May 28, 2015

The Challenges We Face: An Open Letter to Elon Musk

via Kevin Alfred Strom

Listen Now

DEAR MR. Musk:

I recently watched the interview you gave to the World Post, and I was struck by your insights into the demographic decline of that part of the human population of this planet on which we absolutely depend for the continuance of our civilization. I was honestly amazed that you — unlike most men who have achieved eminence, and who hence have a great deal to lose — took on, without any apparent hesitation, an issue that is surrounded by a quasi-religious taboo even greater than the taboo the imams put on images of their prophet: the issue of human quality. As a man of the world, I am sure you know about that taboo. Yet, like both Crick and Watson, you nevertheless chose to violate it. This speaks well of you: It speaks of your concern for our looming demographic death, and it also speaks of courage — and passion. It is a passion I have shared for the last 33 years. I hope you will not think me arrogant when I say that I write you to expand your knowledge on this issue: There are vital aspects to it — aspects also subject to an equal or even greater taboo — that must be considered.

I will intersperse my comments between your answers, mostly from the section of your interview titled “What Challenges Lie Ahead?”

You were asked about the three greatest challenges to our civilization, and you answered:

I think demographics is a real issue. People are not having kids in a lot of countries. And very often people will say, “We’ll solve it with immigration.” But immigration from where? Many parts of Europe have an average birthrate of only 50 or 60 per cent. of what’s needed for replacement. Or China for that matter — they’re at 50 per cent. of the replacement rate. Where, exactly, are we going to find 600 million people to replace the ones that were never born?

After making that statement, you were chided by some writers for supposedly ignoring the huge problem of overpopulation. But I suspect that you were not ignoring that problem in your own mind, though you did fail to mention it — and it would be preposterous to suggest that you are unaware of it. What these writers were saying, in effect, was “What the Hell?! Here we are on track to have 9 billion people in the world, with all the environmental disasters that entails, and Musk is saying the major challenge we face is lack of people? Is he crazy, or what?”

No, you are certainly not crazy. But you knew very well that you were stepping into the minefield that surrounds the forbidden (yet indubitably true) idea that human beings are not equal — not equal as individuals, and not equal as races, nations, or populations. And you wanted to get your ideas across without the screaming banshees of Political Correctness drowning you out. I really don’t blame you for failing to use the more frank and direct approach that I’ve been using, which would be to say this: We have far too few of the right kind of people, and far too many of the wrong kind.

What you were saying — without saying it too bluntly — is that the people we need, the kind of people we’d prefer to have, the kind of people who more than pull their own weight, who more than support themselves, the kind of people who invent great things — are not reproducing themselves. Yet I am sure that you — and all of us with eyes to see the devastation of our natural world — would acknowledge that we have far too many of the other kind of people.

You continued:

The Chinese have just lifted their one child policy, but I doubt it will have an effect. That is not the reason couples are having only one kid. There hasn’t been a one child policy in Europe, in Russia — or in Japan. Why are they having only one child?

Here you are talking about Russia and the rest of Europe. Here you are talking of Japan and China. You are talking of the two major intelligent races of mankind, races which founded great civilizations. You are not, I notice, talking of Mestizos or Africans or Arabs, whose surging (and, frankly, lower-quality) populations are flowing into the West, and who — because of the policies of our own governments — are poised to replace us in the nations we founded. You are making a crucial distinction here, and that distinction is between the general nominally-human population (which is not, to put it mildly, in decline), and the population of civilization-bearers (parts of which face near-term extinction).

Surely you realize that the real danger here is the demographic death of the White race, since you can easily see that Japan and China (which, as you point out, is phasing out its one child policy) are not so insane as to commit suicide via immigration and miscegenation. This is something that is only happening to White countries. The only White country that has seriously addressed its own demographic decline is Russia, which (instead of importing non-Whites) has recently instituted policies — which don’t go nearly far enough, in my view — to increase the native Russian birthrate. The Russian ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, spoke of the same distinction you made when he spoke of our endangered “Northern civilization,” of which Russia, the rest of Europe, and America, are leading members — peoples who, in Rogozin’s view, must become concerned for the survival of their common civilization.

And surely, a man such as you can see that the White race — though slightly less intelligent on average than the Asians — has a uniquely creative intelligence and a class of uniquely gifted geniuses that has made it the driving force of innovation, science, and culture without which civilization as we know it could scarcely exist. The Bell Curve that describes our intelligence is broader, with a higher percentage of our population in the IQ stratosphere — and the nature of that intelligence is different in kind as well as magnitude.  But European civilization is committing suicide — its members having, as you said, one child, even without having a government policy mandating that.

The truth is, Mr. Musk, that the Jewish power structure is very strong in the West, and that Jewish power structure is determined to undermine the founding White majority in every nation where such a majority still exists. They do this not by legislating one-child laws, but by fiercely lobbying for open borders, promoting miscegenation of Whites with humanity’s lowest-quality stocks, encouraging non-procreative sex among Whites, and by creating — with their financial power over politicians and their media and academic power over public opinion — a moral climate in which it is considered “wrong” and even “evil” for Whites to fight, or even express concern about, their own dispossession and looming extinction. Yet we know that the Jewish state itself — which these same financiers and media moguls support — is the most intensely racially-conscious nation on Earth. Paradoxically, it appears that the Jewish leadership intends their people to be the only White or White-appearing people allowed to exist beyond the next few generations. Not only is this selfish hubris almost beyond belief, it is also doomed and unworkable — and it is also genocide. The Jewish leaders are certainly powerful, but it would be hard to make a case that they are rational. And they are leading us all to a disaster of cosmic proportions.

Perhaps your experiences with Mark Zuckerberg’s pro-immigration gave you some insight into this.

You continued:

I think people are going to have to come to regard, to some degree, the notion of having kids as something of a social duty. Within reason, if you can and you’re so inclined, you should. Otherwise, civilization will just die, literally. There is one thing that is certain: if the people go away, so will civilization.

Indeed. If the civilization-bearers go away, so does civilization. It is doubtful that the masses of the Third World can even maintain a civilization that is given to them, much less create one or advance the one they were handed. Liberia is a perfect example. Founded with all good intentions by anti-slavery activists who wanted to give the freed slaves there every possible advantage and even a near-duplicate of the United States Constitution, Liberia has degenerated into just another African basket case, as the video I republished yesterday on National Vanguard makes abundantly clear. I’ll embed that video here, so everyone who reads this open letter can see it.

While you are building spaceports, Mr. Musk, the Liberians are eating each other — and wallowing in superstition and degradation so low that they can hardly be thought of as human, and cannot be witnessed without physical revulsion and sickness. The discomfort of the White narrator of this film is obvious — he tries to laugh it off, but again and again his face shows the shock of having all his implanted illusions of “equality” shattered in the most dramatic ways imaginable. The pit of subhumanity called Liberia is clearly where Baltimore, Maryland and Ferguson, Missouri are headed. They’re already halfway there. So is Johannesburg in the country of your birth — something which I doubt I have to point out to you. South Africa has gone from a White-run First World country of astounding scientific innovation to a pesthole of AIDS and ju-ju in just a single generation. We in America, and in all of the White world under American domination, are headed at superlocomotive speed in the same disastrous direction. You could have a role in stopping that genocidal, intelligence-killing and consciousness-killing train.

You continued in your interview:

The birthrate is strongly inversely correlated to wealth, inversely correlated to education, and positively correlated to religion. So the more religious you are — the less educated — and the poorer you are, the more kids you will have. This is true between countries, and within countries….

I think if you were to state the threats to civilization, the lack of people is obviously a threat to civilization. We are going to face, in the mid part of this century, and particularly in the latter part of this century, a demographic implosion the likes of which we have never seen — including the Black Plague. The math is obvious. When did China ever experience a 50 per cent. reduction in its population? The answer is never. Basically, [if it ever did happen, it happened] pre-writing — because no one’s ever written of such a thing. Even when the Black Plague came through Europe, they might have lost a quarter — but never a half — of the population. And yet, we have modern Spain with a birthrate that is 50 per cent. of replacement. It’s as if someone went through and killed half the population — the future population.

Something better happen to turn this around. Because otherwise, you have an inverted demographic pyramid. And it’s going to collapse. At this rate, the only thing that’ll be left will be robots.

I think I need to correct you here: The only things that will be left will be the civilized Asians, a small (and probably temporary and unsustainable) elite of Jewish financiers, and a crumbling, doomed remnant of Western civilization tenanted mainly by the likes of the Liberians and Mestizos. With all due respect to the civilized Asians, this means our death and the death of the hope that our civilization can transcend the bounds of Earth. You go on:

Three generations of a 50 per cent. of replacement birthrate gets you to 12 per cent. of your former population. And those 12 per cent. — all they’re going to be doing is taking care of their grandparents. Eventually, there just won’t be people, at that rate.
Another small correction: They’ll be taking care of their grandparents only if they can successfully prevent themselves from being slaughtered by the teeming and starving and angry masses they have brought into their nations and who implacably hate them.

Another threat to civilization is religious extremism — obviously a concern. If that grows over time — particularly if it’s a form of anti-science, anti-technology Luddite religious extremism — then it’s an obvious threat.

I won’t mention the third threat to civilization.

…for me you’d want to have a future where there is a space-spanning civilization where our species is out there exploring the stars…. From an evolutionary standpoint, human consciousness has not been around very long. A little light just went on after four and a half billion years. How often does that happen? Maybe it is quite rare. In fact, it would appear to be quite rare. Or, others out there with a consciousness are very good at hiding. If it is such a rare thing, then we should do whatever we can to ensure its long-term survival.

Indeed we should, Mr. Musk. There was a bright light that went on some 50 or 60 thousand years ago, when the northern hemisphere’s extreme environment brought a new human subspecies into being: European man. From that explosion of light came the Parthenon, Maxwell’s equations, Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, the double slit experiment, and SpaceX Corporation. We have a responsibility to that heritage — and to the possible future in the stars that that heritage has made possible.

How can you best serve the purpose of Higher Consciousness and Higher Man?

Again, I hope you do not see me as arrogant when I suggest that you probably must denounce or ignore me in public or — even with your billions and your considerable wit — risk being crushed by the same forces that crushed James Watson when he spoke the truth.

But, in private, I hope you will use all the wealth and all the force and energy at your disposal to ensure that the human colonies on other worlds — that we yet have a chance to found with your help before we are subsumed by the rising tide — are populated entirely and only by the highest types of European Man, and that we do not make the most tragic mistake possible: that of exporting our own devolutionary racial problems to the surface of another world.

And I hope that you will also, with proper prudence and precautions, make certain that those who are now risking their lives, reputations, fortunes, and personal futures to prevent the genocide of our uniquely beautiful and creative race — and bring Higher Man into being on this planet — are provided with the support they need to expand and succeed in their noble endeavors.

Sincerely and with all good wishes,

Kevin Alfred Strom.

Ideal Family?

via Radix

I mentioned Wells Fargo’s commercial featuring two lesbians learning sign language to communicate with a deaf Latina they’re adopting in a post yesterday, but I determined that it deserved a repost as its very own STIHIE feature.

Here’s the ad for our readers who haven’t had the pleasure of seeing it yet:

It truly is a historical milestone for something like this to run on national networks . . . for the sole purpose of convincing people to put their money in the hands of one of America’s largest banks. It was only 11 years ago when George W. Bush was able to secure re-election due in part to his support of the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Now a cross-racial, lesbian adoption set-up is celebrated by one of the nation’s most powerful corporations as an ideal family. . .in an advertisement designed with the whole country in mind.

Still, to most sane people, this whole notion of allowing gay couples to adopt is ridiculous. Yet, people accept it and the chattering class tells us how great of parents same-sex couples are—all while insinuating that any White family that has too many kids must be some kind of creepy cult.

Data, naturally overlooked by the media, supports the instinctual notion that there’s something inherently wrong with the situation Wells Fargo praises. One recent study conclusively shows that children raised by same-sex couples are four times more likely to have emotional problems as children raised by traditional couples. This prompted Think Progress to attack it as flawed, but the only issues they could find were minor quibbles, such as the fact that the same-sex couples studied were mostly unmarried. But the liberal blog fails to tell us how that would change the circumstances and fails to mention that gay marriage is a very recent phenomenon in the United States, which would entail an infinitesimally smaller and virtually useless sample size. Besides, Think Progress seems to consider marriage a meaningless concept when applied to other situations. Talk about flawed reasoning.

Regardless of the pitfalls of gay adoption, the worst part of this ad is how a spokeswoman for Wells Fargo characterized it: it’s just another soulless, substance-less pitch to get more customers for their company.
"The notion of all of these ads is really telling stories to create a sense of togetherness," said Jamie Moldafsky, chief marketing officer for Wells Fargo. She said one out of every three households in the country is a Wells Fargo customer, and the company wanted its ads to reflect the diversity of all its customers.
Other ads will show a Hispanic truck driver and his daughter, an older African-American woman and her friends, and two others feature families of Asian descent.
"Our hope is that in doing this we can talk to our customers more and engage with them about what's important to them," Moldafsky said. . .
Moldafsky said she's aware that some people may take issue with the ads, but the company is firm in its commitment to diversity and inclusion.
"We understand it may not resonate with everybody, but it taps into something important and universal, and is an expression of our commitment to the LGBT community at large," she said.
But the bank's new ads aren't entirely altruistic.
She also pointed out the large number of same-sex couples now raising children -- a target audience that Wells Fargo is trying to capture. Nearly 40% of same-sex couples between the ages of 22 and 55 are raising children, according to census data.
Plus, she said, the story behind the ad is universal.
"They want to be the best parents they can be," she said. "That's true of all adoptive parents."
I partially agree with Moldafsky—there is a universal message here. No matter how wrong or stupid the latest social justice trend may be, corporations will commodify it and sell it to the public for a pretty penny. It pays well to be on the side of progress.

Bella and the Bull: Mysteries of Teenage Cuckolding Revealed

via The Daily Stormer

The agenda to expose the teenage cuckolding lessons for children featured on Nickelodeon is moving forward.

The revelation that the children’s entertainment Jews had hired a Negroid cuckolding fetishist to produce a children’s sitcom about interracial romance has rocked the tubes and shaken the internet to its very core.

Manosphere blogger Heartiste wrote a short piece about the cuckspiracy.
Bella and the Bulldogs, besides promoting anti-white (and consequently pro-black (heh)) race cucking, wallows in a panoply of filth and lies. Ridiculous grrlpower fantasy? Check. Weak whytes? Check. Evil redneck whites? Check. Numinous negros? Check. Transgenderism? Good lordnbutter, we may have to check that one off too.
Keep in mind, Bella and the Bulldogs is a children’s show. Your little white daughter, apple of your eye and continuance vessel of a glorious heritage of European civilization, sits zombiefied in front of the TV imbibing this sewage by the truckload.
Heartiste being a woman-hating mysognist, he is tracked and harassed by anti-masculinity site We Hunted the Mammoth, run by a faggot named who took it upon themselves to call him insane for opposing this major league cucking.
No, really. A kids show about a cheerleader-turned-quarterback. That’s what’s got Heartiste madder than a room full of Hitlers.
Heartiste, you see, has been won over by a strange conspiracy theory making the rounds of 4chan and 8chan and Reddit.
It seems someone discovered that one of the show’s co-creators, Jonathan Butler, is apparently the same guy who, under the name Jonathan Corban Butler, wrote and directed The Cuckold, a 2009 straight-to-DVD drama looking at what Butler calls “a little-known fetish in the swinging lifestyle called ‘cuckolding.’” That is, black men having sex with white women while their white husbands look on.
This discovery has convinced an assortment of racist conspiracy theorists, among them Heartiste, that Bella and the Bulldogs is itself somehow a show about “race cucking.” Given that the show is, you know, a Nickelodeon sitcom aimed at kids that does not actually depict any sex acts, I’m not exactly sure how this is supposed to work.
Calling it a “conspiracy theory” is just wacky.  It is a fact that a soft-porno director made a show with a White woman, a faggot White male and an alpha male Negro, and that the plot of the show appears to be leading towards the girl ending up with the Negro romantically.

It doesn’t need to depict actual sex acts, it simply needs to depict a cucking, which is a White man being BTFO by a Negroid buck.  That is already happening on the show, where the White male character is a complete homo and the Black buck is getting the girl.

Straight cucked
Straight cucked
Nickelodeon regularly depicts sexual fetishes on its Jew-produced sitcoms.

Black-on-White foot fetishism on Nickelodeon
Dan "Hymen Ban" Schneider, foot-fetishist and Nickelodeon producer (no, those are not his own kids, they are someone elses)
Dan “Hymen Ban” Schneider, foot-fetishist and Nickelodeon producer (no, those are not his own kids, they are someone elses)
Bella and the Bulldogs has already featured fetishist themes such as a girl being blindfolded and let to a surprise.

Cuckolding porno regularly features White women being blindfolded as they are ravaged by a Black buck.  Blindfolding is popular in other fetish porn as well.
Cuckolding porno regularly features White women being blindfolded as they are ravaged by a Black buck. Blindfolding is popular in other fetish porn as well.
50 Shades of Gray
50 Shades of Gray
David Futrelle did not immediately respond when a prominent Fascist journalist asked him on Twitter why he supported the cuckolding of the White race.
Following Futrelle’s lead, another anti-masculinity SJW blog did a write-up of the alleged “conspiracy theory” of the major league cuckolding.

The Frisky went so far as to call anyone who opposes little girls being brainwashed with cuckolding fetishism “evil.”
A Nickelodeon show about a cheerleader who becomes the quarterback of her school football team has some crazy ass racists up in arms and getting very upset on the internets – and I have to say, as evil as they are, this is so stupid it’s almost hilarious.
I mean, I don’t know about you, but I have a kind of odd fascination with people who think completely insane things. Like, my actual favorite thing right now is this comically sincere video someone made abut how the ending of Michael Jackson’s “Black or White” video is a secret message to the Illuminati.
Anyway, David Futrelle of We Hunted the Mammoth reports that on Tuesday, Heartiste – a sad dude who made a name for himself trying to teach other sad dudes the art of “game” and picking up chicks but who is now also trying to carve out a place for himself in the world of histrionic internet racists – posted an article decrying the Nickelodeon show “Bella and the Bulldogs.”
Heartiste and others of his ilk are claiming that the show – a show for children about a perky blonde cheerleader who becomes a football player – is promoting “race cuckoldry” because said perky blonde cheerleader’s potential love interest is a black kid. Said show, they claim, may be the final straw before they all feel so oppressed by progressivism that they will be forced to Nazi us or something.
Nice touch comparing people who point out obvious, documented, admitted facts to illuminati tinfoil artists.

The scariest thing about this is that thus far, no mainstream news outlet has covered the cuckspiracy, even while it is all over Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, the chans and every minor right-wing blog.

Complete blackout.

Which means we need to push harder. Push, push, push.

Continue to drop links in comments sections on mainstream news, demand that they cover this story, calling them out for failing to protect children.

Remember, the target audience of this show is girls 2 to 11.

I want to that the Twitter poster @NiCUCKelodeon for his excellent work exposing this.  Please follow him and share all of his Tweets.

The Culture of Critique in France: A Review of Anne Kling’s Books on Jewish influence in France, Part 3

via The Occidental Observer

Part 1
Part 2

Communists and Collaborators: The Dark Origins of Franco-Jewish Ethnic Lobbies

The LICRA and the CRIF, and their ancestor organizations, have been influencing French political life since before the Second World War. The LICRA, originally called the League Against Pogroms, was founded in 1927 by the Communist Jew Bernard Lecache, an early apologist of Soviet totalitarianism. He founded the League to organize the legal defense of Sholom-Shmuel Schwartzbard, a Russian Jew who had murdered Ukrainian nationalist leader Symon Petliura in broad daylight in the streets of Paris. Schwartzbard blamed Petliura for the pogroms in Ukraine and was subsequently, bizarrely, acquitted.

The LICRA then, far from being a body dedicated to universal brotherhood, was founded to justify an act of tribal vengeance. Lecache himself would, in the typical manner, enormously exaggerate the sufferings of his co-ethnics, claiming that 300,000 were killed in the Ukrainian pogroms (the Red Cross estimated the figure at between 60,000 and 120,000).[1]

Lecache would lead the LICRA until 1968. He remained a communist despite being formally expelled from the French Communist Party in 1923 because he also chose to remain a Freemason (the Party did not allow dual-membership). His successor Jean-Pierre Bloch, who led the group from 1968 to 1992, was also a Freemason. The LICRA would only become critical of communism with the Soviet Union’s later criticism of Israel and the Refusenik issue.

Already in the interwar period, the League’s influence rapidly grew in the French Third Republic’s parliamentary regime, with members across political parties, including prime ministers Léon Blum (Jewish, who led a Socialo-Communist coalition government) and Édouard Herriot (whose 1898 essay on the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria brought him national attention). In 1933, Herriot would as an MP return from a fact-finding to the Ukraine and deny any famine there, stating that it was “a garden producing to the full.”[2] (Between 2.5 and 7.5 million people are estimated to have been killed in this engineered famine, known as the Holodomor).

The LICRA spent the interwar years agitating to open France to Jewish immigration and stoking opposition to National Socialist Germany. More moderate Jews feared the LICRA’s activism under Lachache would provoke anti-Semitism, with the printer Georges Lang declaring in 1937:
A Lecache would justify, if it were possible, a [Louis] Darquier de Pellepoix [an anti-Semitic activist who would later in be in charge of Jewish affairs under the Vichy Regime], but a Lecache is far more dangerous to Jews than a Darquier de Pellepoix.[3]
The organization would successfully exert pressure to pass an April 1939 censorship law creating the notion of “criminal offense of racist insults and defamation” into French law.[4]

The League’s influence in France as a Jewish lobby was studied and commented upon by German intelligence. Wolfgang Diewerge, an official at the German Ministry of Propaganda and Enlightenment, would write in a study on the matter:
The policy of the [LICRA] represents a permanent and incredible intervention in French domestic and foreign policy: Strong attacks against French decrees affecting foreigners, against the expulsion of Jews and the restrictions of the political rights of naturalized citizens, strong attacks against nationalist organizations.[5]
Kling is aware of the enormous over-representation of Jews among the early communist regime’s elites, whether among political leaders, cultural elites, or the oppressive Cheka. She ably cites U.S. and French sources demonstrating this (and also mentions Sigmund Freud’s ambition of radically changing Western civilization through attacks on traditional religion and family). She notes that while the French Revolution emancipated the Jews, the Bolshevik Revolution went further in making anti-Semitism punishable by death (while simultaneously, persecuting Christians).

Kling is keen to highlight the hypocrisy of League’s leaders as apologists of communist tyranny and deniers of its mass murders (as deserving of the term “genocide” as any). She quotes Vladimir Lenin on his avowed ends-justify-the-means amorality. She cites the estimate that 29,000 Frenchmen were extrajudicially executed at the Liberation, largely by communist death squads. The LICRA would only be critical of the Soviet Union in the postwar years when it turned towards anti-Zionism and during the Refusenik problem — i.e., narrow Jewish ethnic interests. And even then, their critique of communist totalitarianism and murder would always remain extremely nuanced as compared with their demonization of European nationalist regimes.

Kling notes that the LICRA’s flirting with totalitarianism “would however never lead to the absolute ostracism which strikes in contrast — and a priori — the defenders of Identitarian and patriotic ideals, and notably the Front National.”[6] She mentions the case of Frédéric Zeller, a senior Freemason who worked as Leon Trotsky’s secretary during the exiled Soviet leader’s stay in Norway. Zeller, who would later join the LICRA’s honorary committee, said in 1958 of his ideal politics: “This socialist party will need to achieve at any cost the synthesis between the social-democratic tradition, in what was valid in it, and that of Leninist communism in what it had of positive.”[7] What if a nationalist were to make a similar statement about taking “what it had of positive” concerning Fascism or National Socialism?

Needless to say, though the LICRA and CRIF have demanded endless apologies and admissions of collective guilt for the supposed crimes of the French people during the years of war and occupation, it would never occur to them to apologize for the crimes of their co-ethnics murdering and tyrannizing under the banner of communism.

A similar double standard is evident in the history of the CRIF’s ancestor, the General Union of Israelites of France (UGIF). In France, Jews had been blamed prior to the war for spreading Bolshevism and agitating for war with National Socialist Germany. After the Battle of France of 1940, the Vichy Regime — which governed the non-occupied southern third of the country — banned Jews from certain senior government positions and tried to limit Jewish over-representation in influential professions such as the law through quotas (in effect, affirmative action for non-Jews). At the same time, inevitably, there were many Jews at Vichy, and Marshal Philippe Pétain even had a Jew among his speechwriters (one Emmanuel Berl).

The UGIF engaged in collaboration with the Vichy and German authorities in order to help Jewish deportees, prisoners and civilians. However, Jewish collaborators were not tried by the French authorities, but internally and leniently by Jewish courts. According to historian Jean-Claude Valla:
How unjust were the convictions striking the goyim engaged in the same struggle [collaboration]. How many Frenchmen, who were not of Israelite confession or culture, were executed, put down like dogs, heavily punished or ostracized from society for having, them too, tried to outsmart the enemy and save what could be saved? Yet, with the exception of Joinovici, no Jews suspected of collaboration were taken before the courts. It is citizen juries established by the Representative Council of Jews of France [CRIF] which judged the suspects behind closed doors and systematically acquitted them.[8]
The CRIF was then founded on the notion of tribal justice and special leniency for Jewish wartime collaboration, even as it has sought to demonize France as a whole for Vichy’s collaboration. 

Winning the Victimhood Olympics: The Primacy of the Shoah

The CRIF and LICRA have sought to make Jews unique victims, indeed superior victims, whose wartime suffering and deaths are more morally significant than those of mere political opponents, soldiers, civilians or what have you. In addition France and indeed Western civilization as a whole are deemed collectively guilty. The result is to radically delegitimize both. As the LICRA declared on the fortieth anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz:
One needs to draw the lesson, to highlight Jewish martyrology [sic] and the passivity of the free world; one needs to remind the civilized world of the debt incurred towards the Jewish people and denounce all those who, once again, provoke and feed racist and anti-Semitic hatred.[9]
This attempt to impose a Judeo-centric vision upon humanity, Jewish dead being presented as more important than non-Jewish dead, is sometimes explicit. In January 2010, the CRIF reported after a meeting with UNESCO that it had stressed “first of all … the importance of the memory of the Shoah, [and] … the current risk of relativizing of this memory and on the dangers of confusion [amalgame] between the Shoah and various crimes which do not at all have the same significance.”[10]

This idea of the primacy of the Shoah, a crime superior to all other crimes at once justifying Jewish power (such as Israeli misbehavior) and demonizing European nationalisms forever, was imposed in France through legal and cultural struggle.

This was done in particular through so-called “crimes against humanity” trials in which various wartime French and German functionaries were sued for complicity in the Holocaust, generally for having assisted in deporting Jews. We have to immediately stress the double standards: No aging, reclusive octogenarians have ever been brought to court for the millions of dead in the Holodomor in Ukraine or the other mass murders in the early decades of the USSR, the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, the nuclear annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the ethnic cleansing of millions of German civilians in Silesia and East Prussia, or the rapes of thousands of German women by Allied forces.[11] The concept of “crimes against humanity” is selectively used by Jewish politico-media elites to demonize their enemies, to promote immigration and multiculturalism, and to justify their wars of aggression.

These trials relied on the 1945–46 Nuremberg Military Tribunal’s jurisprudence. Whereas wartime atrocities are traditionally automatically forgiven upon the peace as a tragically inevitable byproduct of warfare’s inherent lawlessness, Nuremberg created a new category whereby deaths more-or-less arbitrarily deemed “crimes against humanity” are open to prosecution. The Allied justices at Nuremberg — representing powers who had committed war crimes against millions of civilians (something more honest observers such as U.S. Air Force General Curtis LeMay recognized) and waged wars of aggression (including the Soviet Union’s annexation of the Baltic states and continued occupation of Poland despite the notional casus belli of “Polish sovereignty”) — created this ex post facto notion. American figures as diverse Supreme Court Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, Senator Robert A. Taft and diplomat George F. Kennan deemed the Nuremberg trials a fraud, an arbitrary, hypocritical and unlawful example of victors’ justice.

Apparently corresponding with the steadily rising influence of  ethnocentric Jewish groups in France, a series of highly-publicized trials were thus organized from the 1980s onwards, typically with the LICRA among the plaintiffs. SS-Hauptsturmführer Klaus Barbie was extradited from Bolivia in 1983 to face trial in France for crimes committed as head of the Gestapo in Lyon and sentenced to life imprisonment. Paul Touvier, an officer in the Vichy Regime’s militia, was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1994 for participating in the execution of seven Jewish prisoners in 1944 in retaliation against the assassination of Vichy Secretary of State for Information and Propaganda Philippe Henriot. (Touvier claimed to have negotiated down the number of executions demanded from 30 to seven, thus saving 23 lives.) Maurice Papon, a French wartime police officer in Paris and Budget Minister in the 1970s, was sentenced in 1997 to ten years in prison and died in 2002. René Bousquet, secretary-general of Vichy’s police and a successful postwar businessman, was about to be brought to trial before he was assassinated in 1993 by a mentally unstable celebrity-seeker.

The alleged criminals were often found and revealed by “Nazi hunters” Serge and Beate Klarsfeld.[12] The French courts tied themselves in knots trying to find a valid definition of “crime against humanity” as opposed to run-of-the-mill wartime atrocity.  In 1985, the Cour de Cassation decided to extend the notion of “crime against humanity” so as to cover not only crimes against Jews but also against fighters in the Resistance. In a wonderful example of ethnocentric “logic,” his decision was immediately criticized by Serge Klarsfeld:
By introducing active adversaries [resisters] of such a power (the Nazis) among the eventual victims of crimes against humanity, the judges of the Cour de Cassation have weakened the protection of innocents as was envisaged by the writers of the Nuremberg Charter.[13]
The iconoclastic lawyer Jacques Vergès in contrast argued: “The legal corpus built for 40 years by Zionist lawyers following the Nuremberg jurisprudence was tantamount to considering only crimes against Jews to be crimes against humanity.”[14]
The point of these legal proceedings was to produce show trials as powerful propaganda. As Klarsfeld said of the Bousquet case, even though the latter died before a trial a could be organized, “the affair itself has been a wonderful pedagogical lever.”[15] Indeed, ‘pedogagical’ is a word that recurs endlessly in the pronouncements of the LICRA and the CRIF, who evidently think of themselves as Kulturkämpfer. The point has been to raise the Jewish community to the apex of the victimhood pyramid, thus endowed with special protections and privileges, and to delegitimize the majority native French population through collective guilt.

This effort has often been explicit. As Klarsfeld told Le Monde in 2009 regarding the Vel d’Hiv roundup which led to the deportation of some 13,000 Jews: “July 16th, 1943 is the darkest page in the history of France,”[16] effectively relegating all other tragic days of French history to irrelevance (Saint Bartholomew’s Day massacre, Vendée genocide, Napoleonic Wars, Paris Commune, Battle of Verdun…). Similarly, CRIF President Richard Prasquier said at a commemoration of Jewish wartime suffering: “It is today the annual confrontation of France with the most shameful page of its national history,”[17] affirming that mistreatment of Jews is the worst act in French history and will be used to ritually shame the nation every year ad infinitum.

In passing, there were 190,000 French Jews and 140,000 foreign Jews in mainland France in 1940. Of these, 75,000 were deported, including 20,000 French Jews. Whatever the varying death rate estimates, France was one of the countries with a lower proportion of dead, along ironically with Fascist Italy. Despite the Holocaust, the French Jewish population has tripled since the war.

The CRIF has aggressively targeted the young in its propaganda efforts. In 2009, the CRIF called on all students in the county of Isère to be required to go the Museum of the Resistance and Deportation in Grenoble. At a May 2010 event at the elite Lycée Condorcet high school, the CRIF asserted: “It’s this entire [Jewish] universe which was swept away between 1942 and 1944, by the anti-Semitic madness of the Occupier, with the complicity of a certain number of Frenchmen.”[18] Can we imagine the CRIF saying of communist tyranny, which killed far more people throughout the world than National Socialism, was achieved “with the complicity of a certain number of Jews”?

More generally, the LICRA and CRIF have sought to distort and sanitize history for their own ends. This has included pressure to change street names deemed politically incorrect. One particularly egregious and self-interested case took place in 2002 when the rue Alexis-Carrel in Paris, named after the famed eugenicist[19] and winner of the 1912 Nobel Prize in medicine, was renamed the rue Jean-Pierre-Bloch, after the corrupt 1968–1992 president of the LICRA.[20]

Similarly, these groups have pushed to block the republication of books such the collaborator Lucien Rebatet’s Les Décombres. More recently, the LICRA has sued Alain Soral’s publishing house Kontre Kulture for republishing various texts dealing with the Jewish question including Édouard Drumont’s La France juive, Léon Bloy’s Le salut par les juifs and French translations of Henry Ford’s The International Jew and Douglas Reed’s The Controversy of Zion. For now, French judges have agreed that these books must be censored or outright banned, although Soral has won one judicial case in that he is free to publish Paul-Éric Blanrue’s Anthologie des propos contre les juifs, le judaïsme et le sionisme, a collection of Judeo-critical quotes from famous historical figures. The parallels between banning historical documents and Nazi book-burning are evidently lost on the LICRA.

Jewish groups have fought to obtain reparations for their community. In 2000, Klarsfeld successfully pressured the government to issue a decree granting a 3,000 franc (about $500) monthly stipend or 180,000 franc lump sum ($30,000) to people made orphans by the Shoah, in effect a Jews-only reparations policy. This manifest inequity eventually led to a new decree extending eligibility to “orphans whose parents were victims of acts of barbarism during the Second World War,” that is to say, children of deported resisters, political deportees, executed resisters or massacred civilians.[21] But this notion was not extended to those whose parents died courageously fighting in the Free French forces or in the regular French Army!

Evidently the French government prefers to compensate victimhood rather than reward heroism.

The LICRA, CRIF and other Jewish groups’ pressure on successive French governments to accept responsibility for the Shoah bore fruit in July 16, 1995, on the anniversary of the Vel d’Hiv round-up, when newly-elected President Jacques Chirac declared: “Yes, the criminal folly of the occupier was, everyone knows, seconded by Frenchmen, seconded by the French State … . We retain towards [the Jewish deportees of France] an imprescriptible debt.”[22] Current President François Hollande doubled down in 2012, declaring the event: “a crime committed in France, by France.” The Catholic Church in France made a similar mea culpa in 1997.

The LICRA and CRIF use the admission of collective guilt for their political and pecuniary ends, such as marginalizing European nationalists and getting financial “reparations.” The Holocaust narrative motivates the most hysterical ethnocentric excesses, as the Jewish writer André Néher said in 1978:
Auschwitz is the failure of God, who wants man to be free. But man misused his freedom. The consequence is that there was a definitive break between Jews and humanity. The majority of humanity betrayed.[23]
This kind of extreme ethnocentrism is evident whenever the more militant Jewish groups oppose a European nationalist leader or simply a mainstream leader with a pseudo-compromised past. Thus, when former United Nations secretary-general Kurt Waldheim became President of Austria in 1986, he was widely excoriated for his service in the Wehrmacht during the Second World War, in which he had been conscripted. As a Viennese Jewish leader, beyond caricature, told the LICRA at the time: “We are not through with Hitler. He is exterminating us a second time. He attempted to eliminate us physically, and now he wants to make us disappear morally.”[24]

The Shoah has taken on a quasi-religious significance. As a LICRA member said at 1988 debate: “The Shoah is a historical event, but it is not within the reach of historians.”[25] As the journalist Éric Zemmour said of the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo in 2012:
I wish they would defend free speech always and everywhere.  … Since Voltaire and the eighteenth century we have completely ruined religious sacredness’ pretension of governing our Western societies, which is not the case in Muslim societies. However, that doesn’t mean there is no more sacredness. We have simply replaced one sacredness with another. … They would never make fun of the Shoah.[26]
This sacredness is evident in the outlawing of revisionist history questioning the claims of the Nuremberg Military Tribunal (as discussed in Part 4). Socialist Prime Minister Manuel Valls, notorious in pandering to the Jewish community, has also been explicit in asserting the Shoah’s supernatural, religious character in justifying censorship: “The Shoah, the extermination of the Jews, the genocide must be sacralized, sacred.”[27]

As Kling argues:
Over the years, the message unequivocally strengthens: Westerners, more or less, are particularly guilty of the shoah – which is presented as the incredible and incomprehensible expression of a pathological and irrational hatred towards Jews – either for having perpetrated it themselves, or for having let it be done.[28]
She correctly calls this “a formidable instrument of political power.

[1]For context and comparison, 5 to 9 million civilians and combatants lost their lives to war, famine and disease over the course of the 1917-1922 Russian Civil War. Kling, La France LICRAtisée, 37-8.
[2]Ibid., 51.
[3]Ibid., 46
[4]Ibid., 47.
[5]From the French translation. Ibid., 47.
[6]Ibid., 17-8.
[7]Ibid., 227
[8]Joseph Joinovici was a Jewish scrap merchant who provided metals to the Germans, becoming a billionaire, and also gave funds for the Resistance (diversifying his investments?). He was found guilty of collaboration in 1949 and sentenced to five years in prison, but was set free in 1952. Kling, Le CRIF, 37-38.
[9]Kling, La France LICRAtisée, 66.
[10]Kling, Le CRIF, 171.
[11]These rapes were not committed exclusively by the Red Army. German historian Miriam Gebhardt estimates that the Americans, British and French raped some 270,000 German women. “Les terribles viols des Alliés occidentaux en Allemagne en 1945,” Le Point, April 12, 2015.
[12]The Klarsfeld family itself is a telling symbol of our decadence: Serge is a hyper-ethnocentric Jew, Beate is a self-hating German, and their son Arno has served in the Israeli Defense Forces (by his own admission to defend Jewish rather than French interests). Arno is still strangely allowed to serve as a French judicial official despite his conflicts of interest, and he continues to agitate in French media-political circles on behalf of his people.
[13]Kling, La France LICRAtsée, 100.
[14]Ibid., 100-1.
[15]Ibid., 109.
[16]Kling, Le CRIF, 133.
[17]Ibid., 136
[18]Ibid., 194
[19]Incidentally, Kling notes that eugenics is not completely alien to the French Left. A stamp issued under the Socialo-Communist Front Populaire coalition government in the 1930s featured a mother and child under the slogan “Save the race.”
[20]Kling reports that Pierre-Bloch as an MP was involved in drafting the law privatizing Vichy’s numerous publications and was in turn given the presidency of the company in charge with this privatization. Like a post-Soviet oligarch, Pierre-Bloch became a millionaire through these schemes, though his mismanagement caused a scandal by 1947, but causing no lasting damage to his career. He would later receive a medal from the Supreme Soviet. (Kling, La France LICRAtisée, 84-85).
[21]Kling, Le CRIF, 89.
[22]Kling, La France LICRAtisée, 94.
[23]Ibid., 58
[24]Ibid., 67.
[25]Ibid., 69.
[26]Comments on i>Télé, September 22, 2012.
[27]On Canal+ TV channel, February 2014.
[28]Kling, La France LICRAtisée, 70.

Working Class Whites Increasingly Defecting Democrat Party to Join Republicans

via The Audacious Epigone

Thinking about the fate of working-class whites is, ahem, not in vogue, but since they do still constitute around one-third of the country's population (depending on the particulars of how they're defined), they can't simply be wished away--yet. The following graph shows the percentage of working-class white adults who have self-described themselves as Democrats since the GSS' inception through to the present:

The resurgent spike in 2008 sent a thrill up my leg.

As the fissures in the coalition of the fringe grow larger and sharper-edged, whites of modest means are the first to spill out and into the political void.

The key is to make sure they're vomited up at a slow and steady pace so that the national balance between the two parties remains roughly even. If whites defect too slowly, the Cathedral's paramount concerns can't be candidly brought to the fore without risking the kind of internecine fighting that characterizes its activity in major cities across the country, something that isn't too disruptive when the True Party is the only game in town, but that does have serious political implications so long as the Stupid Party is still around. On the other hand, if whites defect too quickly there is a chance that a racially-conscious opposition party might actually be able to act with numerical superiority.

Better to bide time and strike at overall parity as whites continue to dwindle into minority status so that by the time the inchoate idea of white political self-interest grows into something more broadly understood and even publicly articulated, it'll be too late for anything to come of it.

Let this be a reminder of how little time you and yours have left.

GSS variables used: CLASS(2), RACE(1), YEAR, PARTYID(0-1)

An Endorsement of Roosh’s ‘Neomasculinity’ Manifesto: A Challenge to Modernity Emerges Out of Left Field

via TradYouth

Magic Man Roosh
Roosh is a clever entrepreneur who has mastered the art of converting contemporary male angst and sexual frustration into sheckels with a flashy advertisement-laden click-bait website, Return of Kings. Much of what’s on the site is inflammatory and indefensible, and I’m not endorsing pick-up artistry or the denigration of women. In hindsight, though, even the offensive material kind of makes sense, as a man with a vision must necessarily construct himself a platform upon which to manifest his vision. Like it or not, Return of Kings is Roosh’s soapbox, and it’s a sturdy soapbox. He has a large audience, a solid pool of popular writers, and an ever-expanding monetization framework to help guarantee that he remains independent.

The first major surprise came a couple months ago with his well-researched article on The Damaging Effects Of Jewish Intellectualism And Activism On Western Culture. Were the man a petty huckster out to make a buck, he wouldn’t have been capable of assembling this impressive survey of the nature and scope of Jewish involvement in promoting degeneracy. Were the man a petty huckster out to make a buck, he certainly wouldn’t have published it front-and-center on his own website, under his own legal name. The second surprise managed to be even bigger. This entire time, the man’s been developing a masterful synthesis of human biodiversity knowledge, radical traditionalist principle, and pragmatic modern dating experience called “Neomasculinity” which seamlessly fuses these separate counter-currents into a systemic whole.
Neomasculinity combines traditional beliefs, masculinity, and animal biology into one ideological system. It aims to aid men living in Westernized nations that lack qualities such as classical virtue, masculinity in males, femininity in females, and objectivity, especially concerning beauty ideals and human behavior. It also serves as an antidote for males who are being programmed to accept Western degeneracy, mindless consumerism, and immoral state authority. The purpose of this article is to list and describe the principal doctrines of neomasculinity.
Contrary to what one might expect from a notorious pick-up artist, Roosh’s manifesto doesn’t promote or excuse sexual degeneracy. He offers us a practical path forward from it and back toward traditional monogamous pairings. Roosh’s manifesto doesn’t denigrate women. He makes the traditionalist argument for the sexes being of fundamentally equal value in complementary ways. Unlike Anglin, Roosh also accepts, without judgment or malice, that there always has been and always will be a degree of diversity in dispositions which entails that not all women can or should be housewives and that not all men can be especially masculine or strong. This is important, as a brittle and fundamentalist response to Modernity is vulnerable to critique and ripe for revolt.
  • While women don’t “belong” in the home, they do a better job than men at nesting and child raising.
  • Men and women should have some degree of free will to live a life compatible with their respective societies, but there should not be coordination between the media, government, and academia to program citizens to abandon their innate strengths for imagined ideas of utopia.
  • Patriarchy does have its flaws in locking in roles for males and females who are outliers[.]
That last part, about accounting for outliers, is key. While we must work toward reviving a patriarchal and traditionalist order, it’s also necessary to examine those systems to figure out how we can make them more durable next time around. The Jews and capitalists have done an excellent job of rounding up the misfits who were cast out of the old patriarchal Western order and turning them against us. We should strengthen ourselves against this tactic in the future by being less inclined to cast folks out of our communities for being outliers and eccentrics.

The only part in his Neomasculinity Manifesto that I strongly disagree with is his rejection of “socialism.” The disagreement here is largely due to his apparent lack of familiarity with clerical fascism, which organically accounts for the potential abuses, excesses, and externalities of secular socialism by tightly coupling communal altruism with coherent spiritual principles and direct social accountability. It’s much more difficult to “bleed the beast” when the “beast” is a charming local parish bustling with neighbors, friends, and family who love you and would be personally saddened to learn that you’ve decided to be a net drain on the community.

I’ve already directed a few young men I know to the manifesto, and I expect to continue doing so. Since I began my activism, I’ve constantly struggled to straddle being a believer in human biodiversity, being a radical traditionalist, and being a practical street activist. Day-by-day, inch-by-inch, these once-separate movements are gradually converging together into a general system of thought and behavior which seems destined to empower our young men and women with an inspiring and effective response to Modernity and its ongoing effort to destroy ourselves and our communities.

Millennials Aren’t Likely to Make It

via Henry Dampier

In the world of corporate propaganda, there tends to be a lot of puffery about how important it is for corporations to cater to the changing tastes of the millennial generation — meaning people born between the 1980s and the 2000s.

This is essentially bad information which leads corporations and investors to make bad decisions. Western governments need to massage the bad data about the economic performance of this burgeoning demographic section — particularly of a middle class which is badly burdened by nonproductive debts and uneconomic skillsets. The problems are especially acute in Europe, where high double digit percentages of this generation remain unemployed, despite extremely expensive education certificates certifying how much they ought to be worth.

Part of what makes this generation different is that it’s the first major demographic chunk impacted by mass immigration, both in Europe and the US. Just as school performance data tends to be blamed on bad policy rather than a weakening genetic stock, so does performance in the workplace.

From the perspective of Western states and their institutional friends, it’s important to puff up the future prospects of the future cash streams which will be funding all of those outstanding bonds — quantitative easing nonwithstanding. It’s important to look at labor force participation data rather than unemployment — because students don’t count as ‘unemployed.’ By those measures, young people are working less, while their elders are spending more time in the workforce.

Pundits will tend to portray marriage rates as more of an outmoded measure of morals, but it’s the institution that actually allows societies to replenish themselves. To the extent that Europeans have, by and large, become enervated, and are unwilling to follow these patterns, is the extent to which these countries are burning themselves out. There’s a big complex of pseudo-cameralist thought at the think tanks and in the big publishers dedicated to promoting a narrative that this will all work out, given that we all ‘muddle through’ and that ‘unorthodox monetary policy’ winds up delivering results which it never has.

The other notion is that European countries can somehow magically replace the core demographics who aren’t reproducing with immigrants from the third world.

There is a sort of millennarian hope that a new magical education policy will be developed which will ‘close the gap,’ despite no evidence that this will happen, and indeed decades of evidence to the contrary — that, owing to genetic differences, there is no replacement for over a thousand years of divergent evolution, that there is no teaching method which can correct for genetic differences between populations.

This isn’t a generation that’s all that likely to take off in the way that these states need them to take off. It has some people who can be salvaged. It’s important to counter the false story that these people will somehow start producing enough cash to cover the public debt loads which have been foisted upon them, because avoiding the happy-talk sooner will help us solve these problems sooner.

The Struggle to Overcome Our Oppression

via Western Spring

The struggle we Whites are in for our survival, expansion and  liberation from oppression is  similar in some respects to the struggles of other peoples, but it also has some differences.

Even the fact that many of our White kind aren’t aware that they are being oppressed is similar to the this same lack of  knowledge of some other peoples including non-White peasants in various nations and even Blacks in the U.S.

One of the main differences between the oppression of non-Whites and ours is that  many non-Whites look different from their oppressors as the oppressors are mostly light skinned or white skinned.  As Whites, however,  we don’t always have such easy visual cues to see who is oppressing us, as most of those in power and who are either behind our oppression or are enabling it, even if passively, look pretty much like us.  Even the Jews in power look much like us, even though they are not like us, but they look enough like us so that they can blend in with Whites who are genetically our kind and can invisibly work for their own interests and against our best interests by networking with powerful and elite non-Jewish Whites who foolishly have little compunction against oppressing Whites who are not in their elite circles.  Ironically, even these White elites or their children suffer from the oppression that they often foist on us or enable against us, but they are often as blind and deceived about the nature of the oppression as are ordinary non-elite Whites.

At the core of the oppression we face as Whites is the wish of White-haters to blend all races, all religions and all nations together. Some of them truly think this blended human population is a good thing and they deny it  is genocide,  but genocide it is.

This White genocide that we are witnessing daily  is being done in a way that many of our people don’t even see it as such and think it is just the natural and proper way the planet is evolving.  It is neither.  There are those who are trying to erase us from existence.

White Oppression 1To blend all races together, the White-haters are doing a number of things at the same time.  Thus, they are importing millions and millions of non-Whites into formerly all White lands.  This increases the non-White genes in the gene pool.  At the same time, massive PR efforts are being made to convince Whites that race doesn’t exist and that we should deny what our eyes, our science, our common sense and our instincts tell us; which is that race is real and that if you blend Whites with non-Whites the product will always be non-Whites and never Whites.

And, in addition to the PR efforts to weaken White resolve to stay White, laws are being passed to force Whites to mix with non-Whites. With the low White birthrate, what happens as our White youth come of age is that they find the gene pool filled with many non-White alternatives and fewer potential White mates and this leads to miscegenation.  So, when a White miscegenates, not only does he or she then help produce more non-Whites, they fail to produce Whites and they break the White genetic chain from their ancestors to themselves and turn their families non-White.  Then, when the non-White children of the White and non-White miscegenationists come of age, they are often more acceptable to Whites who are also coming of age, as many of the former will have enough White features and personality characteristics to be attractive to pure Whites seeking mates but finding few Whites to mate with.  This increases the miscegenation and the production of more mixed children.  It is an evolutionary downward spiral for Whites that leads to extinction of Whites as pure Whites and it is a genetic return to Africa for Whites who evolved away from the African human type thousands of years ago.

Whites are the particular targets and are the most vulnerable  humans in this massive genocide of blending all humans together  for a few reasons. First, Whites are seen as the major impediment to blending. This is so because many Whites still like being White and not only see no advantage in letting their families become non-White, but actively don’t want it. They want to remain White.  So, these are the ones who must be broken down and blended away first.  Second, because Whites are the new human type on this planet–having evolved as recognizable Whites perhaps no longer back than 60,000 years ago, and with many now common White physical and mental characteristics only having evolved within the last 3,000 to 5,000 years–we have a less fixed genome than non-Whites and this is why many White characteristics are recessive and why a child of a White and a non-White can never be truly White.  In simple terms, it takes a White mother and a White father each contributing 23 White chromosomes to produce a new fully White child with the full 46 White chromosomes that makes a White person. On the other hand, it only takes one non-White mating with a White to produce a non-White child.

Using psychology against us

White Oppression 4It is fairly well accepted among psychologists and sociologists that advertising, public relations, the media, laws and court decisions can change hearts and minds of Whites who might believe in staying White in all ways.  They use these to cause a change in behavior and then when behavior changes, attitudes follow.  We see this all the time.  Whites may object to being forced to have non-Whites in their groups, and then when laws are passed forcing Whites to accept non-Whites, for example, the Whites change their attitudes and accept the non-Whites.

You’ll often hear Whites in the first stages of the attitude change say “It’s the law.”  Later, these same Whites may tell you that it is right or just and we’re all just human.  It also works with accepting gays, or any other group.  As far as gays go–which may give an easier to understand example of the attitude change process–just look at the Christian churches that are disregarding Biblical teachings against homosexuality and which are even marrying gay couples.  Just a few years ago, many of  these same churches would have been against such things.  What happened?  Gay activists became militant and got the media, the politicians and the courts to support gay rights. Then, with these behavior changes from these reference groups (more about this below), many Christians changed their attitudes. Yesterday, they were opposed to gay marriages, today they welcome them. The same thing happened earlier with Blacks. Yesterday, Blacks had their place and Whites had their place, today, it’s all the same place.  What happened?  Blacks became militant and got the media, the politicians and the courts to support Black civil rights.  See the pattern?  Understand what we Whites must do?

This is just basic human psychology: Change the behavior (by law and by force if necessary) and the attitudes will soon also change.  Of course, this also works in reverse but to a lesser extent.  In actuality, this is much like method acting.  An actor, trying to convey an attitude will often do the behavior of that attitude first and the attitude (or at least the appearance of that attitude) will follow.  The well known example of this is an actor who wants to convey a facial expression and  body mannerisms of being shot with a gun.  Now, few actors have actually experienced being shot by a gun, so how do they make it look real?  They can imagine stepping into a shower that is ice cold when they expected it to be warm.  The audience will then usually think the actor has done a great acting job of looking like he had been shot by a gun when all he was doing was using his emotional memory of the cold shower.

The lesson: We Whites must ACT.  We must change our behavior by actually getting involved physically in promoting our White interests.  This could take the form of handing out literature, holding signs, attending White meetings, etc.  It will take more than just commenting on the internet for this to really get Whites fired up.  Do the action and the attitude will follow. And when enough Whites do act, and get the high moral ground for standing up against White genocide, other Whites will join.  That’s what happened with the Black Civil rights movement.  When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat and move to the rear of the bus in Alabama, she performed a behavior, then the press picked up on it and spread the word.  At first, other Blacks laughed at her and many felt she was harming Blacks by forcing the issue–and that, by the way–is a typical attitude in an oppressed population when such a behavior first occurs that upsets things.  Why?  Because the reference group to which the oppressed look for what is right and wrong is often controlled by the oppressors.  In this case, the reference group was Whites and the law at that time.  So, many Blacks took a cue in their attitude from Whites and the law about Rosa Parks being wrong.  However, her behavior was increasingly seen as moral and just and then more and more Blacks started looking to other Blacks as their reference group and their attitudes changed.

My point here is that we Whites are at the same place where Blacks were  before Rosa Parks and we’re also at the same place before Gays became militant and demanded that they be treated like everyone else.


White Oppression 2Too many Whites suffer from negative self and group images and lack self and group esteem and many have internalized a subtle self-hate.  This is often seen in Whites failing to demand the right to be White.  Specifically, as I wrote in an earlier essay, there are, in the California legislature  (and I’m sure in many other states as well) a Black Legislative Caucus, a Hispanic Legislative Caucus, an Asian-Pacific Islander Legislative  Caucus and even a Jewish Legislative Caucus, but there is no White Legislative Caucus.

When I’ve brought up this lack of a White Legislative Caucus with other Whites, I’ve often received a response indicating that they are unperturbed by this and not at all concerned. Some even thought it would be racist for Whites to have such a caucus. These attitudes are exactly what one expects from an oppressed group of people who, in addition to relying on anti-White reference group attitudes, also have negative self-images  and low self-esteem both of themselves and of other Whites. And, they often got these negative views by internalizing the views of their reference groups.  Too many Whites today are internalizing the negative views of elite Whites, Jews, non-Whites, the media, and anti-White laws as our reference groups and reference points instead of internalizing the psychologically healthy attitudes of our real reference group which we can call by a variety of names such as White Nationalists, Race Realists, Awakened Whites, etc.

In simple terms, we are looking for our cues as to who we are and how we should be and how we should act and what attitude we should have  in all the wrong places and we are coming away with negative views of ourselves that are often subtle and which manifest themselves as I wrote above in Whites being oblivious to the oppression and being non-assertive for White rights and even for our natural right to be as we are as Whites, to live among our own kind with no interference from other kinds and to seek our happiness as we rationally believe it to be.

You and I and all other Whites have a natural RIGHT to be White in all ways that we think are important and no one has a right to take that right away from us.  We own this planet as much as any other human being or group of human beings including governments.  They have no greater rights that we do.  We must always act in the best interests of Whites and never in the best interests of non-Whites.  Why?  Because they are competing with us subconsciously as their genes try to kill off and replace our genes with theirs.  This is the way of nature. Do not deny it.  Do not hate it.  Learn to love the struggle that we are in, because we can win it if we start living every minute of our lives as intentional Whites.


OPPRESSION: Any situation in which others keep one from his or her pursuit of rational self-affirmation.

GENOCIDE: UN LEGAL  Definition: The International Convention of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide on December 9, 1948 set the United Nations definition of genocide: General Assembly Resolution 260A (III) Article 2 In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.  BIOLOGICAL definition:  Killing a distinct type of organism’s genes or replacing its genes with the genes of a different, but often related, type of organism. This can be done by mass immigration of a different type into the environment of the type being destroyed.

GENOME: An organisms complete set of DNA, including all of its genes. Each genome contains all of the information needed to build and maintain that organism. In humans, a copy of the entire genome–with more than 3 billion DNA base pairs is contained in all cells that have a nucleus.

REFERENCE GROUP/REFERENCE POINT:  Any group or authority (media, laws, etc.) to which a individual looks for cues on how he should compare, judge and decide upon his opinions and behaviours.

Maternity Leave for Sodomites in South Africa

via Faith & Heritage

On the 26th of March, a South African Labor Court in Durban ruled in favor of a sodomite who took his employer to court when he refused to give him four months of fully paid “maternity leave” after he had a baby via surrogate.1 Four months is what is usually granted to new mothers, and more than the two months usually granted to adoptive mothers, which is actually what the employer was willing to grant him in the first place.2 Rejoicing after the ruling, Irvin Lawrence, the lawyer representing the (anonymous) sodomite, observed: “I think it’s a vindication that these antiquated conceptions of marriage, of who is ultimately responsible for the care of the child, are rendered void. Ultimately you now have a judge saying we’re enlightened, we’re beyond that stage of prehistoric thinking.”3 If this is not a satanic song of victory over Christendom, I don’t know what is. Cultural Marxism has been marching successfully through the institutions in South Africa and the West over the past few decades, to the extent that their complete victory seems to have been achieved.

To be honest, however, with the governing and academic elites of South Africa being made up solely of Marxists who have in the past few decades been successfully advocating every godless agenda imaginable in this country, this ruling is not that surprising. The ruling also logically follows from the full legalization of sodomite marriage and adoption in South Africa under former president Thabo Mbeki back in 2006. South Africa at the time became the fifth nation in the world (after the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and Canada) to legalize this abomination.4 When forsaking God’s Law as the ultimate, morally binding standard for legislation, there really is no end to the spectrum of absurdities that a godless government can implement.

The implications of this particular court-ruling for South African Christians are far-reaching. Christians, who, as I’ve previously noted, suffer institutional persecution in South Africa, and who have over the past eighteen years been forced to pay for over 1.2 million legal murders via abortion through taxes, are now also obliged to pay a sodomite employee four months’ salary to “raise” his adopted baby. First of all, the socialistic government is, with this ruling, overreaching its divinely-ordained limits and infringing on the rights of employers. Not only this, it also infringes on the rights of parents by implementing regulations pertaining to child-rearing. Women should of course be encouraged to take care of children and be primarily homemakers, while husbands should take responsibility as providers and protectors, but biblically, even this should be enforced not by the state (not a higher authority than the family, merely different in domain), but by a more family-centered, as opposed to profit-centered, economic system. Secondly, Christian employers, for whom paying maternity leave for married women would otherwise probably not be such a big deal, are now forced to pay a sodomite man to “take care” of a baby, i.e. forced to fund a godless practice to which they (should) have serious moral objections. Thirdly, the state, by this ruling, further vindicates the practice of sodomite surrogate adoptions, thereby contributing to the potential destruction of the lives of many children.

The ruling itself doesn’t come as as much of a shock as the complete lack of reaction from the supposedly Christian communities of South Africa. At the time of writing this article, I haven’t seen a single church or group in the country publicly object in even the slightest fashion to the court ruling. Apparently, the African Christian Democratic Party had the time and energy on that very same day to condemn by press release the attack on three Jewish teenagers as “anti-Semitic” and completely unacceptable, but they chose to remain silent on this court ruling. Complete and utter silence seems to be the way the church has opted to go. Of course, you wouldn’t really expect anything from the mainline Dutch Reformed Church, who has embraced sodomy to the extent that their synod moderator has recently called for the church to “respect all people regardless of their language, culture, national origin or sexual orientation – because God’s love compels us to regard others higher than ourselves . . . [and] teaches us to learn to use new language that enables people to feel better about themselves.”5 So naturally, for the largest Afrikaans church to say something against this godless ruling would contradict the all-important injunction to make sodomites “feel better about themselves.” Nonetheless, even conservative Afrikaans churches and organizations have been silent on the issue. In fact, in the comments sections of news sites, one strikingly finds almost exclusively black individuals verbally expressing their opposition to this ruling.6 The silence of the white community, though shocking, is yet not inexplicable. Since the beginning of the 1990s, in preparing for the Marxist takeover of the country, white South Africans have been guilted into accepting the false idea that they and their culture have been unfairly “privileged” for decades during the twentieth century and that they therefore have to continually make sacrifices for the egalitarian god to atone for their ancestral sins. Of course, as we are continually told, not only black people but also sodomites had been discriminated against, so in the name of equality and diversity they now need to be respected, embraced, and, in the words of the aforementioned moderator, “regard[ed as] higher than ourselves.” The theology of the Belhar Confession, after all, implies that God loves lustful sodomites much more than he does Bible-believing and Christ-honoring white men and women. The historical truth, of course, is not that white people have for some inexplicable reason been “privileged,” but that their culture produced most of the positive socioeconomic and cultural developments in South Africa. Their Christian culture indeed suppressed sodomy, yes, but because it is evil.

Whites have been guilted into accepting and embracing not only miscegenation and consequent self-genocide, but also, in violation of the fifth commandment, hatred for their Christian ancestors – so much so that they now either regard sodomites as superior to themselves, or, if they still secretly oppose this damnable practice (which just under half of Afrikaners still do),7 prefer wicked silence amid vileness’s exaltation (Psalm 12:8). Coming out of the closet in opposition to this would amount to subverting the system for which those deified “struggle heroes” such as Biko and Mandela worked so hard, and would be blasphemous against South Africa’s infallible Marxist, anti-Christian constitution, which guarantees sodomite rights against all Christian objection.8 Black South Africans, on the other hand, can be thankful that the agenda has not been forced on them to the extent that it has been on whites, although even their strong tribalist culture, which flourished under apartheid, is now being infiltrated and damaged by this virus also.

This step from South Africa’s government just once again proves that the entire twentieth-century struggle and project of “establishing a democracy” in South Africa had all along been a veil for the true objective of completely destroying Christianity in this part of the world, an objective in which this current government is increasingly succeeding on a daily basis.