Tag: nationalism

The Last Thing America Needs

John Slaughter understands what Rod Dreher and his fellow conservatives in the Republican Party and the Trump administration do not. The very last thing that America needs is conservatives attempting to “reform” the United States of 2025:

Conservatism now finds itself wedged between the left and a resurgent right, and like any cornered animal it lashes out with full intensity. We have already seen this in its readiness to destroy anyone even mildly skeptical of the Israel lobby. Conservatives have fervently used opposition to Isreal as a way to discredit emerging right-wing voices, partly because they are tied to Israel ideologically and financially, but also because it provides a useful pretext to rid themselves of right-wing voices.

The left, notably, has its own internal split over Israel–Palestine, yet it does not use that this as a tool to destroy its coalition. Conservatism does…because at the end of the day it is closer to the left than to the right. It accepts the progressive project and merely wishes to slow it, and so it views an actual right as the true threat. It also knows that if a real right ever took power, the professional conservative class be exiled. A genuine right would reverse the revolution: it would say “no more,” it would define who belongs and who does not, it would close the gates, it would revitalize heritage Americans. Conservatism cannot permit that, so it will strike the right long before it risks open conflict with the left.

This is why we must step past conservatism. If we don’t, it will persist forever as a placebo, an aspirin for civilizational cancer. It will keep saying, “We’re not the left,” and a certain portion of Americans, terrified of what the left is doing, will keep taking that sugar pill and thinking something is being done, and sit quietly while their country is looted.

As America accelerates toward a minority–majority reality, politics will reveal itself for what it has always been in pluralistic societies: ethnic politics. This reality was long obscured because, for most of the nation’s history, the population was overwhelmingly White. Only after the 1960s did the ethnic reality of democratic competition begin to surface at the national level. In a multiethnic state composed of numerous rival peoples, every bloc becomes political capital, and parties exist to serve those blocs. The left understands this and has organized itself accordingly. The right, if it remains imprisoned in the conservative fantasy of an abstraction-based nation, will be defeated. You cannot win an ethnic game by refusing to play it.

Conservatism cannot supply a common enemy, cannot supply a shared nation, cannot supply a unified faith. It cannot define what an American is, cannot name who belongs, cannot name who does not. All it can do is administer decline.

He’s underlining what John Red Eagle and I were the first to point out ten years ago. Being neither a political philosophy nor an ideology, and having no principles of any kind, conservatism is a literal guarantee of eventual failure.

That was as true in 1980 as it is now. The difference is that now, the observation is inescapable.

DISCUSS ON SG

A Faith in Failure

Rod Dreher admits that conservatism has completely failed, but he still refuses to give up either his hopes for reform or his faith in the essential goodness of the Synagogue of Satan while he laments the refusal of young men to swallow the same bullshit lies that their fathers and grandfathers did.

As our conversation went on, I heard real despair — and well-informed despair — that democracy is going to hold in the West, because the conditions that make for a viable democracy are disappearing: the dissolution of a common culture, the collapse of religion in his generation, the material impoverishment of his generation, and so forth.

I tell you, it was dark. But I kept hearing this, over and over, and I concluded that it cannot be dismissed.

The inability of us older people — Boomers, Xers, and older Millennials — to comprehend the world through the eyes of Zoomers is a big, big problem. Another strong theme: while it’s important to take a clear stand against anti-Semitism in the ranks, there is no way to gatekeep our way out of this. You cannot simply point at the Zoomers and say, “Thou shalt not,” and expect it to work. The problems are too deep and complex, and anyway, they have learned to have no respect for authority.

Why should they? The institutions of our society, as they see it, have lied and lied and lied, and still lie. They still lie in many ways about race (e.g., refusing to be honest about black crime), they lied about Covid, they lied about males and females, and they forced the insanity of gender ideology on us all. The military lied about Iraq. The universities embraced and enforced ideologies of lies. The Catholic Church lied about sexual abuse, and the connection to the prevalence of sexually active gay priests honeycombing the institution. They lied about the benefits of mass migration and diversity. They lied about Trump and Russia. The political parties and their corporate allies lied about what globalism would mean for ordinary people.

The media have lied and do lie about most things… Trust in the system is gone. Hell, I share most of these conclusions myself! The difference is that I am not a nihilist; I don’t want to tear it all down, but rather reform it.

There will be no reformation. There can be no reformation, for the obvious reason that there is nothing left to reform. Democracy is dead. The USA is no longer an American nation. The very purpose of the Constitution has not only been subverted, but inverted and is actively used to suppress and repress the rights of the very Posterity it was meant to secure.

As I wrote in 2004, one cannot revive a corpse. The lamentations of the conservatives are nothing more than morning for the world that they lost, for the world that they refused to defend on the basis of their fundamentally false assumptions about the wicked who have labored without ceasing to destroy America, Western civilization, and Christianity itself.

They have already succeeded in destroying the USA. They may be successful in destroying Western civilization. They will never succeed in destroying Christianity.

In the meantime, what is Rod Dreher’s plan for “reforming” this? I really fail to see how importing more Indians on H1B visas, attacking antisemitism, or sending more money to Israel is going to improve this situation in the slightest.

So if the young men want to burn everyone who was responsible for this absolutely unnecessary and completely avoidable civilizational catastrophe at the stake, I, for one, absolutely understand their point of view and I don’t give a quantum of a fraction of a damn about all the conservative legalistic dancing about how those who were obviously responsible for creating the situation weren’t the only ones involved.

This perspective from a Republican politico of color only underlines how little the conservatives and the Republicans understand the situation.

“These idiots don’t understand that they can’t win an election on a whites-only platform,” he said. “They’re delusional. There are a lot of immigrants and native-born members of ethnic groups who are natural Republicans, and whom Donald Trump won in 2024. Take Indians, for example — if you think they are going to stick with a movement whose leader [Fuentes] denounces Usha Vance as a ‘jeet,’ you’re crazy. But that’s how they think.”

They’re not delusional. They simply don’t give one single solitary fragment of a fuck about winning elections anymore, nor should they. They are not Republicans! These myopic conservative morons should ask the young British men how much being ruled over by Jeets like Dishy Rishy appealed to them. They don’t want any foreigners as part of their movement, as part of their government, or as part of their society anymore. Because it’s not an ideological movement, it’s an identity movement, which is a natural, inevitable, and absolutely necessary development for whites in a multiracial, multireligious empire like the USA, as per Lee Kwan Yew, a politician whose grasp of politics vastly exceeded that of these conservative poltroons.

I publicly predicted all of this back in 2004. I said that the long-term winning strategy for Republicans was to stop pandering to minorities and become the White People’s Party. They didn’t listen then, they won’t listen now, and they probably won’t even begin to think about the possibility that I was correct until their electoral prospects begin to approach that of the current Conservative Party in the UK.

DISCUSS ON SG

Dinesh D’Souza Goes Mask-Off

There is no such thing as integration in a mass immigration context. Dinesh D’Souza is an immigrant from India who has lived in the USA for 47 years. He’s been active in Republican Party politics since his days at The Dartmouth Review and he is a fairly well-respected right-wing figure. But for all of his staunch right-wing ideology, he’s still willing to cast both his ideology and the American national interest aside in favor of his Indian identity.

Most people can’t even begin to understand how insane this is. Far, far worse than Vivek’s meltdown at Christmas. Dinesh has spent literal decades pretending to be raceblind, and railing against identity politics.

Then, when H-1B immigration starts to receive even the smallest pushback, he goes out of his way, under no pressure, literally 0, none, not even someone replying to him or talking about politics, to find a random YouTuber who is documenting something unsavoury about india, and brag that America and her future “belongs” to indians like him. He saw some people insulting indians, and he immediately dropped the mask he had maintained for decades, became an outright ethnonationalist, and started bragging that he and his coethnics will take over America.

Dinesh is incredibly prominent, and has spent FOUR DECADES working his way into American politics. For 40 years he has been telling Americans to abandon identity politics. And the whole time he was just a closeted indian ethnonationalist, disguising his true beliefs. How many more foreign-born political commentators think exactly like him? How many political commentators who are born to immigrant parents think exactly like him?

Dinesh D’Souza is literally an indian ethnonationalist who is insulting White Americans and bragging that indians will take over the USA. This should be 10x more disqualifying than even Vivek’s worst moments.

Mass immigration is the fatal flaw and antithesis of democracy, even representative democracy. Because in a representative democracy, all immigration, legal or otherwise, is intrinsically destabilizing to both the society and the political system. And in the American context, it is also specifically opposed to the very purpose of the US Constitution, which was ordained and established by its authors “to promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”.

Dinesh D’Souza is not part of the American Posterity. And his actions prove it.

DISCUSS ON SG

He Wasn’t Wrong

Twenty-five years ago, the Atlanta Braves pitcher John Rocker wrote an impassioned observation about the decline of New York.

“Imagine having to take the 7 Train to the ballpark looking like you’re riding through Beirut next to some kid with purple hair, next to some queer with AIDS, right next to some dude who just got out of jail for the fourth time, right next to some 20-year-old mom with four kids. It’s depressing. The biggest thing I don’t like about New York are the foreigners. You can walk an entire block in Times Square and not hear anybody speaking English. Asians and Koreans and Vietnamese and Indians and Russians and Spanish people and everything up there. How the hell did they get in this country?”

He was roundly condemned for this by the national media, by Major League Baseball, and was even forced to undergo professional counseling for the thought crime of noticing the consequences of the foreign invasion the city was undergoing. And now, with what appears to be the imminent election of a socialist Muslim born in Uganda to the highest elective office in New York City, he’s taking a well-earned victory lap.

25 years ago I criticized New York for its rapid decline into a third world country. I was forced to undergo Psychological Counseling, as if I were the crazy one. 25 years later, the city is voting in a muslim socialist for mayor.

This is an object lesson for all of the puritanical goodthinkers and immigration fetishists who drank the equalitarian Kool-Aid. Those Cassandras you condemned for being “crazy” and “racist” and “bigoted” were right all along. All of history, recent and ancient, clearly testifies to the obvious fact that if you permit a sufficient number of foreigners to enter your country, they will change it to suit their preferences with absolutely no respect for what was there before them.

The equalitarian ideology has failed. The Enlightenment has failed. Multiculturalism and anti-racism have failed. Immigration is a clear, present, and existential danger to most of the nations of the West.

If you are still having trouble understanding the concept, ask an American Indian to explain it to you.

DISCUSS ON SG

Denninger Rejects Conservatism

I’m very far from the only right-wing figure to shake free of the mainstream gatekeepers of the right and reject both the title and the substance of the false political posture of being “conservative,” and for much the same reasons that Karl Denninger points out:

No, I am not a “conservative.”

Why not?

Well, what is it that “conservatives” are allegedly attempting to conserve? That is the seminal question of course, much as someone who claims to be “liberal” should be expected to answer — “What is it you are allegedly attempting to liberate?”

“Conservatives” are certainly not attempting to conserve, for example, the fundamental principle of The Rule of Law. Were they, being allegedly in power at the federal level today, every health care provider who is discriminatorily pricing (e.g. “negotiating” the amount a procedure is paid based on who the insurance firm is, a blatantly felonious act for more than 100 years under 15 USC Chapter 1) would be commercially destroyed and all their directors and officers would be under indictment and facing forfeiture of their entire corporate body of wealth along with all of the wealth each and every director and officer has amassed.

Nor does it stop with health care; under 8 USC Section 1324 every entity who has solicited, harbored or transported illegal immigrants into the United States and suborned perjury through false asylum claims would also be under indictment, subject to civil forfeiture (bye-bye Catholic Charities and dozens of others) and every single one of those people who made such a false claim and is here would be notified that they have 24 hours to get out or be prosecuted for perjury and permanently barred from the United States if, upon examination, their claim is in fact bogus.

Never mind the recent “article” discussing why car insurance is so expensive in many states — ignoring those here illegally driving with no license, insurance and often unable to speak English — and of course in some cases causing wrecks. The insurance companies love this of course because being limited on percentage of revenue by state insurance commissions they are for any set of actions that causes more wrecks or more expensive wrecks since that’s the only way for them to make more money. Since such people have neither money or insurance the only place they can get the funds to fix the car (and fix you) is from you, the law-abiding citizen.

How about Somali migrants?  There’s enough fraud already uncovered for dozens or hundreds of indictments.  Hell, even back in 2008 this was known when 80% of claimed family relations were proved false by DNA testing!  Exactly how many of these people have been expelled?  There is no right to be here if you gained entry through fraud, so why haven’t we thrown all of them out if we now have a so-called “conservative” Immigration and State Departments?

Conservatives didn’t conserve the ladies room; they didn’t even manage to conserve the distinction between a man and a woman. They’re certainly not going to conserve either the U.S. Constitution, the United States, or Great Britain. If conservatism is not rejected, they won’t conserve the European nations either. Or, most likely, humanity itself.

This is why I describe myself as a Christian Nationalist rather than a conservative. First Jesus Christ. Then family. Then the nation. But everything, literally everything, springs from the Living Word, including the Good, the Beautiful, and the True. If you don’t understand that, or refuse to accept that, you cannot possibly hope to understand very much about the world around you.

And anyone who urges you to adulterate any of those three things is speaking in obvious deceit and seeking to destroy all three, no matter what he calls himself and no matter how he justifies his falsehoods.

In answer to Mr. Denninger’s question, what liberals are seeking to liberate, whether they realize it or not, is literal Hell on Earth.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Death of Conservatism

It’s not just in the USA. Conservative parties all over the world are dying because they have betrayed their nations and conserved absolutely nothing of value:

The most noticeable feature of politics in the West in recent years has been the swift and irreversible demise of traditional conservative parties. The disappearance of these parties has been dramatically illustrated by the grim fates that now await the UK Conservative Party and the Liberal/National Party coalition in Australia.

The Conservative Party governed the UK from 2010 until last year. The Coalition government held office in Australia from 1996 to 2007, and from 2013 until 2022. Both of these parties were soundly defeated at the polls by ideologically unified social democratic parties that were led by uninspiring and pedestrian politicians – namely Keir Starmer and Anthony Albanese.

This suggests that voters rejected the conservatives, rather than warmly embracing their social democratic opponents. UK Labour’s rapid fall from grace since last year’s election victory and the party’s current unpopularity confirms the correctness of this view.

More troubling for conservatives in the UK and Australia is the fact that both of these once dominant parties – so shortly after losing office – now find themselves in such acute states of internal disarray and that they have no realistic prospect of regaining office in the foreseeable future. In fact, it is clear that neither party has a viable long-term future at all…

These conservative parties – although in power for most of the past two decades – have resolutely refused to implement the kind of radical economic and social reforms necessary to remedy the serious economic inequalities and social problems that continue to bedevil all Western liberal democracies. In fact, despite their professed commitment to traditional values, conservative parties have – just like their social democratic counterparts – enthusiastically embraced and implemented the economic, cultural, and foreign policies of the new and now dominant global elites.

However, the death of the conservative parties is just the harbinger for the main event, which is the death of Western liberal democracy itself. The only question is if the global elites will somehow manage to hold on to power once their vehicle fails, or, as is much more likely, the new model nationalists will replace them in the West as they have already done in Russia, China, and elsewhere.

It’s telling that none of the self-styled champions of democracy ever advocate genuine direct democracy despite technology that obviously permits it, but instead, always exert their utmost efforts to prevent any and every aspect of direct democracy with the excuse of stopping “populism”.

DISCUSS ON SG

Destruction or Diversity

It’s really rather remarkable to observe how many people, even today, when faced between a clear, stark, and unavoidable choice between the collapse of society and diversity, will genuinely prefer complete societal ruin to accepting the reality of their moral and material obligations to prioritize the survival of their families, their religion, their nation, their language, and their culture.

However, the younger generations increasingly reject the Boomer ideals of integration and so-called “civil rights” because, unlike the Boomers and Generation X, they have grown up in an increasingly dystopian reality that has proven to be considerably different than the rainbow utopia previously conceived by the elderly demographic idealists who preceded them.

They are literally a rot that is killing every one of our cities. And most of the population lives in cities. Cities are the beating heart of a nation. It’s where the economy runs, where people are educated, where careers are built, where the entertainment is. If the people live in the cities, if a country is its cities, and if they are killing the cities, they are literally killing America. It is a death spiral.

It’s depressing. Paris, one of the world’s most beautiful cities, ruined—by this. Same with New York, same with LA. Look at what they’ve done to them. All because we’re afraid of being called racist. Well, I’m part of the new generation, and I can assure you I don’t give a single fuck about being called racist. I want our countries back. If that makes me racist, so be it. And increasingly, that’s how people feel about this.

We tried integrating. It didn’t work. This is the result. Who wants any part of it? Not even them. What’s the first thing they do when they make a lot of money? They get the fuck out of the ghetto. Why all the fuss about education? So they can send their kids to White schools. They want to live near us because they want our tax money. They want reparations because they want our money. It’s a toxic relationship. We want out.

Honest to God, what’s the benefit? What is the positive? All I see is a heavy net dragging in the water behind us, full of risks, resentment, and a constant storm of chaos and danger we can’t escape. They’re inflicting it on us, and we’re expected to tolerate it, and we’re being penalised for having an issue with it. We’ve argued, pleaded, bent over backwards, sacrificed our own to keep it together. For what? The weight on our backs is too great, and we’ve carried it long enough. The water’s up to our necks, the storm’s already here, and no one’s coming to save us. Either we find the courage to fix what’s broken, or we cut the net loose. Otherwise, we drown with it.

Because history doesn’t reward the timid. And if we don’t carve out our own future, far from the storm, we’ll be nothing but bones beneath their boots, mourned by no one, forgotten by all.

My suspicion is that most people who prefer societal collapse to segregation do so because the former is both a) in the future and b) comprehensive while the latter is a) in the present and b) personal. It’s not so much that they prefer the former to the latter as that they don’t believe the former is inevitable because they are incapable of seeing anything beyond their current personal perspective. Although this isn’t always true, as we’ve seen far too many mealy-mouthed Churchians dutifully mouthing the diversity dogma over the dead bodies of their children.

And this Churchian response underlines both the subversion of organized churches and the way in which Churchianity is actively contributing to the decline and fall of the Western civilization formerly known as Christendom.

I am reporting this post because it spreads hate and promotes racial stereotypes that are false, harmful, and dangerous. The content dehumanizes an entire group of people based on race and encourages fear, division, and segregation. It goes beyond expressing an opinion about crime or public safety; it scapegoats an entire community and normalizes prejudice as a survival strategy. As a Christian and someone who values personal responsibility, truth, and the dignity of every individual, I cannot allow content that encourages hatred to remain unchallenged. The post conflicts with the principles of justice, love, and moral courage that are central to both faith and a strong, free society. Reporting it is an act of standing for truth, community safety, and the protection of innocent lives from the toxic influence of racism.

Somehow, I don’t think the wagging fingers of outraged Boomers and self-righteous Churchians are going to impress the furious younger generations at all. Seldom has a society more deserved its inevitable fate than the post-WWII USA. The same is true of all the converged Churchian organizations, from the Roman Catholic Church to the Southern Baptist Conference. Neither the society nor the faiths, such as they are, will survive the 21st century. Some may not even make it to the halfway mark.

Germany’s chancellor Friedrich Merz has suggested ‘anyone with daughters’ would support his call for mass deportations of migrants from German cities. The conservative leader implied Germany faces a growing problem of sexual attacks linked to migration – remarks critics branded ‘dangerous’ and ‘deeply irresponsible.’

Those remarks may or may not be “dangerous” or “deeply irresponsible” but the only question that matters is if they are true or not. This, of course, is the question that the anti-American Nationalist Christian side now assiduously avoids.

The great irony here is that regardless of what the sum total of everyone’s professed preferences turn out to be, the end result will be pretty much the same. Because what follows ruin will look very similar to a nationalist authoritarianism instituted through political or military means, only it will come about after a long period of violence, economic catastrophe, and war.

Carthago semper cadit.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Post-WWII Moral Order

Since 1945, World War II has been the basis of Clown World’s civic religion, but with the observable decline of the West, neither the native masses nor the foreign invaders believe in it anymore:

Every civilization rests upon a sacred order, something that transcends the merely mortal and provides the framework through which value is arranged and meaning conferred. It is not a fiction but a sacred order that defines good and evil, memory and destiny, and determines what may be preserved and what must be condemned.

For the modern West, that faith is the Second World War.

It is remembered not as a conflict among nations but as the moment in which a new moral order was born. The war is treated as revelation, the event from which the moral legitimacy of the Western Regime descends. From it emerged a political theology that shaped institutions and public life, binding the Western world to a moral interpretation of its own survival.

Within this framework, Hitler ceased to be a historical figure and became a moral archetype, a new antichrist whose memory must be condemned. He stands as the emblem through which modern virtue is defined and the warning through which conformity is maintained. His image serves as the foundation of the postwar faith, a reference point invoked to justify authority and to police the boundaries of thought.

Through this transformation, a human tragedy was elevated into doctrine. The victors fashioned from their triumph a permanent narrative of righteousness that turned history into morality and memory into commandment. The faith endures because it explains the modern West to itself, granting coherence to its institutions and meaning to its exhaustion. It teaches that virtue lies in suppressing national will, that peace depends upon the renunciation of power, and that remembering the past too fully risks exposing the myths on which the present order rests.

The cult of the war did not remain confined to remembrance. It grew into a civic religion, woven into the structures of power and instruction. Its language pervades public life, where law and policy alike are judged against its moral vision. The past is recalled less to understand than to admonish, and history itself has been moralized into a sermon.

From this grew an orthodoxy that defines the limits of permissible thought. Nations may exist only as administrative zones and marketplaces, peoples as abstractions, and tradition as surface decoration. The religion grants the ruling order its moral immunity, for to question it is to profane what has been declared sacred.

As I pointed out to Louise Mensch, no one cares about World War II, the Nazis, or the Holocaust anymore than people cared about the Boxer Rebellion in 1939. Events that took place more than 80 years ago are simply not relevant to their lives or to their experience in any way, shape, or form.

This wasn’t true 30 years ago. When Spacebunny and I bought our first house, the man from whom we bought it was nearly brought to tears when meeting my grandfather, a Marine who fought in WWII, because he’d lost his brother in Normandy on D-Day. And an elderly British man of our acquaintance could barely hear the word “Israel” without his lip curling in disdain; he’d lost a brother in the Irgun’s bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946.

But nearly everyone with personal experience of WWII is now gone and the false moral order that was imposed in its aftermath is not only fading, but obviously bankrupt. We don’t know exactly what will take its place, but we do know that the post-post WII period is going to be very different than what preceded it. And we can be certain that the nations will rise again.

DISCUSS ON SG

Another Sign of the Inevitable

Turkey’s nationalists are beginning to openly push for a break with NATO and the Clown World West:

For decades, Turkish nationalism marched under the NATO flag. But now, one of Türkiye’s most influential right-wing leaders is calling for a turn East – toward Russia and China. His proposal may mark the country’s clearest ideological break with Atlanticism since joining the Alliance.

In September, Türkiye’s political landscape was shaken by a statement that many experts called sensational and potentially transformative. Devlet Bahceli, leader of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and a long-time ally of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan within the People’s Alliance, proposed the establishment of a strategic trilateral alliance involving Türkiye, Russia, and China to counter the “US-Israel evil coalition.”

Bahceli emphasized that such an alliance is “the most suitable option, considering reason, diplomacy, the spirit of politics, geographical conditions, and the strategic environment of the new century.” The proposal extends far beyond the usual nationalist agenda, positioning Türkiye as a player capable of initiating new formats of international cooperation.

To grasp the importance of this statement, we must note the historical context. Turkish pan-Turkism has traditionally been oriented toward the West, and nationalists were seen as staunch defenders of the pro-Atlantic course. In this light, Bahçeli’s call for an alliance with Moscow and Beijing marks a symbolic break from that tradition, reflecting growing distrust toward NATO and the US within Türkiye’s political landscape.

Bahceli’s comments are not random. Over the past few years, he has steadily ramped up his criticism of the West, advocating for Türkiye’s sovereign development “beyond blocs and alliances.” But this is the first time he has explicitly named Russia and China as preferred partners.

This obviously isn’t even remotely surprising, considering that I predicted it was going to happen over a year ago. But cooperation with an increasingly irrational and aggressive NATO is obviously not in Turkey’s best interests, given its past history of military conflict with Russia, and Turkey also has very serious reason to doubt that its allies will take its side in its coming conflict with Israel.

One thing that has escaped the notice of the mainstream analysts is the way that the fall of the Assad regime in Syria has set up an inevitable conflict between Turkey and Israel. Turkey clearly has a stronger historical claim to Jerusalem than the modern Jewish state, which was only held by the right of conquest by the Davidite dynasty for 270 years, less than the Romans (700 years), the Caliphates (332 years), or the Turks (401 years).

The elimination of Syria as a functional buffer state between Turkey and Israel means that war between the two states is inevitable. And both Erdogan and Turkey know that an AIPAC-dominated USA is going to side with Israel, which explains why the Turkish nationalists are now openly favoring an alliance with Russia and China, neither of whom are particularly enamoured of the Israelis in light of how Israel has been a) destabilizing the entire Middle East and b) attempting to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from the region.

The fact that NATO has been comprehensively defeated by Russia almost certainly factors into the new Turkish perspective as well. What use is an alliance that can’t effectively defend you and is more likely to take the side of one of your primary enemies than yours? Logic dictates that the break will come, but it’s impossible to say when it will come. But the fact that the Turkish nationalists are now openly calling for it suggests that it will come sooner rather than later.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Lesson of Lepanto

A reminder that God loves His warriors and helps those who help themselves:

In 1571 as the Muslim fleet threatened Europe, Christendom was deeply divided. Protestants fought Catholics. France fought the Holy Roman Empire. Christian princes even allied WITH the Muslims against their Christian brothers.  They were all too self seeking to see the threat and and answer the call. 

But one man—a bastard with no lands and barely even a title—takes weapons from the wall and rides to the sea.  Don John of Austria.

Who was Don John? He had no throne. He was the bastard son of Charles V and a burgher’s daughter from Regensburg. Raised in obscurity, not even told who his father was. When his half-brother Philip II finally acknowledged him, it wasn’t with lands or title, just a name and a small allowance. Among the princes of Christendom he was the last man you’d pick: No inheritance, no wealth, no claim to rule.

Yet when the Ottoman fleet gathered in the waters just beyond Italy, this forgotten son was the one who answered. Because no one else would.

Yes, the Pope called for the defense of Christendom, and that is more than we have today.  But no one sent Don John personally. No one gave him the wealth to outfit an army. The most likely outcome was that they’d all die.  Don John went because someone had to.

That’s the pattern of every important battle in Christian history. One man, alone, often betrayed by his Christian brothers, under resourced, with only a small band of bedragged warriors, standing in victory against the pagan hordes.

No Crusader victory was ever a triumph of Christian unity. Most of Christendom sat Lepanto out. France stayed home. Protestant Europe stayed home. Even most of Italy stayed home. The Holy League was a minority of the willing. A handful of ships and a handful of men who made the decision to go. And that’s the truth.

History turns on the ones who go. Not on the ones who wait for orders. Not on the ones who whine about the hierarchy. The ones who go. Western man today stands on another shore. The pagan fleets are at pur shores again.  Our clergy are cautious, our politicians are compromised, our institutions asleep.

So what now?

The Churchians aren’t going to save the civilization they despise. The foreigners, immigrants, migrants, and refugees aren’t going to save the nations they hate. The governments aren’t going to defend the peoples they have betrayed. The priests and pastors aren’t going to defend the faith they subverted.

And yet, all we need are twelve.

DISCUSS ON SG