A Ukrainian report detailed the ethnic invasion of Mariupol since it fell to Russia:

I interviewed a Ukrainian resident of Mariupol who spokes of hordes of “churki” (non-Whites) invading her city since the Russians occupied it.

Here’s video of the “churki”:

Radio Free Europe reported on the hundreds of Central Asian migrants being lured into Ukraine to work, who are then prevented from leaving by Russian border guards.

A Ukrainian outlet reported that, “Ukrainian residents are forced to leave due to unemployment and humanitarian catastrophes, while migrants loyal to Russia are imported in their place.”

A CEPA report on the subject intimated the same thing, quoting a Mariupol witness who saw an influx of migrants from “Chechnya, Buryatia, and other nationalities” arriving in her city. The article argues that this is a deliberate Kremlin strategy to extinguish Ukrainian identity.

The policy echoes Crimea where 600,000 Russian citizens moved to the area after Putin took it over in 2014, in order to further Russification.

60% of the Ukrainian residents of Melitopol fled to other parts of Ukraine and have been replaced by Russian citizens.

So after completely annihilating cities like Mariupol, destroying 93% of its high-rise buildings and killing thousands of civilians, they rub salt on Ukraine’s deep wounds by importing Russians to replace them. This is genocide!

In addition to killing thousands, other Ukrainian refugees fleeing the conflict zones are brought deep into remote areas of Russian territory and not permitted to return.

Meanwhile, their former city of Mariupol is being rigorously Russified with the takeover of the education system, television and everything else.

According to Yale’s Research Lab, 35,000 Ukrainian children have been kidnapped from orphanages and brought to Russia where they are indoctrinated in reeducation camps and “adopted” by Russian families.

Putin’s Children’s Rights Commissioner Maria Lvova-Belova has asserted that she received 700,000 children from Ukraine since 2022. The intent of this process is “eradicating their Ukrainian identities and turning them into Russians.”

Some are even given military training to prepare them for future conflicts on Russia’s behalf.

They are forbidden to speak Ukrainian and must recite Russian patriotic songs, or be punished.

A US report alleges that at least 6,000 children have received this fate.

In March 2025 it was reported that Putin issued a decree demanding that Ukrainians leave the territories occupied by Russia. This is part and parcel of the campaign of ethnic cleansing (push Ukrainians out, bring Russians in, Ukrainians who stay must be “Russified” and any attachment to Ukraine eradicated).

Russia is so fearful and paranoid of anything linked to Ukraine that they banned Ukrainian holidays in the occupied regions.

All of this homicidal imperialism comes from a mindset prevalent inside the Kremlin halls of governance. Putin, former president Dmitry Medvedev and other Kremlin elites have regularly denied Ukraine’s statehood and distinctness as a cultural identity. They view the existence of Ukrainian identity as a roadblock to Russia’s “greatness” and “glory” as the regional hegemon.

Here Medvedev dehumanizes Ukrainians as “blood-sucking parasites,” then denies their statehood and identity, suggests they’re just Russians, and calls for the eradication and conversion of their country into a “Great Big Russia”.

Elsewhere he has echoed the same berserk genocidal rhetoric.

Here he says that all of Ukraine is “disputed” territory.

Here he calls for the Kiev government to be “completely destroyed”.

Putin has said the same thing.

Vladislav Surkov, the former “grey cardinal” of Kremlin propaganda, said “there is no Ukraine, no Ukrainian-ness” in an interview:

Alexander Dugin, an ideologist close to the Kremlin elite, said “it is necessary to abolish the idea of Ukraine building its own nation.” In other words, the erasure of Ukraine as both a country and a culture.

In “Foundations of Geopolitics,” Dugin pleaded for the total annexation and erasure of Ukraine as an independent state:

This homicidal antipathy towards Ukrainian identity has been drip-fed by the Kremlin political elite all the way down to the average Russian solider fighting on the frontlines in Ukraine. A Russian solider below holds up the skull of a dead Ukrainian solider and says they are at war “with the Ukrainian idea”.

This type of pathological hatred of Ukrainians has been absorbed by many average Russians who repeat it on the streets of Moscow and St. Petersburg. This old bag is seen inciting the genocidal extermination of all Ukrainians and Poles.

Kremlin-loyal journalists have peddled Bolshevik-tier genocidal rhetoric from the start of the 2022 war. Early in the war, Timofey Sergeytsev published a piece in RIA-Novosti asking “What Russia should do with Ukraine?” He answered his own question by recommending the “full destruction of Ukraine as a state, as well as the full destruction of the Ukrainian national identity.” He calls for making Ukraine’s further existence “impossible,” for the word Ukraine to be banned and for the “liquidation” of the Ukrainian elite, followed by “forced labor, imprisonment and the death penalty” in concentration camps for non-compliant Ukrainians.

A pro-Kremlin television presenter, Anton Krasovsky, took it a step further by calling for Ukrainian children to be drowned and burned alive.

Denying the very existence of an ethno-cultural group and the legitimacy of their state is customary for colonial empires seeking to wipe out and conquer another group. All of this bloodthirsty invective aligns perfectly with an intended genocidal colonial conquest. This kind of sentiment is regular on Kremlin TV networks and has filtered down to regular soldiers on the front lines who are carrying out Putin’s erasure project.

Not only is the Kremlin waging a demographic war on Ukraine, but also on other countries like Poland and Finland. Russia has been weaponizing migrants and thrusting them up at the Finnish border since at least 2015.

The operation began in earnest in 2015-2016 when Russia, according to a report on the matter, directed 7,200 migrants to the borders of Finland, Norway, Estonia and Latvia.

In response to Finland joining NATO after Russia’s attack on Ukraine, Russia has been directing hundreds of migrants back at Finland’s border.

Migrants who were blocked from entry to Finland are even being recruited by Russia to fight in Ukraine.

Lukashenko in Belarus notoriously organized a massive migrant invasion of Poland in 2015, in which he flew hundreds of Middle Easterners to Belarus and then shuttled them to the Polish border to cause chaos.

The coordinated attack saw “tens of thousands” of brown Middle Eastern invaders try to break into Poland from Belarus, egged on by Lukashenko himself.

Russia Today sent a journalist to the Polish border to hassle Polish border guards and portray them as “racists” for not letting in the invaders.

These waves of migrant attackers continued to pour in in 2023, with 19,000 arriving via Belarus.

They come mostly from Iraq and many are being flown in on Belarus’ state airline.

Belarussian authorities are openly aiding and abetting these invaders.

Poland busted a migrant smuggling network that organized passage for thousands of migrants from Belarus and Russia into EU countries.

The Belarussian organized migrant assault led to the death of one Polish soldier who was stabbed by a migrant.

Belarus and Russia are not only swamping EU countries with Muslim migrants, but even their own.

In 2023 alone, 1.2 million Tajiks entered Russia to work, of the 5.13 million migrants who entered Russia that year.

Most other immigrants to Russia are from Central Asian countries.

Putin has overseen large-scale migration into Russia from mostly Muslims from Central Asian countries, whom he coddles with mosques and handouts. I won’t cover that in depth here, but you can watch my documentary on it here. Putin has made varied statements praising Russia’s “diversity” and “multiculturalism” as its “greatest strength,” as well as encouraging mixed marriages to integrate different ethnic and religious groups.

He has denounced ethnic conceptions of nationalism as born of a “caveman” mindset and cracked down on that sentiment in Russia.

After the Crocus City Hall attack in Moscow last year in which hundreds of Russian civilians were slaughtered in public, Putin tried to shift the blame from the Muslim terrorists responsible onto Ukraine, then made a visit to Chechnya where he kissed the Koran and praised Islam.

For his part, Lukashenko has done similar things in Belarus, as recently as April of this year announcing a deal with Pakistan to bring in 100 to 150 thousand Pakistani workers to Belarus.

In response to that news, young Belarussians took to the internet to criticize the policy of dumping Pakistanis in their country, but were met with suppression, according to a Polish news portal.

Lukashenko, like Putin, encouraged Belarussian women to mix with Middle Eastern men, asserting that the offspring between them were superior to that of two Belarussians:

Despite the anti-Western and anti-White politics of both Belarus and Russia, many moronic Western “conservatives” like Tucker Carlson continue to glaze these leaders as vastly superior to our own leaders. Carlson appeared on Piers Morgan’s show to spread the Kremlin’s lies about Ukraine, suggesting he doesn’t dislike Putin because Putin “never called me a racist”.

If Tucker had done a nano second of real research, he’d know that Putin has launched racism charges at the “collective West” many times, accusing us all of racism and colonialism.

Putin and his sidekick Dugin are increasingly launching these collective blood libels at the West, while portraying themselves as the saviours of browns, Africans, Muslims, Latinos, Asians and the “third world” in general.

As Russia attempts to ethnically cleanse and colonize a White European, Christian country (Ukraine), it simultaneously enmeshes itself with black, brown and Asian nations who’re more agreeable to its homicidal anti-White politics.

If you enjoyed this article, consider making a contribution or becoming a member.

In his book MacDonald tracks Jewish involvement in various intellectual movements: Marxism, Boasnian anthropology, Freudian psychoanalysis, and Neo-Conservatism. MacDonald’s accusation is that Jews get involved in these intellectual movements specifically to forward a Jewish ethnic agenda that benefits their group exclusively, to the detriment of Gentiles, and that they don’t advocate for these ideas among their own group. He calls this a “group evolutionary strategy” to advance their group interests in hostile environments.

Cofnas points out a few exaggerations and flaws in this narrative. He notices a few things that MacDonald leaves out:

• high Jewish intermarriage rates among the diaspora non-Orthodox (72% among non-Orthodox American Jews who got married in the last decade)
• most Jewish leftists (with some exceptions) that MacDonald brings up also advocated for similar liberal stances for Jews (intermarriage, no in-group exclusivity, anti-Zionism, etc.) / that undermines the idea that those leftists were pursuing a ruthless tribalism for their own group
• The triumph of liberal social policy in Israel itself (LGBT, feminism, pornography, etc.) / negates the idea that Jews are uniformly pursuing traditionalism for their own people
• The existence of right-wing and even race-realist Jews who have participated in right-wing intellectual movements too (less so than leftist movements, but nonetheless they exist)
• The involvement of many Gentiles in the same leftist movements (and other leftist movements not mentioned by MacDonald) that MacDonald tries to pin exclusively on Jews

These are hard pills to swallow for the MacDonald thesis believers. When you look into the details, the Jewish monolith simply isn’t real and Cofnas makes a good case for this by pointing out Jewish involvement in right-wing political ideologies like Libertarianism, Paleo-Conservatism, even race-realism groups like American Renaissance, hereditarianism in the sciences, etc. He notes the prominent role of many Jews in the rise of Italian fascism, which contradicts the stereotype that all Jews are opposed to patriotism or nationalism in Gentile societies. There’s too many Jews on all sides of politics for the “Jewish monolith” meme to hold up. How would their involvement in these right-wing movements fit with the “group evolutionary strategy” hypothesis?

What Cofnas essentially argues is that Jews by and large get sorted on the left side of politics because of “right-wing anti-Semitism” and it’s hard to argue that point looking at the history of movements like National Socialism, the Russian monarchists, etc., who made anti-Judaism a prominent feature of their cause. If Jews are not welcome on the Right, then they will naturally gravitate to the Left, and then their prominence on the Left will be used as evidence of why they’re bad by right-wingers. I don’t think that’s the only reason many Jews join the political Left; there are also cultural and religious factors that lead them there. They do sometimes reference the bible when justifying pro-immigration policies, for example, and they often cite historical persecutions for why they favour pluralism, which Cofnas acknowledges. I call this the post-Holocaust PTSD motive for Jewish leftism.

Cofnas sums up his critique this way:

MacDonald paints a picture of Jews as hypocrites who impose liberalism on gentiles and adopt nationalism for themselves, but he ignores the fact that many of the most influential Jews seem to promote liberalism and multiculturalism for both gentiles and Jews. Just as problematically, in a number of cases MacDonald fails to report that Jews whom he identifies as ethnic activists took stands against Israel and other Jewish interests (again, defining “Jewish interests” in MacDonald’s terms as ethnic self-preservation).

We can look at a few examples here.

George Soros, who has said his Jewish experience in the Holocaust motivates him to push for an “open society” that will respect the rights of all minorities, applies the same liberal standards to Israel. He is known to fund pro-Palestine groups protesting Israel:

The cash from Soros and his associations has been key to the protests in Columbia University. At the Columbia University, three groups set up the tent city last Wednesday. These groups are Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), and Within Our Lifetime. The SJP termed the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel as “a historic win”. The SJP reportedly received $300,000 from Soros’ Open Society Foundations since 2017 and also took in $355,000 from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund since 2019, as per media reports. The Rockefeller Brothers fund is chaired by Joseph Pierson and includes David Rockefeller Jr, a fourth-generation member of the oil dynasty, on its board of directors. 

Soros has infamously clashed with right-wing Israeli PM Netanyahu who accused him of funding the opposition to his plan to deport African migrants from Israel:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday accused Jewish billionaire George Soros of funding a widespread campaign against the government’s plan to deport African migrants and asylum-seekers. Soros, who in recent years has backed groups critical of Israeli government policy, has become a bugbear for the pro-Israel right.

Soros vigorously opposed the Iraq war (which was promoted by pro-Israel Zionists):

A billionaire philanthropist is running full-page ads in major US newspapers challenging the honesty of the Bush administration’s case for waging war on Iraq. The ads, estimated to cost about $185,000, were co-sponsored by US philanthropists Dorothy and Lewis B Cullman.

George’s son Alex said this:

I worry when Jews in America start to support policies in Israel which they wouldn’t support in America which don’t allow for separation of church and state, which don’t give full rights to people who are technically living under occupation, and which don’t allow for immigration of people who aren’t Jews, or for non-Jews to become citizens. I will always support Israel as a nation state, but I don’t live there. In the end, I don’t believe in a Jewish world and a non-Jewish world.

I hate the Soros’ because they are globalist maniacs committed to swamping the West with Third World barbarians, but you can see here that they are more or less consistent in their leftism, even calling out other Jews who are not consistent in their political stances depending on the country. Committed Jewish leftists will tend to be tolerant of non-Jewish immigration to Israel and certainly lean left on social issues within Israel. Some exceptions pop up like hypocrite Chuck Schumer.

Israel allows the non-Jewish spouses of Jews to become Israeli citizens under the Law of Return:

As of 2021, 3,340,000 Jews have immigrated to Israel since its independence in 1948.[15] Hundreds of thousands of people who do not have Jewish status under Orthodox Jewish interpretations of halakha received Israeli citizenship, as the law confers citizenship to all offspring of a Jew (including grandchildren) and their spouses.[16]

The Israeli Communist Party manifesto says this:

The CPI fights for: (1) the interests and rights of the workers and the raising of their quality of life; the development of the country for the benefits of all its inhabitants, both Jews and Arabs, without discrimination; against all forms of racism, national chauvinism and social reaction; the defense of human rights and against all forms of discrimination; the defense of democratic liberties and against the danger of Fascism; (2) the equality of both civic and national rights of the Arab population in Israel and its recognition as a national minority; the legislation of an equal citizenship law; the defense of the rights of Arab citizens who were torn from their land and property; for Jewish-Arabic fraternity; (3) the equality of rights for women in all spheres; an end to all forms of violence and coercion towards women; (4) for an equality of rights of Mizrachi Jews; (5) for the defense of the rights of children and youths; (6) for the defense of foreign workers; (7) against militarism and for the recognition of the right of conscientious objection; (8) for the separation of religion and state; to guarantee freedom of conscience; the end of all forms of religious coercion; guaranteeing freedom of worship for all religions without discrimination, and the right of every person to freely choose a secular or religious way of life. In both th e past and the present, the Communist Party of Israel swims against the tide national chauvinism among Jews and Arabs. We reject the ideological roots and the praxis of Zionism, which breed racist attitudes and undermines equality and democracy.

Sounds exactly like the kind of melting pot open society the Soros’ envision for Israel.

The pro-refugee organization HIAS (Hebrew Immigrant Aid) also backs refugees in Israel and organizes support for them:

Israel has one of the lowest recognition rates of refugees in the world, and we are happy to be part of changing that. HIAS has had a presence in Israel since 1950 and has worked primarily with the asylum seeker community since 2014, providing legal services and other forms of aid.

The radical leftist Jewish group Anti-Defamation League, known for its support of Israel generally, stood with HIAS in opposing Netanyahu’s plan to deport African asylum seekers:

ADL and HIAS have grave concerns over a reported Israeli government plan to deport tens of thousands of African asylum seekers from Israel, either by coercion or force. Under this plan, Sudanese and Eritreans in Israel were given three months to leave the country or face indefinite incarceration. In this open letter, the American organizations urge Prime Minister Netanyahu to refrain from implementing this plan.

The ADL even scolds its fellow Jews who take an anti-LGBT stance and acts as tone police of the Jewish community to keep them squarely in the social liberal camp.

I will say that the ADL, while mildly opposing the more extreme manifestations of Israeli Zionism or Jewish supremacism, is fairly quiet on those issues and mostly just attacks perceived anti-Semites and anti-Zionists. So if they’re attacking anti-Zionism and conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, then they by default support Zionism. So they could be categorized, in my view, in the “hypocrite” category on the topic of immigration and nationalism while probably supporting a socially liberal program for Israel on other issues like LGBT, abortion, etc.

Jewish “anti-racist” activist Tim Wise makes it quite clear here he’s an anti-Zionist.

He opposes a Jewish state and wants Israel to become a multi-racial democracy, like he does in the West:

He is a critic of Israel, and philosophically opposed to Zionism, which he views as not only oppressive to non-Jews in Palestine, but detrimental to Jews as well, and counter to Jewish values.

Look into any of these major leftist Jewish figures and you’ll find it’s normally the case they advocate for the same stuff in Israel. There are some cases of Jews with conflicting views on Israel vs a Western country, but for these hardcore anti-racist activists it’s pretty consistent.

Another example is pro-immigration zealot Ronit Lentin in Ireland where she “became increasingly involved in Palestine solidarity activism”. She’s described here as “an anti-racist and pro-Palestine activist” and published a book Thinking Palestine which a reviewer described as, “‘The book should be read closely by serious pro-Palestinian activists wishing to sharpen their conceptual tools in the ceaseless battle against Zionist propaganda.'” She pushes multiculturalism for both the West and Israel. She’s a bad influence for sure but at least consistent.

One notable exception is Barbara Spectre, who pushed for multiculturalism in Sweden, but is married to a rabbi and has made no notable critique of Israel (that I’m aware of) vis-a-vis its policy towards Palestinians.

Jewish anti-Zionist groups like Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow apply the same principles to both Jews and Gentiles, the West and Israel. Their website says this:

Palestinian dispossession and occupation are by design. Zionism has meant profound trauma for generations, systematically separating Palestinians from their homes, land, and each other. Zionism, in practice, has resulted in massacres of Palestinian people, ancient villages and olive groves destroyed, families who live just a mile away from each other separated by checkpoints and walls, and children holding onto the keys of the homes from which their grandparents were forcibly exiled.

By creating a racist hierarchy with European Jews at the top, Zionism erased those histories and destroyed those communities and relationships. In Israel, Jewish people of color – from the Arab world, North Africa, and East Africa – have long been subjected to systemic discrimination and violence by the Israeli government. That hierarchy also creates Jewish spaces where Jews of color are marginalized, our identities and commitments questioned & interrogated, and our experiences invalidated. It prevents us from seeing each other — fellow Jews and other fellow human beings — in our full humanity.

IfNotNow, a similar group, lays out their mission to defeat Zionism and “Ashkenazi dominance” in Israel, as well as AIPAC.

Jewish anti-Zionists like Max Blumenthal, Norman Finkelstein, Miko Peled, Noam Chomsky, David Sheen, Ilan Pappe and others positively fall outside the mold of the “group strategy” outlined by MacDonald. They apply their liberal egalitarian standards even more categorically towards Israel, dedicating much of their lives to opposing ethno-religious nationalism there. This Jewish disconformity on the Israel/Zionism issue is not something a “group evolutionary strategy” can explain.

There’s also some consistency on the other end, with Israeli nationalists like Netanyahu approving of stricter border policies in the West. Netanyahu and Likud in Israel have had warm relations with immigration-restrictionist populist parties in Europe (Orban, Geert Vilders, Spain’s Vox, etc.) and the Donald Trump-led Republicans in the US, which indicates their tolerance towards those types of policies in the West so long as the parties aren’t explicitly anti-Israel or anti-Jewish. Netanyahu personally called for Western countries to restrict immigration in his 1995 book:

Israel, despite being led by hardcore Likud Zionists committed to a Jewish majority, has permitted the prescence of two million Arab Israelis, 150,000 Druze and other non-Jewish citizens, and has embraced a mostly socially liberal program for the country.

Additionally, 168,000 Ethiopian Jews (who are black) have been incorporated into the country.

Mizrahi and Ethiopian are both somewhat distinct ethnicities from the Sephardim and Ashkenazim, so Israel is far from an ethnically pure state.

There are dozens of LGBT rights groups in Israel and Tel Aviv hosts large gay pride rallies every year.

Abortion is legal in Israel as is pornography.

Feminism is also rampant in Israel and laws are biased against men. This documentary says “Israeli women are the freest in the East, emancipated and independent”:

PEW Research says this:

Most U.S. Jews – with the exception of the Orthodox – say that rabbis should perform interfaith weddings. The same is true for same-sex weddings. Among U.S. Jews who are married, 2% say they are married to a spouse who is the same sex, while 3% of Jews who are married or living with a partner have a partner who is the same sex.

Also:

About one-in-ten U.S. Jewish adults identify as gay or lesbian (4%) or bisexual (5%)

So most US Jews not only welcome interfaith marriages among Jews but also homosexual marriages.

Reform Judaism fully welcomes Gentile converts to the faith. A NYT report from the 80s says:

The synagogue branch of Reform Judaism has started a vigorous program to invite conversions by non-Jewish partners in mixed marriages and by those Americans who express no religious preference. The plan, approved this week in Boston by the biennial convention of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, an organization of 735 Reform synagogues, represents a historic step toward welcoming non-Jews into Judaism, but stops short of encouraging outright proselytizing.

A website for Reform Judaism says this:

Modern-day Reform Jews wholeheartedly welcome those who have chosen to convert to Judaism, recognizing that our Jewish community is made stronger by those who actively seek to become Jews. As more and more Jews-by-choice enter the Jewish community and as public discussion of such choice grows more commonplace, Jews-by-choice have found that their acceptance in the Jewish community has grown. In fact, the Reform Jewish community, as a whole, is proud of its many congregational leaders, as well as a number of rabbis and cantors, who are Jews-by-choice.

Reform Jewish congregations also celebrate multiculturalism, diversity and multi-racial Jews. One congregation’s website says:

We rejoice that at least 25% of the Jewish population is racially and ethnically diverse, including African, African American, Latino (Hispanic), Asian, Native American, Sephardic, Mizrahi, and mixed-race Jews by heritage and marriage. Also, cross-cultural and cross-racial adoptions have been a part of our history from biblical times. We welcome you to bring color, flavor, and fullness to our Congregation. Recognizing that we are all created b’tzelem Elohim (in the image of God), we are pleased to welcome the multicultural/multiracial/multiethnic Jewish individuals and families in our community.

Another remarks: “We’re a global, multiracial people that’s growing more racially and ethnically diverse through interfaith and interracial marriage, conversion, and adoption.”

Another Reform website fully embraces diversity for Jews:

A major component of this is ensuring that all our Jewish communal spaces are affirming for all Jews and their loved ones, something which we – both as the Reform Jewish community and as a broader Jewish community – have not yet achieved. We can further advance toward this vision by learning and implementing three core principles/practices: diversity, inclusion, and equity.

The memes you see online tend to monolithically portray all Jews as “racist ethno-centrists” who would only advocate for social liberalism and degeneracy in the “goyim countries” while keeping Israel free of these vices. The truth is, many of these vices (with the exception of casino gambling) have arrived to Israel, a country run exclusively by Jews. If this was all just mendaciously designed to injure Gentiles, then why have they embraced much of it in Israel?

Cofnas’ argument against MacDonald’s thesis is that Jews are not a hive-mind and thus not all are pursuing the same objectives let alone “group strategy,” nor can all Jews even agree on what that strategy should look like. Jewish liberalism will eventually lead to the disappearance of Jewry into assimilation, which is what Frans Boas himself advocated for, stating:

Thus it would seem that man being what he is, the Negro problem will not disappear in America until Negro blood has been so much diluted that it will no longer be recognized just as anti-Semitism will not disappear until the last vestige of the Jew as a Jew has disappeared.

If Boas advocated for total Jewish assimilation with Gentiles to the point where Jewish identity disappears, as it appears he did there, then he can’t be counted as a self-interested Jew “advancing Jewish interests”. Franz Boas looms large in MacDonald’s thesis of group strategy, but the case for him being motivated by Jewish considerations is weak. He had a strong German cultural identity to the point of co-founding a German cultural society in America:

He also married a Catholic Gentile, which disputes MacDonald who falsely claimed he married a Jew to prove his ethno-centrism. Many scholars concluded that Boas had a weak Jewish identification and a stronger German one:

The likely reality of the situation is this illuminated by Glick (1982): throughout his life, Franz Boas was by identity primarily a German or German-American (who probably “never identified himself in his public writings as Jewish”) and “recognized the right, indeed the duty, of Germans in America to maintain pride in their national origins and cultural heritage, but advocated assimilation to the point of literal disappearance for Jews.” (In agreement is Damrosch (1995, 1), cited earlier.) In fact, “in common with many other Jews, particularly German Jews and others of a strongly assimilationist bent, he did not acknowledge the existence of a specifically Jewish cultural or ethnic identity.” Rather, he displayed considerable partiality to Germany

Another Jewish Boasian, Alexander Goldenweiser, criticized Jewish Zionists as “racial snobs” oppressing Arabs:

Here for once, the tables are reversed, and the Jew turns into a racial snob. . . . In the “democratic” organization of the new Jewish state, the Arab is outvoted and ruled against his will by the Jewish people with the assistance of foreign British police. . . . Those same Arabs . . . are regarded by the Jews as inferior, as a primitive race.

Even Israel Zangwill, known for popularizing the “melting pot” idea of America, did not advocate for racial intermixing between black and White and was referring to a “European melting pot” as immigration at that time mostly came from Europe. A line from Zangwill’s famous play was this: “America is God’s Crucible, the great Melting-Pot where all the races of Europe are melting and re-forming.“

Zangwill said this:

The devil is not so black nor the black so devilish as he is painted. This is not to deny that the prognathous face is an ugly and undesirable type of countenance or that it connotes a lower average of intellect and ethics, or that white and black are as yet too far apart for profitable fusion. Melanophobia, or fear of the black, may be pragmatically as valuable a racial defence for the white as the counter-instinct of philoleucosis, or love of the white, is a force of racial uplifting for the black. . . . 

[N]egroes of genius . . . should be far less unwelcome than that which starts with the dregs of both races. But the negroid hair and complexion being, in Mendelian language, “dominant,” these black traits are not easy to eliminate from the hybrid posterity; and in view of all the unpleasantness, both immediate and contingent, that attends the blending of colours, only heroic souls on either side should dare the adventure of intermarriage. Blacks of this temper, however, would serve their race better by making Liberia a success or building up an American negro State, as Mr. William Archer recommends, or at least asserting their rights as American citizens in that sub-tropical South which without their labour could never have been opened up.

So Zangwill was more or less advocating for blacks to self-govern in Africa (Liberia) or in some isolated part of America where they can all go. The melting pot idea of Zangwill, which got twisted by modern progressives later to mean inviting the whole world to America, was that the various ethnicities of Europe immigrating to America should give up their previous identities and become exclusively American.

I guess you could argue that he more or less helped kickstart the spirit of that progressive idea, but you can’t argue in good faith that he was equivalent to a modern progressive who sees America as a dumping ground for the Third World.

When you get down deep into the details, it is not as black and white as the MacDonald side makes it out to be.

Ignoring Gentile Involvement

A major critique of MacDonald from Cofnas and the writer behind Mischling Review is that he went to great pains to omit any references to radical leftist Gentiles and their influence on the Jewish subjects in his book because it would weaken his overall case that this is all exclusively Jewish-motivated and Jewish-led. One such example here:

So in his treatment of Levi-Strauss, MacDonald excised parts of a text that implied Strauss was influenced by leftist-liberal Gentile philosophers John-Jacques Rosseau and Jean-Paul Sartre. MacDonald also claimed that Levy-Strauss had a strong Jewish identity and was concerned with anti-Semitism, but a researcher uncovered strong evidence that Strauss did not identify strongly as Jewish and identified much more as French.

Cofnas makes mention of MacDonald’s selective treatment of the 1965 Hart-Cellar immigration bill in the US, putting all focus on Cellar and the pro-immigration Jewish groups who backed the bill. Cofnas writes:

As always, MacDonald’s version of history is tendentious, highlighting liberal Jews, making unsupported speculations about their motives, and ignoring or downplaying the role played by gentiles. He says that, in the century leading up to the 1965 immigration law, Jewish groups opportunistically made alliances with other groups whose interests temporarily converged with Jewish interests (e.g., a constantly changing set of ethnic groups, religious groups, pro-communists, anticommunists, the foreign policy interests of various presidents, the political need for presidents to curry favor with groups influential in populous states in order to win Philosophia (2021) 49:1329–1344 1337 1 3 national elections, etc.). Particularly noteworthy was the support of a liberal immigration policy from industrial interests wanting cheap labor. This is a mealy-mouthed way of saying that there were powerful gentile groups with the same position on immigration as the Jewish groups.

It is true that Jewish groups helped push for the passage of the bill as did Emannuel Cellar and Jacob Javits who were Jewish, but the bill’s co-sponsor Phillip Hart was not Jewish and neither were other major backers of the bill like Ted Kennedy. Cofnas acknowledges the role Jewish organizations played in pushing for the bill, but counters that they were not alone:

Kennedy’s election in 1960 “ensured that immigration reform, though not a priority for the new administration, would find a place on the new president’s agenda” (ibid.: 55). In 1965, Johnson was president, and Democrats controlled both the Senate (68–32) and the House (295–140). Graham comments: “These circumstances, especially the egalitarian thrust from the civil rights movement, virtually ensured that the 89th Congress would be pressed by the White House and the congressional leadership to abolish the national origins quota system in 1965” (ibid.: 56).

So John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson and other non-Jewish Democrats were strongly in favour of the civil rights movement and immigration reform. Here’s a speech from JFK on civil rights in which he comes out strongly for black liberation and integration:

Various Kennedy family politicians were all major protagonists of the civil rights movement and immigration reform of the 60s:

Immigration reform was also a personal project of John F. Kennedy, Chin notes, whose pamphlet written as a senator was published after his assassination as the book A Nation of Immigrants, and argued for the elimination of the National Origins Quota System in place since 1921. Ted Kennedy, along with Attorney General and Sen. Robert Kennedy (D-N.Y.), were both proponents of the bill, in part to honor their brother and also because it was consistent with their general interest in civil rights and international cold war politics, Chin adds.

Kennedy was not for unlimited immigration but absolutely supported a color-blind policy based on merit:

Renewal of the system was particularly offensive to groups that represented Italians and Jews, who had been particularly affected by the restrictions. The American Committee on Italian Migration conducted an intensive lobbying campaign. Publication of A Nation of Immigrants was a project of the Anti-Defamation league of B’nai B’rith, which had been impressed by Sen. John F. Kennedy’s record of supporting liberal immigration laws, including measures to accept refugees from war-ravaged Europe. The book was actually written by a member of Kennedy’s staff, Myer Feldman. Describing Kennedy’s participation as minimal, Feldman said the senator had “reviewed it, and did some editing.”10

While Kennedy was one of his era’s most outspoken reform advocates, he used a 1957 speech to the American Jewish Congress to make clear that he did not favor unlimited immigration. He stated his conviction that “we should have a system of limited and selective migration to the United States.” Kennedy’s principal objection with the status quo was about “the nature, not the existence” of restrictions. Asserting that a selective policy was necessary, he said that policy should “give preference to an immigrant because he is a nuclear physicist rather than because he is an Anglo-Saxon.”11

Kennedy was aware of the political as well as the ideological value of expansive immigration policies, especially in northern states where immigrants and their families were concentrated. In a 1955 letter to fellow Sen. Lyndon Johnson, he wrote, “The Democratic Party must do something to fulfill its 1952 pledges concerning revision of the McCarran Act if it is to have any appeal in the large cities of the North in 1956.”12

Notice that an Italian group also strongly lobbied for the reform. A description of that group’s activities is as follows:

The American Committee on Italian Migration (ACIM) was organized in February 1952 as a member agency of the National Catholic Resettlement Council, which later formed part of the National Catholic Welfare Conference (NCWC). From its inception, ACIM’s chief objective was the liberalization of the United States immigration policy that, as delineated in the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, rested upon a restrictive “national origins” quota. ACIM undertook a wide range of activities, from raising funds to sponsoring new Italian immigrants into the United States and promoting new immigration legislation by Congress. This collection contains additional materials donated to CMS by ACIM in 2003, mostly documenting ACIM’s work in the 1970s-1990s. The collection contains office files and case records pertaining to lobbying US Congress regarding immigration law, and to the assistance of Italian immigrants in Italy and the United States.

MacDonald makes no mention of that Italian-Catholic lobby group in his discourse on the 1965 immigration bill.

Kennedy’s successor Lyndon Baines Johnson championed the immigration reform cause after Kennedy’s assassination:

But as Johnson delivered his first such address less than two months after becoming president he became an energetic advocate of the reform. “We must … lift by legislation the bars of discrimination against those who seek entry into our country, particularly those who have much needed skills and those joining their families,” President Johnson said. In a reference to the legislation’s use of preferences to replace national quotas, he added: “A nation that was built by the immigrants of all lands can ask those who now seek admission: ‘What can you do for our country?’ But we should not be asking: ‘In what country were you born?'”

We can see a convergence of interests emerging here among the ethnic/religious minority groups: Italian Catholics, Irish Catholics (like Kennedy) and Jews, all of whom perhaps felt slighted by the cultural dominance of WASPs.

All of that is interesting, especially considering that JFK was not known to be a stooge of Israel or Zionist interests, having pressured Israel to submit to more rigorous inspections to scuttle its burgeoning nuclear weapons program:

Kennedy pressured the government of Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to prevent a military nuclear program, particularly after stage-managed tours of the Dimona facility for U.S. government scientists in 1961 and 1962 raised suspicions within U.S. intelligence that Israel might be concealing its underlying nuclear aims.  Kennedy’s long-run objective, documents show, was to broaden and institutionalize inspections of Dimona by the International Atomic Energy Agency. … Declassified documents reveal that more than any other American president, John F. Kennedy was personally engaged with the problem of Israel’s nuclear program; he may also have been more concerned about it than any of his successors. Of all U.S. leaders in the nuclear age, Kennedy was the nonproliferation president.

JFK and his brother Robert also tried to pressure the American Zionist Council to register as a foreign agent. JFK also supported Arab and African independence and nationalism:

JFK personally supported Arab and African nationalism. As a senator in 1957, he criticized the Eisenhower administration for supporting and sending weapons to France in their war against the Algerian independence movement. In a 9,000 word presentation to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he criticized “western imperialism” and called for the US to support Algerian independence. Algerian President Ben Bella, who France had tried to assassinate and considered far too radical by many in NATO, was given a huge and impressive welcome to the White House.

A piece on JFK’s diplomatic conflict with Zionist Israel notes this:

Kennedy wanted to steer the Jewish Zionists away from the racist, militaristic and ultra-nationalistic impulses which have led to where we are today.

Kennedy supported Palestinian rights and the right of return:

All of that sounds to me like Kennedy was working to pressure Israel to become a more liberal and tolerant society, a very interesting case of a Catholic Gentile pressuring Zionist Jews to abandon in-group preference in favour of liberal equality. (Another interesting example of that is former US President Jimmy Carter who became a strong critic of Israel and Zionism). So the usual cop-out logic that liberal politicians like Kennedy are mere “puppets” of the Jewish lobby can’t reasonably be asserted here given his less-than-sycophantic stance on Israel and its domestic American lobby. He held genuine progressive beliefs and pursued them politically. He applied the same standards to both the US and Israel.

The national origins quota system was also already being circumvented to allow in hundreds of thousands of non-European immigrants:

On the other hand, Graham says that, in the wake of the civil rights movement and political developments that coincided with Lyndon B. Johnson’s election, “[a]bolishing that system [i.e., the national-origins quotas] seemed an idea whose time had come” (ibid.: 61). He explains that “[t]he immigration system constructed in the 1920s…was threatened by growing evidence that it no longer worked” (ibid.: 53). In the years leading up to 1965, an “incoherent patchwork of special government measures” had already been established to circumvent the national-origins quotas (ibid.: 53–54). Between 1945 and 1960, Presidents Truman and Eisenhower used “executive parole authority” to admit 700,000 refugees outside the quota system (ibid.: 54). “Congress…responded to the…political and cold war pressures by expanding the use of special statutes that worked outside the annual immigration quotas.” In the 1950s, “the Bracero program imported on average 360,000 low-wage workers a 1338 Philosophia (2021) 49:1329–1344 1 3 year from Mexico alone,” which “produced a deepening channel of migration and expanding lodgments of permanent settlement” in the US.

It’s important to note that the main purpose of the 1924 bill that established the national-origins quotas was to limit immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe. As Graham says: immigrants from Mexico, Central and South America, the Caribbean, and Canada [were] exempt from quotas….Ironically, the national origins quota system curbed immigration from Europe but not from Latin America or the Caribbean. (ibid.: 46) Immigrants of African and Hispanic ancestry continued to come to the United States in significant numbers from the Caribbean and Latin America because the Western Hemisphere was excluded from quota systems or caps. Even after the sharp restrictions of 1921 and 1924, immigration law in the late 1920s admitted an average of 287,000 immigrants a year, chiefly because of the Western Hemispheric exclusion. (ibid.: 42)

MacDonald portrays Cellar’s intention as reducing specifically the White population of the country, but Cofnas provides a source which suggests that’s not true:

He [Graham] notes that Emanuel Celler—the Jewish congressman who officially proposed the 1965 legislation (also known as the Hart–Celler Act)—was “disturbed by the steep decline of European immigration.” Celler “introduced a bill to allow higher immigration from Ireland, Britain, and the Scandinavian countries, which he said had suffered from ‘unintentional discrimination’ as a result of his own law” (ibid., pp. 94–95).

So while Cellar was a pro-immigration liberal, it appears he did not intend specifically to harm Whites as he was still pushing for more European immigration afterwards when he saw that it had fallen in favour of other groups. So he was just a run-of-the-mill liberal on immigration without any specific animosity to Europeans as a group, something which MacDonald implies in his book. But Cellar and his bill did irreparable harm to the country in the end, even if he didn’t intend it to be so.

It’s undeniable that the Jewish lobby did play a role in both the 1965 Hart-Cellar act and the civil rights movement as a whole, which is not something they hide. The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism boasts of the pivotal role of Jewish liberals in the movement:

Judaism teaches respect for the fundamental rights of others as each person’s duty to God. “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor” (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a). Equality in the Jewish tradition is based on the concept that all of God’s children are “created in the image of God” (Genesis 1:27). From that flows the biblical injunction, “You shall have one law for the stranger and the citizen alike: for I, Adonai, am your God” (Leviticus 24:22).

American Jews played a significant role in the founding and funding of some of the most important civil rights organizations, including the NAACP, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC).

In 1909, Henry Moscowitz joined W.E.B. DuBois and other civil rights leaders to found the NAACP. Kivie Kaplan, a vice-chairman of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations (now the Union for Reform Judaism), served as the national president of the NAACP from 1966 to 1975. Arnie Aronson worked with A. Philip Randolph and Roy Wilkins to found the Leadership Conference.

From 1910 to 1940, more than 2,000 primary and secondary schools and 20 Black colleges (including Howard, Dillard and Fisk universities) were established in whole or in part by contributions from Jewish philanthropist Julius Rosenwald. At the height of the so-called “Rosenwald schools,” nearly 40 percent of Black people in the south were educated at one of these institutions.

During the Civil Rights Movement, Jewish activists represented a disproportionate number of white people involved in the struggle. Jews made up half of the young people who participated in the Mississippi Freedom Summer in 1964. Leaders of the Reform Movement were arrested with Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in St. Augustine, Florida, in 1964 after a challenge to racial segregation in public accommodations. Most famously, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel marched arm-in-arm with Dr. King in his 1965 March on Selma.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were drafted in the conference room of Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, under the aegis of the Leadership Conference, which for decades was located in the RAC’s building.

The Jewish community has continued its support of civil rights laws addressing persistent discrimination in voting, housing, and employment against not only women and people of Color but also in the LGBTQ+ community and the disabled community.

So there were some explicit Jewish ethno-religious motives for their support of minority rights. But I guess the argument of Cofnas is that there were plenty of non-Jewish fellow travelers like the Kennedys, Phillip Hart, LBJ, Italian-Catholic lobbies and others who played equally decisive roles in bringing this all about.

MacDonald also misrepresented statements by Karl Marx who advocated for the dissolution of Jews as a group:

Occasionally he imagines evidence based on nothing at all, as when he falsely says that Karl Marx held that “Judaism, freed from the principle of greed, would continue to exist in the transformed society after the revolution” (MacDonald 1998: 54). As I observed, Marx never said anything like this, and in fact he said the opposite, namely, the Jew would be “impossible” in a socialist society that “abolish[ed] the preconditions for huckstering” (Cofnas 2018: 149). (MacDonald (2018b) acknowledged that his claim about Marx was inaccurate, but responded by pointing out a typo in Cofnas (2018), which he apparently sees as a comparable error.)

Since Marx was anti-Jewish and advocated for the total dissolution of Jews as a group, he can’t be used as proof of a “Jewish group strategy”.

The evidence illuminates that Boas and Levy-Strauss don’t appear to have been motivated much by Jewish identity, nor was Marx, but that doesn’t mean that some of the modern Jewish anti-racists (like Soros, Tim Wise, etc.) aren’t motivated by their Jewish identity to promulgate anti-racism, which MacDonald’s chief critic admits is probably the case:

Overall, we find that Boasian anthropology as a movement was not guided by Jewish interests, and was in all likelihood an inevitable occurrence that exacerbated existing trends finalized by WWII and the Holocaust and their associated stigma against race and biology. It’s almost certainly not true, nor is it argued here, that Jewish interests were entirely irrelevant to all this; they may have played a role in the minds of some Jewish anti-racists in academia. After all, the few Black scientists of the era, also coming from a community afflicted with racism, were uniformly anti-racist in their outlook because of ethnic and self-interest.

Where MacDonald is Correct

Cofnas and Mischling Review have buttressed substantial evidence the MacDonald misrepresented the motivations of various Jewish intellectuals like Marx, Levy-Strauss and Franz Boas and used some dishonest omission tactics to downplay the influence of Gentile leftists in the same fields. It’s hard to deny Cofnas’ evidence that Jewish leftists are hardly as ethno-centric as MacDonald alleges considering their intermarriage rates in the West and their advocacy for leftist egalitarianism for Jews and Israel too (with some exceptions). However, some of these Jewish leftists are trying to establish what we can call a safety hatch. Alex Soros made that clear about his father’s work:

It is not charity, and his outlook represents more than mere solidarity with others who have endured similar fates. He believes in an open society because Jews and other minorities need rights and equality under the law to prevent another Holocaust.

That’s more or less what Israel itself was set up to do. In a sense, the mainstream Jewish interest groups are choreographing what they believe to be a “Jewish group safety strategy” as opposed to a strategy of Jewish in-group continuity. Here’s Jewish journalist Bret Stephens making the case that “liberal pluralism” has been good for Jews as a group:

Other Jews like Democrat politician Debbie Wasserman-Schulz have expounded on that point publicly, saying she pursues her liberal-egalitarian politics “through a Jewish lens”:

Countless other Jewish pundits have argued the same thing without shame.

They’re much less committed to an ethnic purity agenda (no group of Jews are ethnically pure anymore, they’re a mix of different ethnicities and don’t prevent further admixtures between Mizrahi, Sephardic, Ashkenazi and Ethiopian within Israel or between Jews and Gentiles outside of Israel) than they are to a generic “safety” agenda for the Jewish group.

What Cofnas fails to refute are the Jewish-motivations of the intellectuals behind two movements: Neo-Conservatism and the Frankfurt School. The evidence is overwhelming that the Frankfurt School intellectuals were primarily motivated by their Jewish identities and their opposition to anti-Semitism (and thus an in-group loyalty). This bias was only intensified by the events of World War II and Hitler’s persecution of the Jews. Likewise, it seems irrefutable that the neoconservatives, most of whom were Jewish, were motivated by Zionist commitments to the well-being of Israel. That case has been expounded on in many places, so I won’t go over it again here.

What Cofnas does dispute is the accusation of Jewish hypocrisy, which exists but has been overplayed by MacDonald. He relays how various Frankfurt School leaders had differing views on Israel. Fromm was strongly critical of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and at best supported a “bi-national” multi-ethnic state. Marcuse too was for a multicultural melting pot version of Israel with no exclusivity for Jews. He also supported the Palestinian right of return knowing it would end the Jewishness of the state.

By contrast, Horkheimer was the most pro-Israel of the bunch and donated to Zionist organizations. So there was no true uniformity of belief on the question of Zionism and it appears they mostly leaned towards a left-liberalism for Israel itself and didn’t support any hardcore Jewish racism against Arabs. What is undeniable is that the Frankfurt School leaders were strongly self-identifying Jews who were opposed to anti-Semitism and saw their work as a means to undermine it by weakening and discrediting right-wing social values as a whole. But that doesn’t necessarily prove that they were ruthless ethno-centrists themselves who wanted Jews to pursue ethno-religious in-group purity or supremacy over Gentiles. That part gets exaggerated.

Here are some various slides from ProblemGene’s analysis of MacDonald’s work showcasing the omnipresence of opposition to anti-Semitism that guided Frankfurt School thinkers’ development of Critical Theory.

What we can conclude from all this is that MacDonald is not infallible and is prone to cherry-picking and ignoring sources that refute him. It appears he has not made a sufficient case that Boasian egalitarian anthropology was motivated by Jewish concerns and used deceptive twisting of facts and omissions of contradictory evidence to beef up his case, but he is right that the Frankfurt School was.

So the picture is more complex than the MacDonald thesis would have us believe. The involvement of prominent leftist Gentiles in all of the aforesaid movements and in the original Liberal Enlightenment itself (Rosseau et al.) also casts doubt of the widespread belief on the far-right that our modern woes stem exclusively from the machinations of Jewish intellectuals.

What we can say is that Jewish intellectuals on the Left (some of whom had Jewish motivations, some not) have contributed disproportionately to the advancement of egalitarianism in Western societies (especially through the Frankfurt School) and their presence in the mass media, so they do bare part of the blame.

Progressive Jews should be called out for advancing the hostile dogma of anti-Whiteism in academia and there’s nothing wrong with pointing out their specific Jewish motives if evidence of it exists. Some leftist Jews do appear to be motivated, at least partly, by hatred or revenge against Gentiles, Christians, etc., for past persecutions of Jews. But that doesn’t mean we should blame these things exclusively on Jews or infer that all Jews bare responsibility for the machinations of Jewish leftists. Jewish leftists are not alone in that endeavor, as you can see today with prominent Gentile anti-racists like Robin DiAngelo, Ibram Kendi, Jane Elliot and others, who have their own ideological commitments and have done analogous damage to the West with their work and activism. All of these anti-White leftists, Jewish and Gentile, should be identified and shamed for their belligerent crusade to tear down the West and disenfranchise the White people who built it.

If you enjoyed this article consider a small donation or becoming a member.

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.

So there you have a slew of the elite intellectual fascists of the interwebz telling us that they’re virtually the same thing as communists, that they want the state to “seize the means of production” (Marx would be proud) and are authoritarian-leftists. Their only beef with what I’m saying is that I don’t like their slightly modified variant of Marxist Communism and they think it’s great. But they’re still mad that I point this out in a negative way because they’re trying to sell it to socially right-wing people as some kind of one-stop shop fix for all our problems by dipping their variant of Marxism into identity politics to make it more appealing.

This guy who I’ll be responding to here calls himself “Caesar Avg”. He’s basically an anon “reply guy” on the website Odysee and does little more than spam wall-texts full of pseudo-intellectual pretentious bafflegab. The following meandering vomit of strawmen and lies was sent to me by a colleague and I thought it yet another good opportunity to dunk on these disingenuous, bad faith, eternally butthurt spergs.

Let’s begin.

Nothing about Brandon Marrothbard is ‘Right- wing’ or ‘nationalist’.

So social conservatism, ethno-cultural-preservation, closed borders/restricted immigration, pro-family, a competitive market economy and fiscal conservatism (balanced budgets) is not “right-wing” or “nationalist”? Ok retard. You have no actual definition of “right-wing” then, you’re making it up to suit your Marxist whims. You are an economic leftist socialist (aka an egalitarian) so it’s funny you’re trying to appropriate the “right-wing” label for yourself, which is dishonest. I’ve never even read anything from Rothbard nor do I cite him as inspiration for anything so to imply I’m some kind of disciple of his is fan fiction invented by Third Position crypto-communists.

He is on record as opposing all of the following, all of which can be reliably sourced against any attempt at denial or removal

If I am on record then why does this screed of yours contain not a single actual in-context quote from me but a bunch of deceptively “paraphrased” misrepresented strawmen and lies? You didn’t want to quote me directly because that would ruin your whole psyop.

Autarky: ‘socialist nonsense’

A full throttle autarky has never been achieved by any country anywhere, not even your beloved Third Reich. Hitler himself admitted a complete autarky with no trade was impossible in the short term and his attempt at achieving it long term led him to invade Russia to get the resources he wanted, causing 30 million deaths. Well done.

A country should aim to produce in-house what it needs, but there are some things it must get abroad if it doesn’t have the capacity to produce it all in-house. Small countries and island countries for example would not survive long if they attempted “autarky”. They don’t have the labour base or space to be able to produce what they need or might want domestically. Bigger countries can manufacture more but they also have to import stuff they need and to export their own products abroad to bring in revenue. I’m not for a “free” trade but a controlled or limited trade with allied countries.

Isolationism

If isolationism is what you’re after, then your gods Hitler and Mussolini miserably failed the litmus test, having intervened and invaded most of Europe and parts of Africa during their heyday. Their war-hawk expansionism was the opposite of “isolationism” (in fact fascism is inherently war-like and imperialistic) and yet this is the ideology you are defending in your own comment. I am for a type of isolationism when it comes to the non-European world. I don’t think we should get much involved in places like the Middle East or Africa unless there is a vital interest there. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a foreign policy at all, which actually puts you more in line with the libertarians (who are to-a-man isolationists) you hate than me. I think coming to the aid of allied countries in Europe when they are in need, like in Ukraine now, is not a bad thing. If your country was attacked, you will need the aid of other countries too. When Europe is threatened by regimes like Russia and China, an alliance of European countries would do well to put resources together to stop it. Nothing wrong with that, but you’re a libertarian don’t-tread-on-me “isolationist” so you don’t care about anything but yourself right?

Nationalisms, including Nordicism and German and Russian nationalisms, laughably conflated with Communazism

This is dishonest bullshit. I obviously support “nationalism” including that of Germany, Russia and any other country, but you’re dishonestly conflating nationalism with “Nordicism,” which can be interpreted multiple ways, but the variant I oppose is the imperialist one espoused by Hitler and the Nazis. Here’s how Hitler described his foreign policy:

“…the Anglo-Saxons have the mission to govern the people they have subdued, precisely in the name of their superiority. The Nordic race is called to dominate the world, and this right must guide our foreign policy. The goal was the Nordic domination of Europe, and through America Nordic-Germanic domination of the world.”

I do not however oppose Nordic self-preservation, which is different to what Hitler was doing, which was Germanic EXPANSION. I explained that here:

He states there “Russian nationalism” but what he’s actually referring to is my opposition to Russian-Eurasianist imperialism of Putin, which he clearly supports, because if he didn’t support it he’d have to stop defending Hitler’s Lebensraum. So this sack of dogshit is trying to sell you Eurasian IMPERIALISM as if nationalism when it’s much closer to homogenizing globalism as it’s erasing borders in Eastern Europe and Russifies the regions it conquers.

and the very same Zionism that he otherwise defends, all to be replaced with a homogenizing pan-Europeanism: an EU minus non-whites, an Americanization of Europe

Yeah I’m such a huge defender of Zionism, like this video here right? You’re a stupid bad faith liar.

If by “support” you mean I think Israel already exists, likely won’t go away any time soon and diaspora Jews should probably go live there instead of in our countries, then guilty as charged. But that’s what any decent European nationalist would support, not some third worldist Islamist like yourself doing the reply guy Internet Intifada bit.

My Pan-Europeanism is not “homogenizing” because I don’t advocate we erase any current borders nor do I even support the EU’s current existence. It is merely a sentiment of brotherhood among European countries so that we can cooperate and avoid the murderous fratricidal infighting of the past, which you clearly revel in. Your fascist hero Oswald Mosley however did support a “homogenizing” pan-Europeanism, what he called “Europe a Nation”:

It says he was inspired to that idea by none other than Benito Mussolini whose “manifesto of the Italian Social Republic included a call for the establishment of a European Community”. So your own ideological godfathers supported this idea that you are falsely attributing to me. Talk about a massive SELF OWN! So you are out of step with your own demigods. Wow, you really dug yourself a hole here didn’t you retard?

I’ve never supported the “Americanization of Europe” either, whatever that’s supposed to mean. Just another strawman invention of this rat.

Revanchism

So his real views come out. What he is defending is not “nationalism” but revanchism, which is the lust to reclaim perceived lost territory. Revanchism is imperialism and doesn’t usually end with taking back just some “lost territory” but expanding further, as Hitler and Mussolini both did. This is also what Putin is doing and this scumbag supports both Hitler and Putin’s revanchist imperialism. Revanchism is a recipe for eternal conflict in Europe. Borders have shifted and changed so many times that if every Euro country decided to do militarist revanchism tomorrow, the entire continent would go up in flames. I bet you want that because you like to see bloodshed and death of Europeans. I think border disputes among Europeans can be worked out amicably without killing each other.

State-ownership, erroneously conflated with Marxism and socialism

That’s exactly what Marxist Socialism advocates, you moron.

The only way to “collectivize” all businesses and property is to have a centralized state take it over, which was the method that every single self-defined communist or socialist state employed to achieve this end. Mao’s China, Soviet Russia, Castro’s Cuba, Kim’s North Korea, East Germany, etc., all did this. Do I really have to explain the basics to this uninformed child?

Marrothbard claims that possessing economic similarities to some Marxist, somewhere, is proof of that person’s Marxism

It’s not just some similarities to “some Marxist somewhere” but to Marxism itself, you assclown. It’s proof that your ideology was inspired by and was a variant of classical Marxism, which most intellectuals of fascism readily admit, you fucking moron. Here’s what Mussolini said about himself:

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. – Talks With Mussolini, Emil Ludwig, Pg. 38

Here’s what the other founder of fascism Giovanni Gentile said about it:

It is necessary to distinguish between socialism and socialism—in fact, between idea and idea of the same socialist conception, in order to distinguish among them those that are inimical to Fascism. It is well known that Sorellian syndicalism, out of which the thought and the political method of Fascism emerged—conceived itself the genuine interpretation of Marxist communism.

Here’s what the most prolific scholar of fascism A. James Gregor said of it:

[Italian] Fascism was a variant of classical Marxism, a belief system that pressed some themes argued by both Marx and Engels until they found expression in the form of ‘national syndicalism’ that was to animate the first Fascism.

So your own ideological godfathers and leading scholars of the ideology agree with me and not you. You’re a dishonest charlatan.

He continues:

Intriguingly, since he also (mis-)perceives Marxism as overwhelmingly economic

The reason this fascist wants to say that Marxism is not principally economic is precisely because that is where the intense similarities lie, and he wants to distance his ideology from it. It’s the same method that Marxists use to distance themselves from fascism. But when you read Marx’s main two works The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, you will see that it’s almost exclusively an economic doctrine of anti-capitalism and not much else.

Here’s a synopsis of Communist Manifesto:

“Class relations,” “economic forces driving history,” “proletarian revolution to overthrow capitalism,” etc.

And here’s a synopsis of Das Kapital:

“An analysis of capitalism,” “economic structure of society,” “economic organization,” “critique of capitalism” and its defenders, etc.

Does any of that sound like much more than economics to you? Marx identified himself as both a philosopher and ECONOMIST. He was obsessed with economics and wrote almost exclusively against capitalism in economic terms. Whatever social shit he wrote, he also linked that back to his economic fixation with anti-capitalism. So when Engels writes against the “nuclear family,” he does so because he believes the nuclear family is part of “the capitalist system” and must be dismantled. It all comes back to anti-capitalism.

The sperg continues:

he routinely commits the same ‘economic spergery’ and ‘rigidity’ of which he has in the past accused others (‘you agree with me on everything but economic issue X, therefore you’re my enemy and worse than liberals and libertarians’)

I’m simply insisting that someone who calls themselves an “anti-communist” actually be one and not a crypto-communist as fascists are. If fascists want to do economic spergery as they often do (anyone who doesn’t profess hardcore socialism is deemed an enemy) and insist that anyone who is “pro-White” adopt their gay socialist economic leftism, then why should I not return the favour in reverse? Either way, this relationship won’t work out.

and his arguments for capitalism verily demonstrate his own crass materialism

Arguments you’ve yet to cite or even refute.

The birth rates of North Korea and eastern Germany, for instance, are significantly higher than those of South Korea and western Germany

So you are confirming that you are a communist who favours North Korea and commie East Germany over their more capitalist counterparts… and exclusively over birth rates? Birthrates ebb and flow and generally the more prosperous a country the lower the birthrates, should we take that as an argument against prosperity and for poverty? North Korea today has a below replacement level birthrate:

Socialist countries were generally the most favourable to women’s rights/education/advancement and were some of the most pro-abortion countries in the world, so an economic system alone won’t change that. That’s mainly in the realm of social policy.

but Marrothbard will preference the latter over trivialities such as higher GDP per capita. Anyone who chooses GDPPC over birth rates and racial homogeneity demonstrates that he has nothing to do with the Right: he demonstrates, au contraire, his extreme economism driven by completely misplaced priorities

Firstly, it’s a false dichotomy. I don’t have to choose between a “low birthrate capitalist country” and a “higher birthrate socialist one”. I can choose a higher birthrate capitalist one or strive for it. And it’s just a complete lie and you can’t quote me saying that anywhere because I haven’t said it. If I had to choose between a country with a lower GDP (that doesn’t mean it’s “socialist” it just has a lower GDP) but was racially homogenous or a country with higher GDP but racially not homogenous I’d chose the former. So you’re just a liar.

He writes:

Were Marxism purely economic, his attitudes to it immediately become laughable and unwarranted: declaring economics- those of an ethnostate that you will never get your master motive is such a moronic choice of a hill to die on

Marxism is mostly economic as I showed earlier, you child. I’m not dying on any hill least of all the fictional hill you’ve invented and attributed to me, you dipshit.

Totalitarianism, which he fallaciously posits necessitates submission to Leftist and liberal states, demonstrating a total lack of logical and political-philosophical understanding.

Totalitarianism can come in many forms, also leftist forms, so genuflecting to totalitarianism in general is misguided, but typical of fascist blockheads like this. Fascism is indeed totalitarian statism paired with economic leftism. And if you believe fascist doctrine, then yes, you MUST submit to leftist and liberal states too since they are STATES and the STATE is supreme in your doctrine. If you don’t obey these leftist and liberal states, then you’re implicitly acknowledging that states are NOT supreme and can be opposed by “individuals” (citizens). Your entire ideology is thus refuted by your actions!

Let’s quote Mussolini:

The Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State. It is opposed to classical liberalism [which] denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual… And if liberty is to be the attribute of living men and not of abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.

Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State – a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values – interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people (14). No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State (15). …The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature’s plans. If classical liberalism spells individualism Fascism spells government. The citizen in the Fascist State is no longer a selfish individual who has the anti-social right of rebelling against any law of the Collectivity.

If you take all that garbled bafflegab literally, what Mussolini’s saying is that the State is God and you, mere mortal, are its slave. “Nothing outside the state,” is the motto of fascism, which means, that everything and everyone is consumed by that mammoth beast of a state. Where in the world would “private property” fit into that? Private property is outside the state, which cannot be so, under fascism. You have no rights and certainly no right to “rebel against any law of the collectivity (aka the state),” which is a crystal clear edict from Lord Mussolini that rebellion against states is invalid (according to him).

If these totalitarian principles don’t apply to ALL states, including “leftist and liberal” ones, then why should they apply to ANY state? Why does a state run by bald-headed adulterer Mussolini get this privilege of tolerating no rebellion and opposition but no other type of state does? If the principle is not universal, then it’s not worth the paper it’s written on. When a law says “thou shall not kill another person,” that can’t be interpreted as “thou shall not kill… except in X Y Z circumstances where it is ok to kill”.

The sperg continues (yes it goes on and on):

In addition to rejecting everything Right-wing and nationalist

You failed miserably to prove any of that outside ridiculous strawmen you invented.

he is also on record as believing in all of the following, all of which can be reliably sourced, and which demonstrate remarkably that he is more Marx-rothbard than Marrothbard: the schizophrenic, feces-packed cloaca of a dyed-in-the-wool Left-liberal who exhibits signs of literal drug addiction or mental illness

So now the crackpot dives into a litany of ad homs because he’s got nothing left in the chamber.

including obsessiveness, e.g. about the pack of trivialities collectively known as
Communazism

Communazism: let’s ask Goebbels about that one.

“We want the Germany of labor. What does that mean? We want a Germany in which labor and accomplishment are the highest moral and political values. We are today a workers’ party in the best sense of the word. Once we have taken over the state, Germany will become a state of labor, a workers’ state.” – source

“Lenin was the greatest man, second only to Hitler…the difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is very slight…” – source

“It would be better for us to go down with Bolshevism than live in eternal slavery under capitalism.” – source

So Goebbels admired Lenin, said the differences between communism and Hitlerism were “very slight,” and that he’d rather go down with Bolshevism than Capitalism. Yeah, he sounds very anti-communist doesn’t he? Hitler also admired Stalin including his economic system.

Here’s a few more quotes from actual experts and historians:

“[Hiter] had become a vehement critic of the system of free enterprise and a confirmed adherent of the system of a planned, state-controlled economy.”
— Dr. Rainer Zitelmann, historian
ㅤ
“[Hitler’s] concept of organized economy was close to genuine socialism”
— Dr John Toland, historian
ㅤ
“It is now clear beyond all reasonable doubt that Hitler and his associates believed they were socialists, and others, including democratic socialists, thought so too.”
— Dr George Watson, historian
ㅤ
“Another source of the Nazi Party’s popularity was its liberal borrowing from the intellectual tradition of the socialist left. Many of the men who would become the movement’s leaders had been involved in communist and socialist circles.”
— Götz Aly, historian
ㅤ
“One final point of similarity between Nazi and Soviet policies should be noted, although its meaning is far from clear. Both governments reorganized industry into larger units, ostensibly to increase state control over economic activity”
— Peter Temin, economic historian
ㅤ
“Government finances for state-owned enterprises rose from RM 4,000m. in 1933 to RM 16,000m. ten years later; the capital assets of state-owned industry doubled during the same period, and the number of state-owned firms topped 500”
— Richard Overy, historian

“Those [capitalist] firms and organizations that regularly engaged in large-scale political funding continued—right down to the last election prior to Hitler’s appointment as chancellor—to bestow the bulk of their funds on opponents or rivals of the Nazis.”
— Henry Ashby Turner, historian
ㅤ
“The [Nazi] government tells these seeming entrepreneurs what and how to produce, at what prices and from whom to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell. The government decrees at what wages labourers should work, and to whom and under what terms the capitalists should entrust their funds. Market exchange is but a sham.”
— Dr Ludwig von Mises, economist

“the state, not the market, would determine the shape of economic development.”
— Ian Kershaw, historianㅤ
ㅤ
“The [Nazi] government did place restraints on foreign exchange, imports and exports, prices, wages, and the allocation of labor. It determined the quantity and nature of what should be produced. Profits were limited and directed by the government back into reinvestment for expansion or for the acquisition of government bonds”
— Jackson Spielvogel, historian
ㅤ
“The economic tendencies of fascist states… … would be more correctly described as anti-capitalist than capitalist.”
— Alan Milward, historian

The case is closed on this one, kid. Communazism is not the figment of some boomer’s imagination, as fascists love to claim, it’s very much a real thing that can be proven with the words of Nazis and fascists themselves. They’re not called Beefsteak Nazis for nothing (red on the inside, brown on the outside).

The sperg continues:

and paranoia, e.g. obsessively defending against imagined Marxist infiltrators, and just plain mental illness, including a grossly exaggerated sense of self-importance.

The reason he doesn’t want me to sniff out “Marxist infiltrators” is because he is a classic example of such infiltration. Really, he’s a confused Marxist who doesn’t realize the extent of his ideology’s tie-ins with Marxism or if he does realize it he wants to cloak it in bafflegab to psyop you into embracing it.

Marx- rothbard believes, to pick but a few examples that:
The Axis were the real aggressors in WWII (and, by extension, Leftists and liberals were merely innocent victims of their aggression-precisely the Leftist and liberal version of WWII)

They were undoubtedly the initial aggressors as I discussed here about Hitler’s Lebensraum:

The only people who deny this are fascists and Hitlerists who have concocted a fictional revisionism designed to rehabilitate Nazism so they can pass it off as the only “solution” to anti-White leftism. Moreover, his labeling of “leftists and liberals” as the Axis’ opponents falls short. If he’s referring to Stalin, well Stalin was once an ally of Hitler, and he was a fellow brother-socialist with Hitler. Mussolini was a leftist-socialist-authoritarian. FDR was no capitalist, he was a socialist-leaning Keynesian who was praised by Hitler and Mussolini for his New Deal interventionism. They considered him at that time one of them. Oswald Mosley also met with FDR. FDR also praised Italian Fascism.

FDR was also privately anti-Semitic and he and Churchill were more or less “White nationalists” in their day. So who are the “liberals” in this picture? Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and FDR were all economic leftists and Churchill was the only free market guy in that equation. On social policy all of them had a mixture of left and right policies, including Stalin who banned abortion and homosexuality, so these labels are meaningless here. “Left-Liberal” appears to be a catch-all insult that fascists use for anyone who doesn’t support fascism. It’s equivalent to the way leftists use the label “fascist” for anyone right of center on social issues.

This has laughably led this supposed anti-Marxist to oppose the Axis invasion of Marxism’s own ‘motherland’, the USSR

I oppose it because it led to the deaths of 30 million Europeans and crusader Hitler was not even a genuine “anti-Marxist” as he claimed, he was a crypto-Marxist who just wanted to replace Stalin’s version of Communism with his own modified ethnically exclusive version, while ethnically replacing Slavs from their lands to facilitate Germanic ethnic expansion. He kept Stalin’s collective farm system in place in Ukraine, for example, what a heroic saviour from Communism! Only a truly homicidal lunatic would support that endeavor.

This is what Nazi Germany had in store for the Slavs as Rosenberg confessed:

“From the point of view of cultural policy, the German Reich is in a position to promote and direct national culture and science in many fields. It will be necessary that in some territories an uprooting and resettlement of various racial stocks [Voelkerschaften] will have to be effected.”

“In his “Instructions for a Reich Commissar in the Baltic Countries and White Russia” (officially referred to together as the “Ostland”), Rosenberg directs that the Ostland be transformed into a part of the Greater German Reich by Germanizing racially possible elements, colonizing Germanic races, and banishing undesirable elements.”

So the sperg supports homicidal imperialism and ethnic replacement policies and tries to sell it to you as “based right-wing nationalism bro!”

Sperg goes on:

Power is intrinsically bad, and that governments are intrinsically prone to mass murder statements that logically lead to anarchism and libertarianism

Never said that “power is intrinsically bad,” more fan fiction. Totalitarian governments are prone to mass murder and repression, as all of history has shown (Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, etc.), but I don’t take that to mean that a government isn’t required to have a functioning society and can’t be made into something good. Governments are what you make it. It’s the type of people running it and their values/intentions that make a gov good or bad, not necessarily the thing itself, although I believe a certain level of checks and balances are needed to keep the state from abusing its power against citizens. I’m not a totalitarian but neither am I an anarchist or doctrinaire libertarian. I’m somewhere in between those two extremes.

Jews are not intrinsically bad. Only Left-wing Jews are bad. But this is only because they are Left-wing, not because they are Jews.

Why would I argue that Jews are “intrinsically bad”… like they’re racially pre-destined to be bad? I have no scientific evidence to prove that, so why would I assert it? I think their culture and religion has bad elements in it that lead them to do bad things, certainly tribal things that harm us when left unchecked, but that’s different from saying they’re genetically evil or whatever you’re implying. And that’s not even a true statement. I have also said that right-wing Zionist Jews are bad insofar as they don’t care about Whites, use us for their own gain and are not our “allies” as some civnats assert. So you’re lying about my positions here again. Take this video:

But if hypothetically most Jews (who are a small minority) were not left-wing and promoting left-wing social agendas and were just minding their own business, then what genuine reason would I have to dislike them? Just because they are Jews? That’s the exact kind of meme Hitlertard anti-Semitism that groups like the ADL want us to embrace because it’s so easy to discredit since it has no logic behind it.

No part of their ‘badness’ is because of their Jewishness, only their Leftism a classic case of liberal- conservative, Trumpian Zionist reasoning that aids Marx-rothbard’s preoccupation with spewing defences of Israel, cloaked under the farcical excuse

Again false as I’ve said there are bad parts of their culture and religion, such as the “chosen people” and “tikkun olam” bullshit. I’m just not willing to make the bold claim that it’s some genetic thing, which neither you or I can prove with science, so you’re the idiot here making claims you can’t prove to “one up” my measured and rational anti-Semitism with your unprovable unhinged 4chan version of it.

(a repetition of his one-time obsession with pro- Ukrainianism, one replaced as rapidly as he took it up because Azov = Communazism, also characteristic of drug-fuelled obsessiveness and/or clout- chasing)

The unhinged butt-blasted sperg has little left in the tank so all he’s got now is laughably false accusations of drug-taking and clout-chasing, despite the fact that my stance against both Putin and Hitler are unpopular among the blockheads of the e-right, so that’s total proof I’m doing the opposite of clout chasing and am pursuing the truth because I think the truth matters more than illusory internet clout. And his anti-Ukrainian bias comes out too, so he’s a Zigger in addition to a Hitlertard. The two often go hand in hand.

of merely correcting a pre- existing pro-Palestinian (earlier, pro- Russian) bias

I never had a “pro-Russian bias” and have supported Ukraine since 2014.

Belief in Communazism led him to abandon the Ukraine; belief in Islamofascism led him to take up Israel in its stead

I haven’t abandoned Ukraine, more lies. I recently did a debate destroying some zigger on the issue. And I don’t “support” Israel in any real sense either. A “supporter” of Israel would not make the kinds of statements about them that I have. This asshole has to lie his ass off about my positions, misrepresent and just make shit up because he can’t refute my actual positions which trump his own garbled bafflegab crypto-Marxism.

That the State is already too powerful where private interests are concerned, easily refuted by the statistical fact that tax avoidance is rampant and immensely costly to governments worldwide, precisely because it is those said private interests who are, conversely, too powerful where the State is concerned

This is of course your Marxist perception, but the State is handily in control of things not “private interests”. If private businesses had more power than the State, they would stop paying taxes tomorrow and they would abolish all regulations that inhibit them. All they can do is find legal ways to shelter their wealth. Big companies do pay all kinds of taxes beyond what is called “federal income tax”. They have state or provincial taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, etc. Why pay any of that if they’re above the state? The reason why some corporations get away with paying no “federal” income tax is because despite what their financial statements say, they either ran at a net loss that year or wrote off net losses from previous years. This article explains this:

The state has the power to tax, regulate, imprison citizens, start wars, print currency, break up companies (anti-trust), etc. All powers that private companies do not have. During covid they forced all businesses to shut down, causing many to go bust including large companies, not possible if “private interests” run the state. Governments have broken up big companies using anti-trust laws, like Theodore Roosevelt did during the trust busting era, like Reagan did with AT&T, and they have nationalized businesses. They’re still launching anti-trust lawsuits against corps today.

I’m not saying that this shouldn’t be the case, but let’s not lie to ourselves that it’s not already the case everywhere.

The sperg is really mad now:

He is incredibly destructive, harmful, spiteful, and repellant: his ignorant ideological regression; his oversensitiveness to criticism; his incessant over-opinionation

What I’m really destroying is your ideology in real time bud. There’s no regression merely a realization of what fascism is, what fascists themselves say that they are and what all the scholars agree that they are: an offshoot of classical Marxism. You’re in denial about that because you’re a deluded idiot who is choking on his own perverse pseudo-intellectual bafflegab.

his paranoid, obsessive witch-hunt for imagined Marxist subversives-one particularly laughable when Haz/Maupin are openly courting libertarians, not the Right

No they’re courting MAGA types and preach unvarnished radical state socialism, which would have virtually no appeal to “libertarians”. And you’re not “the Right” you’re an economic leftist who cloaks his leftism in racialism.

his constant hammering of divisive wedge issues, which, far from increasing his reach as he so hopes, merely split an already small group into smaller and smaller ones over mere trivialities

If these are mere trivialities, then why are you so butt-blasted about them that you spam-post wall-text after wall-text attacking me about these same trivialities that you don’t care about? What’s funny is that you would have no issue with me hammering JQ, race, trannies or whatever else you agree with me on, but you have a massive pickle up your ass about me hammering these Putintards and Hitlertards on their flaws and bullshit because you are both. You basically just want me to get out of the way and let you retards hijack right-wing politics and turn it into a Hitler/Putin demon cult.

as evidenced, for instance, by his ever-declining views and likes

So first he says I’m a clout-chaser and now he says that my positions on these “wedge issues” are not good for clout, so which is it retard? You’re just pissing in the wind now aren’t you faggot? Evidently, I don’t care about likes and clout like some woman. I care about the truth.

his Al impersonation of Johnny Gat’, which borders on the criminal

A stupid hoax made up by this homosexual pole dancer you can see below. Very credible source indeed.

The pole dancer’s “evidence” for that is that me and Johnny Gat have similar positions on Ukraine. Wow, total proof bro. It doesn’t even make any logical sense why I would do that which would amount to me putting in tens of hours of work making two feature length documentaries just to give Gat the credit for it all? It’s so retarded but that’s what you get from 60-IQ criminally paranoid wignats.

This sperg wants to talk about obsessiveness while he clearly has some kind of Martinez Derangement Syndrome and is seething endlessly about me in comment sections.

If he is not being paid for this, he should be: he has done immense unpaid labour for the Right’s enemies

But once again you’re not even right-wing, you’re an economic leftist larping as the epitome of “right-wing” when even your own fascist compatriots say fascism is “authoritarian-left”.

This sperg also showed up on my Odysee channel trying to claim that apartheid South Africa was not truly capitalist because it created some state-enterprises, he says:

Having learned more about SA since this exchange, I feel compelled to remark in hindsight that this is clearly false. The Apartheid-era economy was totally dominated by state-run parastatals. These parastatals, such as Eskom, were privatized by the very same ANC who you think are for State ownership owing to your conflation of State capitalism with socialism. They are far less efficient now than then. Apartheid SA works against your narrative.

According to various sources these state-run enterprises were created to counteract global sanctions.

“Many state-owned firms were established during the apartheid era to counter the impact of international sanctions against the country” – Wiki

“When white rule came to an end in 1994 the government of Nelson Mandela inherited a siege economy, full of state-backed firms whose job had been to soften the pain of sanctions by pursuing self-sufficiency.”  – TIME

Ok so no country is capitalist then because most countries have some state-owned enterprises (SOEs) alongside a mostly privatized economy. This South African guy says at 12:00 of the video that “for white people South Africa had one of the purest forms of free market capitalism in the world”. 

Mind you, this was a country with “Anti-Communism” laws on the books, so if they were communists themselves, that’d be a major psyop. At worst, they were Keynesians.

Then he said that state-owned enterprises (SOEs) are inherently good (of course, he’s a commie after all) and that South Africa is doing worse after some privatizations of these SOEs.

The Apartheid-era economy was totally dominated by state-run parastatals. These parastatals, such as Eskom, were privatized by the very same ANC who you think are for State ownership owing to your conflation of State capitalism with socialism. They are far less efficient now than then. Apartheid SA works against your narrative.

Those parastatals are still state run today. A brief period of privatizations was reversed.

Wiki lists all these companies as SOEs today:

“DPE has oversight responsibility in full or in part for six of the approximately 700 SOEs that exist at the national, provincial, and local levels: Alexkor (diamonds), Denel (military equipment), Eskom (electricity generation), Transnet (railway transport and pipelines) South African Express, South African Forestry Company (SAFCOL) (forestry), South African Broadcasting Corporation” 

Eskom, state run energy, is listed today as a “public utility”:

They had to lay off thousands of people because of inefficiencies and losses:

“Between 2020 and 2021, two thousand employees lost their jobs at the power utility. 6000 more jobs are reportedly at risk in order for the company to continue operating” 

I looked up how well these SOEs are performing today and, despite Mr. Caesar’s claims, it’s a sad sight indeed. They’re all massively in debt, racking up huge losses, plagued with corruption and need constant bailouts:

By the end of the Zuma administration in 2018 corruption within South African state owned enterprises by individuals connected to government such as the controversial Gupta family had led to many enterprises facing deep financial difficulty.[4] Deepening financial issues, mismanagement, maladministration and government bailouts of enterprises such as the South African Broadcasting Corporation,[5][6][7] South African Airways,[8][9][10] Eskom,[11][12] Denel,[13][14] PRASA,[15] and Transnet caused increased public controversy. By the end of 2015–16 combined government guarantees on debts owed by state owned enterprises had reached R467 billion (equivalent to US$33.1 billion) and were expected to reach R500 billion by 2020 representing 10 percent of South Africa’s GDP.[4] The situation at Eskom was regarded as so serious as to lead the South African business newspaper Business Day to speculate that it could cause a national banking crisis.[12] In 2021 the South African Treasury reported that South African Airways had accumulated a total loss between 2008 and 2020 of R32 billion (US$ 2.1 billion) and received a total of R60 billion (US$ 4 billion) in government guarantees.[16]

That doesn’t sound like your beloved state-owned enterprises are being run efficiently to me.

Here’s what TIME Magazine had to say about these wondrous state-owned enterprises in South Africa:

“SCOOPING up gems from the beaches that form part of one of the world’s richest diamond deposits ought to be about as profitable as, well, scooping up diamonds from a beach. Yet South Africa’s state-owned diamond miner, Alexkor, has managed to make a hash of it. Over the past decade it has posted losses more often than profits and has needed frequent bail-outs…. As many as half of the diamonds it mines there fail to make their way onto Alexkor’s income statement, according to diamond-industry insiders. (The government says that only 10% are stolen.) … In this it is not unique. South Africa has more than 700 state-owned firms, though only a few count for much. The biggest include Eskom, the power monopoly, Transnet, the railway and ports monopoly, South African Airways (SAA) and Denel, an arms firm. Between them they account for at least 5% of the country’s economic output. Yet these behemoths are mighty drags on growth. During the global commodity boom before the 2008 financial crisis South Africa’s mines struggled to expand because underinvestment by Transnet had led to bottlenecks at ports and on the railways. Some reckon the country’s coal and iron ore mines could have increased their exports by as much as 50% had they had the means to get their minerals out to international markets. Chronic underinvestment by Eskom, meanwhile, has led to rolling power cuts that have slashed productivity in factories and mines (as well as irritating South Africans, who like light in their homes). Many state-owned firms are also racking up large losses (see chart) and guzzling subsidies. Petro SA, a national oil company that wants to build the largest oil refinery in Africa, will in fact gain a superlative even if that plan doesn’t go ahead: it is about to post a loss of about 15 billion rand ($1.1 billion), the largest ever by a state-owned company in South Africa.”

“SAA, meanwhile, has soaked up more than 30 billion rand ($2.3 billion) in bail-outs over two decades. In the process it has managed to smother domestic competition: ten of the 11 private airlines that opened after South Africa’s skies were deregulated in 1991 have gone out of business.
Instead of learning the obvious lesson—that the state is not good at running businesses—the South African government seems keen to double down. In mining, for instance, ministers talk about having a state-owned firm take over existing mines that are cutting jobs or going out of business because of low commodity prices. Instead of “unpatriotic” capitalist mines, the government would like more state-owned ones. “We think we should give it a push and see if it works,” says Ngoako Ramatlhodi, the minerals and energy minister. His policies reflect a wider shift in the government’s move away from markets and towards a “developmental state” in which the government owns “strategic” industries and uses them to pursue goals other than profitability.” 

So not only has South Africa not moved towards privatization, it is still moving away from it. Despite all these failures, the South African state is doubling down on their SOEs and are modeling themselves now on China:

Most new plans for the economy are now drawn up by two communists, Ebrahim Patel, the economic development minister, and Rob Davies, a trade minister who doesn’t seem to think much of trade. Their model is China. An ANC policy document gushes that the economic “leadership of the Communist Party of China…should be a guiding lodestar of our own struggle.” Many in the ANC like the idea that the ruling party should control businesses directly, and China’s recent troubles probably won’t change their minds.

SA President Cyril Rhamposa admitted the SOEs are a disaster:

During last night’s State of the Nation Address, President Cyril Ramaphosa acknowledged that state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and local government are the state’s greatest weaknesses. Many SOEs are struggling with significant debt, under-investment in infrastructure, the effects of state capture and a shortage of skills, the President said.

But I bet our fascist friend will say that this is only because they’re being run by black people. White Communism is so much better, he will say. It is marginally better, I will say, but not desirable.

At least when in the private sector, the inefficient businesses go under, better ones pop up and taxpayers don’t have to foot the bill for incompetence or poor business decisions, whereas inefficient state run enterprises just get a bailout every year.

1) Alex Jones: Around the year 2008, Alex Jones became a regular guest on Russia Today, especially the show of Max Keiser. In 1999, AJ condemned Putin as a “demon” and globalist but flipped his position when RT started having him on. That revised stance is a mix of opportunism (clout chasing) and jumping on popular conspiracy trends which began portraying Putin as a “Christian saviour” and “anti-globalist”. Around 2015 Jones began cross-promoting with Alexander Dugin, the lunatic Eurasian imperialist who has influenced Putin’s foreign policy. Jones’ lazy unscrupulous methods saw him repost over 1,000 RT articles, making him little more than an aggregator of Russian propaganda.

2) Abby Martin: A left-wing radical Marxist who grew to prominence through the Occupy Wall Street movement, she was tapped by Russia Today to host her own program on the network for a number of years, where she focused all her attention on attacking Western governments and corporations, while supporting/defending all Eastern, Islamic and leftist regimes globally. She usually tows the Russian foreign policy line, shilled for the Maduro regime in Venezuela, and fetishizes the Palestine cause. She later went on to work for Venezuelan state TV channel Telesur, making her a direct employee of both the Russian and Venezuelan governments.

3) Max Blumenthal: Jewish anti-Zionist Blumenthal is the son of Clinton campaign advisor Sidney Blumenthal. He has floated around “alternative” journalism for years, focusing mostly on anti-Israel, pro-Palestine content. Around 2013, Blumenthal quit a Lebanese newspaper because of it’s pro-Assad editorial line, then around 2015, he did an abrupt about-face and began shilling for Assad and Putin’s Russia. Since then he has obsessively promoted Russian propaganda about Ukraine and helped propel their lies to support the invasion of that country. He makes regular appearances on RT.

4) Glenn Greenwald: Glenny boy is a leftist “journalist” who broke the Ed Snowden/NSA story. Snowden ended up in Russia under their protection. Since then, Greenwald has been riding the “national security” grift and basically opposes any and all US foreign policy that isn’t beneficial to foreign nations like Russia, China and Islamic countries. Now he uses his platforms to help Russia justify invading Ukraine and opposes all aid to that country. In his 15 or so years doing journalism, he has not uttered a single criticism of the Russian state. In 2018 Greenwald went to Russia and told them his journalistic mission has been to “combat negative attitudes of Russia”.

5) Tucker Carlson: Veteran Fox News host became a loud cheerleader for the Russians since at least 2016 during Trump’s presidency. He has been caught on his show stating he is “rooting for the Russians” in its war against Ukraine. Since that war began, Carlson has had Russian asset Douglas MacGregor on his show almost every week to spread easily discredited lies and disinfo about the war in favour of Russia. Carlson has not once condemned the actual invasion, has said Russia is justified to invade and that it’s all America’s fault for not capitulating to Putin’s hefty demands.

6) Douglas MacGregor: Former US army colonel who has become one of the Kremlin’s favourite mouthpieces in the US, especially since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. MacGregor has gone on Fox News and other platforms to slag off Ukraine and predict its imminent “defeat” to Russia (three day war!). His sourcing is extremely dubious and he has been wrong about all of his fake predictions. In 2015 MacGregor said that the Russians “have been subverting, destabilizing, invading and conquering their neighbors since Peter the Great,” only to bizarrely reverse that position by supporting Russia’s imperialism in Ukraine and hail Putin as a based anti-globalist. He also makes regular appearances on RT. Was there a pay off?

7) Scott Ritter: former UN weapons inspector turned “dissident” pundit. Ritter has been one of the loudest proponents of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, while he opposes all other invasions done by NATO, the US, Israel, etc. He is a Kremlin favourite making regular appearances on Russian state TV to spew out their talking points about Ukraine. In 2011 Ritter was convicted of attempted endangering of a minor after he masturbated in front of what he thought was an underage girl on a webcam chat, but who turned out to be an undercover cop. Ritter is clearly acting out a revenge fantasy against the US government for putting him in jail for his pedophilia, hence his support for any regime that is contrarian to the US in the realm of foreign policy.

8) Phil Giraldi: Former CIA officer has become a pundit in “alternative” media. He has made regular appearances on RT and generally tows the Russian line on foreign policy. A critic of the Israeli lobby, he demands that Israeli lobbyists like AIPAC should register as a foreign agent (correct take), but at the same time he hypocritically opposed the US government crackdown on Russia Today as a foreign agent. His pro-Russia bias is clearly related to his own self-interest in making regular appearances on the Russian network to promote himself. Another clear case of oppositional contrarianism or a Russian pay off.

9) Nick Fuentes: Internet pundit who has aggressively cheered and propagandized his audience for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, calling for Ukraine to be “destroyed”. A clear cut case of oppositional contrarianism who flipped his position on Russia from critical to fawning support. In 2018 he said Russia was “a degenerate country” and criticized Russophiles on the right. Then when Biden got elected and he faced some mild persecution over January 6, he began waving Russian flags and calling for genocidal destruction of Ukraine so he can counter-signal Biden and profit off of it with content.

10) Syrian Girl: Syrian online content creator living in Australia who has been heavily promoted by “alternative” media channels for her “Syria analysis” which was little more than acting as a stenographer for the Assad regime in its war with rebels. Her motive for supporting Russia is clear: Syria’s Assad regime (her de facto employer) is a client state of the Russians and so the Syrians will in return support Russian foreign policy no matter what it is. Hypocrite “anti-war” faker who fully supported Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, demonized Ukrainians as Nazis and said that they deserved to be destroyed because they supported the Iraq war in a limited capacity. Very spiteful Semite who wants to see Europeans die because her people have been taking geopolitical Ls for decades.

11) Ryan Dawson: Alt-media huckster who has been around for years promoting his left-wing egalitarian Semite-obsession on Israel-Palestine. Takes the side of any Muslim regime he thinks is hostile to Israel. Opposes Israel because he says it’s a “racist apartheid” state and that ethno-states are bad. His preferred model is multiculturalism and globalist melting pot because he is of mixed race extraction himself and married an Asian. Has been a rabid Putin shill for years promoting Russia as the “saviour” of his beloved Muslims in the Middle East because of Russia’s less pro-Zionist foreign policy in comparison with the US. His main motive for supporting Russia is that he believes Putin is more favourable to Islam and Semites in the Middle East. He relentlessly defends Muslims and totalitarian Islam despite being an atheist libertarian (browns come first in his victim support hierarchy).

12) Jay Dyer: Alt-media content creator and Orthodox Christian evangelist who mostly just picks fights with other sects of Christianity to reignite the medieval religious wars. Has embraced the Orthodox variety of Christianity and sees his divine mission as attacking all other religions, including Christian sects, that don’t bow to the Russian Orthodox Church and by extension the Russian state. Big Putin shill who blames all global calamities on the “Anglo-Americans” as part of his Duginist infowar against the West. Major backer and apologist for Putin’s Eurasian imperialist war in Ukraine, which he attacks and demonizes in using the usual Moscow talking points. His main motive for supporting Russia is his religious conversion to Orthodoxy which, similar to Islamic converts, shifts his loyalty from his nation of birth to a foreign power he thinks is friendlier to his religion.

13) Brother Nathanel Kapner: Jewish convert to Christianity who has been floating around the “alt-media” for decades with his kook-tier videos and analysis. Basically an anti-Judaic version of Alex Jones. Has always pushed Putinism and Russophilia to his audience with half-baked nonsense theories that Putin is a “secret anti-Semite” and thus the good guy. Extreme shill for Russian foreign policy and supporter of the war in Ukraine because he wants the Russians to exterminate White people who don’t bow to the Russian Orthodox Church and by extension the Putin regime. Uses extremely dubious sourcing in his pro-Russian apologetics, dismisses any source that isn’t Russian state media approved because he is a low-IQ schizo of Semite extraction.

14) Mark Collett: Alt-right or White Nationalist activist who has ramped up his pro-Russian shilling since Putin invaded Ukraine. Shills Putin as the saviour of the West and Whites despite Putin’s full embrace of multiculturalism in Russia itself. His main motive for doing this is that he wants the Russian state to fund his political movement in the UK, the exact same reason that Nick Griffin and Paul Golding have also courted Russia in the hopes of obtaining Kremlin funding. Also an element of opportunistic contrarianism towards the establishment because they have backed Ukraine’s sovereignty against Russian aggression. Basically he’s one of these “anti-Jew before pro-White” types who thinks that because there is less Jewish influence in Russia in comparison with the US or UK then that means Putin is his best friend and ally. White Ukrainians be damned, so long as there’s a Kremlin shekel to be gotten from hating them.

15) David Duke: Veteran White nationalist American who has been pushing Russophilia and Putin worship for years. Same motive as Collett (his disciple). He believes Russia is some kind of “last bastion of the White race” despite it facing similar demographic decline issues and immigration problems, thanks to Putin’s multicultural worldview, which he never talks about because it doesn’t fit his fake saviour narrative. Duke is pining for Russian money and support for his own projects in America so he will sugarcoat and whitewash Putin’s crimes against Ukraine and preach schizo theories that Putin is a “secret anti-Semite and White nationalist” despite no evidence that’s the case.

16) Jackson Hinkle: Self-defined Marxist-Leninist, has become a major purveyor of Russian propaganda online and is clearly being boosted by a Russian botnet. Somehow gained 1.5 million Twitter followers within a week of the latest Israel-Palestine war. Spent the past two years running non-stop propaganda and psyops in favour of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, despite having declared that Russian wouldn’t invade Ukraine in the months leading up to it. Very lame and sleazy opportunist who jumps on bandwagons he thinks are popular. His motive for shilling Russia is clear: he’s a West-hating communist who cheerleads for the rise of the East in the hopes that it will lead to the collapse of the West. All communists are fifth columnists who have committed themselves to attacking, undermining and destroying the West and White people; Hinkle is no different.

17) Mike Peinovich: Old guard alt-right activist Peinovich has come out as a rabid Putin shill and anti-Ukrainian voice. When Putin invaded Ukraine in 2022, Peinovich turned his entire podcast network into a Russian shill op for the invasion, hailing especially the Chechen jihadists who were sent in to terrorize Mariupol. His motive for this is a combination of autistic contrarianism to every foreign policy of the US government as well as dubious direct ties to a Russian influence agent named Charles Bausman, who hosts Peinovich’s NJP organization on his Pennsylvania property. Bausman is an American who has worked as a businessman in Russia for decades, starting up a Kremlin propaganda website Russia Insider in 2014 to sell Eurasianism and Putinism to American right-wingers. Peinovich epitomizes the “anti-Jew before pro-White” worldview where he will cheerlead for White deaths in Ukraine if he thinks he can use it to criticize American Jews on the internet. Schizoid 4chan worldview that puts opposition to Jews above White well-being.

Topic: In this episode, I investigate the rise of Islam in Russia and Putin’s embrace of multiculturalism as state ideology. I dive into the evidence of the growing Islamization of Russia, how the Russian state subsidizes the activities of Islam in Russia, and how it’s illegal to criticize or ridicule Islam (and other state-protected religions). I look at the case of Russian teen Nikita Zhuravel who was recently charged with “offending the religious feelings” of Muslims for burning the Koran; despite being from Volgograd he was sent to Chechnya where he was beaten by the son of Chechnya’s vicious & corrupt Muslim ruler Ramzan Kadyrov. Also discussed are the numerous incidents of Islamic terrorism inside Russia & race riots which illustrate that, despite Putin proclaiming multiculturalism a successful model for Russia, it has been anything but that.

TIPS

Video Script

Let’s have a look at a much under-discussed subject: Russia and Islam. Despite the fairy tales and memes that conservative dupes in the West promote on social media, Vladimir Putin’s Russia is not the Christian crusader paradise that they want you to believe. In fact, under Putin’s reign the pernicious influence of Islam has grown to dangerous levels throughout the Russian Federation.

A glimpse into this reality is the case of nineteen-year-old Russian citizen Nikita Zhuravel who was recently charged with “insulting believers’ feelings” because he burned the Koran in public. Radio Free Europe reported that he did this in the Russian city of Volgograd, but for some mysterious reason he was sent to the Islamic region of Chechnya to be tried in court there. (1) A disturbing video quickly emerged showing the son of Ramzan Kadyrov, Chechyna’s president, brutally beating Zhuravel while in detention. Top Chechen officials came out and prasied the video of the beating. (2) Zhuravel later appeared in another humiliating video in which he appears to profess faith in Islam in front of Ramzan Kadyrov. Essentially a coerced conversion of a Russian citizen to Islam, all condoned by the Putin regime.

This example is more or less a case of Putin allowing Kadyrov to enforce Islamic blasphemy laws on Russians. Putin himself declared, “Insults to the prophet Mohammed are a violation of religious freedom and the violation of the sacred feelings of people who profess Islam.” (3) In Russia, you cannot publically insult or criticzie Islam, Christianity, Judaism or other religions.

Since Vladimir Putin became president in 2000, Muslims of Russia have erected 7,500 mosques or slightly more than one per day. (4) In 2015 Putin inaugurated the opening of Moscow’s grand mosque where he said that:

“Islam has become integral to Russia’s religious, cultural and social fabric. Traditions of Islam are based on eternal values of kindness, mercifulness and justice. Millions of people in our country practice this ancient religion. I want to stress that the state’s estimation of fruitful activities of Muslim organizations is very high and the state guarantees its citizens the opportunity to follow the norms of their religion including the pilgrimage to the holy places of Islam.” (5)

The Russian state under Vladimir Putin especially has played a central role in coddling Islam. A 2007 New York Times reported this:

“Islam, like Orthodox Christianity, is in a state of revival here after years of confinement to the kitchens and basements of the Soviet Union, which severely restricted the open practice of all religions. Russia has about 4,000 mosques now, compared with about 90 in the waning days of the Soviet Union. In Moscow, Muslim groceries and other stores selling Muslim fashions have appeared, and the first hospital catering to Muslims opened this month. Fourteen million to 23 million Muslims live in this country of about 140 million people, making Islam the largest minority religion. They live mostly in the Caucasus and in two autonomous republics, Tatarstan and Bashkortostan; there are also about two million Muslims living in Moscow. The Kremlin has worked to facilitate the pilgrimage, part of a strategy to ward off potential unrest among the country’s Muslims and monitor their activities, while also improving ties with Saudi Arabia, where Russia has budding economic interests. When President Vladimir V. Putin visited Saudi Arabia in February — the first Russian leader to do so in decades — his lobbying efforts helped persuade the Saudis to raise the quotas for Russian Muslims this year. At a meeting with Russia’s Muslim leaders in November, Mr. Putin pledged continued government assistance for the hajj. The government has created a liaison office that offers pilgrims help with visas and transportation, and the state airline, Aeroflot, often gives pilgrims special rates. The government has also set up a $60 million fund to support Islamic culture, science and education, part of which is designated for state-accredited Muslim schools and universities.” (6)

While most of Russia’s Muslims live in the Caucasus southern regions, millions also live in the big cities and they’re prescence is growing. An Al Jazeera report tells us:

“With an official population of 12.5 million, Russia’s capital is now home to at least 1.5 million Muslims… This is by far more than the Muslim population of any other European city where the local population is not predominantly Muslim. ‘Moscow is slowly adapting to being Europe’s largest Muslim city, and Muslims are gradually adapting to it,’ Malashenko told Al Jazeera. Ethnic Tatars, Russia’s third largest ethnic group after Slavic Russians and Ukrainians, have lived here for centuries; Azeris settled here in the 1990s after fleeing the Armenian-Azeri war. They were followed by an ever-growing number of natives of Russia’s Caucasus – a multiethnic and heavily subsidised region plagued by insurgency and violence. Since the early 2000s, millions of labour migrants from ex-Soviet Central Asia have flooded into Russia, mostly seeking low-paid labour jobs. There is also a visible presence of Muslims from sub-Saharan Africa, the Indian subcontinent, and the Middle East. [C]ountless bakeries, cafes and restaurants have sprouted throughout Moscow selling Central Asian flat bread and samosas, pilaf and kebabs. The presence of Muslims in Moscow prompted another trend – the growing number of ethnic Russians who convert to Islam.” (7)

There are over 5,000 registered religious Muslim organizations in Russia. (8) That will only continue to grow as Putin courts Muslims with statements like this saying Russian Orthodox Christianity is “closer to Islam than to Catholicism”. (9) In 2009 Putin’s right-hand man Dmitry Medvedev asserted that Russia is ‘an organic part’ of the Muslim world. Putin is facilitating this Islamification of Russia not only through subsidizing Islamic activities in Russia and forbidding critiicsm of the religion, but also through his lax immigration policies and special treatment of former Soviet Republics in Central Asia. Putin has sought to lessen border controls with former Soviet republics, saying in 2013, “The [existence of] visa requirements within the CIS would mean that we are pushing former Soviet republics away from us. We do not need to push them away. Rather, we need to forge closer relations with them. But we ought to make this process more civilized.” (10) He followed that up in 2014 by including Armenia, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan in his Eurasian Economic Union.

According to UN Population Division estimates, as of 2013, the Russian Federation was second only to the United States in the sheer number of immigrants. (11) According to Statista the number one origin country of immigrants to Russia is Tajikistan followed by Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Krygyzstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Belarus, Turkmenistan. (12) According to FSB border service data, Russia recieved a record high number of labour migrants in 2019, with 2.4 million migrants arriving for work, 918K from Uzbekistan, 524K from Tajikistan, 265K from Kyrgyzstan, 165K from Ukraine, 105K from Kazakstan. (13) A 2019 report in Kommersant stated that Putin signed a plan of action on migration to attract up to 10 million immigrants from ex-Soviet countries to offset population decline. (14) To expedite this process, in 2020 Putin passed a dual-citizenship law allowing foreigners to obtain Russian citizenship and keep the other. (15)

Another report describes the process of Islamification of Russia’s countryside through immigration. It says:

“The arrival to urban centers and the countryside of Soliev and millions of other mostly Muslim labor migrants from Central Asia is at the center of what could emerge as Russia’s most radical ethnic makeover in centuries. “In 10 years, the village will either disappear or become foreign,” says retiree Viktor, declining to give his last name. He is a resident of the neighboring village of Bortnikovo, where a paltry 12 houses have full-time residents. ​Polls point to fears among many of Russia’s 142 million people of an uncontrolled influx of migrants eager to snatch up jobs and wildly tilt the country’s demographics in favor of the newcomers. Vyacheslav Postavnin, a former deputy director of Russia’s Federal Migration Service who now heads the 21st Century Migration Fund, a Moscow-based think tank, compares it to the storied Mongol invasion of the 13th century that was followed by Islamization and the settling of former nomads in what is now southern Russia. “The last bastion is the quick construction of Orthodox churches,” Postavnin says of ethnic Russians’ mistrust of the cultural and religious implications of immigration, “because the number of adherents of Islam is growing. Almost all of Rozhdestveno’s Tajik families hail from Gorno-Badakhshan, an especially poor, mountainous region that accounts for nearly half of Tajikistan’s territory. Tajiks were early and eager labor migrants to post-Soviet Russia, and hundreds of thousands now have citizenship there, officials say. While it didn’t distinguish between Russian nationals and foreigners, the last nationwide census, in 2010, showed fourfold increases in the number of ethnic Tajiks and Kyrgyz in the Russian countryside… But the census generally excludes temporary labor migrants… of which there are millions, on and off the books.” (16)

An article in New Lines Magazine dove into the demographics of the Russian city of Kazan, describing it as, “One Russian city offers a glimpse of the country’s increasingly Muslim and non-Slavic future”. (17) It writes:

“Yet in contemplating the future of Russia, a third city could someday join the ranks of these two juggernauts: Kazan, the capital of the region of Tatarstan. Located almost 450 miles to the east of Moscow, Kazan may seem an unlikely occupant of such a role. But Kazan offers perhaps the clearest illustration of Russia’s identity as a transcontinental, multiethnic country straddling both Europe and Asia. And as Russia’s demographics shift in the coming decades away from a predominantly Slavic, Orthodox Christian population to one that is increasingly Muslim and non-Slavic, the country’s very national identity is likely to evolve. In this way, Kazan could serve as both an important symbol and harbinger for things to come in Russia, one that foreshadows both challenges and opportunities for the country.” The city fosters “a unique identity within Russia — at once European and Asian, but not entirely part of the West or the East. This was reflected both geographically, with Russia stretching across both continents, and in the country’s cultural and political makeup. This is a phenomenon that has persisted to this day, with Kazan serving to epitomize the blend of East and West that serves as a crucial part of Russia’s identity in the modern era. Indeed, Kazan is one of the most diverse cities in Russia, with its population of over 1.2 million people evenly split between ethnic Russians (48.6%) and ethnic Tatars (47.6%). The Tatar and Russian languages can be heard in roughly equal measure walking the city’s streets, and Kazan’s architecture mixes eastern and western styles throughout the city. Alongside the Kremlin’s administration buildings and the Orthodox Annunciation Cathedral stands the Qolşärif Mosque, with its facade of white tiles, turquoise dome, and four piercing minarets. Inaugurated in 2005 with the help of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, Qolşärif is the largest mosque in Europe outside Istanbul. It is a testament to the long roots of Islam’s influence in Russia and its coexistence with Orthodoxy, having been rebuilt four centuries after the original mosque was burned down in Ivan’s conquest.”

A Bloomberg report noted the same: “While Europe and the U.S. tighten border controls, former Soviet states are encouraged by Moscow to send their workers. Russia had 161,000 foreigners come into the country in 2015 and stay. In 2016, that number increased to 196,000, according to the Russian Foreign Trade Academy and Gaidar Institute. Work-permit sales in Moscow rose by 10 percent last year, too. With most immigrants coming from former Soviet states like Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, the migration has proven beneficial to all involved: Those two countries top the list of global economies relying on remittances, according to the World Bank. … the government in February announced 200,000 previously deported Tajiks would be allowed back into Russia.” (17a)

This increasing Islamization led Russia’s chef mufti to come out and predict that the country’s Muslim population would grow to 30% of the whole population within a few decades. (18) Birthrate statistics show that Slavic Russian women have the lowest rates while the ethnic minorities that tend to be Muslim have higher rates. (19) Coupled with the low birthrates among ethnic Russian women, are high rates of emigration. A study showed that 5 million Russians left the country under Putin’s rule, 300,000 people left Russia annually between 2016-2019, and about 10 million Russians live abroad, the third largest ex-pat population in the world. (20) (21) More than 3.8 million Russians have left the country in the first three months of 2022 because of the war with Ukraine. (21a) One out of five Russian respondents told a Levada Center pollster that they would “absolutely” or “most likely” want to emigrate from the country. (22) A study by The Lancet in 2014 indicated that the probability of a Russian man dying before he turns 55 is 25 percent. In 2018, every fourth death in Russia occurred before the age of 60. Factors include poor medical care and nutrition as well as lack of exercise and a high incidence – particularly among men – of deaths due to alcohol and tobacco use, unintentional poisoning, and suicide. (23)

The multi-ethnic and multi-religious nature of Russia is the official state ideology embedded in the country’s constitution. The Russian constituton of 1993 says this:

“We, the multinational people of the Russian Federation, united by a common fate on our land, establishing human rights and freedoms, civic peace and accord, preserving the historically established state unity, proceeding from the universally recognized principles of equality and self-determination of peoples… The bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power in the Russian Federation shall be its multinational people. The State shall guarantee the equality of rights and freedoms of man and citizen, regardless of sex, race, nationality, language, origin, religion, etc. All forms of limitations of human rights on social, racial, national, linguistic or religious grounds shall be banned. … The propaganda or agitation instigating social, racial, national or religious hatred and strife shall not be allowed. The propaganda of social, racial, national, religious or linguistic supremacy shall be banned.” (24)

Putin echoed these sentiments in 2007 when he said: “With the passage of centuries, Russia has been strengthened and developed as a multi-ethnic and multi-faith country. And those that preach the ideas of nationalism, xenophobia and religious intolerance must be set rigid barriers.” (25) In a 2013 speech at the Valdai club Putin said this: “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.” (26)

Putin has repeated this theme again and again. In 2020 he declared diversity the “foundation of Russia’s strength”. (27) In 2021, he said Russia is “as much a melting pot as the US” and added this:

“The entire world refers to the US as a ‘melting pot’ that ‘melts down’ people of all nations, ethnicities, religions and so on. What’s bad about it? All of them are proud: the Irish, the Europeans, the Eastern Europeans, everyone, people of Latin American, African origin. Many of them are proud to be US citizens. That’s just great. This is what is meant by ‘melting pot.’ And Russia is a ‘melting pot’ as well” (28)

The same year he denounced ethnic nationalism as “caveman nationalism and “warned against using nationalist slogans like ‘Russia is just for Russians,’ stating his belief that members of each relevant ethnic group should feel at home in the country.” (29) (30 / cut to clips) In a more recent clip from 2023, Putin promotes mixed marriages between Russians and minority ethnic groups as a “safety buffer” against internal strife. (30a / clip) Pro-Putin Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin said anyone of any race can become RUssian by adopting its langauge and culture. (30b / clip) Belarus’ president Lukashenko made a similar comment advocating the mixing of Belarussian women with foreign men. (30c / clip)

Despite Putin’s delusional proclamations that Russian multiculturalism has been a success, it has been anything but that. Ethnic tensions have been high for a long time. Russia fought two bloody wars against Muslim Chechen separatists in the 90s and early 2000s resulting in tens of thousands of deaths. Muslim extremists have launched dozens of terrorist attacks into Russia since then like the the Moscow theater hostage crisis (2002), the Beslan school siege (2004), the 2006 Moscow market bombing, 2010 Moscow Metro bombings, 2011 Domodedovo International Airport bombing, 2013 Volgograd bus bombing, 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing and many others, all of which were perpetrated by Muslims. In 2016 a nanny of Uzbek origin beheaded a child in her care and waved the severed head around in a Moscow street. She later told prosecutors that Allah commanded her to do it as revenge for Putin’s airstrikes against Muslim militants in Syria. Another atrocious case of the failure of Russia’s multiculturalism. (31)

Race riots in Russia have occurred on a few occasions. In 2010 and 2013 race riots broke out in Moscow in response to the murder of Egor Sviridov and Egor Shcherbakov by Muslim Caucasus migrants. (32) (33) (34) The general mood of Russians against immigrants, especially Muslims, has been born out in polls.

Al Jazeera: “whether Russian-born or immigrant, secular or practising, Muslims don’t feel welcome here. This is partly due to the fact that many Russians feel threatened by this influx of Muslims. The attacks carried out by Chechen fighters and female suicide bombers since the early 2000s also still frighten many. Although there are no separate polls available for Moscow, a 2013 survey by VTsIOM, a state-owned pollster has found that almost one in seven Russians don’t want to have Muslim neighbours, one-fourth do not want to live near a Caucasus native, and 28 percent don’t want Central Asians next door. Some 45 percent of Russians support the nationalist slogan of “Russia for ethnic Russians”, the poll found.” (35)

RFERL: “​Polls point to fears among many of Russia’s 142 million people of an uncontrolled influx of migrants eager to snatch up jobs and wildly tilt the country’s demographics in favor of the newcomers. Four-fifths of Russians say the Kremlin “must limit” the flow of migrants, and two-fifths believe migrants should live in “specially assigned areas,” according to a survey last year by state-run pollster VTsIOM. And more than one in four Russians feels ‘irritation, dislike, or fear’ specifically toward Central Asians, according to a more recent survey by independent pollster Levada.” (36)

Foreign Affairs noted that, apart from the obvious conflicts in Chechnya and Dagestan that have raged for decades, Islamic militancy is making its way to other Russian cities with a high Muslim population: “In Kazan, there are signs of public unrest. The city recently witnessed a series of incendiary attacks by young Muslims on church buildings. This sort of thing is not publicized in Russia’s state media — nor mentioned by Crews — but one can find reports of these episodes on the Internet. And the Salafists whom Crews argues are “distributed in small pockets throughout the country” may not be as apolitical as he suggests. Although there are currently few terrorists in Russia from outside the Caucasus, that might not be true for long.” (37)

This is very much a process that Russia is exporting to Ukraine after its invasion. As Russia erases all traces of Ukrainian language and culture (38)(39)(40), it Russifies these occupied territories and ships in Russians(41). In cities like Mariupol locals have reported seeing many thousands of Chechen and Dagestani Muslim men who are menacing local Ukrainian women. (42) (43 / clip)

Ethnic tensions, replacement migration, race riots and non-stop Islamic terror… these are the fruits of Putin’s Russian multiculturalism.

SOURCES

(1) https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-koran-burning-investigation-chechnya-volgograd-zhuravel/32422652.html
(2) https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/08/18/chechen-officials-praise-kadyrovs-son-for-beating-teenager-accused-of-burning-koran-a82173
(3) https://www.trtworld.com/asia/putin-insulting-prophet-muhammad-is-not-freedom-of-expression-52961
(4) https://tass.com/society/821145
(5) https://archive.ph/e8Ca1
(6) https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/world/europe/17hajj.html / https://forum.ismaili.net/viewtopic.php?t=2615
(7) https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2015/7/22/despite-animosity-moscows-muslims-change-the-city
(8) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Russia
(9) https://risu.ua/en/window-on-eurasia-putin-says-orthodoxy-closer-to-islam-than-catholicism-is_n43445
(10) https://lorddreadnought.livejournal.com/18500.html / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Economic_Union
(11) https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-the-worlds-second-largest-immigration-haven-11053
(12) https://www.statista.com/statistics/1203451/immigration-by-country-in-russia/
(13) https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/08/16/russias-fsb-publishes-foreign-worker-statistics-for-first-time-in-20-years-a66895
(14) https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/03/14/kremlin-seeks-russian-speaking-migrants-to-offset-population-decline-a64806
(15) https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/04/17/russia-passes-dual-citizenship-law-hoping-to-add-10m-citizens-a70036
(16) https://www.rferl.org/a/how-muslim-migrants-are-reshaping-russia-s-dying-countryside-one-village-at-a-time/29237540.html
(17) https://newlinesmag.com/reportage/the-city-of-kazan-and-russias-non-slavic-future/
(17a) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-03-14/russia-s-alternative-universe-immigrants-welcome#xj4y7vzkg
(18) https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/03/05/russia-will-be-one-third-muslim-in-15-years-chief-mufti-predicts-a64706
(19) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_subjects_of_Russia_by_total_fertility_rate#TFR_by_ethnic_group
(20) https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/10/13/5-million-russian-citizens-left-russia-under-putin-a75246
(21) https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/01/16/official-data-vastly-underestimates-russian-emigration-report-a64158
(21a) https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/05/06/nearly-4m-russians-left-russia-in-early-2022-fsb-a77603
(22) https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/06/09/share-of-russians-willing-to-move-abroad-hits-decade-high-poll-a74164
(23) https://www.rferl.org/a/migrants-welcome-is-russia-trying-to-solve-its-demographic-crisis-by-attracting-foreigners-/30677952.html
(24) http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-01.htm
(25) https://web.archive.org/web/20081121051233/http://www.interethnic.org/EngNews/121107_9.html
(26) https://archive.ph/nFthV
(27) https://tass.com/society/1164893
(28) https://tass.com/society/1352701
(29) https://archive.ph/gc8Aa#selection-951.29-951.203
(30) Video clips of Putin saying diversity is a strength
(30a) Mixed marriages clip of Putin
(30b) clip of Dugin
(30c) Lukashenko clip
(31) https://www.reuters.com/article/russia-murder-child-idINL8N16B172 / https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-uzbek-nanny-beheading-allah/27584624.html
(32) https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/race-riots-in-russia / https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/19/spartak-moscow-race-riots-ultranationalist
(33) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Manezhnaya_Square_riot_trials
(34) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Biryulyovo_riots
(35) https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2015/7/22/despite-animosity-moscows-muslims-change-the-city
(36) https://www.rferl.org/a/how-muslim-migrants-are-reshaping-russia-s-dying-countryside-one-village-at-a-time/29237540.html
(37) https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/2014-04-17/russias-muslim-reality
(38) https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-erasing-mariupol-499dceae43ed77f2ebfe750ea99b9ad9
(39) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/may/18/its-like-the-ussr-residents-on-life-in-mariupol-a-year-since-russian-occupation
(40) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-66393949
(41) https://www.bbc.com/news/world-66393949
(42) https://coffeeordie.com/mariupol-survivors-stories
(43) clips of Dagestani and girl in Mariupol

This isn’t really breaking news, but it’s worth documenting this circus clown’s support for the genocide in Ukraine.

Here’s a few screenshots of the Puerto Rican Joseph Jordan, who named himself after gay porn star Eric Stryker and who grew up in “one of the most diverse” neighborhoods of NYC with his chicano homeboys. He not only relentlessly shilled for the Russian invasion of Ukraine and negated Ukrainian identity with leftist anti-White arguments, but specifically co-signed the Chechen rape squads who Putin sent into Mariupol.

The Chechen Islamic rape units pillaging Ukraine are “gentlemen,” according to the Puerto Rican communist. His buttgoy Mike Peinovich went as far as to say Chechens are White as he and his co-host joked about Putin sending “monogloids” to destroy Ukraine.

Apparently the rape of Ukraine by savage drunk Russian soldiers, Russian Muslims and buryats is a laughing matter for these low-rent shitbags from New York.

I bet they were also cracking jokes when an actual mongoloid (buryat) Russian soldier sadistically castrated a Ukrainian POW and then shot him dead.

They also thought it funny that Wagner blew up their own POW camp burning alive 53 Ukrainian prisoners.

I’ve documented before how Russia has shipped Muslims into cities like Mariupol to colonize them. This young Ukrainian woman that I interviewed who lives there spoke of Muslim men constantly preying on local women.

This is what these shitbags are defending.

It makes sense why these shitbags support ethnic cleansing and genocide in Ukraine: Ukrainians have a strong national/ethnic identity and cause to fight for (a free and independent country), things these shitbags don’t have.

1. They have no homeland (they’ve long since written off the US as a viable homeland for Whites); they exist now solely as propagandists, lobbyists, agitators for foreign interests (Russia, Chinese, Iranian, etc.)
2. They’re racially ambiguous themselves (Striker is a goblino from South America who has never tabled a DNA test to prove his ethnicity)
3. They’re communists and like all communists they despise the countries who broke free from the USSR empire after it collapsed in 1991.

The whole TRS/NJP gang is a Russian influence op. Recall that the organization’s registered address is that of Charles Bausman’s property in Pennsylvania. Bausman is an American businessman who has lived in Russia for decades only to move back to the US in 2014 to start up a propaganda website (Russia Insider) with the explicit intent of filtering pro-Russian propaganda into the American Right scene.

Lancaster Online gave us this info:

That the National Justice Party chose a small, suburban Lancaster County barn to launch its organization also raises scores of questions – some of which can be answered and some of which remain a mystery despite months of research and reporting for this story. All of those questions, however, circle back to Charles Bausman, a figure with ties to the “Stop the Steal” movement who has spent much of his adult life in Russia. Bausman quietly settled in Lancaster, the home of his ancestors, in late 2018, months after penning a lengthy essay on the “Jew taboo” that drew international backlash.

While it’s unclear what role Bausman intends to play as the group travels the country seeking new members — and potential influence in electoral politics — Bausman, who is the publisher and editor of the pro-Kremlin website Russia Insider, openly discusses his ties to the party’s founding members and his general support for many of their political and social views.

Both Peinovich and fellow party founder Joseph Jordan, using the respective pseudonyms of “Mike Enoch” and “Eric Striker,” have published essays on Russia Insider. Bausman made appearances on Peinovich’s “Fash the Nation” podcast, he said in an October 2020 interview with LNP|LancasterOnline. (Bausman’s ties to alt-right media platforms run by Peinovich and others was first reported by the Southern Poverty Law Center in early Oct. 2020.)

And soon after Bausman purchased the nearly five-acre property at 1630 Millersville Pike for $450,000 in 2020, he allowed white nationalists to list it as a home address. Party founder Gregory Conte is currently living at the property, Bausman said in an interview with LNP|LancasterOnline this month. William Von Diez, a former leader in the white supremacist group Identity Evropa, registered to vote in Lancaster County in February 2020, with the farm listed as his address.

Norman “Trey” Garrison, who had been editor of The Lancaster Patriot before LNP|LancasterOnline’s reporting identified him as the host of a white-nationalist podcast on Peinovich’s “The Right Stuff” network, is also listed as living on the property in court papers related to his recent DUI case.

In an October 2020 interview, Bausman lied to LNP|LancasterOnline about his knowledge of the party rally and his association with other white nationalists. He said he did not know where the Peinovich speech was given and denied being in attendance. “Not that I’m aware of,” Bausman said last year when asked if the event was in Lancaster County. “I think something in the speech said something about New England.”

When confronted with contrary evidence in an interview earlier this month, Bausman initially continued to deny the event was hosted on his property. But he eventually conceded that “one of (The Right Stuff members) said, ‘Can we use your barn for an event?’ and I said, ‘Fine with me.’” He also said he was at the barn for Peinovich’s speech and that there were about 100 people there.

A New York Times investigation into Bausman revealed that he was the real owner of Joseph Jordan’s website National Justice:

While living in Lancaster with his Russian wife and two young daughters, Mr. Bausman turned his attention to two new websites devoted largely to white nationalist content. Headlines included: “Out of Control Black Violence” and “Jewish Intellectuals Call on Gays to Perform Sex Acts in Front of Children.” Mr. Bausman concealed his ownership of one of these sites, National Justice, through a private registration, which The New York Times confirmed by reviewing data leaked last year from Epik, a web-hosting service favored by the far right.

The site has the same name as a white nationalist organization and featured posts by one of its leaders, though it is not the group’s official site, according to its chairman, Michael Peinovich. In an interview, Mr. Peinovich said Mr. Bausman had hosted party members at his farmstead for an inaugural meeting in 2020 (a large event first reported by a local news outlet, LancasterOnline). But afterward, he said, his group “went our own way” because it did not agree with Mr. Bausman’s preoccupation with supporting Mr. Trump.

Bausman was in direct email contact with Konstantin Malofeev, a big financial backer of Alexander Dugin and Russian separatists in Ukraine. It appears Bausman too was working angles to get a piece of Malofeev’s treasure.

A hilarious update in their rhetoric is going from glorifying Wagner boss Yevgeny Prigozhin to calling him a dirty Jew for trying to coup Czar Putin.

“Prigozhin’s star is rising” the midget said of the madman who recruited convicted murderers and rapists out of Russian jails to send them into Ukraine to murder and rape some more. Like clockwork, muttman flips the script and weaponizes Prigozhin’s jewishness when Putin is in need of back up. The funny part is that Prigozhin is now admitting that the war was based on lies, that there was “nothing extraordinary” going on in the conflict zone in the run up to the war and there were minimal casualties in the last five years (only 25 civilians killed on both sides in 2021):

Oopsie… the script is being reworked at NJP headquarters (Bausman’s barn) as we speak.

That alone is proof that all of these wedge issues (race, JQ, etc.) are tactically employed by these psychos at opportune times to buttress whatever is in Putin’s strategic interest, domestically and internationally. They’re anti-Jewish… until it’s not in Putin’s interest to be so. Then they’re anti-Jewish again when it’s in Putin’s interest to be so. They’re anti-non-White until it’s in Putin’s interest to weaponize non-White soldiers against Ukraine. Then they’re anti-non-White again when they want to slag off Ukraine for not being a pure ethno-state, which somehow justifies multicultural Russia colonizing their cities with non-White Muslims from the Caucasus.

It’s all rancid propaganda and lies from this cabal of Kremlin shills who will sell all of Eastern Europe down the tubes for a few juicy roubles.

If you enjoyed this content consider making a contribution or becoming a member.

This is the standard logic of the spergnat/wignat brigade who have been unapologetically shilling for Russian imperialism for years. They do this both as an act of revenge against their own governments who they dislike and as a means of ingratiating themselves with the Kremlin in the hopes of obtaining Kremlin largesse to fund their domestic political activities.

The British scene is especially compromised by Kremlin panderers. All of the leading figures in Britbong nationalism have attempted to cozy up to the Russians in order to get their money and support.

While the chief of the BNP, Nick Griffin went to Russia to rubber stamp their rigged elections. He followed that up with an appearance at a Russian conference in which he called for a Russian imperial conquest of Europe: “it’s Russia’s turn” to rule the West, he said. What kind of “nationalist” wants a foreign country to conquer his own? A fake one.

Paul Golding of Britain First and Tommy Robinson of the EDL both went on speaking and media tours throughout Russia. Golding appears to have done so in the hopes of setting up bank accounts in Russia.

Britain First leader Paul Golding has: Visited Russia at least three times; Said he is a “great admirer of President Vladimir Putin”; Denied Russian involvement in the Salisbury poisonings; Defended state persecution of Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny; Praised Putin and Assad for their actions in Syria; Said “I think Crimea and the Donbas should be part of Russia.”

HOPE not hate can reveal that Golding has visited Russia at least three times on behalf of Britain First. The earliest two trips came in 2019, first in June and again in October, with a third trip a year later in October 2020.

The first trip, in the summer of 2019, saw Golding, accompanied by Sam Cochrane and Andrew Edge, attend a gathering of far-right figures from around the world. The “International Conference of Peace-loving Forces” was organised by the LDPR and was attended by extreme figures such Bartosz Bekier of Falanga in Poland, Karl Richter and Florian Stein from the neo-Nazi German National Democratic Party and Kimura Mitsuhiro from Issuika in Japan.

Golding gave a short speech to the gathering in which he made his thoughts on Putin very clear: “I am a great admirer of President Vladimir Putin and what he has achieved for your sacred motherland. […] I applaud President Putin for condemning Western liberalism at the G20 summit last week.”

As well as using the trip to network with other far-right extremists and to heap praise on Putin, it is also alleged that Golding used it to deposit huge sums of money in Russian bank accounts. According to the Sunday World newspaper, “Golding has reportedly deposited over £100,000 in Russian bank accounts.” When asked for a comment, Golding replied: “Good grief, we wish we had money stashed away in Russian accounts.”

Similarly, the New York Times spoke to a source who claimed to have had a dinner with Golding and fellow far-right extremist Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (AKA Tommy Robinson), during which they discussed how to move money to Russia. NYT’s source claimed that “Golding had already opened accounts there linked to his far-right group.”

While in Moscow they met with Edward Chesnokov from the Komsomolskaya-Pravda newspaper, who subsequently set up a TV interview for Golding on the state-owned news channel Russia-24. Golding hit all of his usual talking points, praising the freedom and openness of Russia while condemning Britain’s supposedly totalitarian police state, multiculturalism and political correctness.

The main purpose of their trip was supposedly to meet again with the LDPR, who provided them with a tour around the Duma before welcoming them at their office on Basmanny Lane, where they discussed how “we in Britain First could work together with the LDPR. It was agreed that we should keep in touch, meet regularly, and explore ideas leading to mutual co-operation.” Golding then handed the LDPR representatives signed copies of his own book.

It was on their return from this trip that Golding was arrested and questioned by SO15 counter-terrorism police at Heathrow airport. He was charged and subsequently convicted of an offence under the Terrorism Act after he refused to provide the police with access to his digital devices. Interestingly though, Burton’s diary of the trip states that police asked “Were there any financial transactions carried out involving Britain First finances?”, suggesting that the police were seeking to find out more about the widespread rumours of Golding’s hidden Russian money.

What’s also interesting to note here, is that while Collett vehemently backs Russian terror bombing against the White Christian peoples of Ukraine, he concurrently opposes with equal vigor the American and Israeli interventions against Muslim Arabs. He is constantly whining about the treatment of Arab Palestinians by Israel and the US/UK war in Iraq which ended a decade ago and even uses it now as a whataboutism to justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the current moment.

This is proof enough that Collett is not pro-White…. he cares more about the well-being of brown Muslims than White Ukrainians. He’s zealously anti-American/anti-Western establishment to the point where he will support bloody violence against Whites who live in the West, so long as that violence is being conducted by an outside power like Russia or China. This is part and parcel of the “accelerationist” neo-Nazi tendency of inviting doom and demise for the West, so these larpers can then “rise” from the ashes and take power, a fantasy with little chance of success. Collett is pursuing the same accelerationist wignat logic but on a global scale, hoping that Russia and China will initiate violence against the West so he can somehow swoop into power, likewise comical fan fiction with dismal chance of success. What would he say if China invaded Australia tomorrow? Or Turkey invaded Greece? Or China invaded his own country of England? Surely he would have to side with the invaders because he doesn’t like his own government, right? Sounds like a traitor, not a patriot.

Collett’s discourse has ventured into low-brow wignat nonsense. On his Telegram page he even posted this laughably photoshopped image which says “jewkraine,” an attempt to selectively use the JQ issue to justify violence against the Ukrainian people, while excusing Jewish influence in Russia itself because he’s a propagandist.

By this logic, the UK should be bombed and turned into rubble too because Jews have influence there, but Jewish influence in Russia is ok because Putin is fighting with our elites. These people are not nationalists, they’re desperate and depressed nihilists who want to be saved by a foreign dictator because they can’t save themselves.

The problem with the spergnat scene is that its not very sophisticated and as it has grown in popularity its ranks have been swelled by low-IQ people who have retarded and poorly thought out opinions. They follow a pretty banal script of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” and stick to it like dronebots, any deviation from that script is met with vitriol and rage from these low-IQ mouth breathers.

If you enjoyed this content consider making a small contribution or becoming a member.

I picked this up a few months ago mainly because I was interested in the content he put forth on the leftist Marxian roots of Fascism, information that you don’t often find because Marxists have spent decades trying to obscure these links in order to distance themselves from fascism.

The book is essentially an attempt to “pin the fascist tail on the Democratic donkey”. D’Souza sets out to prove that the American Left, progressives and the Democratic Party specifically have much more in common with fascism than the American Right represented by himself and people like Reagan. He goes about doing this by showing that fascism is, on an economic level, rooted heavily in Marxist socialism and not capitalism as traditionally championed by American conservatives.

Fascism is rooted in Marxist socialism not conservatism

D’Souza makes a strong case for this in two large chapters titled “Falsifying History” and “Mussolini’s Journey”. He shows that Mussolini’s doctrine was an inversion of the principles that American conservatives have traditionally championed, such as free markets, limited government, property rights, gun rights and traditional Christian morals. Instead, Mussolini’s fascism was based exclusively on attacking the idea of liberty and citizens’ rights, while asserting the supreme unchecked power of a centralized State. D’Souza demonstrates that fascism, in doctrine and practice, is nothing less than a Totalizing Centralized State alongside a socialist economic system that denies citizens rights of any kind.

“Nothing outside the State, nothing against the State” was Mussolini’s famous phrase. Giovanni Gentile, the philosopher of fascism, said the same thing when he declared that individuals only have “rights” if they coincide with the State’s whims, meaning that they don’t any rights beyond mindlessly agreeing with State diktats.

Gentile…believed that the true state – his ethical state – was a corpus – a body politic – hence corporate state – and that the state was more important than the parts – the individuals – who comprised it because if the state was strong and free so too would be the individuals within it: therefore the state had more rights than the individual. Only within the ethical state could individuals realize themselves as proper individuals. – Nicholas Farrell, Mussolini: A New Life

That bit of bafflegab from Gentile is effectively saying that the State decides all and the citizens must obey the rulers. Gentile also announced that the power of the fascist State is “unconditioned” and “not subject to negotiation or compromise”. In other words, the State can take any action it likes and if citizens disagree, then they will be punished for not agreeing with the fascist ruling class. Mussolini echoed that sentiment, writing:

“The Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State. It is opposed to classical liberalism [which] denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual. The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature’s plans. If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government.”

The strongest influence on early fascism was Karl Marx, who Mussolini called his prophet. Marx called for a totalizing centralized State with direct control over all factors of economic production (land, capital & labour). Fascism put Marx’s vision into practice:

“Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission.” – source

D’Souza then goes on a long historical journey through Mussolini’s life in Italy, showing that he was Italy’s preeminent Marxist socialist/syndicalist activist, intellectual and agitator for decades before he pieced together the ideology of fascism. He led major workers’ strikes and tried to bring down the capitalist enterprises in favour of socialized public ones. He supported Italy’s entry into World War I believing it to have revolutionary potential to bring about Socialist governance. Mussolini and his fascism was thus exclusively a by-product of the political Left, of Marxism, of Syndicalist Socialism. It was a slight revision of Marx, as Mussolini realized that he must appeal to Italian nationality as well as their class to bring about the workers’ revolution that his prophet Marx prescribed in The Communist Manifesto.

Fascism is, in effect, economic Marxism wrapped up in patriotism and a national flag.

Nazis and Fascists Praised FDR

D’Souza digs up quite a bit of evidence that the German Nazis and Italian Fascists loved FDR and his “New Deal,” seeing it as analogous to their own socialistic economic policies. FDR, for his part, reciprocated fealty towards Mussolini but not Hitler.

From Mises.org:

The Nazi press enthusiastically hailed the early New Deal measures: America, like the Reich, had decisively broken with the “uninhibited frenzy of market speculation.” The Nazi Party newspaper, the Völkischer Beobachter, “stressed ‘Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies,’ praising the president’s style of leadership as being compatible with Hitler’s own dictatorial Führerprinzip” (p. 190).

Nor was Hitler himself lacking in praise for his American counterpart. He “told American ambassador William Dodd that he was ‘in accord with the President in the view that the virtue of duty, readiness for sacrifice, and discipline should dominate the entire people. These moral demands which the President places before every individual citizen of the United States are also the quintessence of the German state philosophy, which finds its expression in the slogan “The Public Weal Transcends the Interest of the Individual”‘” (pp. 19-20). A New Order in both countries had replaced an antiquated emphasis on rights.

Mussolini, who did not allow his work as dictator to interrupt his prolific journalism, wrote a glowing review of Roosevelt’s Looking Forward. He found “reminiscent of fascism … the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices”; and, in another review, this time of Henry Wallace’s New Frontiers, Il Duce found the Secretary of Agriculture’s program similar to his own corporativism (pp. 23-24).

Roosevelt never had much use for Hitler, but Mussolini was another matter. “‘I don’t mind telling you in confidence,’ FDR remarked to a White House correspondent, ‘that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman'” (p. 31). Rexford Tugwell, a leading adviser to the president, had difficulty containing his enthusiasm for Mussolini’s program to modernize Italy: “It’s the cleanest … most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I’ve ever seen. It makes me envious” (p. 32, quoting Tugwell).

Roosevelt’s National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) mirrored fascist economic policies of heavy interventionism:

The best example was FDR’s National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), a fascist program that would have fit perfectly in Mussolini’s fascist Italy. Under the NIRA, federal officials organized private American businesses, industries, and corporations into giant cartels that established “codes of fair competition,” which set prices, wages, and production in their particular sectors, all enforced by federal force. More than 500 codes of “fair practice” were developed.

Not surprisingly, FDR put a military man, retired Hugh Johnson, to run this fascist program. Johnson had graduated from West Point, made the military his career, and ultimately reached the rank of General. According to Wikipedia, “One author claims Johnson looked on Italian Fascist corporatism as a kind of model. He distributed copies of a fascist tract called ‘The Corporate State’ by one of Mussolini’s favorite economists, including giving one to Labor Secretary Frances Perkins and asking her to give copies to her Cabinet.”

FDR appears to have met and schmoozed with British Fascist Leader Oswald Mosley, as you can see them together in this picture.

“Dems Are the Real Racists”

This point is where D’Souza picks up a lot of ridicule from those further to the Right of him on issues like race. D’Souza spends a good portion of this book trying to make the case that the Democratic Party are the “party of segregation, slavery, Indian removal and Jim Crow”. He makes a solid case that Democrats dominated politics in the American South for a long time and supported those policies, but where he fails is recognizing that today, the Democratic Party has moved far away from their White racialist roots and are now the party of anti-Whiteism.

Who can say that today, with Democrats like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, AOC, Joe Biden and the like openly spouting vitriolic hatred of White Americans and supporting White demographic replacement policies (Joe Biden himself welcomed White minority status as a “good thing”), are still trekking in the path of Jim Crow? It was a Democrat, Lyndon Baines Johnson, who passed the pro-black Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Hart-Cellar act of 1965 that opened the immigration floodgates to the brown world. Democrats are clearly no longer aligned with White racialism but its opposite: Black and Brown Power. D’Souza seems stuck in a weird time warp where he is describing the Democrats now as they were more than a century ago, despite vast changes in their politics. He would do much better to say that in the current year, the Democrats have moved into the camp of anti-White racism and Brown Power, throwing Whites under the bus entirely.

D’Souza spouts a pretty hard line against racism in this book and it’s clear why: he’s an Indian immigrant married to a Venezuelan, a classic Kalergi Globalist test case in America’s Judeo-Bolshevik stage-managed post-1965 melting pot.

It is in D’Souza’s personal interest as a brown man married to a brown woman with brown offspring to look with disdain on the White in-group preference that used to be prominent in America and the West. His job seems to be to throw the racist and fascist card back at the Left, but he misses the mark by not highlighting the fact that the new and acceptable racism that’s become prevalent today on the Left is racism against Whites not blacks. Why not emphasize this point instead of harkening back to slavery days and Jim Crow era to pin the KKK hood on the Dems?

The Dems are racists…. against White people. Their racial politics today has taken on the characteristics of Black Power not White Power. Democratic politicians are hell-bent on making Whites into a minority, not re-establishing White dominance.

Different types of nationalism

D’Souza spends much of the book trying to exonerate Trump from the charge of fascism while honing in on the similarities that the leftists have with fascism on economic policy and things like hostility to free speech and open debate. He makes a decent case here: Trump is not a fascist because he is not a socialist but rather a traditional capitalist, whereas Democratic politicians attack capitalism and markets quite regularly and call for increased governmental controls in all aspects of life, making them closer to the economic side of fascism than Trump is.

The leftist charge of Trumpian fascism seems rooted in his patriotism, nationalism and opposition to immigration. This is where Trump is closer to Hitlerian fascism in the sense that Trump seems to have some tendencies favouring the White-Anglo Saxon roots of the United States and wanting to preserve it in the face of unrelenting immigration waves from black and brown countries. The modern American Left are all for open borders, gay and trans rights, feminism, abortion, and many other things that the Hitlerian breed of fascism was opposed to.

D’Souza is however correct to note that nationalism is not a left or right phenomenon but appears on both sides of the spectrum. Fascism is nationalistic socialism but it is not the progenitor of either socialism or nationalism and nationalism need not wed itself to socialism, as you saw with figures like Franco, Pinochet and even Trump himself. Fascists try to claim ownership of the concept of nationalism with the intent of shoehorning their Marxian economics down the throats of patriots and nationalists who would rather not submit 50% or more of their income to wasteful government over-spending and failed projects. Fascists don’t own nationalism and many of them seem more interested in leftoid egalitarian economics than anything related to identity.

Hitlerian National Socialism was not traditional nationalism because Hitler did not respect borders or nation-states that got in his way. He ran over and annexed multiple countries in his wars of aggression. His chief political objective from the outset was expanding Germany’s borders to achieve Lebensraum (living space) in the East, seizing lands from other ethnic groups and moving them off their historic homelands. D’Souza makes a decent case in the book that Hitler was inspired in these diabolical plans by the Western expansion achieved by the American government in its war with the Indians.

Erasing borders is not nationalism, it’s imperialism. Hitler was thus an ethnic imperialist, not a traditional nationalist. Similarly, Russia’s Putin is a cultural imperialist seeking to achieve a Eurasian empire dominated by the Kremlin. Hitler’s was an attempt at ethnic expansionism and Putin’s is an attempt at cultural expansionism, two sides of the same coin. Like Hitler, Putin tries to negate the existence of ethnic groups that get in the way of his expansion, like Ukrainians, and works to “Russify” them by erasing their own identity and imposing a Russian one over their heads.

We ought not allow these imperialists to adorn themselves with the label nationalist when their policies are profoundly anti-nationalist.

Right on Fascism, Wrong on White Identity Politics

D’Souza is quite erudite in his description of fascism as a phenomenon of the Left. As I’ve come to know them, fascists are indeed economic far-leftists committed to abolishing most private property and establishing an unregulated, totalitarian State with unchecked powers to abuse citizens. Anyone even slightly less Statist than they are is ridiculed as a “libertarian” even if they are not one. Their sinister goal seems to be to hollow out the middle ground between rootless, identityless libertarian extreme individualism and the hyper-Statist, hyper-collectivist economically communist system established by Mussolini and Hitler.

D’Souza is committed to colour-blind conservatism because he is himself not White. It would be against his own personal interest to embrace a form of nationalism that incorporated White ethnocentrism, so instead he extricates race from nation and replaces it with ideas. But ideas alone don’t make nations whole or prosperous, people do, and I would argue that there’s some racial component to the outstanding achievements of Western civilization. If we wish to preserve the high quality of life the West has achieved, I believe that also means preserving the ethnic groups who built it.

Ethnic and national collectivism is not the same thing as economic collectivism. You can easily see a society in which patriotism and ethnic pride play a part in politics and form the basis for citizens’ identity, but that also has an economic system of moderate taxation and free enterprise. Likewise, you have seen the implementation of communist systems of extreme economic collectivism where class consciousness was the center of gravity for politics (USSR, East Germany, Cuba, China), but which dismissed and outlawed racial and ethnic collectivism in favour of anti-racist universalism.

It is not only the role of the State to protect and care for its citizens, but of families and communities themselves who rally together to help each other in times of need. This happens naturally, State or no State. If the State grows too large, it seeks to replace family and community with itself, leading to the erosion of community and familial bonds. I don’t think we ought to become beggars waiting in socialist government bread lines for our daily meal. We must make our own meals or turn to family and community when in need. The State’s essential roles are those of national security, border enforcement, law and order and imposing a moral guide for society. It’s not the role of the State to micromanage everyone’s economic or personal affairs. Nanny statism strips away the personal responsibility that every boy needs to learn on his own to become a real man.

Both libertarianism and fascism are flawed ideologies, extreme ends of the Statist and non-Statist spectrums, and both deserve scrutiny applied to them. Since I reject the precepts of both, each side tries to throw me into the other’s camp. What I actually am is neither a libertarian or a fascist, but a national conservative or conservative nationalist who believes that family, identity and morality are the bedrocks of a successful society. If we focus on getting back to those three things, we can change our current self-destructive course for the better.

If you enjoyed this content consider making a small contribution or becoming a member.

Shortly after the war started, Lira — who has been a frequent guest on Russia Today pimping various types of “analysis” from culture, economics to geopolitics — disappeared from his social channels and then turned up a week later claiming to have been kidnapped by the Ukrainian secret police. There’s not much evidence this even happened other than his word. I wouldn’t put it past him to have faked the whole incident for publicity.

But it appears the elder sex tourist’s fantasies have come true: the Ukrainian police just picked him up for real.

Yahoo News:

According to investigation, the man is a citizen of a Latin American country but has lived in Kharkiv for several years. Law enforcement authorities accuse him of supporting Russian occupation and valorizing Moscow’s apparent war crimes during the war.

Additionally, he is said to have engaged in attempts to discredit Ukraine’s highest military and political leadership.

In spring 2022, he filmed provocative videos, showing the faces of Ukrainian soldiers and insulting the country’s defenders. He posted the videos on YouTube and Twitter, where he has nearly 300,000 subscribers.

The SBU has also accused him of denying the facts of Russian missile strikes on Ukrainian cities and the mass killings of civilians by the invading forces.

During a search of his possessions, law enforcement officials found mobile phones and a computer that contained evidence of his illegal activity.

He has been remanded in custody by the court, and the investigation is ongoing.

Lira is well-known for being a sleazeball grifter who jumps on whatever he thinks is currently popular, fashioning new “expertise” in the trending area to market himself as a guru to get your dollars.

Daily Beast:

According to publicly available materials and his own statements, Lira has a long track record of jumping between careers. In the late ’90s, he wrote pulpy action novels about manly men. In the aughts, he switched over to filmmaking for a spell. Then, around 2010, he refashioned himself as a supposed expert in economics, writing commentary for Business Insider and ZeroHedge and appearing as a pundit on “alternative media” programs.

Steve Keen, a relatively well-known Australian economist, told The Daily Beast that Lira contacted him out of nowhere about a decade ago to compliment Keen’s analyses, and suggest that they work together on a project. Ultimately, Keen said, Lira proposed a paid subscription content creation model, which he claimed he could effectively market for the two of them. Keen added that he looked Lira up and saw that figures he knew in the alt media world had interviewed him, so he figured he must be somewhat credible, and decided to give this a shot.

“It is an experience I regret,” he told The Daily Beast. He said Lira overstated and over-promised what he could do, then under-delivered. He claimed Lira was arrogant, and so rude to Keen’s other employees and collaborators that it at least hastened many of their departures.

Keen said he regrets not doing better due diligence on Lira, which he believes would have led him to realize that he was not capable or trustworthy. He now describes Lira as a “sleaze” who, anytime he fails in a project, uses his supreme self-confidence to refashion himself into an “expert” on some new topic. “If he is the source for any claim, my reaction would be to strongly doubt the veracity of that claim,” he said of Lira’s current commentary.

…

But he seemed to largely shift over to COVID conspiracy commentary, and the occasional note on a supposed coming geopolitical storm. However, as late as mid-February, he insisted that Russia would never invade Ukraine, and that fears about a coming invasion were all drummed up by Western propaganda, pointed out Alex MacKenzie, an expert on Ukraine and its history of conflict with Russia at the United Kingdom’s University of Liverpool who reviewed a fair amount of Lira’s recent videos and posts. Lira now insists in interviews that he saw the invasion coming well ahead of time—because he’s smart like that.

When the war broke out, no matter what Lira was doing, it made sense for him to say something because he lived and had family there, Michael noted. But several observers The Daily Beast spoke to suggested that he might have adopted his new persona as an ostensibly neutral but in fact evidently pro-Russian commentator on the conflict because he saw a market for the Putin-praising viewpoint in the spaces he inhabited, and may have wanted a new hustle.

Lira counts a number of internet media pundits as his friends and supporters, like these two clowns who are crying about his arrest while they simultaneously cheer on Putin’s war and the arrest of thousands of Russians who protest the war:

Gariepy said in a previous stream that he supports the White genocide in Ukraine because he dislikes Western governments and views it as collective revenge against governments he doesn’t like. So White Ukrainians must die to satisfy his lust for revenge against the Canadian government or something.

So these dorks are mad that a Latino immigrant — who made Ukraine his home and repays them by acting as a fifth columnist propagandist in support of Russia’s war against their country — is being punished for his treachery, yet at the same time they vigorously support all of Putin’s measures to silence his own people’s discontent.

The highly selective criticism that we’ve been witnessing here, where Ukraine defending itself is portrayed as “aggression” and Ukraine locking up fifth columnist subversives aiding Russia’s war aims is decried as “oppression,” is proof these people are either on the Russian payroll or trying to get on it. This is exactly why I view the “alternative” media, which is nothing more than a collection of amateur and clownish internet-based pundits, as a cat’s paw for the Kremlin. It is not serious media or journalism, it is all revenge-based contrarian hot takes done for clicks, dollars and self-aggrandizement.

Ukrainian authorities found Lira’s apartment littered with pro-Putin books and paraphernalia. It appears the dork was fully immersed in the world of Putinism. Some of the thoughts probably running through Lira’s mind is that Putin is an anti-Western strongman who has the power to nuke Western White people off the planet, a scenario Lira looks forward to as revenge for his repeated sexual failures with White women.

Strangely though, the uninformed circus jester Lira says in this clip that Putin is an “ethnic nationalist but not an imperialist,” the exact reverse of the truth:

As I demonstrated in my latest video Putin’s Black Power Pivot, Putin is opposed to ethnic nationalism precisely because he is a Eurasian multicultural imperialist who wants to expand Russia’s borders and subsume multitudes of non-Russians into the empire by forcing Russian customs and language upon them. The exact opposite of ethnic nationalism.

If you enjoyed this content, consider becoming a member and subscribe by email below for future posts.