In the war currently underway in Eastern Ukraine, between Ukrainian nationalists and Russian separatists, the latter are winning one of the most important battles, the battle of information.

Since the beginning of the conflict, the separatists have used the internet extensively to gather support from all around the world and to present their side of the story. However, the Ukrainian nationalists have seldom been heard, and their motives are often presented through the deforming lenses of Western or pro-Russian media. To correct this distortion, here is a long overdue presentation of the Ukrainians’ position.

In an uncensored and unfiltered interview, Olena Semenyaka, the coordinator of the Azov Reconquista project and a member of the Press Service of the Azov Regiment, gives us an overview of how things look from a Ukrainian nationalist perspective. The Azov Regiment is an international regiment recognized by the Ukrainian government that has been active since April 2014.


Roosh is a clever entrepreneur who has mastered the art of converting contemporary male angst and sexual frustration into sheckels with a flashy advertisement-laden click-bait website, Return of Kings. Much of what’s on the site is inflammatory and indefensible, and I’m not endorsing pick-up artistry or the denigration of women. In hindsight, though, even the offensive material kind of makes sense, as a man with a vision must necessarily construct himself a platform upon which to manifest his vision. Like it or not, Return of Kings is Roosh’s soapbox, and it’s a sturdy soapbox. He has a large audience, a solid pool of popular writers, and an ever-expanding monetization framework to help guarantee that he remains independent.


NASA has recently come out in support of ditching the American flag in favour of using what has been described as an “International Flag of the Planet Earth.” Accompanying the story is a picture of a Non-White woman in a space suit, sitting in front of two of the new flags, reminding all you cisgendered racists out there that the endless vacuity of the cosmos is essentially a feminine space that must no longer be violated by the phallic rocket thrust of the evil White man.


The official flag of the town of Orania.
(Mr. Biehl is a man of German origin, who settled in South Africa and took up residence in Orania. You can read more about his interesting story here)

The government of South Africa, which is dominated by the socialist and black-nationalistic African National Congress (ANC), is busy with the second phase of their so-called "transformation" of our country. The second phase of their planned "transformation" is much more profound and destructive than the first phase. The first, transitional phase – which involved dismantling Apartheid-- still left some space for Afrikaners, but the next phase, the so-called "National Democratic Revolution", aims to wipe out any traces of white, especially Afrikaner history.


The perception of facial expressions

A team at Glasgow University in Scotland published research in 2009 in the journal Current Biology on differences in the interpretation of facial expressions by different racial groups [1]. The research suggests that Whites [2] and East Asians differ significantly in their mode of scrutiny of faces and their success in identifying emotions from facial expressions.

Whites concentrate their attention on the eyes and the mouth equally, while East Asians concentrate largely on the eyes. The consequence is that the latter have difficulty in distinguishing expressions which have a similarity around the eyes. Whites, who use two reference areas, are significantly more adept at correctly identifying such expressions. The difference in the mode of scanning faces used by the two groups translates into a difference in the emoticons used by Whites and East Asians. Whites use representations of the mouth for happy and for sad; East Asians use representations of the eyes for happy (^.^) and for sad (;_;).


Would you buy a tapestry from this man?

My recent articles have been critical of Eurasianism, and have raised a few questions. Alexander Dugin, the author of the two books referred to in my articles, has kindly offered to answer them.

Rémi Tremblay: In the West, Eurasianism seems to seek to ally itself with nationalists. However, in Russia nationalist groups like the ones that support Russia in the West were crushed and repressed. What can Western nationalists learn from that repression?

Alexander Dugin: Eurasianism works with different groups who are against liberalism, North American hegemony and Modernity as a whole. These groups can be right or left. It is most important to be against liberalism and Atlanticism. But Eurasianism is not nationalistic—it is a Fourth Political Theory, ideologically similar to the European New Right of Alain de Benoist.


Dogs, despite being nature’s kindest and most enthusiastic animals, have the baffling habit of chasing their tails. They notice the attraction and lunge for it, as if this discovery of themselves could give their lives meaning.

Reputedly, humans are more intelligent and not prone to such behaviors. After some years of experience in the world, I can no longer agree. We are the ultimate tail-chasers but, being social animals, we’ve found a way to pretend that we are not chasing our own tails if we project the image of a tail onto others.


That face!

Folks on the "hard right" tend to regard commentator Ann Coulter as a GOP shill. While there is indeed much to justify such a perception of this photogenic motormouth pundette as displaying altogether too much partiality to Republicans and their agenda through the years, most infamously taking the form of overt praise for neocon-instigated bellicosity (e.g.: "Bomb their countries, kill their leaders, convert them to Christianity"), I have nevertheless always recognized in her a kind of brusque integrity, or maybe a certain relentless fury of temperament, an untamed intellect which cannot settle comfortably into any prescribed ideology.

Take, for example, this little segment (posted below), in which Ann speaks with certified GOP shill Sean Hannity and talks about the quite alarming case of Jeffrey Epstein (the name itself no doubt "triggering" to many of our readers!) Epstein, a billionaire banker, apparently "owned" a bevy of underage sex slaves, which he pimped to various high-profile friends, allegedly including former President Bill Clinton, hotshot law mogul Alan Dershowitz (double oy double vey!), Prince Andrew, and others. But being high-placed and well-connected with a legal "dream team," Epstein was generally able to evade the strong arm of the law, and got off (cough) with little more than prissy little slap on the wrist, and no charges have been brought against any of the other supposed malefactors.


All hail mighty Russia  saviour of the world! 

If you’re a leftist, you can get down on bended knee and worship the greatness of the Red Army and thank them for saving the world from the evils of Nazism (while delicately manoeuvring your considerable mental blind spot over the inconvenience of over two million rapes and tens of millions murdered by Stalin and his henchmen).

If you’re a rightist, you can get down on your other bended knee in deference to the fact that, above the "Aryan superman," is the far greater power of the Slavic superman, a creature of such enduring strength and toil that he can suck up 26 million dead (the ever reliable figures of the Soviet Ministry of Truth) and then roll up the Wehrmacht like a used carpet.

Whatever your ideology, be assured on one thing, Mother Russia rocks.

In a nutshell, this was the message sent out the other weekend by the big “victory” parade in Moscow and by the Russian-financed media and its army of internet shills and trolls.

According to this version of things, the Brits and Yanks were nothing but a pathetic sideshow. But this pretty picture, in as much as there is any truth in it, is heavily reliant of careful framing and exclusion of facts. At best, it is a carefully edited snippet of truth, rather than truth itself, which tends to sprawl out in all directions.

"Soviet" Does Not Equal "Russian"

Yes, most of the fighting occurred between the Germans and the Soviet forces – but Soviet, not Russian!

It is difficult to find evidence for the proportion of Russians in the Red Army in WWII, and anyway Soviet stats are about as reliable as the “fact” that the Germans committed the Katyn Forest Massacre. But there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that the Red Army relied heavily on the Soviet Union’s ethnic fringe of Kazakhs, Mongols, Tatars, Buryats, Uzbeks, Kalmucks, Jews, etc.

This would certainly explain the comments made by General Patton in a letter to his wife in July 1945:
"Berlin gave me the blues. We have destroyed what could have been a good race, and we are about to replace them with Mongolian savages."
Using troops from the ethnic fringe is normal practice for any large, multi-ethnic state like the Soviet Union, but is an even more pronounced tendency when that state also happens to be tyrannical. This is because one of the best ways a tyranny can defend against rebellion is by breaking the ethnic link between the military and the general population. In the case of the Soviet Union, this would mainly be the Russian population. The Red Army would therefore, in all probability, have a disproportionate number of non-Russians, even in wartime.

The Red Army's greatest general – a Pole!
So, any army that beat the Germans, although including Russians, would by no means be dominated by them.

This is signalled in the fact that the supreme leader of the Red Army throughout this period was a non-Russian, namely Stalin himself; while other important Red Army leaders were of diverse nationalities: Semyon Timoshenko (Ukrainian), Konstantin Rokossovsky (Polish), and Kliment Voroshilov (Ukrainian), to name a few.

One reason why the only Soviet general everybody knows is Georgy Zhukov is because he was one of the few top military leaders who was actually Russian, and so benefitted from the need for the Soviet state to showcase an authentic Russian hero to inspire its core population in wartime.

Dead Germans Do Not Signify Degree of Victory

The main data point that you hear from those trying to magnify the Russian part in the German defeat is that most Germans were killed on the Russian front. The German military historian, Rüdiger Overmans, in Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg (2000) broke down the number of German military personnel killed as follows:

Even if you add Western Europe, Sea and Air War, Italy, and Africa together (all areas entirely dominated by the Western Allies), you only reach 752,244, which is little over a quarter of the number of Germans killed on the Eastern Front – in return for 8 to 14 million Soviet servicemen killed (a suspiciously high figure that probably includes several million killed by their own side).

Russian history tends to stand
things on their heads quite a lot.

But the high causality figures on the Eastern Front are highly deceptive, because all they mean is that Soviet forces were engaged in a more indecisive struggle for longer with the Germans.

If the Soviet forces had actually had a more decisive victory, the number of Germans killed would actually have been less, and if the Soviet victory had been more difficult, likewise, the number of German troops killed would have been higher.

The relatively low German kill rate of the Western Allies means that Western military action was actually more successful and decisive. This becomes apparent when we look at the POW hauls. According to Overman’s estimates, the three main allied powers held the following number of POWs at the end of the war.

Another 1,000,000 were allocated to the French, presumably by the Americans. This means that the Anglo powers captured around 7.6 million German troops to the Soviet figure of 3 million (of which at least a million were exterminated in captivity).

So, if we add the number of POWs to the number of dead, we now get the following figures:

The lucky ones – captured by the West.

Only the Soviet Union Needed to Fight this War

Apologists for the Soviet Union will no doubt contend that the higher number of Germans who surrendered to the Anglo powers merely reflects the fact that this was an easier option.

Of course that is true, but that only reflects the fact that there are degrees of enmity, and that the true enmity was the one between the Soviets and the Germans. It is well known that Hitler was more than happy to leave the British Empire and the United States alone in return for a free hand to deal with the genocidal threat posed by a Soviet State that had already killed millions of its own people in peacetime.

This fact – that the West voluntarily offered its services in this war – should also weigh in how we apportion the “credit” of victory over Germany. This is not to say that what the West did in opposing Nazi Germany was morally right or wrong. That is a separate issue and one that is not under discussion here. We are merely judging this as a question of military credit.

If we view the question in terms of contributing to victory, it can be argued that the Soviet Union contributed absolutely nothing to victory in the sense that any “contribution” was not freely given. Instead, its sacrifice was exacted from it, forced upon it by Germany’s pre-emptive strike against it. The Western allies, by contrast, opted to give of their men and money to defeat Nazi Germany. In this sense we can say that the West contributed everything to victory, the Soviet Union practically nothing.

The Non-Soviet Sinews of War

Arctic convoy: To Russia with Love.
Finally, there is the economic question. Not only did the Western powers pound German cities and industry into the ground, an unpleasant aspect of the war on which I have little inclination to dwell, but they also provided the Soviet Union with enormous amounts of material assistance, delivered at great expense over lengthy supply lines.

The bombing campaign against German cities also forced the Germans to divert enormous resources of skilled men, materials, and technology to defend against it. These resources, applied to the Eastern Front, could have made a decisive difference. But that is a hypothetical. What is more certain is the massive amount of Western material assistance, without which the Red Army would have been a lot easier for the Germans to deal with. The complete list of aid for the Soviets can be found here. It included the following items:
Trucks: 427,284
Tanks and Combat Vehicles: 13,303
Aircraft: 11,000
Bombers: 3,000
Anti-Aircraft Cannons: 8,000
Motorcycles: 35,170
Ordnance Service Vehicles: 2,328
Radar Systems: 400
Petroleum Products (gasoline and oil): 2,670,371 tons
Explosives: 300,000 tons
Field Radios: 40,000
Foodstuffs (canned meats, sugar, flour, salt, etc.): 4,478,116 tons
Locomotives & Railway cars: 13,000.
Tommy Guns (fully automatic machine guns): 135,000
Metal Cutting Machine Tools: 400,000
Soviet apologists will typically make the case that most of this aid started to arrive after the “decisive” Battle of Stalingrad, but Stalingrad was only decisive because all the other battles after it were decisive as well. If the Battle of Kursk in 1943 had followed the German plan, Stalingrad would have been reduced to a historical footnote.

What made the war against Germany decisive was the overwhelming weight of men and materials leagued against the Axis power. But even if we merely focus on Soviet production, here too we have to acknowledge a massive debt to the West. Most Soviet industries were not built up in some autarkic dreamworld as Leftists and Russophiles love to imagine. In Facing The Abyss, the British nationalist A.K.Chesteron comments on Anthony C. Sutton’s study Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1917 to 1930:
"So far from Russia’s pulling herself up by her own boot-laces, as Communist propaganda would have us believe, almost all of the projects of the First Five Year Plan were designed by American companies. At least ninety-five percent of the industrial structure received Western assistance, the agreements to grant concessions having been reached by the Russian Congress of Councils of the National Economy as early as December 1917" (p 69-70)

"In the development of the Russian iron and steel industry, Britain’s huge Lena Goldfields Ltd. Obtained a concession to operate blast furnaces and steel works in the Urals, where a German firm, Bergman, was busy restoring metal plants and manufacturing heavy machinery, together with guns, shells, and small arms for export. Lena Goldfields also re-opened the pre-war Ridder mine complex for the production of lead-zinc. The powerful Deutsche Bank of Germany provided long-term loans. Bryner & Company (U.K.) contributed to meet Soviet foreign exchange through the export of zinc concentrates and two years after the period covered by Sutton a smelter built by Lena produced thirty-four per cent of the total Russian output of zinc." (p 70-71)
This pattern of a technologically backward Soviet Union relying on infusions of Western know-how ran all the way through to the final demise of the USSR in 1991. My own uncle, a high-ranking executive for the British chemical company ICI, spent several years in Russia in the 1960s and 1970s overseeing the construction of a massive chemical processing plant with technology that the Russians were incapable of providing for themselves.

The Two-Act War

So far, we can say that the Red Army was not Russian, but instead a polyglot force in which Russians were probably underrepresented. We can also say that the Western Allies fought Germany not only on the land, but also in the air and on the sea, while the Soviet Union only fought Germany on one of these elements. We can point out that the high number of casualties between the two (2,742,909 German military personnel up to the end of 1944 and between 8 and 14 million Soviets) is testament mainly to the indecisiveness of the fighting between them, rather than a measure of either side's victory.

When it comes to the sinews of war, we can also say that the Soviets were overwhelmingly dependent on Western assistance, both in building their “own” industries in the 1920s and 1930s, and through the enormous supplies that the Americans and British delivered directly to their doorstep during the war.

Bletchley Park: reading the enemy's mind.
I have not even mentioned the fact that UK code breakers gave the Allies an enormous intelligence advantage over Germany, something that also immeasurably benefitted the Soviets.

Bearing all this in mind, the Soviet share in the defeat of Germany can be reckoned at no more than one third of the total, and probably less. If we look at it in terms of strictly the Russians, we have to reduce that to around a quarter at best.

But it must also be remembered that WWII was merely a coda or sequel to WWI, the Great War. In that war, Russia, despite the vastness of its armies, was crushed and humiliated, and it was only by the tremendous victories won by General Haig on the Western Front in 1918 that an otherwise victorious Germany was brought to its knees, allowing Russia to regain the extensive territories it had surrendered at Brest-Litovsk.

So, if we view WWI and WWII as different parts of a single struggle entitled “The Defeat of German Power in the Early 20th Century,” then, the Russian contribution shrinks even more, possibly to as little as an eighth or a tenth – this is about the same level as the French contribution to the two World Wars.


Don't look back!

If you were given a job by a governor or a mayor to ethnically cleanse a city of a problematic group while maintaining plausible deniability, how would you do it?

In modern times, media technology is the most powerful coordination-generating tool available to any political leader. Mass media — and to some extent, the internet — has proven effectiveness in coordinating ethnic cleansing campaigns. ‘Hutu Radio,’ even in relatively primitive Rwanda, helped to stoke resentment against the Tutsis, and eventually to direct terror against them until they were partially exterminated and driven out of their territories.

That’s an extreme example, but you can accomplish similar feats over a longer period of time using more covert (if expensive and wasteful) policies.


Putin Vs Putin: Vladimir Putin Viewed from the Right
by Alexander Dugin
Arktos Publishing, 316 pages
Buy at

Reviewed by Rémi Tremblay

Few leaders evoke as much fascination as Vladimir Putin. In a world led by mediocrities like Barack Obama, David Cameron, Stephen Harper, and the other poltroons of political correctness and monotone rhetoric, the athletic and mysterious Russian president stands out.

Enigmatic, strong, and unapologetic, this former judo expert and secret service agent has many in the West wondering who Vladimir Putin really is. Still, despite its title, Putin Vs Putin: Vladimir Putin Viewed from the Right was not written in order to answer these questions or even to describe Putin’s reign, but rather it was written to give a Eurasianist critique of the Russian president and his achievements.


by Dota

Roosh was recently pilloried on the feckless Dr Oz’s show. Dr Oz is the sort of hack who practices pop medicine and has been criticized for often endorsing unscientific nonsense to the gullible masses. Nevertheless despite Roosh’s lackluster performance on the show, many regard this as a victory for the manosphere. It indicates that the manosphere is gaining mainstream recognition (or notoriety) and no publicity is bad publicity. I believe there are a couple of reasons why Roosh is despised and I shall briefly discuss each one.


The first and most sweeping swindle perpetrated upon the West by its enemies was the obfuscation of the definition of Art.

Starting with Kandinsky’s ‘Expressionism’ and bolstered by Clement Greenburg’s ‘Artspeak’ criticism, this new abstract creativity overwhelmed all tradition in art. Swept away in this nihilist flood were traditional art tutelage, inherited skills dating back to prehistory, high culture, good taste, standards of hierarchy, naturalism, symmetry, decoration, technical merit, self-determination and ‘becoming’ in art. Styles in painting, sculpture, and architecture that had evolved from European antiquity came to a crashing halt on the pages of ‘art theory’ criticism – a ridiculous construct of universalism that tried (successfully!) to embrace pure abstraction as progressivism in art.


(The following passage is an excerpt from Andy Nowicki's latest book Notes Before Death: Three Essays, now available on in paperback and on Kindle.)


I have long harbored a conspicuous suspicion that I ought never to have come into existence in the first place.

Not that I ever had any say over the matter, of course. At least, I have no memory of an ante-existent “existence” where I can recall giving the expectant authorities the go-ahead to have me incarnated in a fleshly vessel and bundled away to this earthly inferno within which we all now languish.


A week ago, David Cameron's stint as Prime Minister seemed all but over. Labour and the Conservatives were neck-and-neck in the opinion polls, and there were a host of smaller, left-leaning parties getting ready to do a deal with the Labour Party, a deal that would have made Ed Miliband Prime Minister. But then a sudden late swing confounded all the pollsters and put the ex-Eton public schoolboy back in for a second term. 

Andy and Colin discuss what happened to cause the astounding upset, as well as the ins-and-outs of Cameron's "Second Coming," which will also include an in-out referendum on EU membership.


Émile Faguet was an important French writer and political philosopher. This extract, from his seminal work, "The Cult of Incompetence," was published in Aristokratia II, a journal of philosophy dedicated to the ideas of Nietzsche, Plato, Evola, Cioran, Aristotle, Socrates, and others. Aristokratia III: Hellas was recently published, and is highly recommended.


By Émile Faguet (Translated by Beatrice Barstow)

The question has often been asked, what is the animating principle of different forms of government, for each, it is assumed, has its own principle. In other words, what is the general idea which inspires each political system?

Montesquieu, for instance, proved that the principle of monarchy is honour, the principle of despotism fear, the principle of a republic virtue or patriotism, and he added with much justice that governments decline and fall as often by carrying their principle to excess, as by neglecting it altogether.

And this, though a paradox, is true. At first sight it may not be obvious how a despotism can fall by inspiring too much fear, or a constitutional monarchy by developing too highly the sentiment of honour, or a republic by having too much virtue. It is nevertheless true.


Ivan Grozny: part of the Eurasian tradition.

Count Nikolai Trubetzkoy first established the theory of Eurasianism, and is thus considered the founder of the movement. He was also a friend of Claude Lévi-Strauss, the famous French anthropologist, from whom Eurasianism drew its idea of a pluralistic world. This is the first and most important position of the Eurasian philosophy, which can also be formulated negatively as the rejection of Western universalism.

This universalism also had French roots, growing out of 18th-century Enlightenment thought, the effective imperialism that emerged through the military and technological dominance of the European powers, and the resulting Eurocentrism.

In addition to rejecting these aspects of the West, Eurasianism also rejects the hypocrisy of modern democracy, the ideology of "human rights," and consumerist materialism. To counter Western universalism, Eurasianism proposes a multipolar world that is modulated by a sense of social responsibility and traditionalism.

The ideas of Eurasianism have evolved into what Alexander Dugin terms Neo-Eurasianism and the Fourth Political Theory, the latter also the name of Dugin's best known book in English. Recently published by Arktos, Eurasian Mission is Dugin's most recent summation and update of his theories to appear in English. This allows us to consider his theories and outlook in some detail.


"The Night Watch" by Rembrandt

The manosphere (referring to the loosely-affiliated ecosystem of small web publishers writing for men and running discussion forums) as a market phenomenon exists owing to censorship in the professional press, where anyone who deviates from the leftist party line winds up ostracized and unable to be published steadily, apart from a few exceptions here and there.

Christopher Hitchens, for example, was able to publish articles about why women aren’t funny in magazines like Vanity Fair, but probably only because he had spent decades contributing to magazines like The Nation and acting as the standard-bearer for atheism. The original piece is apparently no longer even hosted on the Vanity Fair website, although there are countless rebuttals to it.


Unfortunately, a "hung parliament" doesn't mean quite what you would want it to mean, merely being a British expression for a parliament in which no political party has a majority. With the UK general election just round the corner, Andy and Colin discuss what is sure to be one of the most interesting elections in British political history, with the only certainty being uncertainty.


The following is an excerpt from Andy Nowicki's new book Notes Before Death: Three Essays , now available on Amazon.
Hear Andy read "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock," the poem discussed in this excerpt.

"I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each
I do not think that they will sing to me."

Today, viewed from the perspective of a middle-aged English teacher, whose hair, like Prufrock's, is growing thin, I still find myself most captivated by Eliot's earliest work. As for "The Four Quartets," written later in Eliot's life and long after his conversion to Anglo-Catholicism, they leave me cold. There is something about them that is too airy-fairy, too abstract. "The Waste Land," Eliot's most celebrated poem, has its moments of power, but I can't make head of tail out of much of it, and really, couldn't he have cut back on the abstruse literary allusions just a touch? (Those who call Eliot a pedant are no doubt mostly prejudiced against him for his political and social views, but honestly, the guy could lay on the references and footnotes a bit thick at times.)


This is the first in a series of articles on the ideology of Eurasianism, a driving force behind many of Putin’s actions.

"The Three Bogatyrs" (1898) by Viktor Vasnetsov

Much has been said about the ideology of Eurasianism—many criticisms raised, many praises expressed—but what exactly does it stand for?

Among the competing definitions and explanations of Eurasianism, that presented by Alexander Dugin in Putin Vs Putin (Arktos, 2014, p. 175 – 177) is probably the best summary of the core beliefs, as it presents the most important elements with neither apology nor justification, unlike many of other explanations that are available.



by Colin Liddell

Democratic politics always has had an ugly side, both in the types of personalities it attracts and the devious behaviour it encourages. The main reason for this is that it allows the broad masses to vote, lowering the audience IQ to a level that incentivizes the low-grade deceptions of unscrupulous politicians.

Ugly as it is, it certainly didn’t get any more aesthetically pleasing when Ed Miliband was elected leader of the Labour Party in 2010. With his robotic style and rubbery face, he evokes Mr. Bean possessed by the last of the Body Snatchers, or a piece of “Wallace and Gromit” claymation gone wrong.

For the present general election campaign, which will end on May 7th, a long, hard effort has gone into making “Ed” seem warm and personable – he was actually fitted out with a (rather ugly) wife shortly after becoming leader and was also designated as the father of her two children, although they clearly resemble their mother much more than their supposed father.

In an attempt to 'humanize' this unlikely leadership material he was also carefully coached on body language, facial gestures, voice, and positioning. The process has some similarities to a necrophile heating up the inamorata with which he has just eloped from the local mortuary.