Global Revolutionary Alliance (Manifesto) Reply


Global Revolutionary Alliance


(program, principles, strategy)

Dissatisfied all over the world, unite!

Christ Almighty! US Foreign Policy vs. Middle Eastern Christianity Reply

By Justin Raimondo

The US State Department has quietly ceased cataloging violations of religious freedom in its “Country Reports on Human Rights.” Of course, it’s just a coincidence that this comes at a time when Washington is allying with radical Islamists in Libya, Syria, and Iraq. As CNS reports:

The U.S. State Department removed the sections covering religious freedom from the Country Reports on Human Rights that it released on May 24, three months past the statutory deadline Congress set for the release of these reports.

The new human rights reports—purged of the sections that discuss the status of religious freedom in each of the countries covered—are also the human rights reports that include the period that covered the Arab Spring and its aftermath.

Thus, the reports do not provide in-depth coverage of what has happened to Christians and other religious minorities in predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East that saw the rise of revolutionary movements in 2011 in which Islamist forces played an instrumental role.


The Natural Map of the Middle East Reply

By Pat Buchanan

“Apart from political maps of mankind, there are natural maps of mankind. … One of the first laws of political stability is to draw your political boundaries along the lines of the natural map of mankind.”

So wrote H.G. Wells in What Is Coming: A Forecast of Things to Come After the War in the year of Verdun and the Somme Offensive.

In redrawing the map of Europe, however, the statesmen of Versailles ignored Wells and parceled out Austrians, Hungarians, Germans and other nationalities to alien lands to divide, punish and weaken the defeated peoples.

So doing they set the table for a second world war.

The Middle East was sliced up along lines set down in the secret Sykes-Picot agreement. But with the Islamic awakening and Arab Spring toppling regimes, the natural map of the Middle East seems now to be asserting itself.

“Whoever was behind the attack on the Israeli tourists seems to want a war between the Jewish state of Israel and the Shia state of Iran.”

Suckering Liberals into Supporting Foreign Wars Reply

By Stuart Bramhall

George Washington has written a great post – Why Do Progressive Liberals Fall for Humanitarian War? – on Zero Hedge. It’s quite an an interesting site dedicated to “widening the scope of information available to the investing public.” All posts are submitted under fictitious names. In general the perspective offered contrasts drastically with the mainstream business press.

George Washington makes some great points, starting with reminders of warnings from US founding fathers regarding the tyranny of standing armies and from liberal economists (like Galbraith and Stiglitz) that large military budgets destroy our economy and help the rich at the expense of everyone else.

Among others:

  • Suicide bombings have never been uniquely Islamic and more than 95% occur in response to foreign occupation.
  • Regime change (in Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc) is a very old strategy pursued by the neoconservatives who wrote The Project for a New American Century.
  • In Syria we are fighting on the same side as the al Qaeda terrorists who comprise the majority of the Syrian opposition.

He finishes off with a discussion of the role of the mainstream media – which starts back in 1917 with Edward Bernays, Woodrow Wilson and the birth of the public relations industry – in hoodwinking liberals into taking a position on foreign military intervention that is contrary to their basic value system.

The article is well researched and has extensive links to supporting documentation.

Read more here

America’s Newest Enemy? Reply

By Eric Margolis

WASHINGTON—I was visiting Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States in the spring of 2011 when the phone on his desk rang.

“The hotline,” he said. “Sorry, I have to take this call.”

As he listened, his expression grew darker and darker. Finally, he banged down the phone and exploded: “Another US drone attack that killed our people. We were never warned the attack was coming. We are supposed to be US allies!”

This strongly pro-American ambassador was wrong. While the US hails Pakistan as a key non-NATO ally, America treats it like an occupied country. Islamabad’s government is left to observe increasing drone attacks and CIA ground operations with deepening embarrassment and helplessness.

Many Pakistanis tend to believe the US more or less occupied their nation after 9/11.

“While the US hails Pakistan as a key non-NATO ally, America treats it like an occupied country.”

Empire and the Denial of Death Reply

By Thomas Naylor

I was so taken by James Howard Kunstler’s book The Long Emergency back in 2005 that I immediately invited him to be the keynote speaker for the Vermont Independence Convention that year in the Vermont State House in Montpelier.  After reading his compelling novel,World Made By Hand, about life in a post oil world, I invited him to speak at our 2008 convention as well.  In both appearances he made it clear that while he thought the Empire was in deep trouble, a secessionist he was not.

More recently I have been reading his blogpost bearing the quaint title Clusterfuck Nation, which is one of the most vitriolic attacks on America and Americans I have ever read.  Kunstler really does not like Americans.


Freedom, Equality, Justice, and Liberty Forever Reply

By Thomas Naylor

The new American flag forever postage stamp series recently released by the U.S. Postal Service represents a degree of hypocrisy heretofore unimaginable.  Below the American flag on each stamp is one of the following four words – freedom, equality, justice, or liberty – followed by the word “forever.”  For example, “freedom forever.”  The not so subtle message of American exceptionalism is that the United States is a country in which freedom, equality, justice, and liberty will surely live forever.  The sheer arrogance underlying this postage stamp series is almost beyond belief.


Gore Vidal and Revisionism Reply

By Jeff Riggenbach

One of the forces involved in the recent heating up of the perennial American-history wars was the brilliant critical and popular success, during the 1970s and early 1980s, of the first three books in Gore Vidal’s six-volume[1] “American Chronicle” series of historical novels about the United States. Burr (1973), 1876 (1976), andLincoln (1984) were enormous successes. They proved beyond any doubt that the public would not rise up in indignation and smite any author who dared to question the motives and the wisdom of even the most venerated American presidents. They proved that there was, in fact, a substantial market for just such skepticism about the glorious American past.

Partisans of the America-as-pure-and-virtuous-beacon-of-liberty-prosperity-and-peace mythology attacked Vidal’s novels, of course, but Vidal made it quite clear in a couple of detailed replies to his critics (first published in the New York Review of Books) that he knew at least as much about the history of the periods he depicted in his novels as any of them did — PhD’s and members of the professoriate though they might be.

Gore Vidal was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and was educated in expensive private schools in and around Washington DC. He grew up around politics. His father was a high ranking official in the Franklin Roosevelt administration, the director of the Bureau of Air Commerce, the agency known today as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). His maternal grandfather, who lived in the Vidal family home, was the venerable, sightless US senator Thomas Pryor Gore (D-Oklahoma), and Vidal recalls the daily ritual of being

sent with car and driver to pick up my grandfather at the Capitol and bring him home. In those casual days [ca. 1935–1937], there were few guards at the Capitol — and, again, [“Washington was a small town where”] everyone knew everyone else. I would wander on to the floor of the Senate, sit on my grandfather’s desk if he wasn’t ready to go, experiment with the snuff that was ritually allotted each senator; then I would lead him off the floor.[2]

In his 30s, after years as an author of modern mainstream novels, a scenarist for motion pictures and television, and an intellectual journalist, Vidal decided to try his hand at historical fiction. Given his early political background, Vidal might well have been expected to focus his new historical fiction on the politics and diplomacy of the times he sought to depict. And that is precisely what he did. His first historical novel was Julian (1964), a portrait of the Roman emperor who attempted to reverse his nation’s official adoption of Christianity as the state religion, in hopes of reverting to the long-discarded paganism of earlier days. His second historical novel, Washington DC (1967), takes place in this nation’s capital between 1937 and 1952 and depicts the major events of that time — the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the Second World War, the death of FDR, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the beginning of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, the McCarthy Era — as they might have been seen by politicians and journalists plying their crafts on the shores of the Potomac during those years. This second historical novel has its admirers, but it seems fair to say that its principal importance lies not in its text but rather in what it led to. For it was the first step in the creation of Vidal’s American Chronicle, a series of historical novels whose phenomenal success makes it worthwhile to contemplate at some length. It may fairly be said, I believe, that no success on this scale has been enjoyed by any historical novelist writing with serious artistic and scholarly intent about America since — well, since the days of Kenneth Roberts.


Interview with Alexander Dugin 3

From Counter-Currents
Polish translation here

3,214 words


In February 2012, Professor Alexander Dugin traveled to New Delhi, India to attend the 40th World Congress of the International Institute of Sociology, the theme of which was “After Western Hegemony: Social Science and its Publics.”Professor Dugin was kind enough to take some time away from the conference to answer a few questions by representatives of Arktos who attended the event.In this interview, we attempted to have Professor Dugin clarify some of his basic beliefs in order to dispel the confusion and misrepresentations that exist about him and his movement, the Eurasian Movement, and its offshoot, the Global Revolutionary Alliance, in the English-speaking world. The interview was conducted by Daniel Friberg, CEO of Arktos, and John B. Morgan, Editor-in-Chief.


War Criminals in Our Midst Reply

By Paul Craig Roberts

The State Department has an office that hunts German war criminals. Bureaucracies being what they are, the office will exist into next century when any surviving German prison guards will be 200 years old. From time to time the State Department claims to have found a lowly German soldier who was assigned as a prison camp guard.  The ancient personage, who had lived in the US for the past 50 or 60 years without doing harm to anyone, is then merciless persecuted, usually on the basis of hearsay.  I have never understood what the State Department thinks the alleged prison guard was supposed to have done–freed the prisoners, resign his position?–when Prussian aristocrats, high-ranking German Army generals and Field Marshall and national hero Erwin Rommel were murdered for trying to overthrow Hitler.

What the State Department needs is an office that rounds up American war criminals.

They are in abundance and not hard to find.  Indeed, recently 56 of them made themselves public by signing a letter to President Obama demanding that he send in the US Army to complete the destruction of Syria and its people that Washington has begun.

At the Nuremberg Trials of the defeated Germans after World War II, the US government established the principle that naked aggression–the American way in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, and Yemen–is a war crime. Therefore, there is a very strong precedent for the State Department to round up those neoconservatives who are fomenting more war crimes.


Is Mitt Being Neoconned Into War? Reply

By Pat Buchanan

Has Mitt Romney given Israel a blank check for war?

So it seemed from the declaration in Jerusalem by his adviser Dan Senor, who all but flashed Israel a green light for war, signaling the Israelis that, if you go, Mitt’s got your back:

“If Israel has to take action on its own in order to stop Iran from developing that capability, the governor would respect that decision.”

“No option would be excluded. Gov. Romney recognizes Israel’s right to defend itself and that it is right for America to stand with it.”

What does “stand with” Israel, if she launches a surprise attack on Iran, mean? Does it mean the United States will guide Israeli planes to their targets and provide bases on their return? Does it mean U.S. air cover while Israeli planes strike Iran?

This would make America complicit in a pre-emptive strike and a co-belligerent in the war to follow.

What Senor said comes close to being a U.S. war guarantee for Israel, while leaving the decision as to when the war begins to them.

This country has never done that before.


Netanyahu Tells Panetta US Threats Toward Iran Not Enough Reply

Netanyahu: Another guy who just needs to go fuck himself.

By John Glaser

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday said US threats of military options against Iran are not enough, suggesting the Obama administration ought to prepare for war against Iran’s imaginary nuclear weapons program.

“Right now the Iranian regime believes that the international community does not have the will to stop its nuclear program,” Netanyahu during a visit from US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.


On Patriotism: Examining the Firmware of War Reply

By Fred Reed

Patriotism is everywhere thought to be a virtue rather than a mental disorder. I don’t get it.

If I told the Rotarians or an American Legion hall that “John is a patriot,” all would approve greatly of John. If I told them that patriotism was nothing more than the loyalty to each other of dogs in a pack, they would lynch me. Patriotism, they believe, is a Good Thing.

Of course the Japanese pilots who attacked Pearl Harbor were patriots, as were the German soldiers who murdered millions in the Second World War. The men who brought down the towers in New York were patriots, though of a religious sort. Do we admire their patriotism?