Category Archives: Europe

Feminism Is Not about Manhating!

That’s a sexist lie from anti-feminist men!


Filed under Britain, Europe, Feminism, Gender Studies, Humor, Radical Feminists, Regional, Scum

There Is No Such Thing As the Holodomor

Stary Wylk writes:

The Holodomor was starving Ukrainians through crop seizure, not mass deportations. Those came later.

The Holodomor never even happened. And murderous deportations were indeed part of the process that killed many people in that region in 1932.

The starvation was just as bad as in the Ukraine if not worse in a number of other places including the Lower Volga and western Kazakhstan. The Kazakhs supported Stalin, and the Russians of the Rostov were fanatical Stalin supporters. Also the Holodomor hit the east of the Ukraine where the Russians live very hard. Support for Stalin was and is still strong in this area. 1 million people died in Siberia. There were a lot of deaths in Moscow. Did Stalin unleash a “terror famine” in Eastern Ukraine, the Rostov, the Lower Don, western Kazakhstan, Siberia and even Moscow? Of course not.

There was no terror famine. There was a famine harvest. In one year, the harvest collapsed and was only 50% of normal.

You can argue why that happened.

Crops had to be seized because the Ukies were setting their crops on fire and piling them in the fields to get rained on until they molded. The kulaks killed half the livestock in the USSR in the years leading up to the Holodomor. This made things worse, as there was a shortage of horses to plow fields and livestock to eat.

Also the Ukies waged an insurgency where they were attacking the collective farms, burning crops, killing livestock and raping and murdering collective farm workers. At the height there were 20-30 attacks a day going on. All of this was going on in the context of the Holodomor. Actually many deaths occurred in the context of a vicious counterinsurgency campaign combined with some very cruel mass deportations of Ukies to Siberia. 390,000 Ukrainians were killed in this savage counterinsurgency/deportation campaign. If you want to add that to Stalin’s kill total, I would not object.

Ukraine suffered the most deaths, but that was where the harvest collapse was worst. 90% of food exports back from the state for famine relief went to the Ukraine that year.

There was no terror famine!


Filed under Agricutlure, Asia, Death, Eurasia, Europe, European, Health, History, Livestock Production, Modern, NE Asia, Nutrition, Regional, Russia, Siberia, Ukraine, USSR

Russia Intervenes in Syria to Stop ISIS and Al Qaeda, America Enraged


It’s hard to imagine a more depraved, wicked and vile foreign policy than US foreign policy in Syria. The bottom line is that the US, along with Jordan, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Canada, is supporting Al Qaeda and ISIS against the Syrian government.

Our policy in Syria is also completely insane. We are bombing ISIS, although the bombing does not hurt them very much. But at the same time, the US and its allies have waged all out war on the two main groups that have fought the hardest against Al Qaeda and ISIS – the Kurdish militias and the Syrian state. The greatest successes against ISIS have been by the Syrian government and the Kurdish militias.

So we are:

Bombing ISIS ineffectually.


Waging all out war on ISIS’ biggest adversaries.

Does that bullshit even make sense?

The US spends $1 billion/year supplying advanced weaponry to what amounts to Al Qaeda.

Here is what happens.

  1. US gives weapons to fake “moderate” rebels who don’t even exist.
  2. Vast majority of weapons given to fake moderate rebels end up in the hands of Al Qaeda.
  3. US looks the other way.
  4. Return to Step 1 above.

The US is fully aware that most our weapons are going to Al Qaeda, but we don’t care because US policy in Syria is that we will support anybody, and I mean anybody, to overthrow the Syrian government. The US also gives a lot of weaponry to Turkey, Qatar, the UAE and Saudi Arabian representatives in Turkey and to Jordan inside Jordan. Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait then give the weapons directly to Al Qaeda with no intermediaries involved.

We know full well that after we give these countries’ reps our weapons, they immediately give them to Al Qaeda, but we don’t care for the above mentioned reason.

Bottom line is the US is supporting Al Qaeda in Syria and we have been from Day One. It’s hard to think of a scummy and filthy foreign policy that supporting Al Qaeda, but that’s exactly what we are doing. It is absolutely disgusting.

Turkey, on the other hand, appears to be directly supplying and harboring ISIS. Every day, scores of trucks containing ISIS forces, supplies and weapons head across the Turkish border heading straight for ISIS territory. The Turks simply wave them on through. Furthermore, Turkey serves as a huge rear base for ISIS where they have training camps, de facto bases, rest and recreation areas, medical facilities and supply depots for supplies and weapons. Turkey has done absolutely nothing whatsoever to shut down ISIS’ rear base areas inside Turkey. Bottom line is Turkey is ISIS’ biggest supporter. The US knows this and does nothing whatsoever about it.

So the US is:

Ineffectually bombing ISIS


Waging all out war on ISIS’ worst opponents


Leaving ISIS vast rear base area intact.

So in a roundabout way, we are actually backing ISIS in Syria by allowing our ally to set aside a huge rearguard area for ISIS and winking and looking the other way while our ally allows forces, supplies and weaponry to resupply ISIS across the Turkish border.

I am not sure if we really want ISIS to conquer Syria. I would say we would not want that. Of course, the Israelis, the worst humans on Earth, would be ecstatic if ISIS took power in Syria, but who cares what the Jews think about anything?

Instead, I think we would like to weaken ISIS enough to keep them from conquering Syria, while at the same time not allowing them to be completely defeated so they can remain strong enough to serve as a major opponent to the Syrian regime. Putin says the US does not want to see ISIS defeated in Syria. As usual, Putin is 100% correct.

Now Russia is intervening, quite possibly with a large military force, because it figures there is no way they are going to sit back and let Syria fall to Al Qaeda and ISIS. So Russia is intervening in Syria to try to deliver a massive blow to Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria. The US is absolutely enraged that anyone is trying to defeat our jihadi pals who we are arming in a roundabout way.

How dare anyone try to defeat Al Qaeda and ISIS! The American government will not stand for such an outrage!

The US says Russian involvement will fuel the conflict and make peace difficult. But the main fueling of the conflict is coming from the US and our slimy allies Jordan, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Canada and Turkey.

There is a vast problem with a peace settlement. The US and all the other disgusting countries above say that the armed Syrian rebels have to be guaranteed a position in the Syrian government. But that cannot be allowed to happen because the Syrian rebels are simply Al Qaeda and ISIS. All of the so-called moderate groups are fighting as part of a military unit that is led by Al Qaeda. So all of the moderate rebels are more or less Al Qaeda right now. The plan of the US and its loathsome allies above is apparently to force Assad to share power with what amounts to Al Qaeda. You heard that right. We want Al Qaeda to run Syria. How insane is that?

Al Qaeda and ISIS or anyone associated with them cannot be allowed to share power with Assad in Syria. Assad does have a plan to allow the sane opposition (which is not armed) to share power in the government along with Parliamentary elections in which the sane election is allowed to participate. The US and its partners in crime have nixed this plan because it doesn’t allow Al Qaeda to join the Syrian government.

Sometimes I wonder if reality is even real because actual existing reality seems so crazy that it could only be fiction. It seems too nuts to be real.


Filed under Canada, Eurasia, Europe, Geopolitics, Government, Islam, Israel, Jordan, Middle East, Military Doctrine, Politics, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, USA, War

I Guess I Am with the “French New Right”

Whoever criticizes capitalism while approving immigration whose working class is its first victim had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration while remaining silent about capitalism should do the same.

– Alain De Benoist, founder of the French New Right.

You know the European Left is failing when the fascists have the best ideas in the political marketplace.

US Politardics:

“Right”: I love capitalism! I hate immigration! (lol wut)

“Left”: I love immigration! I hate capitalism! (wtf)

The Politics of Idiocy.

That’s your choice folks. You get to choose between two perfectly awful views. Isn’t that cool?

There is no Left or Right. There are only nationalists and globalists.

– Marine Le Pen, French rightwing politician.

Another fascist gets my vote. This is absolutely repulsive. The European Left is so evil, insane and retarded that the even the fascists are better in comparison. Pathetic!


Filed under Capitalism, Conservatism, Economics, Europe, Fascism, France, Immigration, Left, Nationalism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, US Politics, Useless Western Left

We Are All Gay Now


What do they mean half of all Britons say they are something other than heterosexual? If you are something other than straight, that means you are either gay or bisexual. Geez. I figured this nonsense was coming.

72% of British defined themselves as heterosexual.

28% defined themselves as gay or bisexual.

4% defined themselves as completely gay.


46% of 18-24 year old British defined themselves as heterosexual.

49% defined themselves as gay or bisexual.

6% defined themselves as completely gay.

The trend is obvious. Homosexual behavior is on the increase among young British people. More and more are identifying as gay or bisexual and fewer are identifying as heterosexual. And the rate of pure homosexuals is also rising – it went up by 50%.

This shows that the Cultural Left is lying again when they say that whatever anyone’s sexual orientation is, they were simply born that way.

It also gives the lie to the PC lines coming out of the American Psychological Association saying, “No one chooses their sexual orientation.” Oh really now? If no one chooses it, then how in the Hell is the rate of gay and bisexual orientation increasing among young British? Is it something in the water? If they didn’t chose their orientation, then who did? God? The Borg? The Fairy Godmother? The Flying Purple Lizard Monster?

If the rate’s going up, it can’t be because they were born that way. What is this, an epidemic of birth defects?

And it can’t be because some mysterious force is choosing their orientation for them because no if anyone can choose such a thing, it’s you and you only.

Obviously the rate is going up because more and more young people are choosing gay and bisexual orientations probably because of Cultural Left propaganda that says being gay and bi is the greatest thing since whitewall tires.

For more on rates of male sexual orientation by the numbers and some thoughts about that, see here.


Filed under Britain, Cultural Marxists, Europe, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Left, Regional, Sex

25 Ways Feminists Systematically Oppress Men

Tulio writes:

Not that I’m saying you’re wrong per se, but can you list concrete examples of how men are systematically oppressed? While I don’t like feminism, I also don’t feel oppressed in any way as a man. I find feminists to be more of an annoyance than a threat.

Here is a list of 20. See if you can come up with more.

  1. Conflation of statutory rape and pedophilia created by feminists is causing a lot of harm to teenage boys and especially young men.
  2. Insane anti-rape laws in Sweden and the UK written by feminists that including rape definition creep expanding towards more and more traditional non-rapes.
  3. Anti-rape inquisitions created by feminists on campuses where a woman can file rape charges against you months to years after the fact, the man is considered guilty until proven innocent and the prosecution and judges are completely rigged against the man. For instance, a man was recently thrown out of a university back East on “rape” charges. What happened? The man was blacked out drunk, lying on his back on a bed, and a female student gave him a blowjob. She sucked his cock while he was blacked out. If anyone got raped, it might have been him. She feared for her reputation after the incident and the feminist dorm adviser suggested she file rape charges to preserve her reputation. Another man was thrown out of school for raping his own girlfriend. Charges were filed many months after they broke up and the court was a Kangaroo Court stacked with feminists.
  4. Rape rules on campus created by feminists requiring assent for each escalation of sex acts undertaken.
  5. Crazy campus rape rules created by feminists whereby a man can be accused of rape even if the woman never said no if she “thought no in her head.” In this case, the man can be accused of rape because he’s not a mindreader.
  6. Crazy rape law in Washington State written by feminists whereby a teacher was convicted of rape of a female student who was 18 years old, an adult, when it happened. The sex was 100% consensual. He now must go on the Sex Offender Registry for life.
  7. Crazy rape laws written by feminists where sex with a drunken woman is “rape.”
  8. Fake campus rape crisis created by feminists whereby feminists make up lies like 20% of college girls are raped during college that make all college men seem like rapists. Real figure is .6%.
  9. Fake “rape culture” crisis US created by feminists in the US, probably the most anti-rape culture on Earth, where all men are seen as potential rapists.
  10. Insane rape laws in the UK written by feminists whereby apparently there is no statute of limitations for rape, sexual assault and “pedophilia” whereby men are going down for grabbing a grown woman’s tits 45 years ago, feeling up a 14 year old girl’s ass 35 years ago and other lunacy.
  11. Feminists making up lies like “fake rape charges are very rare.” The figure of 8% is tossed about. The true rate is near 50%. The ugly truth is that women cry rape and press fake rape charges against men all the time. I have been falsely accused of rape myself. A 14 year old girl accused me of raping her once. The sex was 100% consensual. She didn’t file charges, but the allegation went around to our friend circle. Incredibly, the rape charge made me much more popular with her girlfriends a number of whom started openly flirting with me after they heard I was a rapist!
  12. Insane sexual harassment rules in most employment locations whereby feminists are apparently trying to outlaw all heterosexual conduct in the workplace. I worked at a workplace where I was told that dating between coworkers was banned by the company’s sexual harassment policies.
  13. Sexual harassment madness on university campuses created by feminists whereby female students constantly file Title 9 complaints against male professions for every fake infraction in the book. One of the crimes is criticizing feminism or Women’s Studies Departments. Male teachers have had Title 9 complaints filed against them for doing just that.
  14. New laws in France and Germany created by feminists whereby men are forbidden from paternity testing their own babies.
  15. Pedophile Mass Hysteria promoted by feminists whereby any man who looks at a teenage girl is a “pedophile” and a “predator,” and men can’t even talk to any children of either sex anymore. Single men are particularly victimized by this. I have had single men tell me that all single White men past a certain age are automatically considered “pedophiles.” They also tell me how terrified they are of girls and how they take off every time they see one.
  16. Pedophile Mass Hysteria created by feminists causing men to be arrested for merely talking to teenage girls. A man was recently arrested and charged with “grooming” for talking to two 15 year old girls, apparently runaways, in a pet store in California. In California, this “anti-grooming” law is called “annoying or molesting a child.” Under this extremely vague offense, you can be charged with “grooming” for merely talking to a teenage girl.
  17. Pedophile Mass Hysteria caused by feminists resulting in men getting convicted of “child molesting” for having sex with underage girls who lied about their age and said they were 18-19, created Facebook pages with fake ages on them, and openly seduced older men. When people found out about it, the girls’ parents filed child molesting charges. The men had no idea the girls were underage. They were convicted and go on the Sex Offender Registry for life because a girl lied to them and they naively believed her lie.
  18. Pedophile Mass Hysteria caused by feminists expanding to adults -> a man recently told me online that if he saw a 50 year old man talking to a 20 year old woman, he would punch the man in the face. Recall how many women called Clinton a “pedophile” for having sex with 23 year old Monica.
  19. Pedophile Mass Hysteria created by feminists whereby evil girls mostly aged 9-13 are mass charging male teachers with child molesting under blatantly fake charges. A friend of mine had an entire classroom of evil 9 years old girls charge him with molesting them in a single day (!). The charge went into his record, parents threatened to beat him up, and he was not allowed to teach at that district ever again. My own father was charged with molesting a 13 year old Black girl for breaking up a fight between her and some other girl.
  20. Feminists making up lies like “children never lie about being molested” which result in mass fake molesting charges against men.
  21. Creep shaming created by feminists and women whereby many men are terrified to even approach females anywhere for fear of being called a creep.
  22. Crazy fake “street harassment” crisis created by feminists whereby selling hello to a woman on the street or trying to talk to a woman on a train is apparently “harassment.”
  23. Insane domestic violence laws written by feminists in the 1990’s whereby the woman gets to hit the man as much as she wants, but if the man hits back one time, he’s going to jail -> men are not allowed to fight back against women.
  24. Crazy domestic violence law written by feminists whereby if you hit a woman (even if you hit her back) in your own home which you own and she stays in as a perma-guest, even after you get out of jail, the woman can file a restraining order against you, continue to live in your home (!), and you will be homeless and banned from living in your own home while some leech lives there for free. You will have to find temporary lodging or go homeless.
  25. Crazy alimony laws written by feminists whereby the woman gets half your paycheck for years, maybe forever, no matter how high your check is and how much she really needs, even if she initiates the divorce.


Filed under Britain, Crime, Education, Europe, Feminism, France, Gender Studies, Germany, Higher Education, Labor, Law, Law enforcement, Lunatics, Man World, Mass Hysterias, Pedophile Mass Hysteria, Radical Feminists, Regional, Scum, Social Problems, Sociology, Sweden, USA, Washington, West

The Latest Outrage from the Feminist Enemy

Feminists are outlawing paternity testing.

France has actually made it illegal for a man to do paternity testing on the kid that his wife had. Incredible. And it is de facto illegal in Germany. In France, you need the woman’s approval to do paternity testing (!?) and good luck getting it! I can’t believe how insane this is.

This is exactly where women will go if you let them. Everything for the woman, nothing, or less than nothing, for the man.

In fact, there is a significant feminist movement in favor of “social parenting rather than genetic parenting.” That means you are on the hook for child support even if the kid that your cheating whore wife bore isn’t even yours! WTF.

There is a reason why male cheating has traditionally been more tolerated than female cheating. Female cheating is hated so much that the male victims of it are typically shamed or humiliated as “cuckolds.” If you read Shakespeare you will see many references to cuckolding. At that time, the worst insult you can say to a man would be to accuse him of being a cuckold. In fact, the word “horny” comes from the cuckolding concept. So does the idea of creeping up behind a man and putting a peace sign over his head. When you hold up two fingers over a man’s head, those are “horns.” It means he is wearing horns, that is, he is cuckolded, and this is where the word “horny” comes from.

The concept is also seen in the Spanish language, where cabron is the worst thing you can say to a man, and will often get you punched or even killed. Men in Latin America will kill over that insult. To call a man a cabron is to call him a male goat. Male goats have horns. If a man is “wearing horns” he has been cuckolded.

Let’s face it, no matter how much a woman’s partner cheats, when she has a baby, she can be assured that it is her child. This is very important – ownership of the child is very important. If a woman cheats on her man and has a baby, the man has no idea whatsoever whether that kid is his or not. He cannot be assured that that is his child (see above for women always being assured of ownership).

So when a woman cheats, her man is not sure of ownership of the child, and when the man cheats, she is at least sure that she owns any children that come out of her. Owing a child is very important. If a man is not sure that his child is his, he ends up raising another man’s child born by his woman. That is the last thing on Earth any man wants to do. Biologically, any male would consider raising another man’s child unknowingly to be a complete waste of time and resources.

This is why women’s cheating is so much more serious. In order to discourage women from cheating, men who got cheated on by their women were utterly humiliated by all of society. The fear that a man had of being humiliated in this way was enough to make sure he kept his wife on a tight leash all the time.

It also gave rise to the common reaction when a man catches his woman in bed with another man. It is quite common in such a case for the wronged man to kill both his woman and her boyfriend. In addition, many patriarchal societies simply murder women who are caught cheating. It’s right there in there social structure. This is probably another reason female sexuality was kept on such a tight leash by societies the world over. It needed to be controlled because otherwise you would have women cheating all over the place and paternity and jealousy issues with the attendant humiliation and homicide. In order to prevent these bad things, societies considered female sexuality a wild animal that needed to be kept in a very secure cage.


Filed under Europe, France, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Law, Man World, Masculinism, Radical Feminists, Regional, Scum, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology

How Does Weimar Germany Validate the Theory of Cultural Marxism?

Ben Steigmann writes:

I found this to be interesting:

Yes, but during that era, there were not any Marxist Jews in Germany preaching decadence and depravity for the German Gentiles in order to facilitate a Communist Revolution! This is what the crazy Cultural Marxist theory would suggest.

Yes, there were Jews who formed a short-lived Communist government in Bavaria in 1920 which was quickly overthrown. There was also the Communist Party of Germany the German Social Democratic Party. The Communists and the socialists despised each other and often fought in the streets. Strangely enough, proto-fascists were also very active politically during this time, and they also fought with both parties of the Left in the streets all the time. And government itself was basically paralyzed.

Neither the Communists nor the Social Democrats nor certainly the Fascists had anything to do with the mass cultural and sexual depravity of the decade. Surely the fascists and the Communists opposed it, as both tend to be puritanical, and I doubt if the Social Democrats had much to say about it either, as this was before the Left became a Cultural Left. Back then, socialists didn’t have much to say about culture as they tended to form all of their analysis around class based economics and felt that any other analysis was not productive.

First of all, Cultural Marxist theory starts with the Frankfurt School Jews after WW2. These decadent Jews were German Jews during the 1920’s. Yes, this era during which there was heavy Jewish influence was characterized by extreme cultural degeneration and depravity, but the Jews were not doing it to weaken the Gentiles in order to facilitate Communist Revolution. The Jews themselves were succumbing as much to this degeneration and depravity as the Gentiles were.

How does the example of Weimar Germany elucidate the Theory of Cultural Marxism?


Filed under Cultural Marxists, Culture, Economics, Europe, European, Fascism, Germany, Government, History, Left, Marxism, Modern, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Socialism, The Jewish Question

Robert Stark Interviews Roger Devlin about Sexual Utopia in Power


This is actually excellent. This is one of brightest, wisest, sanest and most likable people Stark has ever had on here. I highly encourage you to listen to this. It’s mostly about feminism, gender and politics of sex.

Robert Stark talks to Roger Devlin about his book Sexual Utopia in Power: The Feminist Revolt Against Civilization.  F. Roger Devlin, Ph.D. is an independent scholar. He is the author of Alexandre Kojève and the Outcome of Modern Thought (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2004) and many essays and reviews in such publications as The Occidental Quarterly, American Renaissance, Counter-Currents/North American New Right, VDare, Modern Age, The Social Contract, Alternative Right, and The Last Ditch. A bibliography of his work is available online at

Topics include:

His original essay Sexual Utopia in Power
The origins, motives, and outcomes of the sexual revolution
Back to Africa: Sexual Atavism in the Modern West
How mainstream social conservatives have failed to diagnose the problems and offer solutions
How economic changes have affected marriage and relationships between the sexes
How the sexual revolution has led to less sex for the masses and more for a few
Why many men are dropping out of society
The question of female masochism
Article about girls in Norway submitting to Pakistani immigrants who bully Norwegian boys
Why change will not come through political reform but rather by creating subcultures

Leave a comment

Filed under Africa, Conservatism, Culture, Economics, Europe, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Immigration, Norway, Political Science, Politics, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Romantic Relationships, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, Women

Eric Zeusse, “Meet the ‘Moderates’ the U.S. Is Supporting in Syria: They’re Al-Qaeda”

Great article from Global Research on something I have been drumming home for a long time now: The US is backing Al Qaeda in Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. Sickening or what?

This article also lays out some more things you folks ought to be hip to.

First off, the supposed Sarin gas attack that “Assad” did on his own people never even happened. The rebels, in this case, Al Qaeda, shot Sarin at their own people, but the doses were very small. Later, poison gas was used to kill about 600 pro-government civilians Al Qaeda had captured. More here.

Meet the “Moderates” the U.S. Is Supporting in Syria: They’re Al-Qaeda

Eric Zuesse

In Syria, al-Qaeda goes under the name Jabhat al-Nusra, or al-Nusra for short. As will be documented here, the United States has, until recently, been allied with al-Nusra, but, because of the bad image this U.S. alliance has spread about al-Nusra among their fellow-Sunnis, al-Nusra is now separating itself from ISIL, the Islamic State in Iraq and Levant, otherwise known as Islamic State in Iraq and Syria or ISIS, and which the United States is now assisting, to defeat the forces of Assad, notwithstanding ISIL’s infamous videos of their chopping off heads of nonbelievers.

Thus, for example, Britain’s Telegraph headlined on August 10th, “Al-Qaeda withdraws from fighting ISIL in Syria to avoid ‘US cooperation’,” and reporter Nabih Bulos in Istanbul opened with:

Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria has declared it will withdraw from frontlines where it has been fighting against Islamic State because it does not want to cooperate with the US-led coalition.

Jabhat Al-Nusra declared on Sunday it would abandon the northern province of Aleppo, where it has been battling Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), leaving other rebel factions to take over its positions in the area.

The region north of the city of Aleppo has designated as a potential anti-ISIL buffer zone by the US and Turkey.

Later, Bulos’ report went on to say:

Jabhat al-Nusra nevertheless insisted that even though it was abandoning its positions in the northern Aleppo countryside, it would continue the fight against ISIL in other parts of the country.

Despite sharing their origins in al-Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIL have battled each other since a rancorous split in 2013.

Jabhat al-Nusra, whose jihadist militants are credited with being among the most effective on the battlefield, recently achieved a dazzling string of battlefield successes as part of the Army of Conquest, a loose coalition of Islamist factions.

Although it is thought to have received military and financial support from other members of the US-led coalition such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Jabhat al-Nusra has nevertheless repeatedly scuttled plans for Western support, branding Western-backed rebel factions as “collaborators.”

This report is consistent with two earlier reports that the famous American journalist, Seymour Hersh, was not able to find a publisher for inside the United States, and which were therefore (like the Telegraph report above) published in Britain, instead, both of them by the London Review of Books. Those Hersh articles were widely dismissed by U.S. news-media as being untrustworthy.

Hersh used unnamed sources — supposedly because the sources didn’t want to be fired. Even Hersh’s main publisher, the New Yorker, has rejected his recent reports about this and related matters, and New York Magazine (a competitor to the New Yorker) has allowed him to express his view of the conflict he’s having with the New Yorker’s current editor. However, New York hasn’t published any of Hersh’s actual articles, either.

Hersh’s first such article was Whose Sarin? on 19 December 2013, and it opened:

Barack Obama did not tell the whole story this autumn when he tried to make the case that Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack near Damascus on 21 August. In some instances, he omitted important intelligence, and in others he presented assumptions as facts.

Most significant, he failed to acknowledge something known to the US intelligence community: that the Syrian army is not the only party in the country’s civil war with access to sarin, the nerve agent that a UN study concluded – without assessing responsibility – had been used in the rocket attack. In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports, culminating in a formal Operations Order – a planning document that precedes a ground invasion – citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaida, had mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity.

When the attack occurred, al-Nusra should have been a suspect, but the administration cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad.

The second one was more definitive, answering the question that the first of his two reports raised. It was issued on 17 April 2014, The Red Line and the Rat Line, and it reported that:

British intelligence had obtained a sample of the sarin used in the 21 August attack, and analysis demonstrated that the gas used didn’t match the batches known to exist in the Syrian army’s chemical weapons arsenal.

During the interim months between the two articles, Hersh was able to answer the Whose Sarin? question. He found, and reported in the second article:

The joint chiefs also knew that the Obama administration’s public claims that only the Syrian army had access to sarin were wrong. The American and British intelligence communities had been aware since the spring of 2013 that some rebel units in Syria were developing chemical weapons.

On 20 June analysts for the US Defense Intelligence Agency issued a highly classified five-page ‘talking points’ briefing for the DIA’s deputy director, David Shedd, which stated that al-Nusra maintained a sarin production cell: its program, the paper said, was ‘the most advanced sarin plot since al-Qaida’s pre-9/11 effort’…

The full extent of US co-operation with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar in assisting the rebel opposition in Syria has yet to come to light. The Obama administration has never publicly admitted to its role in creating what the CIA calls a ‘rat line’, a back channel highway into Syria.

The rat line, authorized in early 2012, was used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the opposition. Many of those in Syria who ultimately received the weapons were jihadists, some of them affiliated with al-Qaida. (The DNI spokesperson said: ‘The idea that the United States was providing weapons from Libya to anyone is false.’)

In January, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report on the assault by a local militia in September 2012 on the American consulate and a nearby undercover CIA facility in Benghazi, which resulted in the death of the US ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and three others.

The report’s criticism of the State Department for not providing adequate security at the consulate, and of the intelligence community for not alerting the US military to the presence of a CIA outpost in the area, received front-page coverage and revived animosities in Washington, with Republicans accusing Obama and Hillary Clinton of a cover-up.

A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria.

That report is further confirmed by the 10 August 2015 report in Britain’s Telegraph.

Eva Bartlett of Inter Press Service reported, on 8 July 2014, her interviews with victims of the U.S.-supported fighters in the Syrian city of Homs. Typical was this:

Mohammed, a Syrian from the Qussoor district of Homs, is now one of the reported 6.5 million internally-displaced Syrians.

“I’m a refugee in Latakia now. I work in Homs, two days a week, and then return to Latakia to stay at my friend’s home. I left my house at the very end of 2011, before the area was taken over by al-Nusra and al-Farooq brigades.”

He spoke of the sectarian nature of the insurgents and protests from the very beginning in 2011.

I was renting a home in a different neighborhood of Homs, while renovating my own house. Just beyond my balcony there were protests that did not call for ‘freedom’ or even overthrowing the ‘regime’. They chanted sectarian mottoes, they said they would fill al-Zahara – an Alawi [Shiite] neighborhood – with blood. And also al-Nezha – where there are many Alawis and Christians.

An internal Stratfor (private CIA) email report, dated 7 December 2011, concerning the planning stages of the American mission to remove Bashar al-Assad (the mission that created refugees such as “Mohammed” from Homs), described their private meeting at the Pentagon, where the officials

…emphasized how the air campaign in Syria makes Libya look like a piece of cake…It’s still a doable mission, it’s just not an easy one.” Obama’s people were “saying that the idea ‘hypothetically’ is to commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within. There wouldn’t be a need for air cover, and they wouldn’t expect these Syrian rebels to be marching in columns anyway.

Obama’s people seem to have underestimated both sides of the war. Some European nations were supportive but not yet fully committed to the operation.

The main base they would use is Cyprus, hands down. Brits and French would fly out of there. They kept stressing how much is stored at Cyprus and how much recce comes out of there. The group was split on whether Turkey would be involved, but said Turkey would be pretty critical to the mission to base stuff out of there.

The Stratfor agent wrote that:

I had a meeting with an incoming Kuwaiti diplomat (will be coded as KU301.) His father was high up in the regime, always by the CP’s/PM’s side. The diplo himself still seems to be getting his feet wet in DC (the new team just arrived less than 2 weeks ago) but he made pretty clear that Kuwait was opening the door to allowing US to build up forces as needed…He said that while KSA and Bahrain they can deal with it as needed and black out the media, Kuwait is a lot more open.”


On the Kuwaiti political scene, the government is having a harder time dealing with a more emboldened opposition, but the opposition is still extremely divided, esp among the Islamists. The MP’s now all have to go back to their tribes to rally support…

for the operation against Assad. All of these Muslims were Sunnis.

An excellent overview article by Steve Chovanec, dated 16 November 2014, included a sub-head, US-Supplied Rebels Align with al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda Aligns with ISIL.

One thing that’s hidden in the West (since the West’s aristocracies are allied with the aristocracies in Arabic countries, which are almost exclusively Sunni) is that Islamic jihad is a specifically Sunni phenomenon, it’s not Shiite; Islamic terrorism that’s directed against Christian-majority nations is basically a Sunni phenomenon, it’s a phenomenon of the Arabic aristocracies that Western aristocracies are allied with, and this is the reason why there’s a tendency to attribute it to Iran and to other Shiite areas, which actually have nothing to do with it and are instead themselves at war against it within the Muslim world.

Whereas Russia is allied with Shiite forces, and is therefore clearly and unequivocally opposed to Islamic terrorism, which is Sunni, the United States and its vassal-nations are basically allied with Sunni forces, and this means that Western aristocracies support the Sunni aristocracies that fund Islamic jihad.

A report from Russian Television on August 12th presents shelling of Damascus by (as the reporter describes it, at 1:38 in the video)

…a rebel faction with very strong ties with Saudi Arabia, news reports saying that it is funded by Saudi Arabia.

Yet again, it’s a Sunni invasion of Shiite-run Syria, this time by Sunnis that are paid directly by the Sauds. And the Sauds, of course, dominate all of Sunni Islam, and are also the main funders of al-Qaeda. U.S. President Obama wants to defeat Russia even more than he wants to defeat ISIS, al-Qaeda, etc.Thus, the fact that Russia has always consistently been against Islamic-jihad groups, does not deter Obama from allying the U.S. with Saudi Arabia (the key backer of Islamic jihad groups), instead of with Russia. If he needs Islamic-jihad groups in order to defeat Russia, he’ll back them, but only secretly.

So, al-Nusra (or al-Qaeda) has now publicly separated itself from ISIL, because ISIL is receiving critically important assistance from the United States, just as al-Nusra is now being blamed by their fellow Sunnis for having done the same, between 2011 and 2013. Back in 2011, Obama thought he wouldn’t need ISIL’s help, but he does.

Furthermore, Obama is just copying all his predecessors back at least to Reagan, and even to the end of the Carter Administration, when Zbig Brzezinski told the Mujahideen (the earlier name for the Taliban) that “God is on your side.”

The U.S. had used Sunnis such as Osama bin Laden to break the Soviet alliance with Afghanistan, much as the U.S. is now using Sunnis to try to break the Russian alliance with Assad, and likewise with Ukraine, including Crimea. Obama’s primary target throughout isn’t jihadists so much as it’s Vladimir Putin. Bush’s “regime change” obsession was Saddam Hussein. Obama’s wasn’t just Muammar Gaddafi, and it wasn’t just Viktor Yanukovych; and it isn’t just Bashar al-Assad — it’s Vladimir Putin himself. It’s defeating Russia. All else is actually subordinate to that.

In this regard, Obama is following the position that was expressed by his friend Brzezinski who has expressed it many times, such as, in 1998, reprinted later under the heading, “How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen.”

As I bannered on 6 March 2015,

Brzezinski Says Russia’s Putin Wants to Invade NATO. The U.S. is adding former communist nations to NATO, surrounding Russia with NATO nations all along Russia’s eastern borders and to the south of Russia. But Brzezinski and others of his ilk say that Russia is surrounding NATO. The Obama Administration says such things as, “We’re building up on NATO’s borders. These are NATO countries, these are allies of ours, that are concerned based on what Russia is doing on their borders.”

The Administration pretends that the U.S. isn’t the aggressor here — that Russia is. They’re saying that essential defense is instead aggression; meanwhile, unprovoked aggression is being done for “allies of ours” (but that were traditionally allies of theirs). Russia is supposed to accept that. Russia won’t.

After the end of communism, Brzezinski and some others continued hating Russia because they had hated it ever since childhood or at least ever since young adulthood (Brzezinski was born a Polish nobleman.) They were indoctrinated with this form of racism, not merely with hatred of communism. What was originally a hatred of an ideology thus remains in some people as a hatred of one specific ethnicity: Russians. World War III could result. Unless people like this are booted out of power in the United States — and in Europe.


Filed under Afghanistan, Africa, Asia, Britain, Democrats, Eurasia, Europe, Government, Iraq, Islam, Journalism, Libya, Middle East, North Africa, Obama, Politics, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Republicans, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Shiism, South Asia, Sunnism, Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, US Politics, USA, USSR, War