February 20th

Yellow truths from silver tongues
hide black motives from golden hearts.
Yet, the liars’ hot air conjures the early Spring,
warming the limbs of the impatient patriots.
Beware the Ides of March, warns Caesar,
and the restless Sons of the Sun sally forth
Waiting for marching orders. An eagle soars
above the fields, feasting on the naive field-mice.

Nevertheless, Wall Street reports success.
Money in arms, money in furs.


A cold, hard snow drives hard across the land,
Piercing — an attack of thorns when thrown into the bush.
My forefathers have seen this before,

brother fighting brother in a silent cold war.
A house divided against itself surely cannot stand,
but a barren house falls with silence, solemnly.

My forefathers have seen this before,
and their fathers, too, as did their grandfathers,
for the tome of Man’s History has but one page.

The EU Brute Squad

In a motion passed by the European Union Parliament, lawmakers voted 369-255 in favor of what can be called a European Union military force.

This vote, as The Independent assures its readers, is not legally binding but shows support for such mutual defense infrastructure. Not only does this signal a political divorce between Brussels and the United States, it foretells stiff relations with Russia and its President, Vladimir Putin, [who has endured allegations of an imperialistic appetite launched by American and European politicians.]

“There are more and more risks to Europe related to terrorism, Russia, the Middle East, and North and Central Africa,” said Urmas Paet, the former foreign minister of Estonia.

Geoffrey Van Orden, Member of the European Parliament, was neither pleased nor convinced by the arguments offered by the likes of Urmas Paet. “You can’t have the European Union trying to hijack what is essentially a NATO requirement. You have to separate the requirements for member states, in other words European allies, to spend two per cent of their GDP on defense, which has precious little to do with the EU’s ambitions,” Mr Van Orden told The Independent. He later claimed that such actions committed by the European Union make it seem as if they’re aiming to be “some sort of actor on the World stage”.

Various sources such as RT and the Daily Express — state that this new EU measure will slap the United Kingdom with a  €420m ($446m) bill.

Foiled Plans

While this Express article is quick to blame Brexit for the destabilization of European defense and the creation of a coordinated EU force, this is simply not the case.

The ideas of a “European Army” originate from political discussions and debates after the Second World War. Winston Churchill, in an address given to the University of Zurich on September 19th, 1946, called for “a kind of United States of Europe” to ensure safety, freedom, and happiness of millions living in Western Europe. On August 11th, 1950, in Strasbourg, France, Churchill spoke to the Council of Europe about the need for Western Europe to organize a force to contain Communism on the European continent. He ended his speech with the following proposal:


I trust that this Motion will, by an open and formal vote, receive the overwhelming, if not indeed the unanimous, support of this Assembly. This would be the greatest contribution that it is in our power to make to the safety and peace of the world. We can thus go forward together sure at least that we have done our duty. I beg to move that:

“The Assembly, in order to express its devotion to the maintenance of peace and its resolve to sustain the action of the Security Council of the United Nations in defence of peaceful peoples against aggression, calls for the immediate creation of a unified European Army subject to proper European democratic control and acting in full co-operation with the United States and Canada.”


Such a project never happened. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was established a year before, and although the political foundation of NATO was (and is) much more “loose” than the European Army proposed by Churchill, NATO shadowed this proposition through with its size and might.

Likewise, the European Defense Community was a promising idea which the Conservative government of Winston Churchill supported. (While Churchill’s government supported the idea of an EDC, they refused to take part in it, a notion that echoes well into the 21st century.) The primary purpose of the EDC was not only to establish a standing European Army, but to anchor (West) Germany into Western Europe. When the French Parliament failed to ratify the EDC, a similar organization called the European Political Community was proposed, but this, too, failed in 1954 after a realization that the French would never relinquish any degree of national sovereignty as per the EDC’s ratification. On May 9th of 1955, Germany was admitted into NATO, eliminating the need for bloated international treaties and organizations to both keep a “Western” West Germany and a standing continental army capable of defending the [anti-Soviet European states.]

The modern European Union as we know it was founded on November 1st, 1993, in Maastricht, Netherlands. While Brussel’s ability to impose its will on EU member states has always been an undertone in European politics, the Migration Crisis triggered by the destabilization of Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and various other states has only further highlighted both the EU’s domineering tendencies and glaring errors.

Nonetheless, the EU was the wall and fortress for a “Fortress Europe” which could move forward into the beginning decades of our century as one super-state, braving the challenges which lay just beyond the horizon of time.

A year into the Migration Crisis was when the foundation began to sink and that wall started to crumble.

Poland first sounded the horn of battle when the nation refused to “accept a single refugee”, with Jaroslaw Kaczynski citing security concerns from a migrant population. The EU body politic hardly tolerated his defiance. Not too long ago, in October, the Swedish Minister of Justice and Migration threatened to take Hungary to the European Court of Justice because, like Poland, Hungary refuses to meet the migrant quota set by the European Union.

Many know of Brexit, the British Referendum to leave the European Union, but much of the American political audience is quick to forget about the United Kingdom Independence Party, or UKIP, the right-wing Eurosceptic party launched to popularity under the charming, quick-witted Nigel Farage. Many people forget about the similarly-nationalist Geert Wilders, or Marine Le Pen, or Viktor Orban. Pauline Hanson is making headway in Australia with One Nation, a faction of the Liberal Party. Those are only a few popular figures surrounding growing movements in the West which yearn for a traditional society, movements of regular working-class people who are brave enough to fight against the loss of their national identity.

These populist trends are what pushes the EU politicians for a standing army. NATO, with all of its potential shortcomings, is a powerhouse alliance that outlived the Warsaw Pact and continues to check Russian aggression. Not only would a E.U. military create organizational and financial redundancies, but where would NATO end and the E.U. military begin? Obligations to both cannot be met simultaneously, and although this recent motion isn’t legally binding, let’s face the truth — it’s only a matter of time until it is.

We can count on a legally-binding E.U.-wide force. Prominent politicians rely on threatening states refusing the EU’s migrant quotas with legal action. With an EU army, this control over member states becomes tighter; there’s no need to punish member states if the EU mans the borders of every signatory of the Schengen Treaty area. Brussels is attempting to keep the rebelling EU member states — notably, the V4 nations of Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia, and Poland — under control in the same way the failed EDC was meant to keep West Germany in the hands of Western European hegemony.

But this is a new European chapter. The threat of Communism no longer exists and the Russian Federation seems quite willing to cooperate with President-elect Trump’s administration. The new fear is not Communism, but populist Nationalism as even “Progressive”, left-wing Sweden, the paragon of “Democratic Socialism done correctly”, gazes to the right as their anti-migrant, Eurosceptic party leads the polls. [Link is in Swedish — here is Google’s Swedish-to-English translation]

With the United States electing Donald J. Trump as the next President of the United States, a message was sent to the international community that populism not only exists here, but thrives. The increased Euroscepticism and populist nationalism currently sweeping the European states may find support from the USA, and, for the first time in American history, we may see our European foreign policy pivot from Western Europe to Central and Eastern Europe, depending on how late France and Italy are to the anti-E.U. party.

Of course, the United Kingdom is invited to this grand celebration of Globalism’s retirement, and it seems as if the R.S.V.P. has already been received.


— J.S. Marino

No Champagne for Champagne Socialists



Financial heavyweight George Soros is a renegade lacking honor that the king he believes himself to be should have. He’s crashed markets of entire nations without a shred of remorse for the social implications of his actions. Claiming access to arcane economic insight that others don’t have, he’s played this game his entire life, beginning with the management of stolen Jewish assets for the Hungarian Fascists — the same breed of people our grandfathers fought on European soil.

He and his entourage of adoring supporters — such as House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senator Elizabeth Warren, and Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chairman Keith Ellison — are meeting in Washington’s Mandarin Oriental for three days, an aristocratic affair where the Common Man they so pretend to fight for couldn’t hope to attend.

According to the documents acquired by POLITICO’s sources, the Democratic Party is licking their wounds from the “cataclysm of Election Day” and reforming their strategy to oppose the future Trump administration in any way they possibly could. Soros, of course, is the brawn behind the strategy. It’s a fight the old soldier knows well, and a hunger for legacy keeps his name fresh. As General MacArthur lamented, “Old soldiers never die; they just fade away.”

A glance at the agenda procured by POLITICO shows the frantic, defeated state of the inner Party’s movers and shakers. The very first sentence for the “Partner Organized Caucus Meetings (continued)” on page four reads: “How did the media fail us?” One of two things can be derived from this: Either the strategy of the Democratic Party relied entirely on polls which were untrustworthy or downright engineered to sway public opinion or demoralize Trump voters, or the media didn’t do their appointed job in winning the election for Hillary Clinton. Whichever the reason — likely a combination of the two — the inherent disconnect between the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, her supporters, and the rest of the country cannot be stressed enough.  

A few more snippets from the agenda:

  • “Engaging Millennials and Generation Z is a progressive priority and critical to our democracy’s long-term health.” This proves how critical it is for the Right to engage these two generations. The opposition is doing it, and they have the upper hand.




  • “2017 will be a year for unprecedented opportunity in pursuing political, cultural, and policy changes designed to bring women to true equality. Following the plenary earlier on gender, this workshop will be a roll-up-your-sleeves discussion on a plan for progress in the next year. Featured will be a proposed collaboration to call out sexism and racism when they stand in the way of our important policy goals.”  Whenever meaningful discussions on race, gender, sex, or immigration arise, they will — as they always do — shame, ridicule, and berate their opponents into silence once they voice an opinion that deviates from a standard the Left has forcibly established on all sociopolitical discourse. Expect more accusations of racism and sexism towards Republicans as the GOP, with time, embraces the President-elect.


  • “The biggest changes in domestic policy usually come in a new president’s first year, and now, not only is the Affordable Care Act endangered, but the safety net itself faces its gravest threat in half a century. This caucus will examine the policy landscape from health and poverty to immigration and taxes — and how to fight back.” More of the same. Even before Trump has taken the oath of office, an ideological, not practical, resistance has been firmly established within powerful circles of the Left. In the aftermath of Trump’s pledge to not touch the same-sex marriage-ensuring Obergefell v. Hodges decision, there will be an organized resistance against the incoming administration, fully equipped by the Democratic apparatus. Such a movement will conveniently forget that President-elect Trump was the first developer to hire a female lead foreman for the construction of a skyscraper. Indeed, the myth of misogyny deepens, a narrative which evolved beside the constant media coverage of Kellyanne Conway and Ivanka Trump. Willing to keep certain key clauses of the Affordable Care Act, Trump still draws unrelenting ire from his opponents. The left-wing media’s response to the President-elect’s desires are contradictory to the principles they promote, and we can only expect this hawkish coverage to intensify as the Democratic Party prepares for war.

Democracy Alliance takes the low road when given ample opportunity to celebrate successful individuals from “marginalized groups” such as Kellyanne Conway, Ben Carson, the less-popular Jaime Herrera Beutler, and other Americans who belong to social strata they pretend to protect but nonetheless aren’t Democrats. To do so would reject a false-yet-powerful narrative of oppression which the Democrat Party has used to recruit supporters, exploiting characteristics such as race, gender, and sexual orientation by framing any group right of center-left as hostile towards racial minorities, women, and the LGBT agenda. Yet the Democratic means of survival not only work, but they also make canon the far-left outlook on American conservatism; they create the environment of fear and paranoia in which only they can survive. The wacky accusations of Fascism against Trump and the Republican Party are easily dispelled with a few minutes of research, yet those who, for example, fell into emotional fits on election night willingly wear the Progressive wool over their own eyes.

If the likes of Democracy Alliance sincerely cared for the American People, then George Soros, a man who’s put potentially millions in developing countries out of work due to his irresponsible financial decisions, would not be a headlining name at this inflammatory event. Soros, though, advocates for open borders, free migration, and various other Progressive ideals not because he is a Democrat, but because the contemporary Party are his allies in the environment of political terror. In his involvement with Democracy Alliance, he is rubbing elbows with those who share an agenda quite similar to his. In this anti-American endeavor, he finds himself in good company.

If you aren’t familiar with the life and reputation of George Soros, let this 13-minute documentary, recently uncovered by reddit user TRMP_TRAIN, tell you all about him. After all, the damning bits are come straight from his own mouth.



— J.S. Marino

The Bannon-Wagon



Following their embarrassing defeat on November 9th, the Democrats and their loyal devotees have engaged in a scorched-earth policy of dramatic opposition. The most recent victim caught in their hysterical retreat? Stephen K Bannon.

Loyalty: the theme of the election season which bewildered specialists and spectators alike. Has the chapter aptly-titled “Loyalty” concluded with both candidates’ campaigns? Absolutely not.

Stephen Bannon, for all the accusations of bigotry he’s accrued, signed over his life to the United States of America in an episode of selfless service for this country’s Navy. Not many of his detractors can claim that honor, nor can they claim an Honor’s MBA from Harvard, a position at Goldman Sachs, a stake of ownership in Seinfeld, a successful film-making stint, and an executive chairmanship of the Breitbart News Network, all of which populate the long list of Bannon’s accolades.

Given his diverse career path, Bannon knows how to navigate through waters unfamiliar to most. This is precisely the reason why Donald Trump, pinning much of his success on his talent-sourcing acumen, recruited Bannon to be his campaign’s chief executive on Wednesday, August 17th of this year. Immediately after the miraculous victory of the Trump campaign, wild speculation about President-elect Trump’s cabinet choices began to make the rounds as information slowly leaked to the disgraced media. As of November 13th, two definite picks have been made: Reince Priebus as Chief of Staff, and Stephen Bannon as Senior Advisor.

The opponents of this choice were livid. With controversies already swirling around a Trump presidency as protests contesting the election results continue for a fifth day in cities across the nation, the slightest idea of Bannon serving a role in Trump’s circle fueled outrage on social media. Evan McMullin, a relatively-unknown political player who ran in the presidential election, tweeted the following on November 13th:




Where do these accusations come from? Well, there’s one instance from February of 1996, when Bannon was charged with Battery, Assault, and attempting to prevent a victim from reporting a crime. He appeared in court, but his wife — the plaintiff — did not. While she claims she was threatened to not appear in court, this remains unproven. This same ex-Wife claims that Bannon didn’t want their children to attend school with Jews. This, too, remains unproven in any court or record.

Most of the controversy is with Bannon’s news outlet, Breitbart News. Presumably under the tutelage of Bannon, an article was published on May 15th, 2016, titled “Bill Kristol: Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew”, written by David Horowitz, himself Jewish. This prompted a response from many as being anti-Semitic, including the Anti-Defamation League and the National Jewish Democratic Council. Another reads “Lesbian Bridezillas Bully Bridal Shop Owner Over Religious Beliefs”, written on August 12, 2014. These titles are sensational, but sensationalism is the sad, disrespectful fact of modern American journalism; Bannon signed off on these headlines knowing full well that, for one’s message to be heard, it sometimes has to be screamed loud in a sea of competing voices.

Perhaps Breitbart learned this from his Leftist media opponents. Maybe simple intuition led him to this strategy. Whatever the reason was, Bannon was successful. And when Donald Trump decided to run for president, Breitbart News became the go-to source of pro-Trump material, much to the chagrin of former colleagues like Ben Shapiro. In a possibly cutthroat exhibition of loyalty, the Breitbart News Network alternatively championed as the Trump News Network.

What is Bannon’s so-called toxic message, though? While Ben Shapiro claims in his personal(ly motivated?) expose that Bannon openly embraces White Nationalism, Joel Pollak, a colleague of Bannon’s from Breitbart News, mentions that the latter “defends Israel and has deep empathy for the Jewish people”. To quote Pollak:

“From my perspective, in terms of what I believe, I’m an Orthodox Jew, I am an immigrant, I’m married to a black woman, and I live in a liberal city. And Steve saved this country by helping Donald Trump win and restoring balance in the Supreme Court and giving Americans an opportunity to take their government back.”

Scott Vorse, a long-time friend of Bannon’s, said in an interview with NBC news:

“I know this guy. He’s not perfect. But is he a racist, a sexist, an anti-Semitic? The answer is no. That’s not the guy I know.”

The moderate followers of Bannon’s work will say something similar. The bulk of his film-work fame comes from Fire From the Heartland: The Awakening of the Conservative Women, The Undefeated (a documentary on Sarah Palin), and Occupy Unmasked. None of these films can adequately be blamed for propagating a message of White Nationalism; the first two mentioned cover extensively the role of women in the Conservative movement and Occupy Unmasked covers the now-defunct Occupy Wall Street movement.

Whatever his message, Stephen Bannon will be broadcasting it from the pulpits of the highest office in this country, remaining loyal to his fan base, his ideology, and, most importantly, his employer.


— J.S. Marino

The Silence of Julian Assange

[Originally written on October 23rd, 2016. Re-posting after data loss due to server migration.]


Julian Assange is the only self-imposed hostage in the world fearing his “rescue” by law enforcement.

In the strictest sense, he is an internet celebrity. His products — glimpses of shadowy truths — are released on the internet, and he communicates with an international audience via Skype, Twitter, and other popular platforms. None of this is by choice. Exiled to the confines of the generous Ecuadorian embassy in Britain, he is evading arrest by any of the countries which want to see him answer for the act of exposing their questionable secret undertakings. The Bush-Blair Memo leak, the Cablegate Incident, embarrassing leak of emails regarding Hillary Clinton’s inner-party dealings, and countless other acts of defiant journalism have concerned governments around the world searching for solutions to the problem named WikiLeaks.

All of this changed when, on Tuesday, October 18th, the Ecuadorian Embassy cut Assange’s internet access.

Social media was animated with rumors of an attempt to “take out” Assange, a notion fueled by the myriad of accusations of Hillary Clinton “silencing” anybody who stands in her way on the path to presidency, often using politics but sometimes bullets. Assange’s removal coincides with his involvement in the leaks pertaining to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, theorists argue. While the Ecuadorian government explained that it simply wished to remain neutral and not “interfere in electoral processes”, WikiLeaks claimed multiple unnamed US sources confirmed that John Kerry pressured the Ecuadorian government to silence Julian Assange, preventing him from releasing Clinton-related documents during the FARC peace negotiations. These are still ongoing despite the dead-heat referendum in Columbia in which the majority voted against a peace deal between the government and FARC, a Marxist-Leninist guerilla force, on October 2nd of this year. The State Department denies these allegations, deeming them baseless. “While our concerns about WikiLeaks are longstanding, any suggestion that Secretary Kerry or the State Department were involved in shutting down WikiLeaks is false. Reports that Secretary Kerry had conversations with Ecuadorian officials about this are simply untrue,” spokesman John Kirby said in an official statement.

Theories ranging from plausible to wild about the safety of Julian have been making the rounds on social media, but one suggests that US intelligence agencies such as the CIA and NSA are agents of Hillary Clinton, that Julian Assange has been dead for days, and that the US government is running the WikiLeaks twitter. The aim of Clinton-friendly government forces infiltrating WikiLeaks? To disseminate fake and factually-incorrect “leaked emails”, allowing Hillary Clinton to “prove” that every single leak, from the hacked DNC communications to the Podesta emails, are undeniably false, created by a third party to influence the US election. Given the mainstream media’s commitment to push the narrative that Russia is committing acts of espionage to influence our general election, the blame would indubitably fall on them.

WikiLeaks announced via twitter that they are releasing a statement about Julian Assange tomorrow, and that he is “safe and still in full command”.




It may seem as if he, and WikiLeaks in general, is helping Trump by hurting Clinton, but this simply isn’t the case. WikiLeaks has exposed government corruption around the globe regardless of the individual’s, or group’s, affiliation. Even if one may be rooting for Hillary Clinton, it is important that the content of the recent leaks be taken seriously. We cannot ignore the message because we have ideological or political qualms with the messenger.

Julian Assange has kept true to his journalistic roots, refusing to endorse any candidate running for president this year. He did, though, praise the concept of the Third Party, declaring them necessary “to discipline and hold to account and check the abuses of government during the next four years.” This was communicated at the Green Party’s presidential nominating convention, and holding back an endorsement for Jill Stein — the correctly-projected winner of the nomination — explained that personally choosing between Donald J. Trump and Hillary Clinton is like asking if he’d “prefer cholera or gonorrhea”.


— J.S. Marino