May 18, 2015

The False Cult of 'Progress'

via The Distributist Review

Whenever we hear the word “progress,” it is a good reason to be suspicious. The question to ask immediately is: “Progress towards what?” You cannot have progress, you cannot have improvement, unless you first identify where you are coming from and where you are going. In order to measure progress, you need to know the starting point and the goal. Then you can determine if you are farther along from the starting point than you were before and closer to the goal. But there are those who call themselves “progressive” and have never bothered telling us where exactly their progress is taking us. Their starting point seems to be tradition and the truths handed down to us through the centuries. They consider themselves to be making progress the farther they move away from these truths and traditions. They throw out the time-honored forms of worship, the prayers, the music, the art, the architecture, the moral teaching, the ancient wisdom, the faith of our fathers, but they have nothing to offer in its place. Their churches are bare, their art is formless, their prayers are vague, their music is ugly, their teaching is full of doubt. And they don’t know where they are going.

G.K. Chesterton recognized the false cult of progress in the early 20th century. He said that among the thousand forms of thoughtlessness that make up what is called free thought is the claim that the world is always advancing step by step, but the free thinkers can never say where the next step will be. The only thing they are absolutely sure of is that the next step will not be “a step on to sacred soil, or what we should call solid ground.”

Says Chesterton:
So far from saying that all roads lead to Rome, they lay it down as a fixed infallible dogma that no roads can possibly lead to Rome, even while as loudly asserting that they do not know where any of their own roads lead. Their own roads, by their own description, go winding about with every conceivable or inconceivable new curve or deflection; but they cannot possibly point to the cen­tral city of our civilization even when thousands who have traveled on those new roads have actually already arrived at that ancient place.
They always assert that nothing is final, that nothing must be accepted as absolute, but ironically, there are some things they absolutely reject. They reject the past. They accept everything in the future, even though they don’t know what it is. Though they call themselves “progressive,” there is actually something rather backwards about their philosophy of insisting that our fathers were wrong but our children are right. They will listen to anything, but “they refuse to listen to reason if it requires them to listen to Rome.”

As Chesterton points out, the false cult of progress is directly connected to the theory of evolution. Whatever the merits of the biological evidence to support that theory (merits which are debatable, though the debate on the subject has been pretty much forbidden), the problem was that the theory utterly infected social and religious thought in the 19th century. T.H. Huxley seized on Darwin’s ideas in order to justify his own agnosticism, and he was singularly responsible for popularizing Darwinism throughout the world, especially among the other skeptics like himself. The great intellectuals who somehow doubted that God had created the heavens and the earth suddenly put all their faith in the heavens and the earth basically creating themselves. They weren’t sure how it worked and how it all started, but they were quite sure that everything has been constantly getting better and will keep improving. We will evolve higher and higher. Towards what, we do not know. But the practical application of this idea was a strange form of determinism: the idea that whatever happened in the world was simply a necessary step to whatever else happened. It was part of the process, part of the progress. And it was used to justify slave labor, starvation, horrendous poverty and even more horrendous wealth. The big will keep on eating the little. Progress.

Chesterton called this idea “a rather curious variation of nature worship, which is not so much the worship of the sun or the worship of the thunder-cloud, but rather the wor­ship of the fog.” The progressives cling to the vague mists of the future.

In the 20th century, birth control and then abortion were considered signs of progress. Then euthanasia. Now, homosexual marriage. And so on. The supporters of these ideas always call refer to them as Progress. Towards what?

And what has always been accused of being the obstacle to all this progress? The Catholic Church, of course. Yes, the Church has stood in the way of poverty and starvation. The Church has stood in the way of the slaughter of the unborn. The Church has stood in the way of misguided souls who would destroy themselves through acting out their perverse desires.

It is the Catholic Church that has always stood for real progress. We have a real goal in mind. It is heaven. The works of devotion are designed to help us get to heaven. The works of charity are  designed to help others get to heaven. The works of praise and adoration are simply practice for heaven. Real progress is easy to measure. Does it bring us closer to God or not? Does it bring the world closer to God or not?

Chesterton says that sometimes in order to go forward we have to go back, that is, in order to get back on to the right road we have to turn around and return to it. It is called repentance. Repentance is the most progressive thing we can do.

Feminism Is Doomed

via Amerika

There’s an old saying, “She won the battle, but lost the war.” In other words, the worst thing about short-term consequences is that they are rarely the same as long-term consequences.

Everything can be going along according to plan when, suddenly, your economy collapses as happened to the Soviets, or your people fragment and turn on themselves, as in Rome.

Feminism has specialized in winning the battle. They brought out snappy answers and celebrity supporters. They marched. They forced corporate America and even government into line. Their weapon? Guilt.

Guilt is the essence of social control. With a group of people standing around, you say, “Why aren’t you treating me like you’d treat yourself?” This unites the group against the person who is treating you unequally.

We can call it white-knighting or not, but this altruistic impulse is as old as humanity. We inherently don’t like the idea that someone is excluded from their share of the kill, without a reason at least.

Guilt, however, confuses exclusion with inequality. Exclusion is where Bob gets none of the dead mastodon; inequality is where Bob gets less mastodon if he contributes less to society than a warrior.

Feminism promised to liberate women and make a better society. It demanded two things: first, equality for women; second, sexual liberation so that women did not have to feel “constrained” by social roles that emphasized chastity.

The first, equality of women, gave them new rights but also made them equal interchangeable parts on the production line. Without a sacred role, they are unable to achieve more than moderate approval through work, but at the expense of having a family which they also have time to appreciate.

The second, sexual liberation, reduces women to sexual objects. They are then traded around, and those foolish enough to rack up the miles and lose value become the embittered perpetual singletons with checkered histories and emotional baggage by the mile.

A new group is rising. This group has stopped trying to play the binary shell game of “equal/un-equal.” They have chosen inequality that has in its stead complementary roles, where women and men are not parts in a machine that consumes them.

This group operates on the principle of choice. Much like buying a Mercedes instead of a Hyundai, they are choosing a higher level of quality in their lives. They want traditional roles, conservative values, and the healthy families and non-neurotic children that come with them.

While feminists linger alone or destroy their children with neurosis, this new group is reproducing healthily in higher numbers than feminists. The feminists will be replaced by natural selection. And all because someone finally stood up and said “no” to guilt.

A Benediction for Heretics

via American Renaissance

Sam Dickson closes the 2015 American Renaissance conference with an inspiring reminder that race realists have the truth on their side, and that truth cannot be suppressed forever. He emphasizes that the history of America is not the history of an idea or a chronicle of “progress” but the history of a real people—that men die for family, comrades, tribe, and nation rather than for ideas. We are planting seeds, he concludes, that will germinate and bloom where we least expect them.

Training the Neurotic Elite

via Radix

Ivy League students sit at the pinnacle of American society and are considered the seeds for the nation’s future elite. Told they’re the best, the cream of the crop, their education serves as their ticket to the most prestigious jobs and profitable endeavors.

But what experiences do these institutions grant to those lucky enough to receive an acceptance letter? A grueling four-year long boot camp that trains our elite to be neurotic, materialistic, pedantic, and depressed worker bees that can keep the System chugging along.

I’ve previously written on this phenomenon before, but a contributor to Vice now offers a first-hand account of what’s it like to actually attend an Ivy League school.
Zack Schwartz recounts his dismal experience attending Columbia University and the type of person who typically attends a school like his eventual alma mater.
There's a myth that you have to be interesting and hard-working to get into an Ivy League school. I was disappointed to find out otherwise. Certainly, there are some amazing people, but you also have kids who would attend an Ivy no matter what—the children of Fortune 500 CEOs, movie stars, Middle Eastern royalty. There have been multiple pieces recently exposing Ivy League admissions as " a sham" and "rigged in favor of the privileged," and I've even overhead students laughing and saying stuff like, "I definitely wouldn't be here if my dad didn't donate." So, to all the kids who came from public schools, who worked hard, and didn't get in anywhere—that's who took your spot.
I'm still appalled at how shallow some of my classmates are. How the fuck did you get in? I wonder. But it makes sense. A lot of kids turn out to be interesting only on paper. Sure, they might have lived in four different countries and traveled to 20 more, but those experiences were bought.
Here’s Schwartz explaining the lofty goals most Columbia students have:
If you graduate from an Ivy and don't have a lucrative job waiting for you, it's shameful. So many students disregard passion, disregard their own interest and hobbies—things you can't list on a résumé—and get ground up and spat out with a suit, a smile, and a hollow inside. This is the reason why the most popular major at Ivies is financial economics—even at Brown, the school known for making grades optional, has students flocking to study the "dismal science" so they can cash in upon graduation.
I've seen kids who came in as incredibly talented musicians give up and go into finance. I've seen kids who wanted to be astronauts give up and go into finance. At Ivies, dreams take a backseat to prestige and stability.

But why do these bright kids with artistic ambitions turn to the soul-sucking world of finance?
Here's where the Ivy League's relationship with finance comes in. Once this environment crushes you and makes you realize that achieving your dreams is going to require a lot more rejection than you're used to, Wall Street swoops in. Not every Ivy has this relationship with Wall Street, but the phenomenon of banks and financial firms preying on vulnerable, intelligent students is well documented. "Here," they say. "Here's money and stability and prestige, all the things you deserve, because you're a straight-A student who made all the right choices." The only thing you don't get from that is honor. [Emphasis added]
It is interesting that the aristocrats of yore prized honor as the highest virtue and considered it more important than life itself. Our current elites seem deprived of that value—and have no qualms about it.

And they also appear miserable beyond comprehension.
My first night at Columbia, a girl jumped out of her window. I saw the blood on the pavement. Depression is normal, but here, it's the norm…
An Ivy can change your life for the better, but there's a price you pay for that. You're going to have fight for your happiness constantly. You're going to have a hard time finding "real" people. And you're going to sleep very, very little.
So why do we still think of those with credentials from prestigious schools as gods amongst mortals? Our managerial elite aren’t impressive—they’re just sad, pathetic souls tasked with the burden of running a multiracial state and a globalized economy.
If we ever want the society that lives up to the virtues of our ancestors, we need genuine aristocrats in charge—not these neurotic busybodies.

A Critical Evaluation of the New Right

via traditionalRight

The New Right has shown itself to be utterly incapable of organizing itself into any meaningful cultural force. A series of recent brouhahas (the RooshV-Krauser affair; the Aurini-Owen “breakup”, revelations that certain high-profile individuals were hiding their homosexual dispositions, etc.) proves that things are generally a train wreck. In the five years or so that the New Right has been active it has accomplished relatively nothing. I shall look at the individual components of the New Right and explain their fatal flaws and the solution to these options.

The New Right, broadly speaking, can be divided into four groups: (1) the Dark Enlightenment (DE)/Neo-Reaction, (2) the Manosphere, (3) the White Nationalists (WN), and (4) miscellaneous.

The Dark Enlightenment, an eclectic group of individuals ranging from race realists, to men’s rights advocates, to traditionalist, to transhumanists, to atheists, to nationalists, is concerned with primarily racial, sexual, and intellectual differences between people. The first problem we see with the movement is that it is all over the place. There are so many divergent interests and people that they cannot long cohere together. The perennial problem of ego wars hampers the movement, even though it is less severe than in the WN movement . Given the recent outing of undesirables it seems that the DE is composed of people of questionable character and calls into question the ability of the movement to operate for specific goals. The DE is better known for what it is against than what it is for. With the failure to engage in quality control and define itself in terms of what it is for, we should not expect much to come from the DE.

The Manosphere is largely inhabited by disgruntled males who feel that modern liberalism has shafted them. About all they stand for is getting laid and maybe building self-esteem. They are riven by personality feuds as was seen in the RooshV-Krauser debacle as well as pretentious peacocks bragging of their alleged sexual conquests. The most obvious problem with this movement is that wet pants do not a revolution make; this tendency is summarized in their slogan “Enjoy the decline”. The problem is amorous deviancy and elevating it to the summum bonum or your life is merely falling into the roles programmed for you by the Kinsean and Reich controllers. If that is you, then you are the problem.

The White Nationalists basically stand for a whites only society. They are also riven with ego wars, and are constitutionally incapable of anything more serious than sign waving protests and conferences. Greg Johnson at Counter-Currents seems to be one of the leading voices of this movement. Matt Heimbach at Tradyouth is another vocal exponent of said doctrines. The most glaring and obvious flaw in the movement is that despite all their harping about White Genocide and the need for more white babies, they are nearly all unattached, or if attached, are frequent users of family planning materials, as shown by their lack of children. So white people are dying and you don’t have any kids? That makes sense. This contradiction can be seen in Matt Parrott’s essay “Where The White Women At?”

We see that he basically makes the calculation that it is more expedient for white people to be politically active and remain single than to form families and have children; ostensibly because white women are so dysfunctional. While I agree with Mr. Parrott on his Christian defense of celibacy, I assumed such a calling was for a life of prayer, contemplation, and good works, not street activism. Maybe the WN’s should take a page out of the Christian Patriarchy movement and have large families IN ORDER TO WIN POLITICAL CONTROL. This persistent childlessness is the major reason why the WNs should not be taken seriously. If extinction is the problem, procreation is the answer, something most WNs don’t seem to get.

Miscellaneous refers to individuals who do not fit nicely in any one group. Jack Donovan is the premier representative of this group. Jack has affiliations with the DE, the Manosphere, and WNs. The real joke is that Jack is a spokesman for the New Right. Being an open homosexual, is it not ironic that people who bemoan the death of white people or the loss of traditional values turn to an agent of destruction such as Mr. Donovan? Really, sodomy is going to solve anything? Most of the miscellaneous share the same pathologies as the others. Instead of combining ideas to become a fasces, they have created a Frankenstein.

Clearly western civilization is dying. The next question is why is it dying? I will let Solzhenitsyn answer this one:
More than half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.
Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.
Indeed, the godless French Revolution laid the foundations for this catastrophe. If we look at Europe in 1750 we saw a continent that (1) was racially homogenous, (2) had strong traditional values, and (3) was the intellectual cockpit of the world. It would seem all the elements of the New Right should be happy. Yet the traditional order of the Ancient Regime can be summarized in the Vichy French Motto: Travail, Famille, Patrie, or faith, family, fatherland. The traditionalist view of Faith and Family produced the flowering of European culture in the 1500 years of Christendom, only to die in the mud and blood of WW1. Any new political order must recognize the centrality of family and faith. Any collaboration with cultural Bolsheviks who advocate sodomy, fornication, drug use, and transhumanism should be shunned as unnatural and harmful. Men and women need to return to their savior, Jesus Christ, and beg His forgiveness in order to move forward. We need to move away from these sterile pretentious man-children and their incessant ego wars and return to a traditional view of life rooted in the Christian history of the West, while remembering that social activism is not a substitute for prayer, contemplation, and the performance of good works. Rather than embracing the sterile life of egoism, cheap sex, and intellectual posturing, a robust traditionalist movement needs selflessness, commitment, and integrity. We need men like Patrick and Benedict to restore the flagging fortunes of the West, as they did 1500 years ago.

Self-Hatred Is Sick!!!

via BUGS

When I came up with the other memes, they needed explaining.

But now I‘ve got trained BUGSERS.

I believe the three words in the title above could be a new “”Diversity” = White Genocide.”

The term “guilty white people” is now a cliché.


This is a public secret.

Whites have built a culture on self-hatred.

Time to call them on it.

Putin vs. Putin: Eurasianism and Beyond

via Alternative Right

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

Reviewed by Rémi Tremblay

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

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

This man, born in Saint-Petersburg, became the interim president of Russia in 1999, at the climax of the Yeltsin era, a period known in Russia not only for its corruption, but also for its liberal policies and its opening up to the Western world. In Moscow, the liberal oligarchs, who had built their fortunes at the expense of ordinary Russians when the USSR collapsed, were in power. Simply put, they were above the law. Yeltsin was their toy and, seeing his inevitable downfall, they decided to support Putin, believing that his patriotism and populism were only facades that could serve to bolster their power. Like his predecessor, they were sure, he would become their puppet.

Putin’s muscular intervention in Chechnya during his first year as president brought him the legitimacy his predecessor never enjoyed, and helped him build a trademark of manly patriotism. The oligarchs who pushed him to become president, like Boris Berezovsky, Roman Abramovich, and Alexander Mamut, soon realized their mistake, and the relationship between them and their protégé soon soured.

Oligarch Boris Berezovsky
Putin never denounced the oligarchs as a whole, and the liberal tendency they supported in Moscow remains powerful, despite a lack of popularity among the general population. But Putin at least managed to put a few in check by taking back what they had stolen, jailing some, and forcing others to take the road to exile.

Putin’s first term saw many achievements that fitted the Eurasianist agenda, policies it should be noted that were backed by the population. He took the media out of the hands of the most notorious oligarchs, prevented Russia’s disintegration, reformed the Federation Council, introduced the rigid structure of the federal districts, and so on. But between election periods, Putin has proved to be quite liberal and even conciliatory towards the West.

In 2003, Putin started asserting Russia’s sovereignty. He refused to join the American invasion of Iraq, instead siding with Paris and Berlin in opposition to it. This assertion of sovereignty, at first implicit, became resoundingly explicit at his 2007 Munich speech, when he demanded the end of unipolarity and called for a multipolar world.

On this basis, the Russian president engaged in independent and active geopolitics, signing many treaties and pacts with other Eurasian countries, including the Eurasian Economic Community, the Common Free Market Zone, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation. However, Dugin regrets that those treaties and alliances are generally based on economics rather than a common worldview or a common historic destiny.

His strong actions made a break with the weakness of the Yeltsin years. Putin himself came to embody Russia in the same way that Louis XIV did France, when he declared, L’etat c’est moi (I am the state). He managed to eliminate the opposition around him: the liberal oligarchs, the leftists, and, it must be added, the ultranationalists. The creation of this void around himself was encouraged by the population, who, having never known democracy, demanded instead an effective authoritarian leader.

Medvedev and his shadow.
In 2008, after two consecutive terms, Putin had to step down due to constitutional limits. Dimitri Medvedev, a pro-Western liberal, replaced him.

Despite what many people feared, Medvedev’s term did not weaken Putin’s legacy nor change the outlook of the Russian state. Instead this partial return to the failed policies of the Yeltsin era, which was encouraged by the Obama administration, prepared the way for Putin’s return to the Presidency in 2012. However, this is something that has left many questions unanswered.

As he moves through his third term, Putin must realize that he has essentially failed. Economically, his few improvised policies, lacking proper planning, have seen the economy grow. But he has not solved the most important problem: Russia still does not have a real economy. Many fields, notably in the high-tech sector, have yet to be developed. Immigration and corruption are growing concerns, and, even in the field of geopolitics, he has failed. Despite some minor successes, Putin has failed to stop NATO’s expansion in Eastern Europe. Several pro-American governments have been established in neighboring countries such as Georgia and Ukraine.

Problem not solved: Muslims in Moscow.

According to Dugin, Putin is far from the image of the hardcore nationalist created by Western media propaganda. He is a man of halves: half-liberal, half-Eurasianist. He has made many steps in the right direction, but somehow he never seems to reach the end goal. Putin is essentially a realist, as defined by Machiavelli and Carl Schmidt. He has not found an ideology, but rather reacts instinctively to events and circumstances.

Despite his flaws, Putin is, according to Dugin, the best leader possible; especially when compared to the standard Western politician.

Putin Vs Putin: Vladimir Putin Viewed from the Right is not a biography but a Eurasianist analysis of Putin’s reign and of the challenges to be overcome in the future. It is an excellent introduction to Russian politics, thanks to the many footnotes, which introduce the main protagonists of the Russian political scene and the many influences at work in Moscow.

The Heretics' Hour: Warren Routledge, Author of 'Holocaust High Priest'

via Carolyn Yeager

Listen Now

Carolyn interviews Warren B. Routledge, author of "Holocaust High Priest: Elie Wiesel, Night, The Memory Cult, and The Rise of Revisionism."

This blockbuster exposé reveals so many scandalous truths about the man called "the world's most famous survivor" that it should have a warning on the cover: Beware, your comfort zone may be demolished, leaving you confused and angry.

The underlying question running through this interview is: Was Wiesel ever an inmate of either Auschwitz or Buchenwald concentration camps. as he claims? The answer coming from Routledge is no, based on the lack of any normal, unequivocal documentation that others, who made up the groups he was supposedly a part of, have. Also:

  • What role did the Catholic and homosexual Francois Mauriac play in Wiesel's career;
  • Questions about Wiesel's original story in Yiddish, which he turned into his novel Night;
  • Wiesel's ignorance of basic knowledge about Auschwitz-Birkenau, Dr. Mengele, and Buchenwald too ... and his surprising lack of curiosity to find out;
  • How records of supposed holocaust victims and survivors are kept hidden from public view;
  • Why so many revisionists are wary to charge Wiesel with lying about having a tattoo and falsely claiming to be an eyewitness.

Paganism 2.0

via Gornahoor

I see and approve what is better, but follow what is worse. ~ Ovid, Metamorphoses
I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. ~ Paul, Romans 7
For some reason, there are spme who think it is a simple matter to simply create a religion de novo, often with the intent to trick a population into pursuing some desired end. Historically, however, starting with an existing, respected religion and adding onto it seems to have a better chance of success. Recent examples include Joseph Smith with Mormonism and Mary Baker Eddy with Christian Science.

For a variety of reasons which are not important for our purpose, there are occasional calls for a return to a pre-Christian paganism. This if often tied in with the belief in a more “natural”, almost Edenic, lifestyle, unpolluted with the Christian consciousness of the loss of original innocence. Unfortunately, that state never existed, as our epigraph shows. Rather, the pagan was also in torment, feeling himself tied to a fate beyond his control, or at the mercy of boons and banes coming from the gods.

This is not to deny that a noble attitude could not arise, far from it. But the modern neo-pagan does not believe in that in the same way. Moreover, the “mule” of neo-paganism is burdened with things few want to return to: raids and conquests for personal gain, human sacrifice, slavery, a real metaphysical pluralism, and so on. A new paganism, therefore, should build on what currently exists and try to move beyond it.

We can point to two attempts in the 20th century at a new pagan philosophy: Julius Evola and Charles Maurras. Although much of what they believed is anathema to the modern world, their systems are worth investigating, if only for historical interest. At a minimum, they set standards for intellectual rigour.

Magical Idealism

Evola rejected the neo-pagan project. He even asserted that the neo-pagans would be better off joining the Church than pursuing an impossible reconstruction. Rather than back-tracking, he proposed, it seems to me, a post-Christian paganism that wants to recapture a certain nobility of spirit without resuscitating the dead mule of paganism.
For example, Paganism 2.0, in his view, would have to incorporate the spirituality of the Middle Ages by separating its pagan elements from the strictly Christian elements. This brings to mind Psyche’s task of separating the various grains from the pile. In other words, it requires a super-human effort.

Now Evola took the concept of “person” as central, even writing more than once of the “dignity of the person”. The Person, moreover, is a Christian concept, not part of the pagan mindset. Evola also rejected polytheism, since a philosophical pluralism is non-Traditional. Nevertheless, his idea of God seems to be a “god in evolution”. That is, God exists to the extent that the Self achieves the Absolute Self. So rather than pluralism, Evola actually defends solipsism. Guenon regards a belief in an evolving god as “Satanic”.

So what are his raw materials? First of all, there is his philosophical system of magical idealism as expounded in three books (Phenomenology of Magical Idealism, Theory of Magical Idealism, Essays in Magical Idealism) plus the “Yoga of Power”, that is, Tantra Yoga as mediated by John Woodroffe. Magical idealism draws on German and Italian idealism, with insights from Otto Weininger, Max Stirner, Carlo Michelstaedter, Friedrich Nietzsche, Rene Guenon, of course, and various Eastern and Western occult, esoteric, and spiritual traditions. It certainly is an interesting mélange.

Beyond that, Evola wrote books on Hermetism and Buddhism. Although the history of Hermetism is entwined with Christianity, as a post-Christian pagan, Evola attempted to extract its aspects that suited him. He also proposed a form of Buddhism, which I don’t believe actually exists.

This seems to have been a purely intellectual exercise, since, apart from some experiments in the Ur/Krur group, there was no actual esoteric path for the actualization of magical idealism. Since Evola was not fond of priests, there was no basis for an esoteric chain. The post-Christian pagan society would be ruled by a class of nobles and warriors, with the priestly role relegated to secondary importance. Perhaps they would be suitable for the merchants and serfs, but the nobles and warriors would follow the ethos of magical idealism, even if they couldn’t understand it.

I’ve heard from two young men who claim to be studying Magical Idealism in a systematic way. Perhaps something will come from those efforts.


The French Revolution shook up Europe at its foundations. The old regime, based on religion and aristocracy, holdovers from the Middle Ages, was suddenly replaced by a revolution from below. That revolution overturned the established order of things. In its aftermath, the distinction between the Left and the Right arose: the Left was in a state of permanent revolution, while the right was nostalgic for throne and altar. The best representatives of that tendency are Edmund Burke and Joseph de Maistre. Anyone interested in the actual “Old Right” needs to start with them.

From that experience, there arose the mathematician and philosopher, Auguste Comte. If the old regime could no longer support the established order of things, he looked for that support instead in science. His philosophy of Positivism regarded as real only that which could be experienced. Hence, he created a hierarchy of the sciences, based on the object of experience. He regarded the soul faculties of thinking, feeling, and willing as experiences, thereby avoiding the scientific reductionism of the positivists who came after him.

Because his system was conservative, and had space in it for the “higher” impulses in man that religion had previously claimed for itself, his ideas gained some traction. In particular, he had influence in South America because his social policy was compatible with Catholic thought. Brazil’s flag includes one of his mottoes (“Order and Progress”), although I haven’t met a Brazilian who knows where it came from.

Charles Maurras was one such thinker who considered Comte as his mentor. He also looked to Catholic social theory, as it was then being formulated by the popes starting with Pope Leo XIII … that was the original “third way” between socialism and capitalism, although neglected today. His other influence was Ernst Renan, the historian who gave up the priesthood and wrote the famous history of Jesus instead. Although he wrote it as a secular history, he wasn’t destructive, since he still recognized the ideals of religion while denying its supernatural content. Maurras also took much more from Renan, such as his ideas on nationalism. Nationalists today should follow that cue, rather than the enraged irrationalities coming from neo-pagans today. Nevertheless, such ideas will be pretty indigestible in Western nations today.

In France, Maurras brought Action Française to its peak of influence and popularity. It brought together secularists and Catholics, since they could agree on social issues. Catholic teaching is that such doctrines are knowable by natural reason, so there is a legitimate reason for cooperation. Even figures like Jacques Maritain and Rene Guenon were supporters of Action Française, until it was condemned by Pope Pius XI. When Pius XII lifted the condemnation, the damage had been done and it never recovered its former prestige. Atheistic secularism was given free rein in France.

Neo-pagan, nationalist rightists would do well to look to these figures for their intellectuality and emotional detachment, since they actually had a following. There is a reason that neo-pagans are not take seriously today.

Éric Zemmour on the Suicide of France

via Counter-Currents

Éric Zemmour
Le Suicide français
Paris: Albin Michel, 2014

I approached Éric Zemmour’s door-stopper of a book, Le Suicide français, with some trepidation. I had not always been impressed with his previous work, he is after all one of “the System’s” journalists, and Alain Soral had spoken ill of it. My fears were for the most part unfounded: This is a very worthwhile book, indeed remarkably so for one promoted by mainstream media, notwithstanding its flaws, as we shall see.

Le Suicide is a chronicle of the gradual disintegration of France both as a nation and a state from the death of General Charles de Gaulle in 1970 to the present day. The culprits? The end of patriarchy, the rise of feminism, individualism, multiculturalism, globalized capitalism, European integration, and borderlessness in all spheres. Amazingly for a mainstream publication, the book explicitly highlights the contributions of Left-wing and ethnocentric Jews to this process, with full chapters on SOS Racisme’s Judeo-Trotskyite character, the tribal activism of the official Jewish lobby,[1] Bernard-Henri Lévy’s representing “the ruling ideology for dummies”[2] (19), and “the rise of the Shoah as the official religion of the French Republic” (383).

I was frankly very impressed that Zemmour would go so far in criticizing Jewish ethnocentrism and activism in his account,[3] this strikes me as going far beyond what your typical “neoconservative” fare.[4] No doubt he gets away with more than others would because he is a Sephardic Jew, nonetheless, his explicit positions on Jews and Afro-Muslims remain rather risqué for a mainstream career. Indeed, he was widely attacked upon the book’s release for defending the Vichy Regime’s policy of protecting French Jews over foreign ones (he estimates 90% of French Jews survived the war) and was fired by i>Télé from one of his pundit jobs when comments he gave to the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera were interpreted as calling for the expulsion of all Muslims.

The book benefited from substantial media coverage, with Zemmour being repeatedly invited to various talk shows. The interviewers’ questions were often hostile but, were he really beyond the pale, they would not have given him such publicity in the first place. Le Suicide sold 400,000 copies between October and December 2014.

Le Suicide is rather similar in its fears and presentation to Thilo Sarrazin’s Deutschland schafft sich ab, which also examines the slow suicide of a great European nation. Deutschland is the work of an erudite German professor who, with all the dry rigor of a post-Prussian central banker familiar with Anglo-American studies of human biodiversity, steadily makes his case with a barrage of socio-economic data. Le Suicide in contrast is the latest polemic of a conservative journalist-turned-pundit, a professional provocateur (Zemmour has been called a “troll” more than once), each chapter presenting a colorful vignette of a key cultural, economic, social, political, or even sports moment in France’s decline. Zemmour’s work has the great merit of taking a holistic approach to national decline, exploring the complex mix of underlying causes and how they into the wider world and individual experience.[5] In doing this, he draws from an impressive array of mainstream and alternative sources (mostly French, naturellement, but also a few Anglophones and Europeans). Though he does not cite Soral, many of Zemmour’s points on feminism and Balkanization are very close (the two men apparently correspond regularly).

The book is of course not perfect. Zemmour is constantly using various rhetorical devices to exaggerate for effect: flowery metaphors, superficial analogies, pseudo-paradoxes. While certainly evocative in a single chapter – and perhaps more suited to the brevity of an op-ed or the spectacle of radio or television, where he excels – the repetitive use of such wordplay grows tiresome over time;[6] especially in a 527-page book. His rhetorical prowess is certainly impressive on occasion, as when he describes the Green movement:

Environmental politics would become this curious far-left movement which only speaks to the urban petty bourgeois; despising globalization and hating borders; advocates of local productions but with foreigners freely arriving from the entire world; defenders of the precautionary principle for nature (nuclear, GMOs, shale gas) but not for man (gay marriage, adoption by gay couples), nor for the nation (massive immigration, the right to vote and even of candidature for foreigners) [. . .]. (79-80)

Zemmour presents the most controversial points in indirect ways, using conditional or speculative qualifiers, or putting them in the mouths of others, especially concerning Jewish power (François Mitterrand and Jean-Marie Le Pen said there was a “Jewish lobby,” Muslims are anti-Semitic, Richelieu and De Gaulle were opposed to any “State within the State,” [259] etc.). This is a well-advised technique of plausible deniability. Soral has called Zemmour “a wily right-winger,” no doubt Savitri Devi would have classed him among the “clever Levantines.”

The book was often promoted by the media alongside Michel Houellbecq’s Soumission,[7] and indeed the two works share a number of themes, namely the negative effects of individualism, sexual liberation, and Jewish influence upon French society. The main difference is in the treatment of Islam: Whereas Houellebecq sees still-patriarchal Muslims as an opportunity to re-inject the French with values of Tradition, for Zemmour Islamization is an exclusively negative phenomenon.

Zemmour advocates, in effect, a return to the virtues of the Gaullist era, with a patriarchal, sovereign, non-aligned, state capitalist France without immigration; a defensible position, not dissimilar to that of a Patrick Buchanan in America. But how does one get from here to there? He knows full well the clock cannot and should not be turned back (we’d just end up back where we are).[8]

Here the book itself is rather silent. Indeed, too often Zemmour excessively idealizes the past or paints an unduly dark picture of the present. The trends are bad, of course, but everything has a silver lining. When Zemmour presents a purely negative picture of the Internet (218), because of its encouraging atomization and creating massive transnational IT giants, the points are well-taken, but it seems to me the net effect remains enormously positive in economic, cultural, and even social terms (such as enabling self-employment).

Zemmour then provides no explicit way out. He is asking a question, presenting a diagnostic. But I believe, similarly to Houellebecq, certain conclusions can be drawn from Le Suicide as a publishing event and Éric Zemmour as a political actor, which I think may also help to explain why a Sephardic Jew has become mainstream France’s leading advocate of “nationalism,” and why the media are promoting his particular brand of it.

Who is Éric Zemmour?

Zemmour’s biography helps to explain his personal positions and his place in the French politico-media system. He was born in 1958 in the Parisian département[9] of Seine-Saint-Denis to North African Jewish immigrants fleeing the Algerian War. His forefathers, along with 35,000 other Algerian Jews, were given full French citizenship in 1870 with the Crémieux Decree.[10] Seine-Saint-Denis has since become the most thoroughly Afro-Islamized département in the country, with considerable associated poverty and criminality.

While Zemmour’s father was an ambulance technician, the son studied at Sciences Po Paris, an elite grande école, and became a journalist for various media. He would go on to work as a political reporter for the conservative Figaro newspaper and a radio and TV pundit, where he would be (in)famous for his politically incorrect tirades (“most drug dealers are Black or Arab,” “If there were no races, there would also be no métissage [race-mixing]”).

Today Zemmour co-hosts a talk show on regional TV station Paris Première, has a morning op-ed on RTL radio, and a column for Figaro Magazine. He is now the most famous and influential nationalist voice allowed on French television, all but calling to vote for the Front National (although he has always been coy on this, claiming to not remember who he voted for in the 2012 presidential elections, the “democratic” French regime has yet to allow a single French pundit openly back the FN and still work in mainstream media, a party representing 10-25% of the vote). No doubt the diversity of his jobs, along with his book sales, provide him with some economic leeway to be more politically incorrect than most.

Zemmour is then a typical example of Jewish upward social mobility in post-Enlightenment, meritocratic Western societies, once secularization had made the Jewish/Christian divide apparently less salient. He and his family owe everything, from its being granted French citizenship in majority-Muslim Algeria, to the French Republic and nation. Zemmour seems to ask: Was France not the first nation to emancipate the Jews during the French Revolution? Did not Napoleon’s code civile not free all Jews from their ghettos wherever the French armies triumphed? Today, Paris is ringed by sullen, impoverished, crime-prone Afro-Islamic neighborhoods, and in particular his birthplace of Seine-Saint-Denis. The same people who, sixty years ago, a blink of an eye historically, kicked his parents out of Algeria, along with 1 million European settlers. Le Suicide is dedicated “to my father.”

As I have suggested elsewhere, I believe Zemmour wants to save France for the same reasons Ron Unz wants to save America: because the end of Western civilization would be a tragedy for all, including the Jews. His audience is as much France’s elites, Jewish and indigenous,[11] as the general public, pleading: Why destroy France, where else have we been allowed to prosper so? Are we not “as happy as God in France”?[12] Do you really want to put French Jewry at the mercy of an Afro-Islamic majority, with Jewish children already bullied in some neighborhoods and Jews being periodically murdered by Muslim chavs-turned-jihadis?

The fact that Zemmour has been promoted by the politico-media system shows, I believe, that there is genuine intra-elite debate in France on whether the French Republic and nation should be preserved or whether the current program of slow by steady abolition should be pursued to its logical conclusion.[13] He is the symbol of a possible change of course in the regime. Concretely, this would pass by the reconciliation of the ruling establishment with the Front National, which might then come to power alone or as part of a coalition, an action which would be useful insofar as it restored French politico-economic sovereignty, halted and then reversed migratory flows, and reinstituted freedom of speech on ethnic and historical questions. Such gains would no doubt be helpful in the demographic and cultural struggle, and gradual reconquest of our sovereignty and cohesion; were the FN to achieve power without them, this would be a sign of selling out to the regime.[14]

This strategy will no doubt strike many as too conservative or indeed foolhardy. Zemmour does not really explain how the forces of disintegration which destroyed his beloved 1960s France can be overcome, saying: “This enlightened conservatism was no doubt too subtle to resist the destructive folly of the age” (113). No doubt far more radical thinking and novel action will be eventually required.

Zemmour on Jews

Jews are an enormous presence in Le Suicide – between the dedicated chapters and references under other headings, perhaps 100 pages deal with the community’s members and organizations. This is suggestive of the enormous presence of Jews among France’s cultural, economic, legal, and political elites.[15]

Zemmour wants French Jews to return to the republican pact, to become what he calls “Israelites,” what Winston Churchill called “national Jews.” He quotes the Count of Clermont-Tonnerre’s argument for Jewish emancipation before the Constituent Assembly in 1789:

We must refuse everything to the Jews as a nation and accord everything to the Jews as individuals; they must form neither a political body nor an order within the State; they must individually be citizens. But, I will be told, they do not want to be citizens. Well then! If they do not want to be citizens, let them say it, let us banish them. It is loathsome that there be within the State a society of non-citizens and a nation within the nation. (259)

This meritocratic promise is why Zemmour is so infatuated with republican and even Napoleonic France[16]: Had the French Republic or the French Empire been stronger, there would have been no Third Reich and no persecution of the Jews of Europe.[17] Zemmour accuses organized Jewry – notably the CRIF – of betraying this promise. In his words they have “murdered Napoleon” and repeatedly refers to them as a “State within the State.”

Zemmour repeatedly describes left-wing Jewish agitation against the native French:

In the 1970s, the hatred of France was reinforced with a hatred of the French [. . .]. In this politico-historical context – [Robert] Paxton’s work [on Vichy], The Sorrow and the Pity, Night and Fog, etc. – inglorious memories return, of the war, of collaboration, of the extermination of the Jews. The youth, which did not experience the Occupation, ignorantly condemned the behavior of their fathers, guilty at once of having lost the war, collaborated, and handed over Jews. The leaders of leftist micro-groups [groupuscules] were mostly Jews, sons of those Ashkenazis who had been chased out, or handed over to the Germans, because they were not French citizens. [. . .]

But this youth – more imbued with Judeo-Christianity than they would care to admit – cannot mourn the loss of all millenialism, nor of all salvatory religion. The immigrant would be their new Christ, their new chosen people. His suffering would be that of the Jewish people; his oppressor – the French people of course – would be identified together in an implacable curse. (150)

He condemns left-wing Jews’ scapegoating of nationalists for various events, such as when a pro-Palestinian Arab bombed the Copernic Street synagogue in 1980:

Movements of young “anti-fascist and anti-racist” Jews hurried to demonstrate in the streets of the capital; others pillaged the Parisian head office of the European Nationalist Fasces, or fought with “neo-nazis” [. . .]; gunfire was shot against the Œuvre française office [. . .].[18] (183)

Zemmour’s account is not ideal. He recognizes the issue of dual loyalty while seeming to suggest Western Jews have no agency in the matter, citing “the effective action of the Israeli State’s PR, which had closely associated the Jewish communities of the entire world – and particularly those of the United States and France – to its destiny” (186). He wants to save our “civilization, Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian” (523). He curiously described contemporary “French self-hatred” as modeled on nineteenth-century Jewish self-hatred (506). He describes the tensions between native French and African immigrants as a return of “the ancient conflict which we had thought long past between nomads and sedentaries,” a very strange choice of words, since after all those immigrants are generally looking to permanently settle (211).

Zemmour’s narrative on the relationship between post-revolutionary France and Jews is not entirely persuasive, but has a significant degree of truth. He recognizes that the nineteenth century Universal Israelite Alliance engaged in a “parallel diplomacy,” seeking to influence the French state in the sole interests of foreign Jewish communities. Zemmour appears to consider this a legitimate anti-Semitic grievance. Many French Jews did sincerely uphold French republicanism and some even died for it, like Marc Bloch. Jewish ethnocentrism has clearly become more overt and explicit since the 1960s.

Zemmour is then the strange successor to that other Jewish intellectual associated with France’s conservative establishment, Raymond Aron, though they radically differ in style.[19] The ever-hyperbolic and metaphorical Zemmour fears, as Aron did towards the end of his life 30 years ago, that the rise in explicit Jewish ethnocentrism, in particular since the 1967 Six Day War, will have adverse consequences. While the measured, conciliatory Aron was pessimistic on immigration and European decadence, Zemmour wants immigration ended and multiculturalism abolished, decadence arrested.

But there is the same problem with Zemmour’s civic nationalism as with Aron’s or Soral’s: It only works in good times and is inherently unstable, just waiting to fall into debilitating contradictions or outright collapse as soon as any group’s ethnocentrism rises, causing other groups’ ethnocentrism to rise in retaliation and the usual escalation through mimetic rivalry. When the mass of society is ethnically divided, this leads to bloody partition. When a minority ethnic group is influential at the top of society, this leads a country’s elites to be hostile to majority-group ethnocentrism and supportive of the minority group’s (e.g. Israel). A multiethnic country is an accident waiting to happen.[20]


1. The Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of France (CRIF).
2. Given Lévy’s notorious ethnocentrism and Francophobia, this is in effect admitting that France is dominated by a MacDonaldian culture of critique. Kevin B. MacDonald, The Culture of Critique (First Books, 2002). Zemmour summarizes Lévy’s thesis thus: “Love of France is therefore the extermination of the Jews” (193) and accuses him of “alternating between pacifism on French TV shows, and nationalist pride in Jerusalem” (195).
3. Indeed, I thought some of these texts were so noteworthy they merited translation into English. Éric Zemmour, “The Rise of the Shoah as the Official Religion of the French Republic,” The Occidental Observer, May 12, 2015 Zemmour, “SOS Racisme: A Case Study in Anti-Nationalist Jewish Activism,” The Occidental Observer, May 14, 2014.
4. Although, admittedly, I may not be in a good position to compare, as I have always been repulsed by, and rarely expose myself to, such brain poison.
5. The following extracts from Zemmour’s conclusion give a sense of his style and argument:
De Gaulle failed. Forty years after his death, his masterpiece is in ruins. [. . .]
For the most part our elites have abdicated. Our political elites have abandoned national sovereignty and independence in the name of the great European project. Our economic elites betray the interests of France in the name of globalization and a necessary internationalization. Over half the companies of the French stock exchange are owned by foreign funds. Industrial France no longer belongs to France. The French stock exchange has not welcomed new companies for 20 years. Bosses are leaving the Hexagon [metropolitan France], following or preceding their children who are studying in London, New York, Montreal, Los Angeles, establishing their companies in England, the Netherlands, America, Singapore or Shanghai, as though their future growth only depended on emerging countries, as though their past growth owed nothing to the dear old country.
Our media elites justify and exalt this great abdication, admonish and track down rare dissenters, and unleash a continuous flow of guilt-inducing moralism upon the public mind.
Their common objective is to bind France to the Western ensemble which will unite against the new threat from the East, in particular China. The transatlantic free trade agreement [TAFTA] has as its goal, in the words of the American negotiators, to build “an economic NATO.” This agreement would subject the European economy to U.S. health, technical, environmental, legal, and cultural norms; this would definitively spell the end of a coherent and independent Europe. (517-519)
He goes on:
For them [French elites], the cultural coherence which our people had been able to preserve, despite significant immigration in the nineteenth century, is suspect [. . .]. The future of our dear Hexagon lies between a vast touristic amusement park and Islamic fortresses, between Disneyland and Kosovo. The State is no more than an empty shell which has conserved only the worst Gaullian particularities (elite arrogance), without having the remarkable effectiveness. We would need the firm hand of a Colbert or a Pompidou for our lost industries to be reborn from their ashes. We would need an implacable Richelieu to relentlessly fight “the State within the State” [a thinly-veiled to organized Jewry, among others] and the “foreigners’ parties” [partis de l’étranger, serving foreign power, rather than immigrants] to destroy the “Islamic La Rochelles” which are being built on our territory; but we give way to the internal enemy which we have allowed to prosper, and we ally with foreign powers who feed it with their subsidies and religious propaganda – the Gulf Arab princes have replaced the Duke of Buckingham [. . .].
The anti-racist and multiculturalist ideology of globalization will be to the twenty-first century what nationalism was to the nineteenth and totalitarianism was to the twentieth: a warmongering messianic progressivism; we will have transferred war between nations to war within nations [. . .]
It’s the entire Occident which is suffering this gigantic movement of peoples, losing bearings, identities and certainties. [. . .]
France is dying, France is dead.
Our political, economic, administrative, media, intellectual, and artistic elites are spitting on her grave and trampling on her festering corpse. They draw social and financial gratification from this. All watch, with sarcasm and feigned emotion, the France that is being felled; and write with a bored and disdainful air, “the last pages of the history of France.” (525-7) 
This or similar expressions were used by presidents Charles de Gaulle and François Mitterrand. Zemmour quotes De Gaulle after he (temporarily) lost power in 1946: “French decadence began in the middle of the eighteenth century. Since, there have only been occasional resurgences. The last was in 1914. Me, I bluffed, and by bluffing I was able to write the last pages of the history of France.” (24) The journalist Georges-Marc Benhamou reported Mitterrand saying: “I am the last of the great presidents . . . Well, I mean the last in De Gaulle’s tradition. After me, there will not be any more in France . . . Because of  Europe . . . Because of globalization.” Georges-Marc Benhamou, Le dernier Mitterrand (Plon: 1996), 145-6.
6. “France is the sick man of Europe” (9, who isn’t sick in Europe?), Europeans’ settlement of America is likened to the Israelites’ flight from Egypt, the 1981 race riots of Vénissieux are termed the French Communists’ “Dien Bien Phu,” etc. Zemmour engages in hyperbolic excess to better condemn: France’s (limited) decentralization in the 1980s meant “the State was decapitated at the top after having been gnawed at from the bottom. The Gulliver inherited from Colbert, Napoleon, De Gaulle was bound, ridiculed, humiliated. Assassinated” (228). An excellent chapter on the difficult subject of European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet begins with a just slightly overdone metaphor. “He was the final sovereign of a European continent which had abolished sovereignty in the name of peace. He was at once the Emperor Charlemagne and the last head of the French State” (483).
7. Guillaume Durocher, “Houellebecq, Islam, & the Jews: A Review of Michel Houellebecq’s Soumission,” Counter-Currents, February 26, 2015.
8. Zemmour notes that Socialist President François Mitterrand tried briefly to restore a kind of socially progressive nation-statist dirigisme in 1981 but “the economic transformations (abolition of borders within Europe, end of the gold standard, price of oil, etc), but also the decapitation by May 68 of the hierarchical structure which was the backbone of French society, had made this Restoration [. . . ] impossible” (232).
9. County.
10. Named after the Franco-Jewish Justice Minister of the day, Adolphe Crémieux, who incidentally had taken a leading role in more generally organizing Jewish lobbying worldwide, founding the Universal Israelite Alliance in 1860.
11. The argument for the preservation of France is somewhat different for native French elites and oligarchs: Are you really comfortable in a world where only English may be spoken? Are you really comfortable destroying the French Republic and putting your fate in the hands of the ineffectual, unresponsive Eurocracy? Are you and your children really going to be better off when you are reduced to a minority in an Afro-Islamic country?
12. Guillaume Durocher, “‘As Happy as God in France’: The state of French Jewish elites,” The Occidental Quarterly 14, no. 4 (Winter 2014-2015): 41-56.
13. Other rising stars symbolizing this debate include “philosopher” Alain Finkielkraut and pundit Élisabeth Lévy, both of whom are objectively hysterical. Like Zemmour, these two have promoted a certain rehabilitation of French culture and criticism of multiculturalism. Finkielkraut once lamented that the French national football team had become “Black-black-black” (saying it in English, a play on the old multiracial slogan: “black-blanc-beur” [Black-White-Arab]). As such, he could hardly complain if we remark that these three mainstream “nationalist” voices form a “Jew-Jew-Jew” trio. Élisabeth Lévy once famously attacked a Black activist, who demanded more people of color on television, saying: “If there is aren’t enough of X, then what is there ‘too much’ of, exactly?” As it happens, if Jews in the French media were gracious enough to hand their positions to Blacks and Muslims in line with their share of population (15-20%), they would still be the most over-represented group. No other (pseudo-)nationalist pundits are allowed on French television. One would indeed find it strange if, in Israel, only Christians were allowed by the media to present an apology of “Israeli nationalism” . . .
14. À la Gianfranco Fini.
15. Zemmour peppers the book with ominous quotes, such as Claude Lévi-Strauss’ “The ultimate goal of the human sciences is not to build man, but to dissolve him” (14), Michel Foucault’s “I am creating something which ultimately is used for a siege, for a war, for a destruction” (122), and the strange “philosopher” Benny Lévy’s ideological journey “from Mao to to Moses,” ending up teaching “Levinassian studies” in Jerusalem under the patronage of Bernard-Henri Lévy and Alain Finkielkraut . . . Difficult to imagine a more blatant transition from pseudo-universalist anti-European agitation to absolute Jewish ethnocentrism.
16. Zemmour’s previous book, Mélancolie française, is a short historical overview which portrays France as a sort of failed empire, which I think is an incorrect view, the revolutionary-Napoleonic episode being an exception, as opposed to being the first and archetypical nation-state. I found Le Suicide a far better work, Zemmour I believe being much more familiar with contemporary history.
17. As an aside, Zemmour quotes a particularly perceptive De Gaulle: “In the victories of Alexander, there is Aristotle” (477). A conqueror’s political œuvre – above and beyond the cruelly ruthless pragmatism of any successful war leader – is inevitably shaped by the ruling intellectual Zeitgeist, by the intellectuals, dead or alive, who have given them their assumptions and values. While Adolf Hitler drew from the German conservative revolutionary and Anglo-American evolutionary thinkers of the day, Napoleon followed the bourgeois Enlightenment. Thus I suspect that had Napoleon defeated England and his vast, largely ethnically-naïve Empire endured, Jews would have risen to the same position of privilege there as they currently enjoy in the United States.
18. A nationalist group.
19. Guillaume Durocher, “The Jew as Citizen: Raymond Aron & Civic Nationalism,” Counter-Currents, November 5, 2014.
20. During a chance meeting, the francophone Black Nationalist Kemi Seba explained his skepticism of Soralism to me with the following example: Will Soral’s Algerian supporters “die for France” if the French Republic were to go to war with Algeria?

Say Yes to White Privilege

via American Renaissance

There is an unquenchable thirst for new theories linking the failings of minorities to the attitudes and behavior of white people. In the last few decades, as even the faintest trace of racial identity among whites has been banished from public life, the search for new explanations of white malevolence had to become more creative. This led to the invention of vague and un-provable forces such as institutional racism to explain black failure, and “stereotype threat” to explain low test scores.

The current favorite is “white privilege.” This is the idea that inherent racial favoritism in American society buoys whites and hinders blacks and other minorities. Like its predecessors, it cleverly does not require specific acts or even intent, and any attempt to deny its existence is further proof of its strength.

Most white people reply defensively when they are charged with white privilege. They claim that white people struggle and suffer, too. They point out that racism and discrimination are illegal and socially unacceptable. They insist that whites don’t enjoy overt favoritism, and that it is non-whites who get special treatment. As a last resort, they sputter, “And we elected a black president.”

This is all true. And the instinct to deny white privilege is understandable; no one likes to have his accomplishments diminished by charges of favoritism. But denials are useless.

Instead, the answer should be, “Of course there’s white privilege!”

A country that was almost 90 percent white a few decades ago has a presumption of whiteness in virtually all aspects of private and public life. That presumption continues, to the extent that we are still a white country, and yes, being a minority has disadvantages.

Individuals instinctively “privilege” their family; they privilege friends and community members with trust and goodwill. People generally don’t privilege outsiders or anyone they suspect would not reciprocate or appreciate their generosity. Extrapolated over American society, that amounts to white privilege.

It follows that there is black privilege in black countries and Asian privilege in an Asian countries. Should the citizens of those countries feel compelled to apologize for it? No.

Does a white police officer or store owner give the benefit of the doubt to a clean-cut white boy but not to a surly, dread-locked black? Probably. That’s white privilege, but it’s not a nefarious plot; it’s human nature and common sense.

The accusation of privilege is just one battle in the psychological war being waged on white people—mostly by other white people. To say “you cheated” to someone who worked hard and achieved success is deliberately annoying and deflating. It’s the racial version of “You didn’t build that!”

Why do people want to undermine a sense of pride among white people? Because they believe there is no greater source of evil in the world than white solidarity. They think white unity must be squashed to prevent oppression of minorities. Any large gathering of whites—Tea Party rallies, NASCAR, fraternities—is suspect.

In fact, there is no greater force for progress in the world than a cohesive, self-confident white society–not for purposes of aggression or subjugation, but simply as a civilization that leads to superior living conditions. Saying so respectfully, without apology or guilt, would win more understanding and respect from non-whites than apologies and denials.

And telling minorities that white people are living comfortably because of unfair advantages doesn’t help. It just fuels their sense of injustice.

American society, like any other, is rooted in a sense of connectedness between people. That connectedness is a precursor to, not a result of, a stable society, limited government, and free markets. The problem is not that there is white privilege, but that it is diminishing.

The loss of white privilege will not lead to an increased fairness. In the United States, the white percentage of the population is falling quickly. No other race believes in “diversity” or claims to be race blind, so if white people are stupid enough to give away their country, they’ll quickly lose it. Future generations of white people will have no privilege, but will still be accused of it.

So stop trying to deny or apologize for white privilege. Embrace it. Privilege your family and friends. Privilege your white neighbors and coworkers. Load your invisible knapsack with all it will hold. You’ll need it.

Interview with Jack Sen, Part 2

via The Occidental Observer

Part 1

Jack Sen (left) with UKIP Deputy
Leader MEP Paul Nuttall
In the EKP interview, you mention a “shadowy elite bent on our destruction.” In reading it, I definitely had the impression that you were referring a predominantly Jewish elite, or at least an elite that is substantially Jewish to the point that elite attitudes and policies would have to comport to the interests and attitudes of its Jewish component.

For example, you stated that “The west is controlled by Leftists that can trace their roots back to former Soviet eastern bloc nations-men like Yossel Slovo [longtime leader of the South African Communist Party], Ed Miliband etc.”  Ed Miliband’s father is Marxist sociologist Ralph Miliband; you stated that “Ralph Miliband emigrated to Britain and did his utmost to destroy his host nation.” You also mention Dan Glass, Eleanor Margolis, Nadine Gordimer (an anti-apartheid activist who received the Nobel Prize for Literature), Barbara Lerner Specter, and Emily Thornberry. Of these 8 names, only one — Emily Thornberry — is or was not Jewish, and it is well-known that the great majority of UK Jews descend from those who, like Ralph Miliband, immigrated from Eastern Europe.

This would seem to be suggest that you think that Jews have a major role to play in this shadowy elite. We at TOO have claimed that Jews are a necessary (but not a sufficient) condition for the current onslaught of immigration and multiculturalism in the US. Am I correct in my impression that you think Jews are a necessary condition for the current program of destruction against the traditional people and culture of the UK?

Certainly. There’s no denying that Jewish radicals are the progenitors of the vast majority of the intellectual and social movements undermining Western culture — from Marxism, the feminism ruining our families, homosexual advancement, and often counterproductive civil rights causes. Most honest people with a proper understanding of history recognize that Jews were and are at the forefront of these movements. Didn’t Barbara Spectre herself admit as much? [Ed.: Yes]

I was certainly quite clear that I thought as much in the interview.

But I was just in the middle of a campaign, caught up in the heat of a moment with a very intense interviewer who wanted me to pin all our society’s ills on Jews. Although I agreed with him on most issues, about halfway through the chat I realised that if I as much as sneezed the word Jew — even if i had the evidence to back up my point, my career in UKIP would be over at that moment.

In fact, it was my referencing Berger’s loyalty to Israel, and not my claims that there was concrete effort to eradicate White South Africans, that would ultimately sound the death knell of my campaign. I felt guilty that I couldn’t go any farther, but also thought the interviewer recognised that I was being quite clear, especially knowing the sort of audience the EKP website has.

But certainly I just personally couldn’t take that chance so I decided to leave it out of the interview.

Do I regret it?

Yes and no. If I’d been suspended then I would not have been on the ballot. Procuring more than 6000 votes (above the national UKIP average), a 10% increase from UKIP West Lancashire’s last showing, as a suspended candidate no less, was no small feat and something I am quite proud of.

Still, in some respects, I do, as I compromised my principles by biting my tongue.
I would have loved to have stated that the radical movements discussed — those designed with the intention of subverting Western nations, were mechanisms used to advance Jewish group interests. I just couldn’t at the time. I’m glad I have the opportunity to do so now.

One thing I do regret however, is putting my family through all of this — something you and I discussed during an earlier conversation.

We have been the recipients of numerous threats that the media and my own party have turned a blind eye to. Apparently alleged anti-Semitic tweets are a far bigger issue than the literally dozens of letters, threats and instances of serious abuse I’ve received.

And it’s only gotten worse since the mass media jumped on me and UKIP threw me under a bus publicly.

Just last week some clown — probably a paid Labour supporter, felt compelled to post my leaflet back to my local chairman. He drew a Hitler moustache on my face, popped an SS cap on my head, and scrawled the names of Reich SS officers below my council candidates. Himmler and Goebbels apparently had been reincarnated in West Lancashire. (I asked the police if I could keep the flattering artwork as a memento but they refused)

Before that I received a dozen or so death threats in the post from an organization calling themselves Stand up to UKIP.

Just prior to the election I attended a scheduled street surgery where I was confronted by a Labour party activist that shouted “anti-Semite” and “Nazi“ at me so I couldn’t speak.

On another occasion I was confronted by a group of Labour thugs in town. I was with my wife and daughter and literally menaced to a point where I thought the confrontation might get physical. My family was quite shaken up and it left me wondering if it was all worth it. But then someone has to take a stand.

My Nordic wife, English mother, and most importantly my 100% phenotypically white daughter, need someone to represent their interests and protect their wellbeing, and I have felt for some time now that I should be that person. That’s what dads and real men do.

Sadly, as I’m certain you’ve recognised, the vast majority of White Western men inhabiting Northern Europe and North America are quite apathetic — one can say they’ve been emasculated beyond belief by Cultural Marxism, evidenced by the tens of thousands of grooming gang rapes and not one instance of revenge.

After what transpired in Rotherham, where White children were singled out for rape, and the White Leftist establishment and their dads did nothing to prevent it, I felt I needed to take a stand, not against the perpetrators of the rape, but the Leftist fiends facilitating it.

Even if I am one of the few men in Britain willing to sacrifice his career to do so, I’ve done my part and I can certainly sleep at night. I am sure you know firsthand what it feels like to be bullied and silenced because of your beliefs, and recognise the importance of speaking out and doing what’s right for your family and country.

And I would like to add that the British gentile elite don’t deserve a free pass either. Without people like Tony Blair who spent decades undermining our national sovereignty, activists like Emily Thornberry and White social service workers that facilitate rape on a daily basis, even men like Farage that authorise the suspension of candidates who fight back, and usefully idiotic White English liberals championing the issues that do us the most harm, we’d be fine. We Westerners on many levels are our own worst enemy.

What won’t we do for a quick buck and a warped ideology we believe in.

In the EKP interview, you mention Hollywood movies that deal with the Holocaust and with slavery in the American South. You characterize such movies as “propaganda” and note that certain atrocities, such as the mass murders carried out by the Soviet government, are studiously avoided by Hollywood. You don’t mention a Jewish connection here, but Jewish influence and the prominent of themes favored by the organized Jewish community in the U.S. have often been discussed on The Occidental Observer. Do you believe that Jews and Jewish interests are overrepresented in the U.K. media?

Certainly. The elite use film, the media and academia to undermine indigenous culture. Nationalism, patriotism, even love of country is often perceived as a threat and to be attacked. Historical events that may or not have even taken place, are exploited in order to further tribal gains.

In the US, an annual stream of Slavery horror films in which the Black man is abused to such an extent his descendants still feel his pain, is being used to incite hatred and breed the animosity that currently exists between Blacks and Whites.

Most poor black people couldn’t care less what happened last week, why would they worry about something that happened to their ancestors hundreds of years earlier?

They only do because are they are being indoctrinated into hatred.

Sounds a bit conspiratorial but one need only look at how many films are released annually about slavery, the Holocaust, the Black civil rights movements, injustices perpetrated against women and other ‘minorities’. Is there any wonder Americans are at one another’s throats?

Over the next few years I expect Hollywood will do its best to whip your LGBT population into a hate-filled frenzy, as well. A few more films about Matthew Shepard will do the trick.

The British media is not immune from Jewish influence either.  It might not be as conspicuous as it is in the US, where Jews control almost every facet of popular culture, but it is quite bad.

The current director of television at the BBC-the person responsible for deciding what we watch, is a man by the name of Danny Cohen. Prior to his appointment as Director he ran Britain’s Channel 4 (Britain’s second biggest private station), then BBC One-our largest station.

Cohen, like many high ranking Jews attended a Jewish primary school, and was active in organisations pursuing Jewish interests. To think his background has no impact on his decisions is mad.

And Danny, is not an anomaly. Jews are overrepresented across our media, as top newsreaders and media personalities, singers and songwriters, actors and culture creators. Guest pundits are often Jewish and names like Margolis saturate our print and news media. Again, pointing this out is not anti-Semitic or racist. Many of these people are more English looking than I am. This is just about elucidating the truth.

Although we are not as hung up on the Holocaust in this country as you are in the US, we are certainly saturated with pro-Jewish messages on TV and in film. There’s no getting away from that.

My Cockney grandfather used to tell me-while the Englishman was acquiring and buying up all the land, the Jews were doingbuying up the world’s newspapers.
Nothing’s changed.

At TOO we have often disputed the idea that Jewish identities are irrelevant to political behavior and have made the point that Jewish leftists often retain a strong Jewish identity and pursue what they see as Jewish interests. Do you think that the Jewish identity of politicians like Luciana Berger and Ed Miliband influences how they would act on issues related to immigration, muliticulturalism, free speech, and Israel — issues where the organized Jewish groups like the Board of Deputies have strong opinions?

Undoubtedly. Men like Grant Shapps-former Conservative Party chairman and current Minister of State at the Department for International Developments, are constantly pushing for us to escalate hostilities with Iran, while lasses like Luciana Berger- are often involved in, or chair Jewish think tanks, lobbying firms and organisations with explicitly Jewish interests, all while supposedly representing Britain’s interests in Westminster.

Prior to being parachuted into Wavertree, Liverpool from one of the wealthiest areas of West London, Berger was President of Labour friends of Israel where she lobbied our government to send money overseas for three years. She only stepped down once she was gifted the safe Labour seat by Labour leadership.

Berger is in fact so obsessed with exposing anti-Semitism, she claims she sees it around ever corner. She’s more well known for feigning moral outrage and subsequently demanding anyone that criticises Jews be imprisoned for exercising their freedom of speech, as she did in my case, than serving her constituency-which was the point I was trying to make in those Tweets.

Berger’s had several local lads physically locked up over what amounts to the sort of online trolling hot heads get up to when they’ve nothing better to do, has petitioned American twitter to ban people and block terms that she deems offensive to Jews, among a variety of other examples of behaviour that clearly demonstrate her fixation and the allegiance I referenced.

And this is not some newfound cause she’s just started championing.

While serving as a National Executive Committee (NEC) member of Britain’s National Student Union she was in a very public row with her fellow Leftist committee comrades over their perceived anti-Semitism. She ultimately resigned from the board, publicly accusing other NEC members of hatred.

So it’s not like I criticised her without good cause, nor is it that outrageous to draw the conclusion she has divided loyalties-even a foreign one considering her track record.

Regarding Miliband. Although I harbour nothing but contempt for the man, Ed Miliband-the most high profile Jewish politician in Britain, is probably the least hawkish British politician of Jewish origin when it comes to foreign policy and supporting Israel. He has been condemned by many Jews for his voting record and apparent support of a two state solution. Miliband did in fact vote to push the British government to recognize the Palestinian state in a House of Commons vote last year.

Let’s just say a lot of his Jewish backers were none too amused. My guess is Luciana Berger called a hotline or two as well.