in the main square and feature a quote from the wartime leader: “Our cause is just. The enemy will be routed. We will claim victory.”

The previously taboo display comes as the rebels revive Soviet customs to cement their Moscow-backed rule – while glossing over Stalin’s atrocities.

…

The Donetsk rebel leader, Alexander Zakharchenko, said how he regretted the break-up of the Soviet Union.

“The Soviet Union was a great country and it was a huge mistake that it was destroyed by the CIA and other secret services,” said the 39-year-old former field commander who prefers to dress in camouflage gear. “Europe and other countries were scared stiff of us.”

Stalin portraits have become de rigueur in the offices of rebel officials in eastern Ukraine, where the separatist conflict has killed more than 8,000 people.

The Donetsk rebels’ deputy defence minister, Eduard Basurin, wears a badge with Stalin’s profile on his uniform.

This new cult of Stalin revives the memories in Donetsk, a coal-mining city that was formerly known as Stalino.

Across Ukraine, the authorities have already pulled down numerous statues of Lenin, much to the rebel leaders’ disgust.

The Donetsk rebels’ culture minister, Alexander Paretsky, condemned “vandalism and barbarism” while the leader of the Luhansk rebel region, Igor Plotnitsky, warned of a “moral genocide”.

In the town of Novoazovsk on the Azov sea, the rebels ceremonially restored a Lenin statue to its pedestal after taking control from Ukrainian forces.

In forging a new identity for the separatist region, the rebels have largely turned to the Soviet past.

Their territories are called “people’s republics”, echoing the Soviet-era names of Communist satellites such as Bulgaria, Mongolia and Romania.

Luhansk People’s Republic has a new emblem featuring sheafs of corn and a red star, like those of the USSR’s republics.

The rebels are even attempting to revive the Soviet-era Young Pioneer youth group, a kind of socialist Scouts.

In a more sinister move, the rebels named their security organ the Ministry of State Security or MGB, the same as Stalin’s secret police from 1946 to 1953.

Their justice system is also modelled on the Soviet system, where the defendant had little chance of acquittal. “It’s the Soviet model of the prosecutor’s office that we adopted in Donetsk,” said Andrei Spivak, the official charged with overhauling the system.

… But such idealisation of the Soviet era by the authorities comes with a denial of anything that spoils the rosy image. In August, the Donetsk rebel authorities decided to pull down a monument to victims of the 1930s famine in Ukraine.

And Donetsk State University removed a monument to Ukrainian dissident Vasyl Stus, a poet and campaigner for national culture, who spent decades in jail and died in a prison camp in 1985 at the age of 47.”

So while Russia’s rebels have put up posters, statues and other symbols glorifying Bolshevik butchers Lenin and Stalin, the Ukrainians have been tearing down Soviet iconography imposed over their nation by the communists.

Communists around the world took note of Novorossiya’s Soviet/communist bent, and began flooding in to help fight the “Nazi Ukrainians.” A heroin-addicted communist from Britain, Benjamin Stimson, was charged and jailed for terror offences after returning to the UK from the frontline in Ukraine. He joined the rebels in Ukraine after studying “pro-Communist propaganda about the Ukraine conflict on the internet when his business crumbled.” “Barnaby Jameson prosecuting said Stimson had flown to the region after searching details of the conflict the internet and downloading anti Ukranian propaganda characterising its leader as a ‘fascist’ and ‘Nazi’,” noted an article about the degenerate.

Eight communist antifa Spaniards were arrested and charged with fighting for Russia’s rebels. The Spaniards “belonged to the far left and were inspired by the International Brigades, the multinational volunteer forces that fought against Francisco Franco’s uprising during the Spanish civil war in the 1930s.” Two Spaniards in particular, Rafael Muñoz Pérez and Ángel, can be seen in the first video of this post with a communist and Spanish republican flag in the backdrop. El Pais discovered they were both “members of far-left youth groups [and] view the conflict [in Ukraine] as akin to the Spanish Civil War.” “Pérez is a former social worker from Madrid, now based in Gijón (Asturias), where he has been a member of the youth wing of the United Left group since 2010. Ángel, meanwhile, is from Murcia, and belongs to the youth wing of a branch of the Spanish Communist Party,” reported El Pais.

Numerous Brazilian communists flew thousands of miles to assist Russia’s rebels communize Ukraine. One who was recently arrested by Ukraine for his terrorist activities with the rebels told reporters he was drawn to the conflict because he was a communist who admired the Soviet Union, and thought it was his Marxist duty to “fight fascism.” Even Israeli communists have joined the fight. One of them, Ina Levitan, cited the typical anti-fascist motivation for her involvement, telling the Jerusalem Post that she went there “to fight who she calls fascists and neo-Nazis.” Dozens of former IDF soldiers are fighting with the Russian rebels, according to the rebels’ Jewish foreign minister Alexander Kofman.

An official Antifa International page declared: “We support Donbass and Novorossiya.” A communist blog did a profile glamorizing Russian rebel commander Alexey Mozgovoy as a Marxist hero. “We endorse his struggle as the struggle of a comrade and regard his murder as a setback for the people’s movement in Lugansk People’s Republic,” wrote the communist blog. “Lenin was one of Mozgovoy’s heroes and we will let Lenin have the last word on this comrades struggle.”

The bulk of Novorossiya support evidently comes from the left.

An #Antifa family in the #Novorossiya #Donbass militia ranks. Defending their homeland from Western backed UkroNazis. pic.twitter.com/kxRDKUpSGq

— S. Albert (@Harkonen2) April 5, 2015

On the other hand, no communists or antifa support the Ukraine side, which is universally condemned by leftists of all stripes as “Nazi,” “fascist” and “racist.” During the Maidan uprising and subsequent war in Donbass, anti-American leftists and Chomskyites all vomited out the odious Kremlin narrative that America was “on the side of the Nazis” and that Putin was the new St. George who would defeat a resurgent Ukrainian fascism.

There are some smaller right-wing elements among Russia’s rebels, but their pathological Russian ideology prevents them from recognizing that Stalin and the Soviet Union were evil subhumans. They’re essentially Russian imperialists who delusionally try to fuse Czarist and Bolshevik ideology (hence the Nazbol phenomenon), even though the Bolsheviks murdered the Czar and his entire family. But ultimately these confused morons are willing to work alongside anti-white communists, antifa and socialist snowflakes in order to bring about a new Russian Bolshevik imperium modelled on the USSR. They’re essentially no better than the communists nostalgic for the Soviet Union, as they want to erase Ukraine, the Baltics and other distinct Eastern European cultures, replacing their identities with a generic, non-racial Russian civic identity.

Many genuine Russian nationalists who opposed Putin and supported Ukraine were persecuted for doing so. Dimitriy Savvin was one of them, electing to leave Russia rather than go to jail. Opposition politician Boris Nemtsov was critical of Putin’s Ukraine policy, and was murdered by Chechen thugs dispatched by Kadyrov, Putin’s puppet Chechen ruler. Denis Voronenkov, a Russian politician and former Putin ally, broke ranks with Putin over Ukraine policy and ended up emigrating to Kiev and renouncing his Russian citizenship. He was then gunned down on a Kiev street last year. Any support for Ukraine among Russians is severely punished by Putin’s Bolshevik regime.

It’s truly amazing that the Kremlin cuck faction of the alt-right find themselves in an alliance with antifa communists in the Ukraine conflict, while being essentially at war with antifa on our own streets. It just goes to show how Russia has cynically manipulated both the far-left and far-right to support their cause using targeted propaganda tailored for both camps. For the right-wingers they play up the Orthodox Christian angle and throwbacks to Czarism; and for the leftists they pimp Stalin, Lenin and the Soviet legacy of Russia. But all of it is being used to prop up a lousy petrol mafia run by Gas Man Putin and his billionaire oligarch friends who certainly share none of that wealth with the Russian people.

The real heroes here are the anti-Communist Ukrainians who are staving off a second Bolshevik invasion of mainland Europe. The strong nationalism, patriotism and racialism of the Banderite Ukrainians – especially those white patriots among the Azov, Right Sector, Svoboda and National Corps – should be receiving much sympathy from the alt-right, but the Kremlin’s dirty agents in our midst have led many astray, into a disgraceful alliance with our Bolshevik enemies.

Here are some of the elements that Russia is currently controlling:

The “anti-imperialist” left: These are people who I would categorize as Chomskyite leftists whose main agenda is to oppose American and Western “imperialism” and foreign policy. They cross-pollinate with the generic “anti-war”/”pro-peace” crowd. They portend to be anti-interventionist and anti-war, but that’s a farce. They’re only against Western-led wars and interventions because they’re anti-Western, and, ultimately, anti-white who push the discourse of post-colonialism and white guilt. These hypocrites fully support wars and interventions when regimes of the global east or south wage them, particularly Russia and China. Their agenda is to dismantle NATO and the American empire in order to erect an anti-white BRICS coalition empire, led by Russia and China, to dominate the globe and “punish” the West. This category includes double-speaking liars like George Galloway, Jeremy Corbyn, Abby Martin, Max Blumenthal, Patrick Henningsen, Eric Draitser, Michel Chossudovsky, James Corbett, William Blum, Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill, Amy Goodman, Chris Hedges and virtually anyone who writes for Counter-Punch and Global Research. Unsurprisingly, all of these dubious characters are fixtures on Russia’s English-language television stations pumping out their anti-Western vitriol. Some even have or have had their own shows on the RT/Sputnik network. Martin has had a show on both RT and the Venezuelan (Marxist) channel Telesur. Galloway currently has a show on Sputnik and previously on Iran’s Press TV.

Pro-Assad Groupies: This faction grew out of the Syrian civil war. It largely consists of opportunistic, attention-seeking Western women, as well as Syrian women living in the West, looking to make names for themselves by pimping pro-Assad talking points. Since Russia intervened to save the Assad regime from destruction, these groupies have come out swinging for Putin and Russia generally, siding with the Kremlin in the dispute with Ukraine. They’re also generally part of the “anti-imperialist” leftist club, ragging on about how the West is evil and how anything non-Western is benevolent and good, especially non-white socialist dictators with the exception of Putin. These frauds include Vanessa Beeley, Eva Bartlett, Mimi al-Laham (Syrian Girl), Carla Ortiz, and numerous other narcissistic females. Also Tim Anderson, a radical Marxist professor from Australia who was previously linked to a terrorist incident there, is chief among these Assad pushers, most likely in an effort to get laid with these ex-pat Syrian women running rampant in Australia.

American Libertarians: The American libertarian movement has been built up by the Kremlin because they favour total isolationism and call for a drastic reduction in US military spending. Russia Today is a major platform for US-based libertarians, and the majority of them parrot Kremlin talking points so closely that it would be a miracle if they weren’t being paid by Russia to do so. In their blind hatred of America and dislike of its foreign policy, these libertarians have jumped on the Putin cult bandwagon, pimping him as a “counter-force” against something they hate, even though the hypocrites are abandoning all of their libertarian principles to do so. The American government is far more libertarian on issues like free speech and gun rights than the totalitarian regime of Putin which jails hundreds of people a year for expressing opinions the Kremlin doesn’t like. Journalists are routinely assassinated in Russia. Some of these libertarians have cozied up to the Kremlin for opportunistic reasons so they could get more publicity selling themselves and their brand on RT. Some of these charlatans include Ron Paul, Daniel McAdams, Justin Raimondo, Scott Horton, Ryan Dawson and Adam Kokesh. In fact, Ron Paul’s underlings have direct links to pro-Kremlin NGOs based in Europe. An investigation titled “Ron Paul’s Institute for Putin’s Priorities” goes into the links.

Disgruntled Ex-US Government Employees: This group is made up of former US government employees who became disgruntled with their former employers for various reasons. This includes Sibel Edmonds (FBI), Paul Craig Roberts (former Reagan administration), Philip Giraldi (CIA), Michael Scheuer (CIA), and many others. Roberts is probably the most rabid and delusional Putin worshipper of the lot, but they all generally push the anti-US, anti-NATO line which serves the Kremlin, and never investigate Kremlin corruption, imperialism or false flags.

Shia & other opportunistic Muslims: This group consists largely of Shia Muslims who have taken up an alliance with Russia to counter their Sunni rivals in the Middle East. Shia and Sunni Muslims don’t really get along, so the opportunistic Shias have aligned themselves with Russia and China in order to gain more power and influence across the Middle East, which is mostly Sunni. Iran, Hezbollah and Assad all belong to the Shia sect of Islam. Don’t let these Shias fool you into thinking they’re the “good” Muslims as opposed to the “bad” Sunnis. Nor are they particularly principled either. During the Iraq war, many Shias backed the US invasion to topple the Sunni Saddam Hussein who kept Iraqi Shias marginalized. Iran directly aided the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 in order to topple the rival Sunni fundamentalist regime of the Taliban. These Shias are more than willing to work with the “great Satan” when it suits their interests. But now their interests align more with Russia, so that’s who they’re shilling for. Among the North American “truth movement” are Shia shills like Jonathan Azaziah, Mark Glenn, Sarah Abdullah, Khanverse, Kevin Barrett and other oddballs who tout Putin and Russia as saviours of their beloved Shia regimes in the Middle East. Barrett isn’t a Shia but he has ingratiated himself with the Iranian regime and its media branch Press TV, so he serves their interests. These hacks feign an anti-war stance until their Russian and Iranian paymasters enter the fray.

The “Kremlin-First” Alt-Right: Numerous prominent pundits on the alt-right have pushed a strong pro-Russia, pro-Putin line, usually relying on false and exaggerated claims of Putin’s conservatism to justify their support. The strongest Putin advocate in the alt-right is Richard Spencer who has direct personal connections to Russia and the cult of Russian-Eurasianist ideologue Alexander Dugin. Spencer’s wife, Nina Kouprianova, is Russian. She operates as a Putin bot on Twitter, has translated the works of Dugin into English and has appeared on RT television to regurgitate Kremlin spin about NATO and Ukraine. It seems that everyone Spencer has surrounded himself with tow this pro-Putin cult line, especially Mike Enoch, who marches in lock-step with Spencer in denouncing Trump whenever Trump does something contrary to Putin’s interests. Spencer doesn’t seem to get along with other alt-right pundits who don’t follow his Russian script, such as Greg Johnson. Another big Putin pusher in the alt-right is David Duke, who has his own strong links to Russia, having lived there for years. He always brags of having sold his book Jewish Supremacism in the lobby of the Russian parliament. Duke is also a major Assad groupie, as is Spencer, having been hosted in Syria in 2005 where he gave a speech. This is largely a result of the Russian loyalty, since Assad is Putin’s puppet. Elsewhere Duke has been pictured with Dugin. Matt Heimbach, the disgraced former head of the Traditionalist Workers Party, is the clearest Duginist in the alt-right, having been mentored by Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson, a Russophilic “orthodox medievalist” academic who has spent his career promoting Russia as the saviour of the white race and Christianity. Dugin actually spoke at Heimbach’s opening party conference, and the party’s aesthetics largely mirror the symbols of Dugin’s Eurasianist movement. Alongside Heimbach in leading the Putin cucking in the alt-right is Andrew Anglin, the oddball editor of the Daily Stormer who fled the United States and is now most likely living in Russia. From the beginning, Anglin has advanced the Putin cult, using all the standard overused talking points. An investigation into Anglin noted the likelihood he was being sponsored by Russia to agitate during the 2016 US election:

Anglin hadn’t been to the polls in years, but he wasn’t going to miss a chance to vote for Trump. His absentee ballot arrived in Ohio from Krasnodar, a city in southwest Russia near the Black Sea, according to Franklin County records. That the Russian government wouldn’t know about an American inside its borders publishing a major neo-Nazi website seems improbable. Anglin worshipped Putin, and seemed like exactly the type of online agitator Russia might use to sow chaos during the U.S. election. In March, Auernheimer told Daily Stormer commenters that he was setting up the site’s forum on “a much beefier server in the Russian Federation.” Anglin would later swear on his site—“under penalty of perjury”—that he’d never taken money or direction from the Russian government.

Most alt-righters who only listen to Spencer, Anglin and Duke end up also parroting the narratives of the Putin cult because they don’t know any better. Other alt-right sources who spread Putin worship are Red Ice TV and Arktos Media. Red Ice’s second-in-command is Lana Lokteff, who has Russian roots, and thus a strong ethnic bias for Russia and Putin. Arktos has routinely promoted and printed books by Dugin.

Truthers, American “Patriots” and Alt-Lighters: Chief among the Putin shills in this category is Alex Jones, a loudmouth charlatan who takes up any position if it will earn him more viewers and money. Around 2012 Jones started pushing a pro-Putin conspiratard line, that Putin was opposing the globalists and is our saviour from the New World Order, reversing himself from years earlier when he called Putin a terrorist “demon” and “creature of the IMF.” Jones has openly embraced Alexander Dugin, and the two have cross-interviewed each other.  For years Jones has received favourable interviews on RT. This highly-embellished and kooky discourse that Putin is an anti-globalist hero has filtered down to the broader “truther” community who eat it up like chocolate cake. This community is extremely gullible. With their chronic disbelief in any mainstream news source, these fools believe any shoddy fake news website that runs under the alternative label. Others in this category include Mike Cernovich, Paul Joseph Watson and Jay Dyer. Dyer is the most clear Duginist of the lot, pushing asinine conspiracy theories depicting every terror attack and shooting in the West as a staged hoax with crisis actors, as per his KGB demoralization agenda to convince Westerners their societies are irredeemably corrupt and that their salvation lies in Russia and Putin.

Eastern Orthodox Christians: Some eastern orthodox Christians have adopted the Putin cult simply because they identify more with the Eastern variants and institutions of Christianity than Western ones. Also, conservative Christians in general were wooed by Putin’s law against “gay propaganda” to minors. These eastern orthodox Christians are akin to Muslims and Muslim converts who support various foreign Muslim governments or groups above their own countries of residence, or Western Jews who put Israel first. These Christians harbour a religious allegiance to Russia, and by extension its government, because it’s seen as the hub of the Orthodox faith. A prominent example of this is Brother Nathael Kapner, the anti-Judaic former Jew who has spread delirious pro-Putin propaganda for years. Kapner even claimed an association with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), which, like the parent church, is probably a front for the KGB. Jay Dyer is also one of these orthodox converts who carries a religious motive behind his obscene cucking for Russia and anti-Western antipathy.

Some Zionist Jews: Some rabid Zionists favour a closer alliance with Putin and Russia because Russia doesn’t care about human rights and won’t bother Israel as much about settlement building and war crimes committed in Gaza. Various articles in mainstream publications have been written outlining the common interests between Israel and Russia, and how the US is not a reliable ally for Israel any longer. A Zionist, Josh Cohen, opined in Reuters that “With the emergence of Putin, though, Israel found the closest thing to a friend it’s ever had in Moscow,” outlining Russian-Israeli common interests as such:

Israel and Russia share a common fear of terrorism, and in 2014 Putin was one of the few world leaders to support Israel’s Operation Protective Edge against Hamas, saying “I support Israel’s battle that is intended to keep its citizens protected.” In 2005, Putin became the first Russian president to ever visit Israel, visiting the Western Wall – Judaism’s holiest site – as well as Israel’s Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial, where Putin observed a moment of silence. The Russian president even reportedly purchased an apartment in Tel Aviv for his then-84-year-old Jewish German teacher. Putin returned to Israel in 2012 as the guest of honor at a state dinner and to inaugurate a monument to the Red Army soldiers who defeated Hitler in World War Two.

Another op-ed in The Week argued why “Russia should take over Israel’s defences from America,” with reasoning similar to that of Cohen. Putin’s close links with Chabad Lubavitch and crackdown on anti-Jewish speech and Holocaust revisionism within Russia also has some Jews swooning.

All of these compromised activists fall in line with the stated Duginist agenda to infiltrate and subvert anti-establishment political currents in the West, drawing them into Putin’s orbit of useful idiots. In his “Principles & Strategy for the Coming War,” Dugin openly writes of the need for Russia, as part of its multi-pronged war effort against Europe and America, to recruit a Putinist/Eurasianist fifth-column inside the West so that when the “great war” begins, Russia can activate its sleeper cell networks as internal saboteurs. Dugin wrote,

Therefore, the first task to gain victory would be real fully-fledged company to create the entirely negative, monstrous, satanic image of the United States and the West in general. Therefore, the West is a place where the devil resides. It is the center of the global capitalist tentacles. It is the matrix of ​​rotting cultural perversion and a vice grip of falsehood and cynicism, violence and hypocrisy.

Ask yourself, is this not exactly what the majority of these alt-pundits promote, both left and right, that the West is satanic and evil and that in order to redeem ourselves our civilization must first die and then be reborn (under Russian control/direction)? With the above list of Kremlinist operators in the alt-media and politics, we can observe clearly that the Dugin agenda is alive and well amongst these “dissidents.” Dugin and his Kremlin backers have largely succeeded in coopting virtually all alternative media and politics in the West, save for a few principled holdouts who caught on to the charade and oppose it.

Nigel Farage, the former leader of the civic nationalist UKIP Party and architect of Brexit, actually called out the power of the Jewish-Israeli lobby in the United States in an apparent effort to cuck for Russia.

A caller to Farage’s radio show said that the Israeli lobby is more worrisome than Russian hacking, which was met with agreement from Farage, who echoed the caller’s remarks saying that “there are about six million Jewish people living in America, so as a percentage it’s quite small, but in terms of influence it’s quite big.” “In terms of money and influence [Israel has] a very powerful lobby,” Farage added, remarking further that “there are other very powerful lobbies in America, with the Jewish lobby, that has links with the Israeli government, is one of those strong voices.”

While Farage’s comments acknowledging Jewish power are good, the fact that these words only came out of his mouth in an attempt to shill for the Russians, who stand accused of meddling in the US and other elections, lowers my opinion of it. It is actually amazing that Farage, whose UKIP Party was totally pro-Jewish and known to have expelled members for “anti-Semitism,” is willing to out the Jewish lobby’s influence in order to deflect scrutiny from the Kremlin. It seems that Russia has such a hold over these civic nationalist cucks in the West that they’re more afraid of Putin than the Jews!

Farage has been a darling of Kremlin media channel RT, appearing regularly there to push for Brexit, which the Kremlin supported as part of its campaign to break up the EU.

Farage was immediately taken to task for the Jewish lobby comments by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, a powerful Jewish lobby group in Britain.

It’s true that the Israeli lobby has more influence within the walls of Washington than Russia does. That’s evident from the fact that no American politician will be caught dead criticizing Israel but many are strong critics of Russia and Putin. But that doesn’t mean Russia is not involving itself in a subversive way in the affairs of Western states; it clearly is. Both of those groups are a problem for us, so pointing fingers at one in an effort to excuse the other is the wrong approach.

Moreover, Russia and Israel have formed a strong bond over the past 10 years under Putin’s reign, so separating the two as if they’re not actually in league with each other is also wrong. Russia and Israel have much more in common culturally and historically than the West and Israel. A third of Israelis are of Russian origin, speak Russian as their first language, and regularly visit Russia and vote in Russian elections. That’s why Putin called Israel a “special state” for the Russian world.

Both Russia and Israel want us to cuck for their interests and agendas, which means that our best response is to oppose them both, stopping their schemes dead in their tracks.

The assumption of power by globalist Pakistani Muslim Sadiq Khan to the mayoralty of London is a clear sign from the globalists that they intend to colonize and humiliate the white race in our own lands.

Muslims preach utter contempt and hatred for us disbelieving “kuffar” while they live and benefit from the societies our white ancestors built.

The strategic positioning of non-whites like Khan into power positions in the West is a wretched sign of our civilization’s demise. The bastard Khan once commented that terrorist attacks are “part and parcel” of living in a big “global” city like London. What he’s really telling us is that daily life in the backwards nation of Pakistan where his parents are from sees routine terror attacks and bloody violence in the streets. British people, Khan implied, should get used to the retrogression of their living conditions to a Pakistani level of intolerable squalor and routine terrorist violence now that Muslims are running their biggest city and represent a major demographic block in the country.

RT has been pumping out videos showing proud Spaniards shouting “Viva Espana!” and giving Roman salutes.

The Kremlin believes it is still fighting a Bolshevik war against fascism, doing its best to demonize the nationalism of other nations when it isn’t in the interests of the criminal Putin oligarchy.