Syria Needs a Surge: Eurasianism’s First Test Case

It's Time for a Surge

It’s Time for a Surge

Over the past decade, Russia and Iran have performed an incredible job of building an effective response to Atlanticist hegemony. Their investments in Russia Today, PressTV, and a variety of alternative media projects have achieved tremendous leverage, throwing the Western media monopoly off balance with well-funded and persuasive research and reporting to challenge the multinational corporations and Organized Jewish organizations which have been spinning and framing the news unchallenged and unanswered for decades.

Alexander Dugin has led an entire movement of public intellectuals who’ve arrived at a compelling challenge to the Western “liberal” metapolitical vision, offering hope and solidarity to traditional cultures and identities the world over. A lighthouse beacon has been shown for national leladers who don’t wish for their countries to be stripped down and turned into strip malls by Western financiers have a safe harbor.

It’s working and it’s attracting support around the globe, but Russia’s insistence on framing its actions in Ukraine at least partially in terms of anachronistic themes (Ukrainians are Nazis!) and parochial realpolitik was an unforced error. Support for the ethnic independence movements in the Ukraine could have as easily been framed in identitarian and traditionalist terms from the beginning, but it wasn’t…at least not consistently. Gradually, the Kremlin is gravitating toward those talking points because they’re more compelling, but the opening was left for the Western oligarchs to persuasively frame Russia’s involvement in the Ukraine as crass bullying of its neighbors, leaving much of global reaction ambivalent about or opposed to the ethnic and religious revolutionaries against the liberal Atlanticist Ukrainian puppet state.

Meanwhile, Syria presents an ideal test case for the Eurasianist geopolitical alliance. Assad’s a popular, charismatic, and democratically elected statesman who stands for traditional Arab values across religious and sectarian lines. His opponents couldn’t possibly be any more blatantly a mash-up of mercantile mercenary puppets of NATO agitators and cartoonishly villainous Al Qaeda and ISIS extremists. Even the majority of Americans who remain largely under the influence of Western media sources haven’t been convinced to oppose Assad, and America’s support for the mercenaries and jihadists set against him is largely clandestine and covert owing to the project’s lack of popularity back home.

Political theories are great and necessary, and a persuasive one is coalescing which has the power to challenge the global hegemony of cannibal capitalist “liberalism.” But just as in the first Cold War, the ideas are impotent when insufficient power is projected to undergird them.

Naturally, there’s some calculation which must be made when considering when, where, and how much support a superpower ought to invest in its satellites. After all, there are regimes which will inevitably topple. There are causes which are pretty much lost. There are would-be “partners” who don’t offer enough strategic value to excuse the investment. Despite rapid improvements in the past decade, Russia and Iran remain somewhat cash-strapped relative to the West, and geopolitics, like the game of RISK, requires uncomfortable zero-sum calculations which invariably involve coming up short somewhere else that investment is needful.

But if Assad’s Syria, located smack dab in the heart of the Middle East, isn’t strategically valuable, then what country is? If Assad’s campaign to push back naked corporate mercenaries and ISIS in favor of traditional local rule isn’t the optimal fight to get behind, then what fight is? If Assad’s stability and strategic acumen in the face of boggling odds doesn’t meet the standard, then how high must the standard be? If Russia and Iran can’t even check the Western-backed Arab Spring process in this optimal test case, then why bother challenging Western influence in the Middle East at all?

The leading nations of the nascent Eurasianist project have already invested a tremendous amount in Assad’s Syria in the past several years, and I don’t discount that. But a surge of support is necessary to finally and definitively break the morale and will of the exhausted and disorganized gaggle of foreign mercenaries bedeviling Syria. Protecting this defiant Arab nation which is being politically, religiously, and economically ravaged by Western multinational and Zionist interests–the fanatical jihadis are largely an opportunistic infection–is not only the morally righteous and metapolitically coherent thing to do; it’s also of paramount geopolitical importance.

The whole world is watching and waiting to see if standing with the Eurasian vision is a viable response to Atlanticist aggression which offers genuine hope of liberation from capitalist excess, liberal degeneracy, and fanatical religious extremism. While the Ukraine is naturally closer to Russia’s heart both geographically and psychologically, the Syrian conflict and its outcome is of far greater long-term consequence for Russia’s overarching geopolitical vision. It’s the first real test of the Eurasian vision, and it must be passed. Invest in a Syrian surge and show the world that standing up against American imperialism isn’t hopeless after all.

  • Eric

    PressTV’s American correspondents are awful. They’ve relied heavily on Gordon Duff and Veteran’s Today , who purposely spread disinfo, I’d even venture a guess that they do it on purpose. Press TV has a great premise, but needs to have much better research.

    Russia Today on the other hand is extraordinary, far more persuasive than Jewish media.

  • Stupendissimo

    And of course, there are Orthodox Christians in Syria as well.

  • an observer

    “Russia’s insistence on framing its actions in Ukraine at least partially in terms of anachronistic themes (Ukrainians are Nazis!) and parochial realpolitik was an unforced error”

    We need to be honest and admit that leftism, or left-wing thinking, won the battle of 20th century political dichotomies and completely dominates most, if not all, political discussion these days. In the minds of most, anything that sniffs of ‘right’ is automatically bad and must be rejected. Such is the systematic indoctrination of leftism that has occurred, and is occurring, through schools and media.

    Therefore, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with using the left’s language, if it can be used to (indirectly) support traditionalist or nationalist causes. The US State Dept. and its cronies are adept at mobilising ‘useful idiots’, including the dreaded antifa, whenever they want anything done, so why shouldn’t Russia and its allies use this large pool of available manpower? Most of the world’s youth are left-leaning and easily convinced to take action in support of some cause or other, so the traditionalist/nationalist politician would be foolish not to use this to their advantage.

    In other words, take what you can, when you can get it.

    • tradyouth

      What’s your model for why global dissident opinion is generally on Assad’s side while it’s split or indifferent on Ukraine?

    • Eric

      Dissident opinion on Ukraine isn’t that split. Among Leftists for example, you’ll find quite a few apologists for both the Syrian Al-Qaeda rebels and the Ukrainian Kosher “Nazis”- simply out of reactionary hatred for Assad or Putin, but an equal number of them take the opposite perspective in the name of anti-imperialism. Aside from marginal Anglo-conservative types, and people from tiny baltic states whose main worldview revolves around hating Russia in all contexts, few radicals support what the EU and NATO are doing in Ukraine.

    • an observer

      Eric’s comments hit the nail on the head, as usual.

      All I can offer in addition is that I think a higher number of dissidents, particularly left-leaning ones, are on Assad’s side simply because it’s an Arab country and most leftists buy into the greater Palestinian/Arab resistance idea, which is one of the few things I will agree with them on. As has been mentioned before by others, however, the pro-Palestine European/American antifa would be horrified if they realised how traditional and tribalist these Arabs are – much to the Arabs’ credit.

      They might be a bit more divided on the Ukraine issue (although Eric makes a good case for this being otherwise) because of ‘big, bad Russia’ and its ‘anti-gay’ laws. Stamp on the rainbow flag and you’re guaranteed to make enemies with some of these people. You’ve probably noticed that the majority of pro-Russian, left-leaning sites (Global Research being a prime example, and a pretty informative site, for what it’s worth) never mention this aspect of Russia, but mainly focus on its anti-Western, anti-imperial policies. Pretty similar to how anti-Russian leftist media in the West never mention how their best friends in Saudi Arabia have chopped more heads off queers in the past year than you can count.

      On that note, as well as a surge in Syria, the Houthis in Yemen need a hand. Any group that has ‘Down with America, Down with Israel, Curse on the Jews’ as part of their official motto is well worth supporting.

    • Eric

      The Leftist-Palestinian “alliance” is a legacy from Soviet times, not ideological at this point. In the 60’s and 70’s there were a number of communist groups operating in Palestine against the Israelis, they’re still around but now leadership has been assumed by Hamas. By the 1970’s, as bad as the USSR was, it was ironically seen as a conservative alternative by much of the third world to American Judeo-capitalism and its cultural Marxism.

      Palestinian groups work with Leftists from the West only out of pragmatism, since the “right-wing” is largely nothing but an Israel amen corner. They have fundamentally different views, and in fact, Jews are some the biggest proponents of it because they know that when you infiltrate successful movements with cultural Marxist hang-ups, you weaken them. Imagine going to a pro-Palestinian conference and having some Jew kick you out for saying Jews control the media and U.S. government- that’s the reality in many of these groups. Jews run many or most of the pro-Palestinian groups in America in order to police and prevent them from getting on the right track.

      Generally, the Western Marxists who supported the USSR after WW2 were known as “tankies”, who often held similar views as us on issues of anti-imperialism and national self-determination. The Trotskyists, who were often Jewish and later went on to form the neo-conservative movement, leaned towards Israel even if they didn’t always come right out to say it (their “critical support” and analysis of the Palestinians naturally led to supporting Israel).

      The dynamic is playing out again in a different form in Ukraine and Syria. Some say Putin is trying to re-create the Soviet Union. So what? Even George Lincoln Rockwell said the USSR in his time was a bulwark for moral conservatism compared to America’s Union Square Jew communists, even if they had a number of their own social problems.

      It’s hard to take those smaller Baltic countries talking about independence and sovereignty from Russia seriously when they turn around and yield their national self-determination to the European Union, or plan on joining it like Ukraine. If the Ukrainian people wanted to be in the EU, they would’ve elected the EU friendly candidate who ran against Yanukevych in what even the UN and Brussels called the fairest election in Ukrainian history.

  • Eric

    Didn’t mean equal number, meant “GREATER” number. The same is true for nationalists, most lean towards Putin in that conflict.

  • Lew

    I don’t see Assad surviving unless the US decides that keeping him better serves US interests than a possible takeover by Sunni nuts the US can’t fully control or an imploded failed state that will create regional chaos the US can’t fully control. Assad has many powerful enemies, including Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, not to mention the US and Israel. It’s amazing he has lasted this long.

    I predict Russia won’t do anything meaningful to help Assad.

    • Eric

      Don’t believe what the media is telling you. Saudi Arabia, Israel, and USA have increased their support for Al-Qaeda in Syria, but the Jewish media is exaggerrating their recent gains. The areas the Syrian terrorists are taking back are of low strategic value, while important areas that were once rebel strongholds are now locked down.

      If the Iranians keep supporting the Syrians, they’ll emerge victorious when the smoke clears. Saudi Arabia, which is the main logistical entity supporting Al-Nusra front, will be in for a nasty surprise if they decide to invade Yemen, and this will impact their conspiracy in Syria.

  • Lew

    I don’t what anyone could possibly need to conclude Putin is no friend of anyone opposed to the American agenda than sitting to cut deals with Americans.

    “It’s important to try to talk to the senior decision maker,” said the State Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity under the agency’s protocol for briefing reporters. “[The United States and Russia] have a lot of business that we could do together if there is interest.”

    American officials are hoping that the reversals of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria on the battlefield will give Russia an incentive to withdraw support for the leader and cooperate with the United States on ways to encourage a political transition to a post-Assad government.

    The two sides are also expected to discuss the apparent decision by the Assad government to start using chlorine gas again, and possibly other chemical agents. Russia and the United States drafted the2013 agreement that required Syria to get rid of its arsenal of poison gas, and allegations about the use of chlorine bombs suggest that the pact was less successful than the Americans had hoped.

    “We made progress in the chemical weapons,” the State Department official said. “There is more to do.”

    Mr. Kerry is expected to restate the United States’ objections to Russia’s sale of the S-300 air defense system to Iran, after Mr. Putin recently rescinded a ban on the sale of the weapon to Tehran.

    American officials have long been concerned that Iran’s acquisition of the S-300 might prompt its leaders to conclude that their nuclear installations would not be vulnerable to an American airstrike. That, in turn, could lead Iran to take a harder line in the nuclear talks and to be less likely to honor an accord that was negotiated, American officials say.

    • Eric

      The 20 or so Jews making American foreign policy at PNAC have had Putin in their sniper scope for a few years now, but some children will insist “PUTIN- JEW!”.

      How people can’t see the cause and effect of Putin saving Assad from American and British (IE Jewish) intervention, and the Maidan coup in Ukraine shortly after, just shows how superfluous and child-like certain whites can be.

    • Eric

      There is no white argument in favor of the Ukrainians. With some exceptions (like Greg Johnson, who hates Putin mostly because he’s a fag), most of the people favoring the Ukrainians are either Baltic ethnic chauvinists (who don’t seem to mind having 0 sovereignty in the European Union, funny that) or trolls who don’t take this seriously like “Kike Slayer” and “Oven Master”.

    • Lew

      I certainly don’t believe Putin is a Jew. I see that question as a red herring and what the Syria and Ukraine events mean in terms of geo-politics and potential impact on whites related but separate issues from the issue of whether Putin’s agenda helps whites or not.

      IMO, the relevant issue when it comes to Putin and Jews for people who want the good for whites are:

      a) inside Russia, to what extent does Putin allow Jews broad authority or influence over Russian affairs

      – and –

      b) outside Russia, whether Putin is opposing Jews in ways that are helpful to whites away from Russia’s near abroad, whites not some other group.

      By those two standards, the case for Putin as even an accidental pro-white actor is weak to non-existent. Acknowledging that reality does not mean one must support the US.

      As recently as 2010, the former Russian Prime Minister and now chairman of Gazprom Viktor Zubkov met with Benjamin Netanyahu:

      The two men agreed on wide-ranging bilateral cooperation in the spheres of agriculture, economics, space research and natural gas exploration.

      Regarding agriculture, Prime Minister Netanyahu said that the combination of Israeli technology and know-how and water resources in Russia could lead to fruitful bilateral cooperation. Regarding natural gas, the Prime Minister called on Russian companies to join gas exploration efforts in Israel and said that he had no doubt that Israel could learn much from Russian companies’ considerable experience and know-how in the field.The two men also discussed the Iranian issue and space research.

      And also,

      Prime Minister Netanyahu briefed his guests on the progress in establishing a national memorial in Israel to commemorate Red Army soldiers who fell during World War II and the hundreds of thousands of Jews who fought in its ranks. Russian First Deputy Prime Minister Zubkov expressed great appreciation for the establishment of the memorial and recognized the role of the Red Army veterans now living in Israel in the historic victory over Nazi Germany.

      That isn’t Putin and some nobody Rabbi. It’s Russia’s former PM and now Chairman of Gazprom sitting down with the man Putin is supposedly opposing. It’s interesting to me personally how, based on the recap, Zubkov and Netanyahu didn’t even stick to business. They took time for a symbolic twist of the knife in Germany’s back, symbolism that matters a lot because it reinforces the most important Jewish narratives. I know of no instance where Putin has ever challenged the claimed moral authority of Jews.
      It just seems to me like Putin and Russia’s defenders consistently ignore this kind of stuff or hand-wave it away.

      PM Netanyahu meets Russian First Deputy PM Zubkov and economic delegation

    • Lew

      And, again, pointing out problems with Putin’s agenda from a white POV does not translate into support for the US, at least not for me.

    • Lew

      Given the importance of meta-narratives, Putin’s willingness to consistently reinforce Jewish narratives might matter a lot more in the scheme of things than Russia’s various maneuverings in response to realpolitik considerations.

      Given the importance of meta-narratives, one question that occurs to me is how do you promote a traditionalist narrative that includes the good for whites without opposing Jewish narratives? To promote Jewish narratives is to promote anti-white narratives.

      Somebody submit that question to Dugin for me…

    • Eric

      A lot of people have trouble seeing the forest for the trees.

      if there’s 30 people overseeing Russian policy over the Ukraine, and 1 or 2 of them happen to be Jewish, that does not mean Jewish control of Russia. Ukrainian “nationalists” and their idiot supporters who are working with actual Jewish world power and NATO, however, seize on details like that in order to justify their wrongdoing.

      On the other hand, the Project for a New American Century, which was one of the think-tanks behind the Ukrainian coup and current American support for groups like Azov, is composed of like 25 Jews and only a few Gentiles. That case is when you’re safe saying it’s a Jewish conspiracy.

    • Lew

      You may have the impression I see reasons to support the Ukrainian nationalists. I don’t. I agree with you the Ukrainian coup was just that — a coup sponsored by US leaders, principally by the Jewish faction among them, undertaken for the purpose of bringing NATO to Russia’s border and to lay the groundwork to bring Russia fully into the globalist fold by force or short of that destroy Russia. I also see it as a coup that would have not have been successful without a lot of legitimately aggrieved people living in Western Ukraine. None of that has a lot of relevance to whether Russia’s action in Ukraine and elsewhere will have any kind of positive impact accidental or otherwise on the white situation. These are complex issues.

  • Lew
  • an observer

    Putin isn’t a white nationalist, he’s a Russian nationalist, so people should stop looking at his actions and policy through a WN lens. He’s president of the Российская Федерация, with Российская, instead of Русская implying something that is not monoethnically white or monoculturally Russian, but is instead made of up literally hundreds of different peoples and languages.

    He’s out to defend the interests of his nation and the peoples dwelling therein, so we need to look at things from that angle when analysing his actions. If playing friendly with the State of Israel ensures some modicum of stability for your country, you just need to ‘play the game’, as it were.

    I’ve enjoyed Eric’s input on this and other recent conversations about Putin etc, so thank you for your insights.

    • Lew

      I’m not sure what your point is. If your point is that helping European and diaspora Europeans is not on Putin’s agenda, because he is out for his own nation, then that is basically what I and others have been saying for a long time now. That’s the point.

      Russian leaders are out for Russian interests, narrowly defined. If you want to expand the point a bit and say helping non-white traditional peoples living outside Russia’s immediate sphere of geo-political concern is not on Putin’s agenda either, I think that is an accurate statement too given the available evidence.

      As for non-white traditional peoples living inside Russia’s immediate sphere of influence, I have a hard time believing any help they are getting is because they are traditional. That detail should matter a lot for anyone claiming Russia is defending traditional ways. Just because traditional peoples live in the places Russia supports does not mean Russia supports them because they are traditional. That should be pretty obvious.

      The United States quietly supports the hardcore anti-modernism of Saudi Arabia. Are we to interpret American support for Saudi anti-modernism as an unintended side effect of American policy, or evidence of stealth American backing for autocratic monarchy and other pre-modern ways of life? That question ought to answer itself pretty quickly.

      Would Putin would be acting any differently toward Iran and Syria if they were run by secular homosexuals who promote equality, drink Starbucks, listen to Lady Gaga and favor gay marriage? And if not — say all that matters is not whether Putin intends to help traditional Syrians and Iranians only that he accidentally does — then how do you get to the idea Russia is a force for traditionalism?

      I have nothing but the utmost respect for TYN. But Putin is not leading a traditional counter-revolution against US globalism. It’s not happening. At this point a lot of people seem to have what amounts to an emotional attachment to the idea. Myself, I wish it was true. It just doesn’t seem to be true.

    • an observer

      You make fair points. I’m not going to say that Putin is a defender of traditionalism, as I don’t see that either. He’s a national leader who is defending his national interests.

      Although I’m reluctant to call him a traditionalist, he does stand for traditional values, based on his genuine Russian Orthodox faith, and he works to encourage them. I’d say his foreign policy in many cases could be based on his desire to protect fellow Orthodox Christians in places like Syria and the wider Middle East – he’s spoken about this a few times. Russia was, and could well become again, the power responsible for defending the Church. This could explain his outreach to Syriza in Greece – hardly traditionalists, but a stable and secure Greece means a stable and secure Orthodox population there.

      Likewise in Ukraine – Putin is not defending traditionalism there, and Novorussia is not traditionalist, although it does lean towards a more traditional way of life in many aspects, because of the population’s Orthodox faith. The Ukrainian situation is an ideological conflict with many layers – the ‘secular’ layer of US/NATO/ZOG attempts to weaken and destroy Russia, and the ‘spiritual’ layer, of Uniate/Schismatic/Jew attempts to weaken and destroy Orthodoxy.

      In my opinion, Putin is standing against USA/the West/globalisation not out of some dedication to traditionalism, but primarily because it hurts Russia, and it is evident that Russia is the main target in most US-led political affairs. Also, he stands against it as an Orthodox Christian, wanting to defend his Church and his people against destructive external influences.

    • Eric

      Putin shouldn’t be defended on the basis that he is a white nationalist or even a staunch traditionalist. He should be supported because he is an anti-imperialist, and that is good for whites and the world in general. Whether on purpose or not, Russia is far more normal and sane than any country in the European Union or the United States, even if they don’t all go to church on sunday.

      We should support Iran, North Korea, etc all for the same reason. It doesn’t matter what they believe, if it’s bad for Zion, it’s good for whites.

  • Lew

    and the ‘spiritual’ layer, of Uniate/Schismatic/Jew attempts to weaken and destroy Orthodoxy.

    The Orthodox have flown under the US-Jewry’s radar since the end of WW2 for various reasons. Increasingly, the Eye of Sauron is turning in their direction. I’m sure Jews are also motivated by punishing the hated Russian goy and the Orthodox church. Jews have a bottomless thirst for hate that can never be satisfied.

    • an observer

      They thought they had us beat when the Bolsheviks were in charge, but a resurgent and growing Orthodox Church has proved them wrong. The gates of hell will not prevail.

      The Orthodox Church has actually managed to avoid the worst of the Jewish plots against her, due to the symphony of the Church with the Christian Roman (Byzantine) and Russian Emperors. The Talmud was banned and episcopal consecrations were tightly monitored in order to ensure that no one from the Fifth Column was put into positions from which they could attack the Holy Church. This is briefly mentioned in the excellent book “The Plot Against the Church” by ‘Maurice Pinay’. Although a Roman Catholic publication of the pre-Vatican II anti-Orthodox persuasion, it does favourably mention the Church’s success in repelling Jewish infiltration up until the latter part of the Russian Empire’s history.

      It is also documented in this interesting essay:

It's Time for a Surge

By: Matt Parrott

Matt is a founding member of TradYouth and is currently the project's Chief Information Officer. He's been active in the White Identity cause for years, primarily as a blogger but also as a street activist and regional organizer.
%d bloggers like this: