Apr 28, 2015

Bruce Jenner, Republican

via Radix

There’s arguably no better sign of the Kali-Yuga than the recently aired, four-hour long Bruce Jenner TV special.

The former Olympic athlete and Kardashian patriarch came out that he is (somehow) a woman. But everyone already knew that he was “transitioning” genders. What became the real shocker was that he is a conservative Republican and a devout Christian.

What the fuck, indeed.

And there are already Republicans celebrating Jenner’s political coming out. Republican Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz—a rising star in the party—said that he is happy Jenner shares the same political affiliation and that the party accepts all kinds of people. Twitchy, a conservative site formerly run by Michelle Malkin, posted two supportive articles of the Kardashian star after his political revelation. And WorldNetDaily (yes, WorldNetDaily) published a column calling for Christians to “love” Jenner—in spite of his decision—because hating him is exactly what the left wants.

But the real coup for knowing Jenner is being embraced with open arms by Republicans is Grover Norquist’s response. Norquist, a leader of the conservative movement and head of Americans for Tax Reform, tweeted that Jenner is a “solid Ronald Reagan Republican. Good on taxes,” and deserves to be left alone.

While this tweet manages to summarize the sheer stupidity of conservatism in less than 140 characters, it also shows why this particular transsexual is starting to become a hero for the American Right: he’s good on taxes. And since the GOP places fiscal matters above all other issues, they can accept Jenner—even though he represents the cultural revolution in its most hideous form. But Republicans don’t care about preserving traditional notions of gender, sexuality, and cultural norms—all they care about is economics. Jenner’s coming out was greeted positively by everyone from the conservative trolls associated with Twitchy to establishment Republicans to the millenarian Christians of WorldNetDaily. There’s only a few things that all corners of the American Right can agree on—and Bruce Jenner is one of them.

That’s why the Olympian’s revelation could set off an acceptance of transsesxuality among the mainstream Right. I can see the arguments now: “Big government tells people what gender they are, but the free market allows people to have gender choice! It’s just like how the government won’t let bright Black kids in Detroit have school choice or low-income workers to choose not to have a union represent their interests. Transsexuals, just like Blacks with school vouchers and right-to-workers, embody the spirit of the Founding Fathers and their quest to establish limited government.”

Mark my words, you will see these arguments in a few years. There have already been plenty of articles claiming gay marriage is conservative (with more on the way once it is legalized nationally), thus there’s little reason to suspect precedent will preclude overtures to the transgender community. National Review writer Kevin Williamson’s many articles attacking transsexuals will likely fall in the same category as James Kilpatrick’s vociferous defense of segregation—a position no longer welcome in Conservativism Inc. And if Williamson wants to keep his job, he’ll probably have to follow the same path as Kilpatrick: issue a mea culpa and pretend he never wrote those awful columns in the first place.

And this entire process could be set off by Jenner’s TV special. In lieu of Whites not being allowed a real tribal identity, many have taken on the Republican Party as a replacement tribe. Anyone in the tribe—regardless of their race, religion, or sexual orientation—is a friend. Since there’s very few Republicans in Hollywood and party members long for more in Tinseltown, Jenner is able to fulfill this desire and provide celebrity status to the GOP cause. He also does some serious PC Judo to the Left, which is always a hit among conservatives. To the tribe, this is good and they are willing to overlook, and even accept, Jenner’s deficiencies if he gives the collective what they want.

Yes, power of tribalism is still alive in our society—it’s just not based on anything organic or racial when it comes to Whites.

The Bruce Jenner episode proves two things: the tribal affinity many Whites have for the GOP is still strong and that affiliation is powerful enough to can convince them to accept something as ridiculous as transsexuality. Just another reason why the Republican Party needs to die in order for White Identity to survive.

Counter-Currents Radio: Interview with Gilad Atzmon

via Counter-Currents

Listen Now

Gilad Atzmon
On Sunday, April 12th, 2015, Greg Johnson sat down with Gilad Atzmon in London for a wide-ranging discussion of his views on Zionism, Israel, Palestine, the Jewish question, Jewish identity, philosophy (Kant, Heidegger, Weininger), history and the concealment of shame, Kevin MacDonald, and David Duke.

After the interview was over, I re-read my review of Gilad’s book The Wandering Who?. I was surprised, as I had forgotten how critical it was. This it was very big of him to do this interview, and I admire that trait greatly.

Looking Ahead in an Age of Darkness

via The Political Cesspool

Mark Weber, Director of the Institute for Historical Review, addresses a recent conference in Stockholm, Sweden.

Jewish Money Flooding Presidential Campaign

via DavidDuke.com

Clockwise from top left, Sen. Rand Paul, Gov.
Scott Walker, Sen. Marco Rubio, former Gov.
Jeb Bush and Sen. Ted Cruz (Photo credit: JTA)
A joke by Lindsey Graham to the extent that he expects so much Jewish money due to his shameless shilling for Israel that he will have to appoint an “all-Jewish cabinet” says so much about the state of politics in America. Some Jewish journalists in fact have voiced their discomfort with Graham’s jokes because it could open people’s eyes to the link between Jewish money, the appointment of Jewish officials, and pro-Israel policies, as the first article below indicates.

The fact is that there is nothing unique about Graham’s relationship to Jewish donors. Bill Clinton filled his top three cabinet posts with Jews (Albright at State, Cohen at Defense, and Rubin and Summers at Treasury) in addition to keeping Greenspan as the head of the Fed, appointing Deutche as CIA Director, and Berger as National Security advisor. Would we expect anything different from Hillary, who expects to raise as much as two billion dollars from largely Jewish donors like Israeli media magnate Haim Saban.

And as the second article below shows, each of the Republican hopefuls, even Rand Paul, are lining up Jewish megadonors. This information is being reported in media outlets intended for Jews. Don’t expect Bill O’Reilly or Rachel Maddow to do segments on it, though. One thing that is facinating and telling about the second article is that it catalogues not just the big Jewish donors and Israel policies of the five leading Republican candidates, but also says their position on Immmigration, demonstrating that massive immigration is a Jewish-led policy.

**********


Dear Lindsey Graham: Some jokes only Jews can make



Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), contemplating a presidential run, is catching flak on social media for the following excerpt from a Wall Street Journal interview:
On the biggest challenge facing his potential 2016 campaign:
“The means. If I put together a finance team that will make me financially competitive enough to stay in this thing…I may have the first all-Jewish cabinet in America because of the pro-Israel funding. [Chuckles.] Bottom line is, I’ve got a lot of support from the pro-Israel funding.”
At LobeLog, Eli Clifton and Jim Lobe wonder if Graham crossed a line:
Suggesting that “pro-Israel funding” may determine his choice of cabinet secretaries (as well as his policies) may make even his potential benefactors squirm just a little bit in light of the purposes to which real anti-Semites who believe “Jewish money” controls the U.S. government might put such a statement.
Good point.

Graham is not an anti-Semite. As Lobe and Clifton note, Graham’s responses were partly fueled by Riesling. I’d add that he cultivates a good ol’ boy’s reputation for the shocking bon mot. In the same interview, he dismissed Rand Paul’s outreach to “kids who smoke dope in their parents’ basement.”

As a candidate who spends a lot of time in Jewish company, Graham has probably been exposed to much self-deprecating humor of the “Wait, that’s the Elders of Zion on the phone” variety. Might make sense for Graham to leave such self-deprecation to the deprecated.

**********

Who are the Republican candidates’ Jewish donors?

A look at the patrons, and the policies, of three declared presidential contenders, as well as two likely ones

BY RON KAMPEAS April 21, 2015

Aside from Democrat Hillary Clinton, three Republican candidates with reasonable chances at the nomination have declared and several others are on the cusp.

The Republican Party says it’s been making inroads with Jewish voters, who traditionally have favored Democrats by 2-to-1 margins.

Here’s a rundown of the views of three declared Republican candidates — and two likely candidates — on issues of Jewish interest, and their connections to the community.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida.

Age: 43
Campaign status: Declared candidate

His Jewish backers: A principal backer is Norman Braman, a car dealership magnate who moved to Florida in 1994 after selling his stake in the NFL’s Philadelphia Eagles. A past president of the Greater Miami Jewish Federation, Braman has been close with Rubio since his meteoric rise through the Florida Legislature. Braman accompanied Rubio to Israel in 2010, just after his election to the US Senate. Rubio’s ties to the broader Jewish community also extend back to his career in the Florida state legislature, and communal professionals credit him with being accessible.

His views: Rubio has blasted President Barack Obama on Israel, saying in his April 13 campaign launch that the administration bears “hostility” toward Israel.

When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demanded recognition of Israel as part of a final Iran nuclear deal, Rubio was quick to propose the demand as an amendment to a bill requiring congressional review of any Iran deal.

The drama that followed Rubio’s proposal, which the Obama administration declared a poison pill, is illustrative of Rubio’s tendency to move between extreme to moderate positions. He withdrew the amendment on April 14, the day the Senate Foreign Relations Committee considered the broader bill, which ultimately passed unanimously.

Similar back-and-forth characterizes his immigration record. Rubio helped shepherd comprehensive immigration reform through the Senate in 2013, but after it failed in the US House of Representatives, Rubio retreated to more hawkish positions popular with the Republican base, including tougher border security. He says the reform bill he once embraced was the right way to go at the time, but now say political realities dictate a piecemeal approach.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas

Age: 44
Campaign status: Declared candidate

His Jewish backers: Last year, Cruz tapped Nicolas Muzin, a soft-spoken Orthodox Jew from South Carolina, as an adviser. Muzin is credited with helping catapult Sen. Tim Scott, R-South Carolina., the first black senator elected from the South since the 19th century, to a national career. Muzin has introduced Cruz to Orthodox Jewish funders, including telecommunications and energy magnate Howard Jonas, and staged events for him in fancy kosher eateries like Abigael’s on Broadway.

His views: Cruz talks a hard line on Israel, aligning himself with some of the Obama administration’s harshest critics. After Rabbi Shmuley Boteach advertised an upcoming panel discussion on Obama’s Iran policy in March with an ad that seemed to link National Security Adviser Susan Rice to the genocide in Rwanda, one of the featured speakers, Rep. Brad Sherman, D-California, dropped out, saying Boteach had crossed a line. Cruz, also a featured speaker, stayed in.

Cruz likes to ask the administration tough questions on Israel. He accused the Obama administration of playing politics with the Federal Aviation Authority during last year’s Gaza War, when the FAA stopped flights to Tel Aviv for a day or so because rockets had struck near the airport. Cruz said no such order was in place for Ukraine, although a missile had downed a plane there (in fact, there was such an order).

Cruz also has sought to distance himself from neoconservative hawks, arguing that his model is President Ronald Reagan, who Cruz said favored clearly defined objectives in any military action and opposed nation building.

Cruz shares with Rubio a biography of being born to Cuban refugees from the Castro regime. Unlike Rubio, he has maintained a consistently tough line on immigration, advocating blocking Obama judicial nominees until the president retreats on executive orders that have cleared a path to citizenship for some undocumented immigrants.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky.

Age: 52
Campaign status: Declared candidate

His Jewish backers: Paul has cultivated Richard Roberts, an Orthodox Jew and major New Jersey philanthropist. In 2013, Roberts helped fund a tour of Israel for Paul and evangelical Christians. A year ago he led Paul on a tour of Lakewood, New Jersey’s sprawling Orthodox yeshiva, Beth Medrash Govoha, which Roberts supports. Roberts has suggested, however, that he favors Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who has yet to formally declare his candidacy.

Paul also shares with Netanyahu a digital consultant, Harris Media in Austin, Texas. Vincent Harris, the firm’s CEO, led digital strategy in Netanyahu’s recent reelection campaign and is now chief digital strategist to Paul’s campaign.

His views: Paul’s father is the former Rep. Ron Paul, a Texas Republican who ran several times for president on a libertarian platform that included cutting off aid to Israel. The elder Paul also was notorious for his broadsides against the pro-Israel community, and newsletters published under his name have been accused of veering into anti-Semitism, although he has denied authoring the content.

When Rand Paul ran for Senate in 2010, he would not return calls from Kentucky Jewish leaders asking for a meeting. At first, Paul seemed to mirror his father’s positions, telling CNN in an interview that he would include Israel in his pledge to cut off all foreign assistance.

Since then, Paul has been more open to Jewish outreach and has visited Israel. Republican Jews like to say his views on the country have “evolved”; he still counsels cuts in foreign assistance, but adds that these should be prioritized, with countries he deems hostile to US interests first on the list.

Paul counts Israel as a close US ally, and the sole focus of the Israel page on his campaign website is his bill to cut assistance to the Palestinian Authority precisely because of its parlous relations with Israel (The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, notably, does not support the bill).

Pro-Israel groups remain wary of Paul in part because he is one of two Republicans in the Senate who will not back bills seeking greater congressional involvement in the Iran nuclear talks — the other is Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona.

Paul is a relative moderate in his party on immigration, favoring legal status short of citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

“People who seek the American dream are not bad people,” he said a year ago.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker

Age: 47
Campaign status: Likely candidateFormer Florida Gov. Jeb Bush

His Jewish backers: Walker has yet to declare, but if and when he does, the New Jerseyan Roberts would appear to be in his camp. Walker has also been backed in his gubernatorial runs by Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate and Republican Jewish kingmaker. A Hanukkah greeting last year to a Jewish constituent was infamously signed “Molotov” — he meant “Mazel tov.”

His views: Walker has earned his conservative chops principally on the basis of his record as a governor facing down unions in a liberal state. He now wants to burnish his foreign policy credentials and traveled to London in February, but got demerits for dodging foreign policy questions. He says he wants to travel to Israel soon. His criticisms of how Obama has handled the Israel relationship and the Iran nuclear talks have been pointed in their language but vague in particulars.

On immigration, Walker has backed reforms that include a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, but more recently his focus has been on seeking to dismantle Obama’s executive orders that would provide such a path.

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush

Age: 62
Campaign status: Likely candidate

His Jewish backers: Bush has been able to tap into a broad network of fundraisers who were loyal to the presidencies of his brother George W. and his father, George H.W. Among the former are Mel Sembler, a shopping mall magnate in Florida who backed Bush during his gubernatorial runs. In New York, equity billionaire Henry Kravis hosted a lucrative evening for Bush in February.

Bush also has Jewish George W. Bush cabinet members on his foreign policy team, including Michael Chertoff, the former Homeland Security secretary, and Michael Mukasey, the ex-attorney general who has been notable in his post-Bush career for his strident criticism of what he depicts as the spread of radical Islam. More controversially, Bush takes advice from his father’s secretary of state, James Baker, who angered conservatives last month when he delivered a speech critical of Netanyahu at J Street’s annual conference. Bush has distanced himself from the speech, although not enough to please Adelson, who reportedly was “incensed” by Baker’s speech.

Bush’s rivalry with his one-time protégé Rubio and his closeness to Baker have put him in an odd position: He has the enthusiastic backing of some prominent Jewish GOP backers, like Sembler and Kravis, while others like Adelson and Rubio’s backer Braman are lining up to keep him from winning the GOP nod.

His views: Bush has been critical of how Obama has handled nuclear talks with Iran, blaming him for allowing differences with Israel over the talks to spill out into the open. He has visited Israel five times.

On immigration, Bush, who speaks fluent Spanish and whose wife, Columba, was born in Mexico, has been perhaps the most outspoken about embracing immigration reform and a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. He has made a point of forcefully making the case even in front of those groups most likely to oppose such reforms.

Blacks Applaud Appalachia State University’s Continuing its Course 'The Problem of Blackness'

via White GeNOcide Project

Black students also spoke contemptuously of the two Black advocacy groups whose ignorance and racism led them to mount a hateful protest that claimed that the course “The Problem of Blackness” was “anti-Black.” In regard to Professor Bebout’s choosing as his course’s title “The problem of Blackness,” ASU President Michael Crow responded, “The professor was not attempting to be derogatory toward any group or any race.”
.
All of the above is accurate if you replace the words “Black” and “Blackness” with “White” and “Whiteness.”
What actually happened is that President Crow announced that the course “The Problem of Whiteness” will be continued, saying, “(The) course looked like a pretty good critical thinking course to me…It’s looking at a very important thing, how have we ended up with — in the country — the notion of race as such a strong and powerful social construct, not actually based in biology.”

ASU President Michael Crow takes stance on controversy surrounding “Problem of Whiteness” course – The State Press

So, reader, why is that what actually happened, instead of some scenario like the imagined one in this present article’s title and first paragraph?

It’s because anti-whites only teach Whites to believe things that are silly.

The most important silliness that our anti-white schools teach Whites is that although massive immigration and forced assimilation is genocide in Tibet, massive immigration and forced assimilation in White countries is “diversity.”

Diversity is a code word for White Genocide.

Confessions of an Overeducated A/C Man

via Theden

There is a specter haunting Middle America—the specter of higher education.

For a young person in America, college is the thing to aspire to. It’s the go-to option for virtually every American looking to maintain or enhance his station in life. Higher education embodies the values, hopes and dreams of millions of young people and their families. The stories write themselves. Here a first generation freshman, out to do his family proud. There a young woman out to better herself and shatter a glass ceiling or two. Everywhere the expectation that “This Is How You Get The Good Life.” Why, without the credentials offered by as prestigious as institution as one’s ability, tenacity, savings and, yes, connections can muster, you’re liable to be stuck with the dregs—working dead end jobs with no hope of advancement, living wages, or health insurance!

What tripe.

Next time you’re in a coffee shop, ask your barista if they’re going to school and for what. Or better still ask if they’ve graduated. Ask your bartender. Ask your server. Ask the guy stocking groceries at the Whole Foods. If they’re not still in high school, odds are they’re enrolled, in school or recent grads. Odds are good they’ll find themselves doing something similar after graduation.

College has changed since the Baby Boomers were their kids’ age. Their idea of college, however, seems to have been last updated during the Reagan administration. What Boomers think of as a safe space for ideas, for debate, for the exchange of knowledge is for Millennials a place of rigid ideological conformity, speech laws and “conversations” on controversial topics that resemble nothing as much as a struggle session for those hapless souls following the old script of debate and rationality.

While the Boomers could expect to go to college and be among the 30% or so of their generation that did, two thirds of Millennials attend such institutions. This has degraded the elite atmosphere of college, one that insisted on high standards and only admitted those able to meet them. In an effort to expand their income and to meet the egalitarian expectations of their potential customers, academia has been steadily debasing its own intellectual currency to admit lower quality students.

Not that administrators or the various victim-studies professors much mind or care. While the average student is now in need of remedial classes, that same student is paying far more out of pocket for the privilege of relearning what he didn’t master in high school. And then he will go on to required courses in Women’s or African American or Chicano Studies. When Boomers went to school, these parasitic pseudo-disciplines were still embryonic rather than metastasized.

Between the lower quality of the student and the lower quality of the instruction, employers have taken notice. College degrees don’t mean what they used to. Even the stronger STEM disciplines are under attack from a combination of private sector rentseekers looking to “diversify” tech by pressuring companies into hiring net negative ( but “diverse”) workers. Possibly more insidious is the efforts of feckless captains of industry to import ever more HB1 tech workers from Asia to dilute the labor pool and lower average wages.

Of course none of that was the case for Boomers. By the relative rarity of their degrees and the acknowledgment that it took real work and talent to earn them, a Bachelors of the Arts was a viable meal ticket. Compare this to our current situation, where 40%+ of college grads take jobs that don’t require a college degree. Most of them will be liberal arts degrees and possibly even more pitiable degrees in laughable disciplines such as the aforementioned victim studies.

Who is to blame for this mess? Why did it get this way? Boomer cultural norms simultaneously incentivised college and dumbed it down. Other forms of honest, well paid work such as trades or skilled labor were frowned upon, putting them out of sight, out of mind for many young people, especially young men. Many such jobs were offshored along with the American manufacturing, thus eliminating them as an option to begin with in some cases.

Millennials are not innocent either. Despite being, as a generation, coddled, insulated from criticism or failure, they are now becoming the masters of their destiny, and many are proving every bit as selfish and clueless as their piggish forebears. Demands for ever more state intervention to subsidize college are very common. Blame for the situation, although rightly put upon a number of factors outside of their control, rarely includes any agency on their part. An expectation of upper middle class wealth, status and jobs right after graduation with little to no effort, seems ubiquitous.

I myself was not immune, either to my own personal failings or those set up for me. My story is sadly typical: My parents were Boomers who never went to college. As I came of age in 2005-2007, My options were presented to me:

“Your standardized test scores are high. Go to college. Trades are for idiots and the military is for patriotic idiots. You’re elite material.”

“And major in what?”

“Whatever you want. College will get you a job.”

Being a young man I expressed interest in military service but was met with stiff resistance from parents, administrators and guidance counselors. I cannot recall anyone admiring the value of patriotism, of duty, or even of using the service cynically as a roundabout way to pay for college with the GI Bill. For a young man eager to do well by his community and respectful of authority figures in his life, uniform advice pointing in one direction was compelling.

Thus, I went to college. Being of modest means I could only afford state school. Having been told to follow my passion, I majored first in history. My own faults begin creeping in here. I studied hard but also partied hard. I had a vague notion that history was useful only for teaching high school. Then I thought about switching to Political Science since I was interested in politics and theory (and since practicing law seemed like a vague, attractive, physically easy job that had a fantastic income potential). I changed my major and called it a day.

I studied in good faith, but as I read more and more material of the alternative right both in the US and Europe, I began to drift from the received ideology of my professors and peers. The rift was a positive feedback cycle driving me further and further away from what I was learning in school. By day I could listen with a straight face to pie-in-the-sky absurdity from the likes of Rawls and by night, assuming I wasn’t being a hedonist with the best of my generation, I was reading Moldbug, Roissy and Alternative Right and growing more and more skeptical of what professors were teaching.

Interactions in the classroom highlighted the divide. In legal classes I defended natural law. In political theory classes I dissented openly. Professors grilled me hard and I noticed it in their grading. Nitpicks became demerits and disagreements became wrong answers. It came as no surprise to me that requests for letters of recommendation after graduation went coolly unanswered.

As I approached my senior year my various contradictions reached a culmination. I became aware I hadn’t done any due dilligence as far as if I wanted to go to law school. And, as my legal studies classes were making obvious to me, I had no particular interest in the minutia of jurisprudence. I finally did some research on the salaries, working conditions and opportunities for lawyers in the real world and found it dismal. I wasn’t a rich kid. Did I really want to sink 100K into 3 more years of this mess I was coming to dislike already? For maybe 45-50K if not unemployment? Decidedly not. College advisers had nothing of value to say concerning my situation. In the waning days of my senior year the vague, Boomer drivel that “Diplomas guarantee a good job” was found to be a cruel joke. At best only a degree specifically targeted to the demands of the market, rather than pinned to hopes of sliding into middle management somewhere in corporate America, would have made my college investment of any utility.

A shame I found that out second semester, senior year.

I graduated with a lump in my throat and a stinging sensation of shame and failure. I had been misled utterly, yes, but I also made bad decisions on my own. Although I was correcting them to some degree (discovering the degree was useless, writing it off, cleaning up my college-subsidized hedonistic degeneracy), I had a lot of work to do. As the Alt-Right had made me aware of a great number of pretty lies, it had also inculcated a value set in me that came to detest shrugging my situation away into apathy and slackerdom. I wanted a wife. Children. I still wanted a good life in a solid community. I would need to work.

After a a few fitful attempts to leverage my degree that ended in failure, I began to look into the trades. Young men I had scoffed at as rubes or laboring proles as a teen, I now saw were my age with solid incomes and lives that were budding into the sort I wanted for myself. I made up my mind to go to trade school and then I saw how strong some of my conditioning was. It took me weeks and months of low level, but gradually diminishing agonizing to simply get over the fact that I was going to be “blue collar” instead of “white.” A petty, largely meaningless distinction but one so bound up with what I was told was of such supreme importance to my status, happiness and well being that I was surprised to see how strongly it resonated in me. Boomer values at work. Pwned as Moldbug himself would say.

In time I got over it. In time I found I understood machines and detail related to my selected trade, HVAC, relatively easily. Study habits gained from being a bookish kid and 16 years in school paid off for absorbing the material. I physically hardened as I acclimated to demanding work. My hothouse sensitivities, tastes and values were cast off one by one.

HVAC has since given me a far more remunerative job than I ever had before college or as a result of my degree. It’s a demanding, masculine profession being almost completely male, lining up with my growing sense of wanting to do work that would reinforce manly values in direct contrast to the mushy, unisex world of the university and the academy. It was plainly useful work that makes some of the technological aspects of the modern world, that part of modernity I have not come to detest, possible in many ways. It challenged me and continues to challenge me still.

As a young man, it’s helped me to find a better place in my life and in my community. The fact that a trade helped to do this so readily, naturally and at a far quicker pace is part of what makes college as it’s presently instituted such a damning blight on my generation.

How many men have been deprived of the chance to do honest, useful, empowering work to instead play status games, take drugs, and wind up indebted and underemployed by following the advice given in increasingly bad faith by society’s elite? How many young women fritter away some of their best years on preparation for sterile office jobs while degrading their ability to ever pair bond with a husband by engaging in equally sterile rutting with men who value her little beyond sexual access? How many families are being delayed or never formed from this arrangement? How many billions of dollars and man hours are being squandered on an egalitarian pipe dream?

The answer is “Too many.”

Change is in the air, however. College enrollment has flatlined. Editorials, replete with stories like mine and statistics to back them up are slowly filtering into middle America. The dour, prissy, hysterical atmosphere of political correctness that wafts over virtually every college campus in America is repellent to young men, who are turning away in greater numbers every year.

Where a society channels the energy of its young men is drastically important, and, as the farce of higher education in early 21st Century America begins to be known, fewer of those young men will put their energies into it. There is ample opportunity for them to put it elsewhere. Into learning skills that will render them better men mentally and physically, into their own pursuits according to their own values, into discovering what else they were misled about by their leaders. And from there, perhaps, into kinship with the Right.

Avoiding the Flames of the Phoenix

via Alternative Right

In the East, like a phoenix arising from its ashes, Russia is rising once again. After the Tsarist Empire and the Soviet Republic, Russia is currently experiencing a renewal, a revival forcing us to rethink geopolitics.

For Western nationalists and identitarians, the rise of the country, led by its charismatic and unperturbed leader, Vladimir Putin, is an encouraging phenomenon. It means the end of the unipolar world managed by Uncle Sam. For us, this reshaping of the world means new possibilities, especially seeing that the Russians use a discourse opposed to the faux-human rights ideology so prevalent in the West. If America’s monopoly on power is currently being challenged, the same is true for its dominant values (democracy, secularism, individualism, etc.). Putin publicly justifies his actions with traditional values that are much closer to our own.

It would still be a mistake to consider Russia as the world’s saviour simply because it marks the end of American hegemony. But also the world cannot be divided into two camps: the “good” and the “bad.” If the Americans are the overt enemies of nationalists and identitarians worldwide, the rise of an expansionist Russia does not mean that Russia is siding with us, or that it defends the same interests as we do. As in the days of the Soviet Union, the Russian state is first and foremost concerned with its own power and national interests, and if these collide with ours in the West, Russia will not hesitate to choose its interests over ours.

Not everything can be judged according to geopolitics, however. To illustrate, any scission in NATO or loss of unity in NATO members would clearly be welcomed by Moscow. The recent issue of Scottish independence and the rise of the SNP to dominance in Scotland, and the potential impact of this on the UK’s Trident nuclear deterrent, is watched with keen interest in Moscow. The SNP which favours nuclear disarmament serves Russian geopolitical interests. In a similar way, Quebec separatists could be accused of serving the Kremlin’s interests, although their motives are entirely intra-national and have nothing to do with geopolitics.

Choose both.
A similar mismatch between purely domestic concerns and geopolitical interests also occurred in the case of the Ukraine, where Ukrainian nationalists acted for their own benefit, but unwittingly clashed with Russian interests. Because many Western nationalists see Russia as a potential ally, they condemned the actions of the Ukrainians, and accused them of acting on behalf of Washington. They, who were once considered brothers in a common struggle, were quickly sacrificed for geopolitical reasons.

Modern geopolitical games are more in the news than ever before. Nationalist groups must avoid getting too involved in these transient situations and meddling in the affairs of those groups who are intrinsically involved. By doing so and adopting positions based on “ifs” and suppositions, Western nationalists simply create real friction and division among our ranks. The first objective for nationalist is and has always been to take power or to influence its application in order to ensure policies that secure the survival and development of our people in agreement with our traditions and collective soul.

Alexander Dugin, the well-known Russian thinker leading the Eurasianist movement, predicts that the years to come will see the struggle of Eurasianists and Atlanticists. According to him you are either with the first or the second. But this is a false dichotomy. My question might seem naïve, but why should independent and sovereign nations choose between following the White House or the Kremlin? Why couldn’t they, as Markus Willinger suggests in A Europe of Nations, follow their own path, make their own stand, and defend their own interests?

One Man, One Vote Is the Path to Hell

via Cambria Will Not Yield

In considering South Africa, it needs to be repeated that the campaign against her is nothing more or less than a campaign against the White Christian race itself. It is actually a misnomer to call it an anti-South African campaign. It is an anti–White campaign. It is a war against all of us. – Anthony Jacob

I first read Anthony Jacob’s book White Man Think Again in the early 1980s, before South Africa’s De Klerkian capitulation to the snarling wolf pack called the Western world. When the Afrikaners did surrender to the forces of ‘liberty, equality, and fraternity’ it was impossible not to compare the Afrikaners before the fall and after the fall, without feeling an incredible sadness. Before:
South African is the only country in all Africa which has a future as a major world power. Moreover as a major world power it will be ideologically what it always has been – a power unreservedly on the side of the traditional West. If the desired revolution comes along (the revolution as desired, not merely by the East and the rest of Africa but by our brave white brothers in the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Holland, Scandinavia, etc.) and the white race in South Africa is reduced, at best, to Black servitude, all hope of South Africa developing into a major power and major bastion of the West will be gone. The question then will be: What will have been proved or gained? In what way will our cherished Evolution have been served?
Though it is democratic for the sheep to lead the shepherds, the outcome is always Confusion. The rule of shepherds is minority rule, like South Africa’s. The white man has a genius for civilization which the black man, to put it mildly, does not have. In South Africa this White minority rule is firm but benevolent, efficient but humane. But above all it is White rule, which is all that should matter to us. For are we not White?
So proud and so noble! And after the fall? So much innocent white blood has been shed. Even the guilty were not spared: the Judas, De Klerk, lost his first wife to the new South Africa: she was brutally murdered by a black security guard in the building where she lived alone. “And thus the whirligig of time brings in its revenges.” But did the rest of the white South Africans deserve their fates? No, they did not. They deserved the support and homage of the entire Western world for serving as a European light in the dark night of liberalism, for so many years. And there are now reports that the Boers might still show the world how white men with white hearts can fight and win against the white-skinned men with black hearts and the black-hearted men with black skins. Some Afrikaners have organized training camps for a white paramilitary force designed to fight the liberal-black coalition that is systematically murdering the whites in South Africa. The movement shows more promise than the Orania experiment, because this new paramilitary organization is not trying to cooperate with the existing South African government; they mean to violently oppose it, which is the only way to deal with a Jacobin government proposing the death of all white people. The white liberals are quite angry and upset that some white South Africans are not willing to accept their own extermination: ‘Why can’t they march quietly to the executioner’s block? Why make such a fuss? Don’t they realize that all whites, especially white Afrikaners and white Southerners must die to atone for their racist past?’

Should the white Afrikaners who are resisting white genocide actually start to mount a serious threat to the black Marxist state of South Africa, the anti-white forces throughout the Western world, with the United States leading the charge, will go against the Afrikaners, first with military aid for the South African government and then with combat troops if it is deemed necessary. But it will not be foreign aid or foreign troops that will stop the Afrikaner counter-revolution. If the counter-revolution runs aground — and such an outcome is not written — it will be the result of a loss of faith within the counter-revolutionary forces; the Afrikaner youth will be co-opted by the liberals and will start doing T.V. interviews about their unenlightened days within the ranks of – Horror of Horrors! – racists.

A determined few can never be defeated by overwhelming numbers unless they lose faith. On the surface it may appear that history contradicts that assertion, but it doesn’t contradict it, history confirms it. The South did not lose the Civil War in the 1860’s. They fought to avoid the Haitization of the South. That process was aided by their loss of the battle called the Civil War, but the war itself wasn’t lost until the Southern people lost faith, in the 1950’s, and caved in to integration. It was the same in South Africa. When the people lost their faith in the essential rightness of apartheid, the end was nigh. I remember white South Afrikaner athletes just prior to the 1993 debacle, talking about the evils of apartheid and the goodness of integration. That is how white worlds end, from the inside, when white men develop black hearts.

The white man can’t proceed against the liberals and the colored heathens with any faith other than the ancient faith of his people. If he places his faith in democracy or science he will be like unto the liberals and will never stay the course of racial integrity long enough to help his people; he will abandon them in midstream.

There is a direct connection between a belief in Christ as the Son of God and a hostility to the scientific method as applied to human beings. Because we have stomachs that need food and bodies that need sleep does not mean we are mere products of the natural world that can be played upon by the scientistic, ‘liberty, equality, and fraternity’ crowd. Our greatest need is God, the God who revealed to us that our white skins are part of our spiritual essence, without which we are wanderers in the desert of modernity. Our church men have no faith, because they have attempted to blend scientistic thinking, which is really a type of non-thinking, with the Christian faith. Such thinking, isolated from the heart and blood, produces Christian atheists who will always fight with the ‘liberty, equality, and fraternity’ utopians against their own people. Better to have leaders like Paul Kruger, president of the South African Republic from 1883 to 1900, who believed that the earth was flat and was not ashamed of his Christian faith. You might ask what kind of leader a man like that can be who ignores such an obvious fact of science. Such a man makes an excellent leader, because he recognizes the irrelevancy of such trivial facts of science compared to the fact of Christ’s resurrection from the dead and His love for His people, in and through their racial hearth fire. The further we get away from the scientific rationalists in Church and state the closer we will come to counter-revolutionary success. If a man does not believe he has a spiritual homeland within his own race, he will not fight for a geographical homeland. A few weeks ago I said the South African whites were the most persecuted whites in the world, but maybe they are more spiritually prepared to fight than the rest of the European people, who seem to believe that retreat, compromise, and capitulation is the Christian way to handle black barbarism.

The race war in South Africa, Kenya, and the rest of Africa has been extended into Europe. It is the final stage of the French Revolution. The people must rule, and the only true people are the people of color. Haiti was the model for all modern revolutionaries: ‘The whites must die.’

Liberalism and the type of conservatism that does not conserve white people are ideologies of death. Under the guise of democracy and Christianity, liberalism and modern conservatism are killing the Christ-bearing people. They are madmen, those modern Jacobins with black hearts, and we must treat them as madmen should be treated: “As to a change of mind in these men, who consider infamy as honour, degradation as preferment, bondage to low tyrants as liberty, and the practical scorn and contumely of their upstart masters, as marks of respect and homage. I look upon it as absolutely impracticable. These madmen, to be cured, must first, like other madmen, be subdued.” Burke is telling us what Shakespeare told us centuries before: You cannot reason with men who have hardened their hearts against Christian Europeans:
You may as well go stand upon the beach,
And bid the main flood bate his usual height.
The emergence of 2,000 Christian Spartans in South Africa and the non-emergence of any Christian Spartans in the rest of the European countries undoubtedly has much to do with the desperateness of the white South Africans’ plight. It is fight or die. Whites of the West are a few hours away from the same plight, but they do not believe that they have anything in common with South African whites. ‘They are the bad whites who segregated — that is why they are being punished now.’ But there is also something else at work here. The white South African remnant is closer to the proper vision of existence than the whites of Europe. The Afrikaner is not that far removed from one nation, one race, and one faith. That is the type of faith that produces heroes. In contrast the faith of the men of the West was a milk-toast compromise faith of abstractions and democratic platitudes for many years prior to their final apostasy from everything Christian and humane. And the mark of the milk-toast faith that leads to the worship of everything inhuman and perverse is the failure to recognize evil. The Western rationalist makes an abstraction of evil and then moderates it into ‘something slightly off the balance beam, but nothing that can’t be corrected.’ The collective wisdom of the West on the subject of the French Revolution is a perfect example of the moderate Europeans’ response to evil prior to the West’s complete capitulation to evil. All the rationalists conceded Burke’s critique had ‘some’ validity, because Robespierre ‘excesses’ were bad, but the men of moderation failed to see the satanic nature of Jacobinism. Let two of the prominent, moderate historians stand in for the entire herd, who are and were legion: “Burke himself was by now showing feelings of hatred for the French Revolution which at times seemed like an obsession.” (Andre Maurois, The Miracle of England). Case closed on Burke – he had an obsession, which implies that he was sick. And he was sick, if there is no ongoing struggle between God and the devil with the souls of mortal men and women hanging in the balance.

What type of universe do the rational moderate men live in? They live in a rational, closed-in universe where there may be some kind of cosmic mind that sets the universe in motion, just as the old watchmaker God of Voltaire and the deists did, but there is certainly no divinely human Savior who cares about His people, or a devil who roams about the world seeking the ruin of souls, in the rationalists’ universe. The moderate men believe that what the conservative Burke thought was a war between good and evil was really just a harmful dichotomy between two extremes, both of which were wrong by virtue of the fact that they were extreme: “Perhaps it was all inevitable, but the extremism of Burke’s thoughts on the French Revolution and Paine’s Rights of Man certainly did not make for mutual understanding.” (G. M. Trevelyan, The History of England, vol. III) And mutual understanding is good, isn’t it? The assumption in Trevelyan’s Emersonian mind is that understanding produces harmony, because there is no such thing as good or evil; there is only disharmony, which is caused by extremism. But Burke did understand Paine’s philosophy, which is why he went to extremes to oppose it; Paine’s philosophy was from the devil. And just as Burke understood the Jacobins, so do we understand the modern Jacobins with white skins and black hearts: they love the negro and hate white people, because they worship darkness and not the light.

I’m not close enough to the situation in South Africa to know the likelihood of a successful Afrikaner counter-revolution. In the West it is not yet possible, because the white Europeans of the West are still addicted to science, democracy, and Christless, intellectual Christianity. It is certain that they will not prevail against the colored heathen unless they return to their European hearth fire where the God of charity and mercy resides. It is not written that we have to retreat before the hordes of color in atonement for our ‘racist’ past. That ‘racist’ past bore witness to the living God. When Europeans in Africa and the Western nations love their own people enough to be ‘racist’, in defiance of the death in life liberals with the black hearts, the enemies who seemed invincible will no longer be invincible. It’s hard to believe that liberalism can be defeated, but that is because the whites of the West still play by the liberals’ rules. The Afrikaners fell, because they abandoned one race, one nation, one faith for one man, one vote. We too are under the same death sentence. Democratic nations have no moral essence, because they only value human beings in the aggregate. True nations are aristocracies of the spirit where men and women are valued according to how well they live up to the spiritual ethos of their nation. One man, one vote is not a spiritual ethos; it is a doctrinal declaration of a satanic people determined to make war on everything white and Christian.

Some heroic Afrikaners have decided to denounce Satan and all his works by denouncing the South African ‘rainbow’ government. We should follow in their heroic footsteps and denounce our rainbow governments as well. Is negro worship, which is what one man, one vote means, to be the moral essence of the Western nations for all eternity? Satan would not serve our Lord. Then shouldn’t we refuse to serve Satan?

Female Empowerment Through 'Sex Toys!'

via Radix

Have you ever thought to yourself: "By Jove, where are all the feminist-friendly sex toys?"

Lucky for you proud consumer, Alex Fine and Janet Lieberman are here to meet the market's demand for dildos that can pleasure and empower a woman . . . at the same time!
Alex Fine and Janet Lieberman are two New York-based female entrepreneurs who are passionate about sex and not afraid to say it. Together, they launched the company Dame Products, to "empower the sexual experiences of woman kind" by creating sex toys that answer women's sexual needs more adequately than those already on the market.
Their debut design is called "Eva," the world's first "hands-free, strap-free, non-intrusive couples vibrator." From the outside, Eva just looks like a cute little butterfly. Alex and Janet claim that it's "revolutionary," though, as it's the first ever vibrator that stays in place without you having to hold it.
And in case you think these two gals are just ignorant shysters exploiting a hole in the market, they're actually very well-educated.
Alex—Dame Products' CEO—holds a masters in Psychology from Columbia University, while Janet—Eva's designer—is an MIT-trained mechanical engineer.
They both bonded over their shared hobby of making vibrators, so, naturally, they decided to go into business dedicated to their mutual passion. Even though their prestigious degrees makes one think they wouldn't take such a noble cause for a career, that's apparently not the case . . . as many of their classmates told them, "I can't imagine you doing anything else." And their families seem to have no problem with it either--one of the creator's mom even positively reviewed her daughter's dildo!

But, lest we forget, their product will change the lives of "woman kind" for the better and that is what's most important:
Our aim from the beginning was to empower women, to encourage them to use more products of the kind, enhance their experience of them and to close the gap that existed in the sex toys industry. There are very few toys out there that are actually made by women, for women. We're putting women's needs first, and it's obvious to me how our product really speaks to women.
If you need an example of capitalism and feminism jumping the shark into utter inanity, here's your sign. When a society consider money and sex as its highest values, you end up with celebrations of feminist dildos.

Primordiality of Death in Heidegger's Metaphysics: Bowden's Lecture and an Excerpt from Being and Time

via Ur-Fascist Analytics

The publication of Heidegger's black notebooks has reinvigorated the nest of rodents that comprises Heidegger's detractors; all of the archaic attacks on Heidegger, now renewed, flowing from the deep conviction that every aberrant thought about the philosopher has now been vindicated. His so-called supporters, those who aspire to dislodge him from fascism and explain away his anti-Semitism, persist in evincing their weakness of thought and feeling that is betrayed by their agreement with Heidegger's enemies that the Jewish people are an innocent, faultless people, blissfully guiltless of any sin aside from being successful lawyers, doctors, educators, political reformers, and businessmen.

Even more wretched than either his enemies or his so-called supporters are those critics in nationalist and revisionist circles, who earn cheap points by feigning intellectual and moral superiority in denouncing him for his inaccessible philosophy.

Any real defense of Heidegger must contend with the full range of Heidegger's opponents and those who claim to be his proponents. And it must proceed from an account of his life that places it in appropriate context: Heidegger's support for Adolf Hitler at a time when academics and leftists were praising Stalin and Soviet socialism, his postwar, lifelong refusal to so much as even acknowledge the increasingly politically entrenched Holocaust narrative, and the fact that a man with these qualities proposed to reform our thinking by placing the individual firmly in relation to not only his own death, but crucially, the real prospect of the death of his own people, his nation, and ultimately his civilization.

After the war, Heidegger remained steadfast in his basic conviction that, whatever the ills or faults he viewed in it, National-Socialism was the rightful, historical path of the German people. It was the sole movement that viewed the German people as an historical entity, and which sought to reinvigorate the German people by making fundamental questions of existence the basis of its social order: The call to being, the summons to appropriate death, and a reconciliation with time by synchronizing past and future. This "people of the metaphysical middle," which had been torn in two and divided between two regimes, both enemies, who nonetheless shared the same economized metaphysics.

I include the full length of Bowden's talk, 'Heidegger and Death's Ontology,' and include an excerpt from 'Being and Time' concerning Dasein, death, and temporality. Too much has already been written on Heidegger's thought to attempt yet another introduction. I have included the video and excerpt to affirm this site's avowal of Heidegger's persisting relevance to nationalist and revisionist thought. Heidegger's prewar avowal of Hitler, his prescient understanding of encroaching multiculturalism, his postwar refusal to relent to accepted historical narratives, his calls for a renewed pre-modern relationship with Sun, sea, and soil and a departure from atomized existence... each of these, and more.

José Antonio & the Spanish Falange

via Counter-Currents

Counter-Currents Editor's Note: For José Antonio Primo de Rivera in honor of his birthday, April 24, 1903.

The Falange Española was preceded by several similarly oriented organizations which favored a corporate state, nationalism, and respect for tradition and social justice, while vigorously opposing parliamentarianism, class struggle and the money power. One such group, the Partido Nacionalista Español, was founded in 1930 by a neurologist named José María Albiñana and patterned after the French Camelots du Roi.

Violently nationalist and authoritarian, it introduced the Roman salute into Spanish politics. In 1932 it was reorganized as the Spanish equivalent of the movements of Hitler and Mussolini, but it supported the monarchy and religion. Repeated arrests of Albiñana kept his party in the small-fry category.

The most important pre-Falange Fascist organization was put together by Ramiro Ledesma Ramos, a young, unkempt, opinionated postal clerk and philosophy student who in the spring of 1931, just before the end of the monarchy, started a political weekly La Conquista del Estado. Although Ramos and his band received help from the monarchist propaganda fund of Admiral Aznar’s government, the journalistic venture lasted only seven months. In this short time, however, the paper established the essential features of Spanish National Syndicalism and exerted a strong influence over a growing number of intellectuals who were dissatisfied, as Stanley G. Payne has written in Falange (1961, p. 12), with “both the atomistic individualism of liberal systems and the fatalistic impersonality of Marxism.”

Meanwhile, another young crusader, Onésimo Redondo Ortega, who came from a family of peasants and priests, was organizing workers in his native Castille. His experience as a lecturer in Mannheim, Germany, had acquainted him with National Socialist thought, which he attempted to reconcile with his own intense Catholicism. Youthful, vigorous, handsome and passionate, Redondo was obsessed with three goals: national unity, the primacy of traditional Spanish values and social justice. In June 1931, he founded the weekly Libertad.

A few months later, Ledesma and Redondo agreed to combine their efforts and launched the Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional Sindicalista (JONS), the first Spanish National Syndicalist organization. What JONS lacked in coherent ideology, it made up for in enthusiasm and spirit. While the Jonsistas chose the yoked arrows of the Catholic kings to symbolize their goal of a restored Spanish empire, Ledesma coined the slogan Arriba! The group also adapted the red-black-red anarchist banner to signify its radical aims. All of these trademarks of National Syndicalism would later be adopted by the Falange, and even today they are still recognized as official symbols of the Spanish state.

Ledesma and Redondo worked poorly together, so JONS made only limited progress in its first two years of independent existence. The two leaders had little understanding of practical or tactical questions and failed signally to make their ideology attractive to the general public.

The General’s Son

The birth of the Spanish Republic in 1931 brought disarray to the nationalist Right. The middle class wanted neither to accept the new political realities nor to return to the past. The Confederation of Autonomous Rightist Groups (CEDA) was organized around the conservative Catholic Action and led by the uninspiring José María Gil Robles who could not rouse the dissident students, bourgeois and workers to recognize him as an alternative to the lackluster conservatism of the traditionalists and the antinational and antitraditional forces of the Left.

It was at this crucial moment that José Antonio Primo de Rivera made his dramatic entrance into politics as a man of the Right. Born in 1903 in Andalusia of an upper-middle-class family with a long tradition of military service, José Antonio differed sharply from his father, General Miguel Primo de Rivera, who ruled Spain from 1923 to 1930. Whereas the latter had been a sensual, jovial Babbitt, José Antonio was modest, serious and given to intellectual pursuits. Educated in literature, modern languages and the law, he was, among many other things, an amateur poet, especially fond of Kipling.

José Antonio was an excellent student at the University of Madrid, where he dabbled in student politics. Despite his background, he favored the liberal faction, but was careful not to become too involved in too much political activity during his father’s rule. Emotionally, though not politically, attached to the General’s career, he could not help being dismayed when his father’s supporters forced his resignation after he no longer served their interests. As time went on, he found himself agreeing with his father’s scorn of politicians, the liberal intelligentsia, parliamentarianism and middle-class democracy.

In 1928 and 1929 José Antonio developed a serious interest in politics and began studying Spengler, Keyserling, Marx, Lenin, Ortega y Gasset and the Spanish traditionalists. By the early 1930s his rejection of the abstract vapidity of class-ridden liberalism with its accent on internationalism and equalitarianism was as vehement as his reaffirmation of the old European values of nation, culture and personality.

Because of his close bond to his family, José Antonio was incapable of objectively evaluating his father’s seven-year rule. This, and his hatred for liberalism, led him to take an active role in politics as Vice-Secretary General of the newly formed Unión Monárquica. Several months later he announced as a candidate for the Cortes solely to “defend the sacred memory of my father.”

His showing was good in liberal Madrid, but not good enough. After the election he returned to private life, concentrating on his private law practice. He was often discouraged, and thought about emigrating to America. He spent much of his free time thinking about social and political questions, searching for an alternative to traditional conservatism and old-guard liberalism. He was particularly antagonistic to the political bosses and landlords of the provinces, to the privileges of the wealthy and to the Spanish Right, which tolerated these social injustices.

The Fascist

dali_joseantonioJosé Antonio first publicly revealed his Fascist leanings in an article for a new weekly El Fascio, which the government confiscated before it appeared. This act of suppression reinforced his new political stance. He would dedicate the few remaining years of his short life to a Hispanicized National Socialism.

Although aware of his talents, José Antonio thought that his intellectualism and his relationship to Primo de Rivera prevented him from becoming the Caudillo of Spanish Fascism. He knew that he was not a “man of the people” and declared that he “had too many intellectual preoccupations to be a leader of masses.” Yet he felt he must do what he could.

During the spring of 1933 José Antonio began to build contacts with like-minded men, including the famous aviator Julio Ruiz de Alda, an ardent nationalist who distrusted the established parties. They quickly became close comrades. Together they distributed a considerable number of leaflets in Madrid and began to win converts to what José Antonio wanted to call the Movimiento Español Sindical. But Ruiz de Alda printed “FE” on the leaflets, which could stand for either Fascismo Español or Falange Española.

On October 29, 1933, José Antonio launched the Falange Española at a political rally held at the Teatro Comedia in Madrid. Two thousand sympathizers, including Ramiro Ledesma, were present and many more heard the meeting on the radio. Three speeches were given, the high point being José Antonio’s heavily rhetorical and tensely poetic address, in which he denounced the “economic slavery” of the liberal state, the “materialistic” and “class struggle” dogma of socialism, and spoke for the “irrevocable unity of destiny” of the Spanish Patria, for “the deeper liberty of man,” and for “a system of authority, of hierarchy and of order.” Above all, he called for a “poetic movement” of struggle and sacrifice.

Although the founding of the Falange Española was largely ignored by the establishment press, over a thousand members signed up in the first month. The Falange quickly overshadowed JONS as the Spanish movement of National Syndicalism. José Antonio won a seat in the Cortes, where he appeared only rarely. His impressive oratory, personal charm and handsome appearance were vital to winning the financial support and popular respect essential to the success of a political movement.

On February 11, 1934, the leaders of JONS met and agreed to merge with the Falange, although still condemning what was termed “its reactionary features.” From then on, the Falange would be known as the Falange Española de las Juntas de Ofensiva National-Sindicalista—for short, “FE de las JONS.” The JONS’ slogans and emblems were adopted, and a troika of José Antonio, Ramiro Ledesma and Julio Ruiz de Alda took over the direction of the unified movement. Ledesma was gambling that the “social revolutionary” emphasis of JONS would triumph over the “reactionary-monarchist” elements within the Falange. He was more right than wrong. “Falange ideology henceforth took its esthetic tone from José Antonio and much of its practical content from Ramiro Ledesma” (Payne, p. 48).

Enemy Reprisals

To celebrate the new unity, a rally was held on March 14, 1934, in Valladolid. More than three thousand raised their right arms as Falange leaders entered the hall. José Antonio again gave the main speech, stressing the differences that distinguished the Falange from other parties of both the Right and Left. As the meeting ended, a brawl broke out with some pistol-packing assailants outside. Although one Falange student died, the rally was declared a success. Actually, the fight provided a kind of baptism of fire for the newly unified movement.

In late 1933, the Falangist weekly FE (Falange Española) appeared. Socialists put intense pressure on vendors to prevent sales, and fights were frequent, some resulting in death. Despite increasing violence, José Antonio ordered the Falange not to retaliate. Although he had stated that just ends justify violent means, he was against drawing the sword of political terrorism. Eventually, however, growing resentment against the movement’s passivity forced José Antonio to countenance violent reprisals, even though he never personally involved himself in such acts.

Oppression by the Rightist government, and terror on the streets by the Left, dampened the Falange’s initial burst of growth. Party headquarters were regularly invaded by the police, FE vendors were eventually banned from the streets of Madrid, and Falangists were often arrested.

In June 1934, José Antonio was called up for impeachment in the Cortes for unlawfully possessing firearms. Since most political leaders were either armed or had a bodyguard, the impeachment motion was nothing more than an effort by the Center-Right factions to silence him. He was saved by the help of a moderate socialist leader, who personally liked José Antonio and detested the underhanded methods being used to unseat him.

Strategy

In line with its program of “social justice” the Falange set up a workers’ organization, the Confederación de Obreros Nacional-Sindicalistas (CONS), in August 1934. A previous JONS association of Madrid taxi drivers became the first CONS syndicate. These syndicates began with only a few dozen members each, a rather limited membership compared to the massive trade union organizations like the powerful UGT and CNT, which exerted irresistible pressure on the Falangist workers. Unable to effect any significant benefits for its own members, CONS groups failed to have any impact on the tightly organized Spanish working class.

Ridden by factions and under blistering attack from both the Left and the Right, the future of the Falange looked bleak in the summer of 1934. Nonetheless José Antonio’s personal power and popularity within the movement grew. The students idolized him. His physical courage, personal charm, vigor and eloquence made him the Caudillo despite his official position as only one triumvir among equals. Eventually his supporters started pushing for a jefatura unica, which would confirm him as party leader. In October 1934, the National Council of the Falange voted by the narrowest of margins, seventeen to sixteen, to establish an authoritarian structure with José Antonio as Jefe Nacional.

In November the Falange issued a program of twenty-seven points written by Ledesma and modified and polished by José Antonio. This systematized statement of National Syndicalist principles was not really anything new, but the twenty-fifth point, dealing with the Church, kicked up a furor. It declared that while the Falange was faithfully Catholic, it would not allow the Church to interfere in its secular affairs. More than a few Falangists quit and went over to the Monarchist youth organization.

Meanwhile Ledesma tried to persuade José Antonio to make an effort to win Leftist, working class and military support in preparation for an unspecified coup d’état. Knowing that the 5,000-member Falange was much too weak to become committed to such a foolhardy project, José Antonio stuck by his strategy of slow, organized, peaceful growth. Unconvinced, Ledesma sought to gather what support he could within the Falange to rebuild a “revolutionary” National Syndicalist movement. But the other leaders refused to go along and reaffirmed their loyalty to the Jefe. The Falange was now entirely José Antonio’s.

The Falange

Falange membership was divided into two parts: the “first line” active members; the “second line” passive collaborators. The most active component of the “first line” were in the Falangist Militia, a paramilitary group. At the beginning of 1935 the “first line” numbered no more than 5,000 and was concentrated largely in Madrid, Valladolid and Seville. By February 1936, “first line” membership had grown to 10,000, while the total number of Falangists was approximately 25,000, quite a gain over previous years but a mere drop in the bucket considering the size of rival Spanish political groups.

A 1934 law preventing students from belonging to political parties kept large numbers of young men from joining the Falange. Most university students were organized in a Catholic association, with a socialist-liberal group next in size. Although a Falangist college organization never attracted more than a minority of students, they were the hardest-working and most determined of all Falangists. José Antonio’s principal stronghold of support was the University of Madrid, where he often gave speeches.

Falange members were strikingly young, sixty to seventy percent of them under twenty-one. “They were a gay, sportive group, high-spirited, idealistic, little given to study, drunk on José Antonio’s rhetoric, and thirsting for direct action. Their only goal was an everlasting nationalist dynamism” (Payne, p. 83).

The dynamism was supercharged with an impressive array of symbolism. Falangists wore blue shirts and sang the anthem “Cara al Sol.” They greeted each other with the Fascist salute, thundered their slogans at political get-togethers and painted Arriba España and España, Una, Grande y Libre on any wall they could find.

The 1936 Election

As the elections of 1936 approached, the Falange faced a major dilemma: Should the movement cooperate with Rightist parties in a united National Front to oppose the Popular Front of the Left? José Antonio persuaded the National Council to agree to a united effort, but negotiations with Rightist groups showed that the Falange would be hurt more than helped by such cooperation. The Falange decided to go it alone.

Falange candidates ran in nineteen districts, with José Antonio standing for election in Madrid and in six other regions. The party stressed land reform, the promotion of local industry and full employment. The election returns were disastrous. Not a single Falangist candidate won. In Madrid the Falange percentage of the vote was 1.19. In Cadiz, José Antonio received less than 7,000 votes. Nevertheless, in the two months following the election, the membership of the Falange probably doubled.

As partisan violence increased, political, social and economic order in Spain disintegrated. On March 1, 1936, José Antonio ordered all university members to enlist in the Falange Militia. A few weeks later, activists organized an assassination attempt against an eminent socialist professor of law. The liberal government used this incident to outlaw the Falange on March 14. All leaders who could be found in Madrid were arrested, including José Antonio.

“The[se] events of February and March, 1936, brought about the death of José-Antonio’s short-lived party, but they marked the beginning of a new process, bathed in blood and steeped in frustration, which was to make an enlarged, reorganized Falange into Spain’s partido del Estado” (Payne, p. 102).

The success of the Popular Front in the February elections and the subsequent disorder in Spain signaled the organization of a military conspiracy by General Emilio Mola. Secret negotiations with the imprisoned José Antonio were begun in May. The prisoner, managing to reestablish the Falange chain of command through a system of messengers, ordered preparations for a violent move against the government. A new underground Falangist newspaper No Importa hurriedly replaced the banned Arriba. As some areas in Spain verged on social chaos, Spanish Nationalists began a definite swing toward Fascism. A private poll conducted in May by the clerical daily newspaper Ya showed José Antonio the readers’ first choice for president of the Republic.

The government kept José Antonio in jail by inventing new charges against him and resorting to other forms of legal chicanery. On June 5, 1936, he was removed to the provincial jail at Alicante, while further arrests of Falangists made the party’s position desperate. When the chain of command again broke down, three-man cells were established to prevent further disorganization. José Antonio gave orders for the Falange to cooperate with the military in the event of a putsch or, if necessary, to prepare for an independent coup of its own.

Rebellion

The outbreak of the Civil War on July 17 thrust an enormous responsibility on the Falange, since it was virtually the only Nationalist group capable of offering a dynamic alternative to the Monarchists and Traditionalists. “Membership increased enormously and soon passed all manageable proportions. As the first wave of emotion swept the Right, everyone hastened to put on blue shirts” (Payne, p. 121).

The war and the influx of undisciplined members made control within the Falange extremely difficult, despite its reemergence from the underground in territories under the control of Franco. Manuel Hedilla, former provincial chief in Santander, acted as the surrogate for the imprisoned José Antonio.

Pressure from the Left to bring the jailed Falangist leader to trial increased. In November he was hauled before a “people’s court” on charges of helping to foment the revolt against the Republic. He defended himself by pointing to his own anti-Rightist activities. Although the evidence against him was circumstantial and his final statement very moving, the sentence was a foregone conclusion. Shortly after dawn on November 20, 1936, José Antonio faced a firing squad.

The death of its revered young leader was a serious blow to the Falange. The weakness of Manuel Hedilla, his successor, the hostility of the military and the general confusion of the times combined to severely weaken Falange independence and identity.

On April 19, 1937, the Carlist and Falange parties were merged by order of Franco into the Falange Española Tradicionalista y de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista. The awkward new title reflected the confusion of purpose and principles of what was now to be more “movement” than “doctrine.” The Generalissimo named himself Jefe Nacional.

From then on, despite resistance by more principled and more “authentic” Falangists, the combined FET would be the one official political organization of Franco Spain. In using the Falange as an instrument of personal power, Franco betrayed the ideas, the goals and the legacy of José Antonio. Even though it served as a façade for the new Spanish state, falangismo as a living, breathing political force was dead.

As if to make amends for what he had done, Franco established the cult of José Antonio. November 20 was declared a day of national mourning. Plaques commemorating him were set up in all Spanish churches. Schools and military units bore his name and the press and radio continued to refer to El Ausente (The Absent One). At the Civil War’s end a torchlight procession ceremoniously carried José Antonio’s remains three hundred miles to a grand and solemn burial at the resting place of Spain’s kings at El Escorial.

Ideology

Perhaps the clearest expressions of José Antonio’s world view was contained in his speech of October 29, 1933, on the foundation of the Falange:

The Patria is a total unity, in which all individuals and classes are integrated. It cannot be in the hands of the strongest class or of the best organized party. The Patria is a transcendent synthesis, an indivisible synthesis, with its own goals to fulfill—and we want this movement of today, and the state which it creates, to be an efficient, authoritarian instrument at the service of an indisputable unity, of that permanent unity, of that irrevocable unity that is the Patria.

Here is what is required by our total sense of the Patria and the state which is to serve it:

That all the people of Spain, however diverse they may be, feel in harmony with an irrevocable unity of destiny.

That the political parties disappear. No one was ever born a member of a political party. . . . We were all born members of a family; we are all neighbors in a municipality; we all labor in the exercise of a profession.

We want less liberal word-mongering and more respect for the deeper liberty of man. For one only respects the liberty of a man when he is esteemed, as we esteem him, as the bearer of eternal values . . . as the corporal substance of a soul capable of being damned and of being saved. . . .

We want Spain resolutely to recover the universal sense of her own culture and history.

And we want one last thing. If in some cases this can only be achieved by violence, let us not balk at violence.

But our movement will not be understood at all if it is believed to be only a manner of thinking [and not] a manner of being. . . . We must adopt [an] attitude [that] is the spirit of sacrifice and service, the ascetic and military sense of life.

I believe the banner is raised. Now we are going to defend it gaily, poetically.

In his article in the first edition of the newspaper FE (December 1933) José Antonio expanded on his political philosophy:

The Spanish Falange firmly believes in Spain. Spain is not a territory, nor an aggregate of men and women. Spain is an entity, real in itself, which has performed world missions, and will have others still to perform.

Hence Spain exists, first, as something distinct from each of the individuals, classes and groups that compose her. Secondly, as something higher than each of those individuals, classes and groups, or even than all of them put together.
Accordingly Spain, which exists as a distinct and higher reality, is bound to have ends of her own. These ends are: continued existence in unity, resurgence of internal vitality and a preeminent share in the spiritual tasks of the world. . . .

A genuine state, such as the Falange wants, will not be based on the sham of the political parties, nor on the Parliament which they engender. It will be founded on the authentic realities of life: the family, the municipality, and the guild or syndicate.

The ideology of José Antonio was partly rooted in the antiliberal, antidemocratic intellectual tradition that found widespread support in Europe during the 1920s and 1930s. He and his party members paid homage to Unamuno, Ortega y Gasset, Ángel Ganivet and Pío Baroja as “Precursors.” But despite similarities in style and principles, and even initial support from Unamuno, these Spanish intellectuals withheld their support from José Antonio.

The concept of Spain as “a unit of destiny in the universal” was taken from Ortega. Pío Baroja, Spain’s foremost living novelist, had expressed antidemocratic, nationalist views, and Unamuno received José Antonio at his home. But a large part of the Falange leader’s social philosophy was not taken from Spanish sources at all. Rather, it grew out of the views of Nietzsche, Lenin, Spengler, Mussolini, Chamberlain and Hitler.

“In October 1933, [José Antonio] paid Mussolini a visit, and returned to declare that Fascism was ‘a total, universal, interpretation of life’” (Richard A. H. Robinson, The Origin of Franco Spain, p. 98). A year later, however, in response to rumors that he would attend an International Fascist Congress in Switzerland, José Antonio repudiated his ties to Italian and other “imported” ideology by declaring that he had “flatly turned down the invitation in order to make clear the genuinely national character of the movement, which has no intention of giving the appearance of possessing an international leadership. Moreover, the Falange Española de las JONS is not a Fascist movement” (Charles F. Delzell, Mediterranean Fascism, 1970, p. 263).

José Antonio often stressed far-reaching economic reforms. The Falange would nationalize banking and credit, guarantee employment, redistribute land and make higher education free. At the same time, private property was to be respected. By the “corporate state” and “syndicalism” José Antonio meant the organization of “Spanish society corporatively through a system of vertical syndicates for the various fields of production, all working toward national economic unity” (Payne, p. 79). In sum, he wanted broad state economic planning and guidance of national production, but not state ownership of the means of production.

Although Monarchists at one time tried to use the Falange for their own ends, the two never got together. After he became a Falangist José Antonio turned his back on all Monarchist organizations: “April 14 [the end of the Monarchy] is a historical fact that must be accepted. We feel no nostalgia for dead institutions. . . .”

The Falange was not seen by José Antonio as a political party in the ordinary sense. Rejecting the very concept of political parties, he called for revolution and declared his group belonged neither to the Right, Left nor Center. In fact, the widespread use of symbols, emblems, rituals and oaths made the Falange more akin to a religious order than to a political party. Its leader liked to call it a “militia,” a “union of eager fraternal cooperation and love” and a “holy brother hood.”

The outbreak of the Civil War moved José Antonio, nine months before his death, to give a broader significance to the role of the Falange:

We are witnessing a struggle between the Christian, Western, Spanish, individualistic concept of life, with all that it implies in the field of service and self-sacrifice, and an irreligious, materialistic Russian concept. If the latter should triumph in Spain, large tracts of our country—Catalonia, the Basque Provinces, Galicia—would break away and submit to the Soviet. We are now in the inept hands of sick men, who out of pure resentment might be capable of handing us over to dissolution and chaos. The Spanish Falange summons all—students, intellectuals, workmen, army officers—to the happy and dangerous task of recapturing our lost heritage.

The Legacy

The phenomenon of José Antonio and the Falange was not unique to Spain. It was part of the European response to the failure both of traditional and capitalist conservatism and of parliamentary, laissez-faire democratic liberalism.

European Fascism was the successor to the nationalistic concept of la Patrie born in the French Revolution. It also succeeded the liberal eighteenth- and nineteenth-century concepts of social integration. The dynamics of economic development (rise of large corporations and organized labor) and of political development (rise of the modern state) helped force thinking in terms of the community.

World War I was a strong factor in bringing an end in Europe to the “rationalist” concept of irreversible “progress.” The 1920s and 1930s saw the breakdown in the spiritual power of organized religion. At the same time, there grew up a new mythos, either around the Patria, Fatherland and Nation or, in the case of the Marxists, around the Proletariat. Fascism represented the synthesis of the most dynamic movements of recent European history—Nationalism and Socialism.

To put Spanish Falangism in a proper perspective, we must remember that Fascism in the 1920s and 1930s had become the state ideology of Italy, Germany, Hungary, Rumania, Poland, the Baltic states, Austria and Spain. In its early stages World War II spread Fascism even more widely. But then in 1945 came the triumph of Anglo-American Democracy and Soviet Communism. In Spain a watered-down version of Fascism continued into the 1970s, but the realization of José Antonio’s political and social goals was made impossible by the European holocaust.

In post-Civil War Spain it was not the movement which directed the state, as José Antonio had intended, but the state which directed the movement. Franco’s Falange became a sterile appendage to the state bureaucracy.

The memory of José Antonio, however, has not been totally eradicated from the Spanish mind. On one level, it is demonstrated in a state-sponsored cult designed to give poetic, intellectual and ideological attractiveness to an essentially traditionalist and uninspiring regime. On another level, there exists in Spain today tens of thousands of Spaniards, most of them quite young, who honor the great days of the Falange and work for a post-Franco Spain based on Falangist principles. They have formed into two groups: the Fuerza Nueva and the Círculo Español de Amigos de Europa (CEDADE).

The recent chaos in Portugal has strengthened the conviction of Spanish Fascists that the only long-term alternative to a Communist Iberia is a form of National Socialism. But whereas in the 1930s nations like Germany and Italy could give aid to the Falangists, today the successors of José Antonio have only their own strength to rely on—that and the intellectual and spiritual legacy of their Founding Father.