The American mainstream media are totally objective and not propaganda tools at all...

The Great Replacement is a real phenomenon but Kalergi himself had very little to do with it beyond one out-of-context prediction about a mixed race future, which was not a plan. There's plenty of real living politicians and activists (Merkels, Bidens, Trudeaus, Soros, Sutherland, etc.) who can be blamed for these policies instead of some dead guy who didn't actually advocate what is attributed to him as a plan. At best he can be seen as a guy who inspired the European Union as a framework, but that idea was espoused even by fascists like Oswald Mosley.

Trump: Bringer of Peace

Alexander Dugin contends that Donald Trump’s rhetoric is reshaping the American political landscape by addressing the growing discontent with the Democrats’ destructive war-driven foreign policy, while Kamala Harris, lacking both vision and charisma, struggles to connect with an increasingly disillusioned electorate.

Read the essay here:

https://www.arktosjournal.com/p/trump-bringer-of-peace

Dugin’s Directive: “The Conflict in the Middle East Is the Start of a Great War”

Alexander Dugin argues that the escalating conflict in the Middle East marks the beginning of a larger global war, as Iran and its allies confront Israel and the Western hegemony, opening a second front following Ukraine.

Read the essay here:

https://www.arktosjournal.com/p/dugins-directive

« Another very special and top secret matter [...]: it pertains to the problem of the brothers who are with you in their unfortunate celibacy and lack of availability of wives for them in the conditions that have been imposed on them. We pray to God to release them. I wrote to Shaykh/Doctor (Ayman), and I consulted with Shaykh (Abu Yahya). Dr. Ayman has written us his opinion... As we see it, we have no objection to clarifying to the brothers that they may, in such conditions, masturbate, since this is an extreme case. » —Osama Bin Laden.

Fascism is active pessimism; fascism is left nationalism; fascism is social romanticism; [...] the futuristic impulse; [...] the will to die; [...] the celebration of a heroic style; [...] anarchism plus totalitarianism; [...] loyalty to the sources and aspiration to the future.

“Fashizm ili ne fashizm: konkurs,” Limonka 11 (April 1995).

🇺🇦🐷 Director of Holodomor Museum in Kyiv Fired for "Being a Disgusting Pig"

The director of the Holodomor Museum in Kyiv has had her lawsuit over harassment over her obesity rejected with her appearance deemed "unsuitable" for the job.

Earlier, lawyer Klim Bratkovsky stated that Ukrainian Lesya Gasidzhak cannot hold this post because of her appearance.

"Mrs. Lesya's appearance is inappropriate in relation to the Holodomor Museum; it looks either like mockery or comical," the lawyer commented.

According to the lawyer, the face of the museum should be "a person who knows about hunger."

A rare win for the Ukrainian state.

«Trumpism is the principle of the autonomous existence of Americans in a certain isolationist mode that stops the expansion of the liberal worldview… If only Trump consistently followed the Trumpist path…»

— Daria Platonova Dugina,
A Theory of Europe (forthcoming)

Why Israel couldn't stop Iran's unprecedented missile attack.

Is that Brandon Martinez?! Insane one struggle happening rn

https://news.1rj.ru/str/martinezpolitix/11832

NS in the 1970’s 🦅✋🏻
Footage from Chicago, 1978

“The American identity was something uniquely forged in the struggle that our ancestors waged to survive in this new continent. America is truly unique in this pan-European identity which forms the roots of our nationhood. To be an American is to realize this identity and take up the national struggle upon one’s shoulders.”

Thomas Rousseau

I still love Keith, even though we're having a bit of a heated exchange right now. He's been a good friend to me for many years and is also I believe sincerely dedicated to securing a future for our race. This is a very important debate within the movement, I think everyone should consider both positions in good faith with an open mind and try to put aside your personal views on what you think about Keith or myself as individuals. We need to be a movement that can debate the big issues without it degrading into personal attacks and petty factionalism. Ultimately we are all in this together. We will either win together or lose together in this struggle. Don't lose consciousness of this fact.

Summary of the Discussion Between Joel and Keith thus far
Joel and Keith engage in a debate about the justification and moral stance on settler colonialism and imperialism, particularly concerning White nationalism in countries like Australia, Canada, and the United States.

Joel's Position:
• Moral Defense of Settler Colonialism: Joel argues that to justify the existence and sovereignty of White populations in settler countries like Australia, one must morally defend the settler colonialism and imperialism that led to their establishment. He believes that condemning imperialism undermines the legitimacy of their claim to the land.
• Historical Context: He emphasizes that historically, when Whites had sovereignty, they engaged in colonization, which makes non-White populations rationally concerned about the possibility of subjugation. Therefore, negotiating for sovereignty is unrealistic without acknowledging this history.
• Collective Empowerment: Joel suggests that the only way to regain control and protect their interests is through collective action and becoming powerful enough to assert themselves.
• Critique of Moral Opposition to Imperialism: He challenges the notion that imperialism is inherently immoral, arguing that practical objections are valid but moral condemnations are counterproductive for defending White nationalism.
• Avoiding Hypocrisy: Joel believes that embracing anti-imperialist moral positions while benefiting from the outcomes of past imperialism is inconsistent and weakens their stance.

Keith's Position:
• Practical Over Moral Justification: Keith maintains that the era of settler colonialism is over due to changed global conditions, making any aspirations for recolonization impractical and discrediting to their movement.
• Self-Determination and Nationalism: He advocates for a world order based on self-determination rather than a "might is right" philosophy. Keith believes that reasonable people seeking to defend their nations would reject extremist or aggressive ideologies.
• Selective Application of Anti-Colonialism: Keith acknowledges that anti-colonial sentiments are often unfairly directed solely at White populations. However, he cautions against adopting a worldview that justifies imperialism, as it could alienate potential supporters.
• Disavowing Extremist Narratives: He warns that discussing or endorsing notions like ethnically cleansing regions or establishing new colonial empires is harmful to their cause and reinforces negative stereotypes.
• Historical Phases: Keith views past colonialism as a historical phase that, while significant, belongs in the past—similar to how certain practices like chattel slavery are no longer acceptable.
Key Points of Contention:
• Moral Legitimacy vs. Practicality: Joel insists on the moral defense of colonialism to justify current sovereignty, while Keith focuses on the practical implications and modern realities that render such defense unnecessary or harmful.
• Approach to Nationalism: Joel promotes an unapologetic pride in history to inspire collective action, whereas Keith emphasizes a strategic, morally conscious approach to nationalism that seeks broader acceptance.
• Perception and Stereotypes: Keith is concerned that endorsing imperialistic views perpetuates negative stereotypes and hinders their movement's credibility among those they aim to attract.

Conclusion:
The debate centers on whether it is necessary to morally justify past imperialism to defend contemporary nationalist interests.

Joel argues for embracing and defending the historical actions that led to the current state, asserting that this is essential for a strong nationalist movement.

Keith, on the other hand, believes that distancing from imperialistic ideologies and focusing on self-determination is more practical and effective in the modern context.