Category Archives: Foreign affairs

British Identity

I’d like to make a simple suggestion for those seeking British union and a British ethnicity: Make it clear that all sources of heritage are respected in a united British identity.

The British are a union including the Irish, Scots (whose dominant identity originates from Ireland, which is why they’re Scots and not Picts), Welsh, Norwegians (I assume something distinct survives in the Northern Isles or elsewhere from the Vikings), English (etc), and other tiny groups like the Cornish, Manx, and likely further divisions I haven’t heard of. If it’s made clear that what little heritage remains is respected, that the English don’t view themselves as separate and superior, then you’ve won union.

The accusation is Celtic division is a plot to divide the British. The Celts celebrate their distinctions, and the English ridicule the heritage. Both then are working towards division. If the English want to win union, they should embrace the Celts, the parts of their heritage that are not fictional anyway. British heritage is sparse as is, which is why Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings, to give the English a mythology. Such a sparse heritage can only be improved by the Celtic.

A nation should rule itself. If the English are separate from other Britons, the UK should break up. If they’re part of the British nation, then they should make it clear that all sources of heritage are honoured. Demanding that all become English is divisive. A unified identity might even win back Ireland.

Update: The Braveheart meme is old.

Wealthy European Student Offended by Low Estimate of Crystal-Studded Car

Daria Radionova, an East European student in London, is upset by low estimates given of her crystal-studded Mercedes CLS 350, which sparkles with 1-million Swarovski crystals.

The Daily Mail reported:

At £55,000 many would consider the Mercedes CLS 350 an extravagance in itself.
But Daria Radionova made her 2014 model even more luxurious, by covering it entirely in Swarovski crystals.
‘I wanted to have something unique and do something special,’ the 21-year-old business student said.
‘The people who did it came over from Russia and worked for 12 hours a day for two months on the car.

However, Radionova sets the record straight via RT:

“I’ve spent around £20,000 [$32,600] for crystals and about £15,000 [$24,500] for the people who’ve done it to the car. But the total price of the car is higher than The Daily Mail said! I can’t say exactly how much it is, because it was a present from my parents, but it should be a lot,” she told RT.

Apparently Radionova is upset, and surprised, by critical comments made about her extravagance… Some commentators at RT perceive this as anti-Russian, believing Americans would somehow be fine if she were a wasteful American, which is laughable. Outside of big cities, Americans despise wasteful bling. (For example, past outrage over a $10 Million Bat Mitzvah.)

We Americans recite Matthew 19:24; We say Radionova is “new money” or hedonistic. And black Americans who spend on bling use a much harsher word to describe themselves. However, I’d like to hold up not an American but Jack Ma, who was not born to riches (thus also “new money”), as a model billionaire.

CNBC reported:

According to regulatory filings, Ma’s 206.1 million shares could be worth between $13.6 billion and $14 billion at an estimated share price of $66 to $68. Even after Ma cashes in more than $850 million of shares in the IPO, the value of his remaining Alibaba stake will still be greater than Rupert Murdoch’s entire net worth.

And yet the billionaire was noted to be wearing little “bling” (no fancy watch). Ma also has a philosophy:

“To me, I’ve never thought the money I have belongs to me … it belongs to society,” he said.

“If you have a couple of million, you’re a rich guy. We have $10 million to $20 million, it’s capital. Over $100 million, that’s social resources. That’s society giving it to you saying: ‘you guys run it.’ So it’s not my money. I don’t think I can spend it. I can only sleep in one bed. I can only eat three dinners. That’s all. What is money for?”

It wouldn’t surprise me if the real Ma were revealed to be different from the public Ma. But his public persona should be a model regardless. Ma is hobbit-like, humble, bearing his ring of power to Mount Doom.

Ma sounds a little like Southern populist leader Huey Long who proposed a wealth cap of $50 million (not inflation adjusted) in his 1934 Share Our Wealth speech. At some point, billionaires cannot spend it all. The money is then only a means to power or vanity. Populist leaders like Huey Long and Pat Buchanan have heroically attempted non-socialist reforms to expand the American middle class, with minimal government intrusion and growth. Their solutions can be criticised, but their intentions are admirable. Long famously declared he was saving the US from socialism. Judging by the increasing wealth imbalance and likely political reaction to that imbalance, Long will probably be proven correct.

Whatever the politics, a Christian culture does not respect hedonistic lifestyles.


“I have a lot of jewellery – diamonds are a girl’s best friend. That’s why I have a car that looks like it is covered in diamonds. I have them everywhere. I’d like to encrust everything in crystal,” she told The Sun.

“I love shoes, I have hundreds of pairs – my collection is crazy. But only Louboutin and Louis Vuitton, I don’t wear anything else. All my handbags are Louis Vuitton, too. Proper bags. Almost all my clothes are (Tunisian designer) Alaia, which Kim Kardashian likes. People say I could be a Kardashian sister.”

What a clown! I would die of embarrassment.

A Few Links on the ISIS Situation

We probably haven’t been covering this ISIS situation as much as we should have. Here are a couple of links.

This article by Justin Raimondo demonstrates the foolishness of us supporting any side in this Middle Eastern mess. Beheaded Journalist Steven Sotloff was allegedly sold to ISIS by moderates in Syria that we support. What fools we are.

Here is Raimondo on the President’s less than inspiring ISIS speech.

Here is Andrew Bacevich suggesting that Obama is missing the point. He is right. Read the article. I don’t want to give away the main point because I think it is important and something I want to elaborate on in detail in the future.

The Rand Apple Continues to Roll Further and Further from the Tree

Rand assures us, in Time no less, that he’s not one of those awful isolationists.

Yes Rand, we get it. You are not your daddy, which is why I’m still looking for a candidate to support in 2016.

Ron Paul was a great Congressman, but I’m beginning to doubt his parenting skills. He obviously didn’t spank Rand enough.

Steven Seagal is Da Man!

Steven Seagal, who has spoken out before in defense of Russia and Putin, played a gig in Crimea recently that was allegedly pro-separatist.

…Seagal played a weekend concert in the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea, appearing on a stage adorned with the flag of pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine.

See more here…

The Russia/Ukraine situation is complicated. Ethnic Ukrainians have a reason to be sore at and distrustful of Russia, but the problem is that Ukraine, like so many other countries, is too large and attempts to keep unlike elements together in a political alliance that is unnatural. Separation of the more Russian Eastern parts of Ukraine is probably the most natural outcome.

But whatever you may think about the Russia/Ukraine situation, you have to admit that Seagal has some serious nads. Publicly supporting Putin and Russia is not a popular position, and he is taking a risk by doing so.

The Neocons vs. Rand Paul’s Reading List

The Neocons clearly have Rand Paul in their cross hairs.

Now they are going after him for his suggested reading list.

Here is the initial Weekly Standard article.

The Washinton Free Beacon, which apparently specializes in neocon thought enforcement, ran this Weekly Standard inspired hit piece.

Tom Woods has replied to the Free Beacon piece here, in the sarcastic way that he has perfected.

The neoconservatives over at the Free Beacon, a thought-monitoring website in the mold of ThinkProgress on the left, took time out of their customary schedule of spreading Islamic radicalism around the world to criticize Rand Paul for recommending a few books on foreign policy whose conclusions are not “USA! USA!” and “they hate us for our awesomeness.”

I hope to have more to say on this issue later, but I wanted to get a quick post up now.

The Ron Paul Institute is Moving to Texas

Great news! The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity has moved from its former location in Washington, D.C.’s Virginia suburbs down to its new headquarters in Clute, Texas. The Institute is setting up its office next door to Ron Paul’s FREE Foundation and not far from the Ron Paul Channel.

What a relief to escape the corrupt corridors of Mordor! A beachhead of peace and liberty is expanding in south Texas. And if you’re wondering why Texas and not D.C., it is because we are not trying to play nice with the Beltway elites. Our audience is informed readers like yourself, who continue to question the pablum served up by politicians and the mainstream media.

The move down to Texas means that the Institute will be working much more closely with its founder and CEO, Dr. Ron Paul. A book is on the near horizon as well as a couple of other media-related projects. And of course, the Institute will continue its main focus: bringing hard-hitting analysis of important news events that readers will not see in the mainstream media. As people continue to turn off the mainstream media, we want to be the resource they turn to.

Dr. Paul has also invited more Ron Paul Institute participation in the Ron Paul Channel — what a great new way to get our message out!

Read more here…

I have mixed feelings about this. I’m sure the move is a good thing for the reasons stated above, but DC really does need a non-interventionist presence. This is not a criticism, because everyone has there niche, it’s just an observation. If the Institutes audience is us readers, then it is doing a lot of preaching to the choir. Non-interventionism needs someone in the fray attempting to influence the debate. National politicians already have many organized voices pulling on their ear. There are very few organized voices for non-intervention countering that message.

Chaldean Catholic Patriarch Blasts US For Incompetence In Iraq

Maybe this interview will cause Catholic pundits like Michael Novak and George Weigel to take notes, and do a lot of earnest soul-searching about having supported the neoconservative foreign policy program.

The Americans were here and made many mistakes. The present situation is their fault. Why replace a regime with a situation that is worse? That happened after 2003. The Americans deposed a dictator. But at least back then under Saddam Hussein we had security and work. And what do we have now? Confusion, anarchy and chaos. The same thing happened in Libya and Syria.

But I wouldn’t hold my breath.  Novak & Co. are at least as likely to accuse the patriarch of flirting with bigotry, since he makes the “racist” claim that “[i]t is impossible to establish here a democracy on the Western model.”

Personally, I think His Excellency errs in criticizing the West’s lack of interest in the situation.  Were I in his shoes, the last thing I’d want is more deranged Western busybodies poking their noses into Iraq.  In lamenting the flight of Christians from the troubled region and warning that “[o]ur identity is threatened,” the patriarch reveals that he doesn’t really understand his Anglo counterparts.  A few honorable exceptions aside, American Catholic leaders are no different from other members of the Western political elite, in that they see the elimination of inherited identity and historic community as a good thing.  Hoo-ray diversity!

Will Putin Save the Ukraine?

Russia has long been one of the great hopes of two overlapping groups: white racial nationalists and Christian traditionalists. Russia is one of the few European/Colonial polities that doesn’t enact anti-white policies. It’s large and powerful. And it’s conservative, traditional, and authentically Christian. Additionally, Russia was able to defeat the Neocon-backed Chechnyan terrorists/secessionists, prevent war in Syria, and at other times defy and even defeat Neocons, Neocons are of course sworn enemies of remnant real Americans. Where American power serves evil causes, there’s usually a Neocon at the helm, so busy writing history and so full of hate that he hasn’t time to think on just what in the Hell he’s doing.

Yes, Russia suffers from corruption and many ills, has many faults. Yes, the US Far Right (true Right) has largely opposed every war and foreign intervention since Vietnam, which it should have also opposed. (One noteworthy addition: We rightfully supported Pinochet’s coup.)

So, returning: Russia was one of our great hopes, and Putin enjoyed a positive reputation, globally, for thwarting Obama’s war with Syria. Then the Neocons score a victory with the violent expulsion of the President of The Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych. Neocons support democracy only when their candidate wins. Following this revolution, which shifts control of the Ukraine away from Russia and towards the EU, Putin takes Crimea and is portrayed as a bad guy.

Today, we have conflict between pro-Russian and anti-Russian Ukrainians. The Ukrainians are ultra-nationalist; the Russians have embraced condemning “racism”, accusing the Ukrainians of genocide, of dehumanising Russian-Ukrainians for not being white enough.

Regardless of who is right or wrong in this conflict, results include: Russians are now firmly anti-racist, Ukrainian-Russian hatred is hot, and conservative whites throughout the world are sharply divided, often siding with the Ukrainians. I clearly side more with the Russians.

I don’t like seeing traditional people fighting in general, provided they’re within their rightful lands; but I especially don’t like seeing whites fighting whites. Nationalists have long argued that nationalism is inward looking, peaceful. All of our work is seemingly undone with this ethnic strife. We see nationalism in power; but rather than resolving ethnic division with peaceful secession, it wants bloodshed. The wider nationalist movement’s dream is to preserve Europe, not to expand one piece at the expense of another.

Some of us suspect the Ukrainian nationalists are merely acting as tools of the Neocons. It wouldn’t be the first time conservatives/nationalists fell for propaganda and served their enemies. The greater impact of the Ukrainian nationalists seems to be the destruction of the wider nationalist pro-white movement. And I should add: For every Ukrainian who condemns Russians for being mixed, there’s an Englishman who views Ukrainians as mixed. If Nordicism has accepted European preservation, Ukrainian nationalists should also drop their territorial ambitions.

As foreigners it’s difficult to know what news is true, but Russia Today reports that Ukrainians are wanting to genocide Russian-Ukrainians from within the borders of the Ukraine. As I understand it, Russian-Ukrainians are about a third of the population, maybe more.

Is Putin going to save the Ukraine? If he enters with military force, will conservatives in Europe and America grow to hate Russia? Will Russia embrace an anti-racist ideology in reaction? Will Russia’s economy be crushed with sanctions and Putin driven from power?

Russia is moving in the wrong direction, away from preservation, and this conflict is confusing conservatives. The Right has never been good at thinking. We’re good at following tradition, upholding duty. This Ukraine-Russia conflict makes nationalism appear violent rather than inward looking and traditional and is generally not good for the wider pan-nationalist movement,

An additional risk: The Identitarian debate between Christians and pagans previously concluded in favour of the Christians. If “Ukrainian nationalists” take to battling “Russian Christians”, we risk a reversal of this outcome.

If 25% Irish, Dual-Citizenship Obtainable

From what I’ve heard today, this appears to be true: If one is 25% Irish, or Ulster Irish, and can easily prove it; Irish citizenship is easily obtainable. Irish embassy link: “Citizenship through descent“. Also note the FAQ, “What is Citizenship by Descent?

In my case, I can easily prove being 25% Ulster Irish via great-grandparents. Though most of the rest of me is from Ireland’s eastern neighbor, albeit much earlier, the United Kingdom has no similar policy.

Why seek this? Identity.

As an American, I’m of mixed heritage. I have some French, English, Scottish in me; and most of my folks have been here since well prior to America’s independence. As such, it would be harmful to Ireland were I to move there. But I like the idea of dual-citizenship while residing in the US, for the sake of identity. As America grows increasingly diverse, such heritage might be the only thing keeping us grounded and sane.

Those, like myself, who are not fully Irish shouldn’t move there. Europe should preserve what identity it has left. But dual-citizenship sounds positive.

On a related topic: The claim that Europe’s affairs don’t concern us is false. Europe’s affairs might be argued as more important to us than are our own affairs. Without roots, a man is poor.

Fascinating Interview of Aleksandr Dugin by Vladimir Pozner

I’m not entirely sure what to make of controversial Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin. What I am pretty sure of is that this interview refutes the claim that Russia is substantively less free than America.

Can anybody imagine Steve Sailer getting interviewed by Katie Couric?  Donald Livingston by Dan Rather?

Tony Blair Blames Non-Intervention for Iraqi Chaos

From Tony Blair’s website:


Tony Blair: However there is also no doubt that a major proximate cause of the takeover of Mosul by ISIS is the situation in Syria. To argue otherwise is wilful. The operation in Mosul was planned and organised from Raqqa across the Syria border. The fighters were trained and battle-hardened in the Syrian war. It is true that they originate in Iraq and have shifted focus to Iraq over the past months. But, Islamist extremism in all its different manifestations as a group, rebuilt refinanced and re-armed mainly as a result of its ability to grow and gain experience through the war in Syria.

My comment: In other words, US support for the Syrian rebels has ended up in the hands of al-Qaeda and other Sunni extremists. The Iraqi militants are also Sunni, Blair and Obama’s allies against Assad.

Tony Blair: Already the security agencies of Europe believe our biggest future threat will come from returning fighters from Syria. There is a real risk that Syria becomes a haven for terrorism worse than Afghanistan in the 1990s. But think also of the effect that Syria is having on the Lebanon and Jordan. There is no way this conflagration was ever going to stay confined to Syria. I understand all the reasons following Afghanistan and Iraq why public opinion was so hostile to involvement. Action in Syria did not and need not be as in those military engagements. But every time we put off action, the action we will be forced to take will ultimately be greater.

Tony Blair: The moderate and sensible elements of the Syria Opposition should be given the support they need; Assad should know he cannot win an outright victory; and the extremist groups, whether in Syria or Iraq, should be targeted, in coordination and with the agreement of the Arab countries. However unpalatable this may seem, the alternative is worse.

My comment: Assad is an enemy of al-Qaeda! He is supported by the Christians and other minorities within Syria. It is Blair and Obama who have supported the Sunni terrorists. Al-Qaeda is Sunni. Assad is not Sunni.



Tony Blair: The first is there was no WMD risk from Saddam and therefore the casus belli was wrong. What we now know from Syria is that Assad, without any detection from the West, was manufacturing chemical weapons. We only discovered this when he used them.

My comment: It remains unproven who used the WMD. Assad certainly had nothing to gain from it: The timing was worst-possible for Assad, with UN inspectors to review it.

This is another example of how Blair etc. write a false history and of how vital it is to record a true history, based on facts. While perfect objectivity is impossible, wilful propaganda is inexcusable. Blair would have us teach outright lies to future generations of children.

Tony Blair: In Syria we called for the regime to change, took no action and it is in the worst state of all.

My comment: Again, support has been given to the rebels, who are Sunni.

Tony Blair: Assad, who actually kills his people on a vast scale including with chemical weapons, is left in power.

My comment: Again, this is speculative, unfounded.

Tony Blair: I speak with humility on this issue because I went through the post 9/11 world and know how tough the decisions are in respect of it.

My comment: 9/11 would have been prevented had US immigration policy been enforced. The hijackers were in the US illegally.

Not only is the border crisis worse today, but the US has imported Muslim refugees since then. US policy has once again made matters worse since 9/11.

Tony Blair: It will affect the radicalism within our own societies which now have significant Muslim populations.

My comment: Here’s an easy solution: Deport them and cease importing more!

Can Someone Convince Rep. John Duncan to Run for President?

Rep. Duncan, along with Rep. Walter Jones, are just about the only two* national level elected Republicans who are willing to proclaim the non-interventionist message. Neither have perfect voting records from my standpoint, but Duncan has paleo ties and is, as best as I recall, also solid against trade deals. Could Duncan perhaps revive the old paleo Buchananite coalition?

*Justin Amash is perhaps another one, but I don’t really hear him speak much on foreign policy unless I’m missing something. He’s good on the security state though.

The text of the speech is available here.

Baffled by Bergdahl?

Is anyone else as baffled by this Bergdahl affair as I am? Regardless of whether Bergdahl is a regular POW or a deserter, to me, the Obama Administration comes off looking stupid and incompetent, because the speculation that he was a deserter was already out there as a prominent part of the public record, so how could the Administration not have anticipated some negative reaction? At the least they should have acknowledged that there were questions and that they would be properly investigated on his return.

Tom Fleming discusses this strange case here.

Our old friend Sean Scallon seems upset by the rush to judgement, and I agree that Bergdahl shouldn’t be definitively declared guilty by Obama’s critics before an investigation and +/- a trial, but that doesn’t negate the fact that the Administration was stupid to not have seen this coming. Here is the comment I posted at Chronicles:

Sean, I’m not sure I understand your point. The Obama Administration had to be aware of the Daily Mail story that Dr. Fleming refers to. I’m baffled by this. The Admin seems to not have anticipated the backlash. But given the highly partisan nature of things these days, how could they not have? And doesn’t the fact that they “forgot” to inform Congress not suggest they might have known they were going to get pushback? It makes the skeptic in me think that they might have REALLY needed to get Bergdahl back for some reason. But even if that is the case, why they didn’t just withhold judgment and say that there would be an investigation instead of acting as if they had just secured the release of Jeremiah Denton is beyond me.


Oh No! Putin is a Mean Evil Sexist!

Here is even more reason for us to bomb Russia. Putin is a sexist! He dissed Queen Hillary. I know, I know, it’s outrageous, isn’t it? It’s the year 2014. No country should have to endure having a sexist for a leader. We must commence bombing immediately and liberate the people of Russia from this knuckle-dragging menace to the modern mind.

Russian President Vladimir Putin gave a blistering response to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s comparison of his actions in Ukraine to those of Adolf Hitler leading up to World War II in a television interview that aired Wednesday.

Putin accused Clinton of not being the most elegant speaker and made remarks implying women in general are not well-suited to politics.

“It’s better not to argue with women. But Ms Clinton has never been too graceful in her statements,” Putin said in a French television interview Wednesday.

Putin went on to suggest Clinton was weak and make more disparaging comments about her gender.

“Still, we always met afterwards and had cordial conversations at various international events. I think even in this case we could reach an agreement,” said Putin. “When people push boundaries too far, it’s not because they are strong but because they are weak. But maybe weakness is not the worst quality for a woman.”

Read more here…