Syria Explained: The War between Eurasia and Zion

Much commentary on the war in Syria only treats the quagmire at a rudimentary level, or in a very crude geopolitical sense. It's democracy versus dictatorships, Sunnis versus Shiites, or Russia versus America, generally something of that nature. The more intuitive may observe that it is the Israeli State in North America attacking an enemy of Israel and neighbor of Iran, as happened in Iraq and (to less degree) Afghanistan. Or that Israel and ISIS never attack one another. But this too is a tad superficial.

The war in Syria is best understood as a clash of two ideological coalition-based neocivilizations born of the Cold War and tempered by Semitic theologies. We shall call these Eurasia and Zion, and Syria is only their latest battleground. And there is hardly anything for the Aryan peoples of the world to gain from this war.

Eurasia is centered on Moscow, which seeks to restore its former empire while opposing "Western" imperialism, and believes in working together with Muslims and other third world populations to accomplish this. The methodology is to extend Moscow's official pluralism internally towards non-Russian minorities externally towards the Islamic world which it borders, in order to create a new power bloc against "the West." Russia is likely around 8 or 9% Muslim (as estimates range from 4 to 15%) and those are the most fertile and most dangerous population in the country. Russia is prominently involved in Iran and Syria, other countries in the "intermediate region." Most countries in that region are Islamic, while Russia is an exceptional mix of metropolis and colonial frontier society with a primary ethnicity of Christian Europeans.

Now, abroad Russia likes to signal its devout Christianity, and that works on a good amount of Westerners, especially "ethnonationalists." But the Orthodox population of Syria is pretty negligible. It's a Muslim country. The Alawites—Assad comes from this ethnoreligious group—protected them as a fellow minority but the Russians committing to protecting that proxy means more than that.

If Russia can take credit for defeating Islamic statism and protecting religious pluralism in the "Eurasian" region, that signals to its own Muslim population and those in its satellites and would-be satellites that Russia will be ecumenical towards them and defend them from extremism—that Russia is a safe space for Muslims. And it has to be since its capital city (which has around a million Muslims) and army are so disproportionately Muslim, as is the resource rich region of Caucasia (which is known for violently resisting Russian rule).

Islam is growing in the country. Muslims in Russia have higher birthrates than ethnic Russians and many have immigrated from the former Soviet republics. And we all know that Muslims have the unique susceptibility to what the British call "radicalisation."

Hence Eurasianism, a curious mix of anti-"Western" (but not "antisemitic" or "racist") resistance to American hegemony that seeks to unify the former Soviet Union with other states nearby that are also opposed to Washington. It is a project to cobble together a new great power that is neither East nor West, a necessarily autocratic empire of Christian and Muslim populations. Eurasia wants Syria as a natural extension of the Russo-Iranian sphere into the Muslim Mediterranean.

In Chechnya, which is currently run by the pro-Moscow Ramzan Kadyrov, you have what could be deemed the best-case scenario of what Eurasia might produce in the long-run, which is unironic White Shariah. Kadyrov is extremely Aryan, a devout Muslim, has 12 children, and will probably be in power as long as Putin is. But the Islamic world is not so literally Caucasian outside of Chechnya, and the populations the Russian state is trying to endear itself to are far from Aryan. Yet this is what the state ideology of Moscow embraces in order to do what it believes is countering the influence of "the West."

In his book, The Fourth Political Theory, Russian traditionalist/post-communist philosopher Alexander Dugin writes about what is essentially the ethnoreligious, pluralist civilizational ideal of the contemporary Russian state (though somehow this is not the same as "Western" multiculturalism):

By Slavic-Orthodox civilisation it is more accurate to understand Eurasian civilization, to which belong, historically, organically, and culturally not only the Slavs and not only the Orthodox, but also other ethnicities (including the Turks, Caucasians, Siberians, and so on) and a significant portion of the population professing Islam. (Dugin, 118)

On religion, Dugin writes:

[W]e should strongly oppose any kind of confrontation between the various religious beliefs—Muslim against Christian, the Jews against Muslims, the Muslims against the Hindus and so on. The inter-confessional wars and tensions work for the cause of the kingdom of the Antichrist who tries to divide all the traditional religions in order to impose its own pseudo-religion, the eschatological parody. (Dugin, 196)

This is a more complex and mysticism-tinged version of Russia's Cold War geopolitics against "the West," upgraded to deal with the challenges of a post-communist world and the resurgence of Islam (both demographically and ideologically). It is a multiculturalism, just an anti-American one.

The other, stronger colossus, is Zion. When ordinary people speak of "the West" or "American values," they are referring to Zion. Israel dominates American foreign policy, and America dominates Europe through NATO, thus creating a chain of unrivaled military and economic might from Tel Aviv to London to New York to Washington. Also controlled via the United States and its military and financial dealings are the Saudis, Jordanians, and Egyptians, who had all been historical enemies of Zion when Israel had first been carved into Palestine. Zion even penetrates Russia through the (((oligarchs))) that Putin so frequently grapples with. So much has been written on "ZOG" that it is almost not worth the overview. But for the purposes of creating a complete and understood system of geopolitical analysis it must be so stated.

Zion is overtly anti-Aryan, whereas Eurasia is more oblique. Zion is the perpetrator of global White genocide and represents the combined power of the international Jew whether in Israel, America, Europe or elsewhere. Zion is anti-Christian while containing most of the world's Aryan Christian population, and pro-Islam while containing few of the world's Muslim population.

Zion favors Islamic states over Arab states, which is why it supports jihad in every country it can, stretching back from its support for the Taliban in Afghanistan in the 1980s, to its support for the Bosnians in the 1990s, to the destruction of Arab socialism in Iraq under Saddam in the 2000s, to the destruction of Arab socialism in Libya under Qaddafi in the 2010s, to the ongoing campaign against Arab socialism in Syria under Assad. Zion will have America fight ISIS because it has no choice given popular pressure, but Israel will be kept out of the direct war, and even provide medical aid to ISIS in the name of spreading Islamic statism among the border countries of Israel.

Zion wants Arab socialism destroyed in Syria and the country turned into a jihadist playground. This secures the Israeli expansion into the Golan Heights and offers future opportunities to acquire more land for "the Jewish people." It also keeps the perpetual wars against Islam going, thereby distracting that entire part of the world with its conflict with the Americans and the Europeans. Zion is much less paternalistic than Eurasia is to its thralls, who it will not hesitate to run into the ground if it can benefit from doing so. The Eurasian ideal, at the very least, wishes to integrate them all as social, ethnic, and religious equals before a polity which only really exists to oppose Zion and let each practice their "traditions."

What does the conflict between Zion and Eurasia, particularly in Syria mean for the Aryan peoples of the world?

The Aryan world is divided between two anti-Aryan power blocs. Both Eurasia and Zion would seek to destroy their Aryan populations via assimilation to serve other ideological and religious-universalist purposes.

Both Eurasia and Zion support forms of internationalist Islam, which seeks to establish a fraternity of the races under the rule of religion, which will blend and destroy them. Zion however only supports this as a tactic for securing the Jewish state, because Jews historically survive best under Islamic-majority civilizations. It really only Christians who turn on Jews for being what they are, thus even philo-semitic Christians, such as the Americans and the Germans and the British, must be treated always as dangerous and as scum by Zion. Eurasia genuinely believes in integrating Islam, and all of the non-Aryan peoples it will bring along with it, as full equals into a society built upon mutual respect for one another's superstitions.

In Syria we have the tragedy of Arab socialism, which is more supported among the Aryan elements of the Levantine Arab population, being imperiled by a tide of savage Bedouins from both the Sunni regions of the country and from abroad. Tactically then we might see reasons to support the Assad regime as a final stand of the Aryan elements of Syria against Zion. So in essence it is siding with Eurasia for the wrong reasons.

Eurasia triumphing in Syria however does not serve the Aryan race beyond repelling an assault from Zion. (Not even halting the flow of Muslim "refugees" into Europe will be truly helpful unless pro-Aryan governments are in power). Eurasia is nearly as anti-Aryan, and Mein Kampf along with the ideology of National Socialism has been banned by Moscow. Putin routinely denounces the role of "nazis" among his enemies in Ukraine as a propaganda tactic.

True Aryan Revolution must serve neither of these masters. We must make it clear to Zion and to Eurasia that our objective is not partnership but dominion. Our people ought not to be split across two power blocs which seek to annihilate them, wittingly or unwittingly, in the name of ideological objectives. For no ideological objective should reign over securing an existence for our people and a future for Aryan children. Eurasia does not offer this. Zion vociferously opposes it. We need not make common cause with such Systems.

Author image
Ride the Niger
Ebola Secundus