Jun 19, 2015

Correctly Understanding Our Struggle for Survival

via Western Spring

To correctly understand the struggle Whites are in for our survival, we must first understand the real nature of the struggle and not be distracted with side issues.

If we want to prove things for ourselves and not simply rely on the words or others, including my words, we must, each of us, almost become amateur naturalists and scientists and we must study and understand as much as possible about the ways of  existence.  Then, we must be able to see reality as it really is and act accordingly. And, it is this last thing that is most important– we must  act and put into effect, in our daily lives, what we have learned.  Studying and understanding are  useless unless they lead to action and a way of life that is in accord with what is true and real.

I will say to you now, and very clearly, that the real nature of our struggle–as living organisms–and as White people–is not about politics or religion or national identities, and it doesn’t even begin in our everyday world that we clearly see around us each and every day.  These are all secondary issues. Rather, our struggle begins at the DNA level of existence  in what I  call the  gene wars.  The well known term “natural selection,” is similar in meaning to gene wars, but it’s not a complete synonym.

I won’t argue with you, here, about what  caused life to come into existence from so-called non-living minerals to become the living minerals that we call life. You can say it was God or you can say it was the forces of nature. I don’t care. For now,  these are irrelevant because we are here and the ultimate cause is whatever it was and is.  Believe as you wish. However,  I must add that if your beliefs reject the basic concepts of true science and the reality of  cosmic and earthly evolution and the belief in Whiteness before all else, well, then you will not understand our struggle for survival or how we must live to not only survive but  thrive and expand our kind and win the gene wars.

You must fully understand that the gene wars are constant, eternal and are necessary for evolution. They are not something to be feared, but they are also not something to be watched passively–not anymore.  We must, each of us personally, engage consciously in the gene wars if we hope to win them.  And, our struggle in the gene wars really  is both individual and collective.  But, don’t wait for the collective White population to form so you can hide and ride on the efforts of others.  You must engage as an individual so you and your family line will win, no matter what the larger White population does or doesn’t do.

Luckily,  we now live in an age where computers and computer terms along with our current knowledge of DNA and genes give us  ways to think about life in new and meaningful ways that might help us make sense of it all.

dna1Life itself, can be thought of as being somewhat similar to a computer program full of various  computer codes. The source code or most basic  program  codes for “life.”  This  program causes so-called non-living minerals to become the living minerals that we call life.   And, there are subprograms that help life adapt and change to meet new challenges.  And, there’s  a program  running in the background that reads “seek self-awareness.”  And, so on and so on. As  life has changed and adapted to continue to survive and expand into every possible niche were some form of energy can be obtained to fuel the life processes, some forms of  life have evolved to have higher intelligence, awareness and consciousness.

Now, the program  “life” doesn’t care which form of life comes into existence or goes out of existence, because it is the same code, at the basic level “life” that is identical in all particulars in every organism that has ever existed.  At this level, a  bacteria is the same as a human.  DNA is DNA and genes are genes.  So, as long as various forms of organisms exist, “life” is happy at this very low and most basic level of the program.  Life simply wants to fill all of existence with life–any kind of life.

Living  organisms don’t have to actually do anything consciously to continue life but simply act naturally and according to their instincts because there are defaults in the program and much code in it that makes decisions for living organisms when living organisms don’t make their own decisions.  Our instincts are the defaults in the program. Hold this thought.

Fast forward now to human life, and White human life in particular.

White humans have branched off from earlier forms of humans.  When we Whites were mostly the only people in Europe, the eternal gene wars still raged on.  We simply  fought brother and cousin wars which were–when you scratch the surface–the means of nature to refine the White type even more to see which versions of the White code were the most fit.  That really is the cause of human wars–it is the genes fighting for dominance and to eliminate all other versions of similar genes and replace them.

We have these gene wars right in our own bodies as genes for all of our body and mental features struggle for expression against those that also code for those features but in different versions.  So, for example, in some nations, genes for, say, blond hair have essentially wiped out genes for other color hair.  It is the same with eye color, ear shapes, body types, mental faculties, etc.  Everything about us as individuals as we look in the mirror show which genes won the gene wars within our bodies.  It is the same with the way we think.

Today, we Whites are having our lands invaded by hordes of alien genes–carried by non-White humans.  They are an external and relentless adversary right in our own gene pools trying to replace our genes with themselves.

DNA 1In the gene wars, there doesn’t need to be any evil intent or any intent at all on a conscious level.  The genes are just automatically trying to survive, dominate and replace opposing versions and they never stop doing this. This is part of the program for all genes.  Those among us who hold false utopian dreams of a day when all humans will join together in peace and harmony are delusional.  It’s not going to happen. The gene wars are eternal, and they must be so.  Learn to love the gene wars and the struggle, and fight to win.

In Europe, because of the cloudier, rainy weather and less sunlight, the genes for White skin long ago won the gene wars and became the dominant type of genes for skin color in Europe.  Our white skin lets in  more sun to produce more Vitamin D and it does other things as well, but that discussion is for another time.

If we Whites are to continue to exist, we are going to have to understand the nature of the gene wars and we’re going to have to become active combatants by living intentionally and consciously, or we risk having the defaults in the program eliminate us.

If we do nothing and let nature run its course, it becomes a crap shoot for us.  Remember, “life” doesn’t care which form of organism it is in. Life in a worm is the same as life in a man.  It is us who must care.  For our benefit, we must be the organism that spreads life.  We must take charge of ourselves and our destiny by winning the gene wars against the genes of those humans who are not White.  They are our adversary even if they mean us no harm and even if they may like us.

We must take charge of ourselves and our evolution and consciously strive to become fully a  new species of human that is incapable of bearing children with non-Whites.  That is where we will find the greatest safety and the least danger to our kind.  When we can breed only with our fellow Whites and produce White children with no gene flow from non-Whites we will be on our way up the evolutionary ladder toward our highest possible destiny and with no danger of being assimilated back into the non-White masses.

So, here, dear reader,  you have read another essay.  What does it mean?  It means absolutely nothing if you just read it and don’t live it.  But if you’ve gained some insights or maybe have had some of your own insights reinforced such that you now will live Whiteness, and expand your family line by having as many pure White children as possible, then this it does mean something.

NB: The anthropomorphism of “life,” DNA and genes is used here  for clarity and brevity.

This article has been slightly edited and amended in order to avoid infringing the Draconian anti-free speech laws that exist in Britain.

Ann Coulter on ¡Adios, America!: The Washington Stop of Her National Book Tour

via American Renaissance

Ann Coulter was in good form yesterday at the National Press Club, talking about her latest book, ¡Adios, America! Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies introduced her to the audience of about 120 people, and she spent an hour answering questions.

Miss Coulter said ¡Adios, America! grew out of a few chapters that were supposed to be part of a completely different book, but the more she tried to find out what immigrants are up to the angrier she became. The government doesn’t have the statistics. She could find the precise number of American houses with car ports, but not how many immigrants are in prison or why. “Just count,” she said. “That’s all the bureaucrats have to do,” but this is part of a huge effort to hide the truth about immigration.

Miss Coulter said she had just finished recording the audio book version of ¡Adios, America! but it took a week longer than expected, because she had to figure out how to pronounce all the exotic names of immigrant criminals she mentions. She also explained that the subtitle of her book–The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole–was a compromise with her publisher. She wanted to leave out “left,” because there are plenty of “conservatives” in on the plan, and make it The Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole is Almost Complete.

To a question about whether she had help with research, Miss Coulter replied, “You have to do your own research, because that’s the only way you discover stuff you didn’t already know.” An author can point researchers only in known directions, so they fill in gaps, but don’t find anything really new.

As for immigration itself, Miss Coulter called it “a policy introduced by democrats to shift the country in a way that moves it in a leftward direction.” She noted that President Obama was elected only because of post-1965-type immigration, and that without it, Romney would have won by a landslide.

Immigration is changing everything, she added, not least the racial mix: “If they can keep cheering the browning of America, why can’t I say, ‘I don’t think that’s so great’?”

Why does the establishment go along? “Stupidity, cowardice, and greed,” she explained. Republicans are too stupid not to follow the advice of the New York Times, which kindly explains to them the need to pander to Hispanics, and they are too cowardly not to insist that immigrants fresh off the boat don’t have the same civil-rights claims as blacks. “Being looked at askance because you wear a veil is not the same thing as being brought here in chains,” she said. “We owe something to blacks, but we don’t owe anything to a lesbian who wants to bring her date to the prom. To someone who got here yesterday, we owe absolutely nothing.”

Businesses, of course, are greedy for profits and love cheap labor: “They don’t care about our country or our culture. Wall Street is no different from Hollywood–they don’t want to preserve anything about America.”

Miss Coulter pointed out that there are machines that can pick tomatoes and strawberries and that “they can work all night, and they don’t need unemployment insurance or use food stamps.” Growers say machines are expensive, but Miss Coulter notes that if the whole industry had to buy machines there would be no competitive disadvantage. Stoop labor is cheap, but “the people making most of the profits are not paying most of the costs.” Tomato farmers don’t pay for the prisons, court interpreters, ESL teachers, and expensive premature babies that come along with “cheap” labor. And Mexicans send $20 billion back to Mexico, which is “money just sucked out of our economy.”

“Rich people are busy making money, so they may not have the time to follow what’s going on in the country,” said Miss Coulter, but there is an easy way out for them to keep up: “Hang on my every word.” She added that she thought the Koch brothers really do care about America “but they are getting bum advice.” She noted that there is no progressive case against immigration because “progressives don’t really care about poor people or black people; they just want power.”

Miss Coulter railed against “our insane anchor baby policy” and against “this very corrupt country Mexico, the country we are about to become.” In answer to a question about what should be done to people who overstay their visas, she replied, “The death penalty. I’m just throwing out ideas.” As for refugees, “they are all frauds; proven frauds or frauds that are not yet proven.” Illegal immigrants? “Many are hard working. We just don’t see the ones who are not working.”

To a question about attempts to make us stop using words like “illegal immigrant,” she said, “Screw you, you’re not policing my language. This is an example of cowardice. But I don’t think terms really matter. People catch on and figure out what is going on.”

Miss Coulter said she had been on a few radio programs but that big media ignore her. “I’m doing this because I want to save the country, but I can’t get the time of day from the media–except from Jorge Ramos [of the big Spanish-language network Univison], doing a job no American will do, which is interview Ann Coulter.” “I’ll put on a bikini and go to Texas and get a cop to yell at me,” she said, “if that’s what it takes to get an interview.”

Miss Coulter saw little hope for GOP presidential candidates: “All of them suck except, possibly, Scott Walker. Romney was the best we ever had on immigration, and I think we should recruit him.” She said that no one who is not a governor or former governor should even think of running for president, but she made an exception for Donald Trump. “I’m a little worried he may make some mistakes and discredit some of our ideas,” she said, “but he is the only way there would be even a single question about immigration at the debates.”

Miss Coulter said that she constantly has to remind supporters that she is not talking only about illegal immigrants; dim-witted Republicans don’t understand that the legals are just as bad. She said that the best Republicans seem to be the younger ones “because they have a longer time horizon.” She said it is a mistake to assume “conservatives have no place else to go. They can stay home. Normal, ordinary white people can stay home, as we have seen.” Her advice for Republicans? “Unless you’re being called a racist by the New York Times, you’re losing.”


Miss Coulter said the mess can’t be fixed by reform around the edges: “We need a total moratorium that would shut down the entire immigration bureaucracy.” There is an entire industry of people who “hate America and want to destroy it,” who are trying to cram as many losers as possible into our country. At the same time, immigration judges have huge backlogs and make terrible decisions. “Send me a million people who want to come to America, and I will decide them all before breakfast,” she said. “I can pretty much decide on looks; it would save a lot of money.” She would take us back to the pre-1965 days “when we got immigrants who were better than us.”

Miss Coulter knows the hour is late, but hopes we are not yet past the tipping point. “In the whole country, now, we have the same demographics that California had when Pete Wilson tied himself to Prop. 187 [which excluded illegal aliens from public benefits], and won a huge come-from-behind victory.” She also said it is encouraging that “conservatives are having lots of kids and would have more if they didn’t have to pay so much in taxes, while liberals are aborting their children or going gay.”

But if Americans don’t wake up soon:
The country will be gone. It’s over. It’s Brazil. It’s not even as good as Mexico. There will be a very wealthy 10 percent at the top and the rest of us will be their servants.
Miss Coulter is best with her claws out, so it is a pity there were no hostile questions. Maybe she will have a chance to break heads in the other cities on her book tour, which should be announced soon at her website.

No Gay Agenda in the Bible Belt

via TradYouth

Knoxville Tennessee, June 20th , 12pm-3pm

The Traditionalist Youth Network will be assembling on the intersection of Wall Avenue and Gay Street in Knoxville Tennessee at noon to demand that Traditional Biblical values be enforced in our community.

The current homosexual agenda is promoting a worldview that is against the moral worldview of the majority of citizens of the Volunteer State. This agenda to attack the sanctity of Christian churches by promoting “homosexual marriage” and to influence young people with a deviant lifestyle must be opposed by all honorable means.

This protest will be demanding that our State and local government stop granting permits to homosexual pride events and to stop any government funds from being spent to support this attack on Christian morality.

The Traditionalist Youth Network is a Traditionalist organization that seeks to mobilize young people in the defense of Western civilization both on college campuses and on the streets of our cities and towns. We are actively recruiting in Tennessee and excited to bring our message to the people of Knoxville.

Local organizer Matthew Heimbach can be reached through the Traditionalist Youth Network website and would be happy to address the media about our message.

The Coming Nightmare of Non-Prosecution of Hate Crimes Against Whites

via The Occidental Observer

It started off like any average ‘First Friday’ in Florence, Alabama. It ended with a glimpse into the racial nightmare that awaits the European peoples in the coming racial apocalypse. Earlier this month, the Dawes family participated in the familiar civic event before starting to make their way home as evening descended. A group of Blacks, numbering between 20 and 30, chose this moment to set upon them with fists and weapons. Fourteen year old Brandon was the first to be singled out. He was struck violently from behind with a closed fist. When dad Kevin realized what was happening, he quickly moved to defend his son, positioning himself between Brandon and the attacker. At this point the whole frenzied mob moved in to screams of ‘Get that White!’ The feral crowd only dispersed to the sounds of police sirens, but by then the family’s car windshield had been destroyed, and Kevin had several Taser burns and broken facial bones.

The government and police response in the aftermath of the incident tells us all we need to know about our growing need to organize and educate for adequate racial self-defense. Pressed by the media on whether the incident would be treated as a ‘hate crime,’ Police Chief Ron Tyler has been hesitant in the extreme, stating only that the attack was being looked at “from all possible angles.” There is only one angle from which this incident can be viewed – the angle of ceaseless racial conflict. Unfortunately we happen to live in an age of duplicity on a mass scale. There is no racial conflict, we are told, only very bad ‘racists.’ The race traitors and Jews that fill the minds of our youth with the bile of ‘Whiteness Studies’ are so very careful to remind us that while race is a ‘social construct,’ only ‘Whites’ can be racist. Whites are ‘trained’ oppressors, who dominate and exploit simply by existing. We are the personification of ‘hate,’ and we can therefore never expect equal application of ‘hate crime’ laws. They are, in fact, ‘White crime’ laws –designed specifically for our people to be held on a leash. They are the rope that forces us to engage in the racial struggle for existence with one hand tied behind our back.

As Chief Tyler busies his overwhelmed mind in an effort to explain this attack, the Commissars have descended on little Florence in order to prevent the further slipping of the racial veil. Complicating the investigation, and adding insult to the Dawes’ injuries, the FBI has dispatched trainers to hold a two-day seminar in Florence on “appropriate decision making,” after the incident was reported. According to the police department’s Facebook page, “The class is designed to prepare first line supervisors for ethical and appropriate decision making in a changing world.” This is the verbose and meaningless garbage that passes for policing in our bankrupt age. Reverse the races for a moment. Imagine the Dawes’ were Black, and the mob was White. There would be no hesitation in designating the incident a ‘hate crime.’ There would be no FBI descending on Florence — unless they were hunting for a group dreamed up in the fevered imaginations of the SPLC. Little Florence would not be long in entering school textbooks as the site of a ‘massacre,’ and Mr Dawes would find himself hailed as some kind of modern Ghandi. Foundations might get named after him, funds would be raised for the family, and the media coverage would be nauseatingly copious. But the reality is that there will be no justice for the Dawes family.

Nor was there justice for the Whitaker family of Philadelphia. Around 5:30 p.m on Memorial Day, Paul Whitaker, 36, and his children were getting ready to leave his mother’s house to head home to Trevose, in Bucks County. Whitaker watched as his daughters and their cousins were approached by a group of neighborhood ethnics with whom he was all too familiar.

Tensions between the two sets of kids had been running high for months. The Blacks and Hispanics often bullied and teased his sister’s kids, who share the home with their mom and grandmother. “They were arguing, and I just told them all to get off the street,” Whitaker later recalled. “I didn’t want them to get into a fight.” The ethnics departed, and Whitaker went back about his business. But moments later a group of around 15 Blacks and Hispanics descended on the family home.

An unidentified Black man with the group stormed onto the Whitakers’ porch, where he punched Whitaker’s brother-in-law. Whitaker tried to intervene, but the man then ambushed him. He had something heavy in his hand, but Whitaker said he couldn’t get a good look at the object. “There were so many people on the porch; there were fists and hands flying everywhere,” Whitaker said. The uncontrollable Black punched and stomped Whitaker, slamming his head into the concrete until he was unconscious. Whitaker’s daughters, ages 12 and 14, tried desperately to protect him but caught blows to the head from several ethnic females. Whitaker, the girls and Whitaker’s mother — who injured her arm in the fracas — were treated at area hospitals. It took five stitches to mend the gash above Whitaker’s eye, his head was swollen for days, and his abdomen was badly bruised. Trisha Pellicciotti, Whitaker’s ex-wife whose daughters were assaulted, said the melee came after months of simmering racial tensions between the Whitakers and several Black and Latino neighbors. She astutely described the case as a hate crime. Besides her daughters, Pellicciotti said, her nieces and nephews, ages 7 to 12, witnessed the beatdown and are paralyzed with fear. “They’re prisoners in their own home,” Whitaker said of his sister’s kids. “They can’t leave, they can’t even go outside.”

It’s clear that this is another incident of creeping racial aggression. Pellicciotti has more insight in this respect than her ex-husband, who has said “”I just don’t understand this anger. … We grew up in that neighborhood; it’s completely changed around my mother’s house.”

Whitaker needs to understand that inter-racial aggression is a fact of life, and that when the demographics of his mother’s neighborhood “completely changed,” the most important change was the arrival of racial conflict on the family’s doorstep. The work of the Commissars, however, goes on quietly. News reports relate that police paperwork relating to the attack made no mention of any racial motivation. Police considered the case a matter of simple aggravated assault and ‘aimed’ to arrest at least one attacker. As of writing, no arrests have been made.

This isn’t surprising from the Philadelphia P.D. Back in early June Whites were forced to organize in protest at ongoing racial attacks and police reluctance to provide adequate defense. Between 150 to 200 people gathered at a street corner to protest a rash of what they openly stated were racial attacks at the hands of a gang of Black females. “These females have been terrorizing the neighborhood; they have robbed, attacked and beat others in our neighborhood,” event organizer Jack Owens said. A man who did not want to be identified says he and his 10-year-old son were among the victims. “I was attacked while sitting on my door step, basically for no reason at all,” the man said. Another woman who also did not want to be identified says the women attacked her inside her home calling her racial epithets when she tried to fight back: “Next thing I know, I hear, ‘white bitch we’re gonna fuck you up!’ … They’re inside spitting at me, pounding at my face, beating me.” The victims all stated that responding officers from the 3rd district did not even take a report or make any arrests. A report was finally taken after Councilman Mark Squilla got involved and there is at least now an internal investigation into why complaints from Whites were ignored. At time of writing, the feral Blacks have yet to face charges.

Ten months ago in Mississippi a White, former Marine was left with brain damage by a crowd of racial epithet-screaming Blacks at an all night restaurant near West Point. Ralph Weems IV, 32, a former Marine who served in Iraq, has years of recovery ahead of him following the attack. The assault began when Weems and his friend David Knighten went to eat an early morning meal at a Waffle House. Knighten recalled that they were told by a Black patron that white people weren’t safe in the area. The pair went into the establishment anyway, and soon got into a verbal argument with seven Black customers. Knighten and Weems left after police were called to the scene and before any fighting broke out. Knighten and Weems then drove to a nearby Huddle House restaurant but they were followed by a large group of Blacks. After coming out of the bathroom, Knighten says he found a large group of locals surrounding his friend. They were all arguing. It all turned physical in short order and Weems was beaten down quickly by overwhelming odds. Knighten says he was unable to reach Weems to help. Knighten took severe injuries, but Weems was left on the floor kicked into unconsciousness. Knighten says that the crowd was hurling “racial slurs” at them during the attack.

But the Commissars have been busy here too. West Point police have continued to deny that this is a ‘hate crime.’ “This does not appear to be a hate crime,” Police Chief Tim Brinkley said in a statement. “We are investigating this as an aggravated assault. It’s very early in this investigation but thus far the evidence and statements suggest that a verbal altercation turned physical and somebody got hurt,” the Chief said. ‘Somebody got hurt’?

Not only is the nature of policing in these incidents nothing less than disgusting, the incidents themselves haven’t raised any moral indignation at all. White wrath has instead been mid-directed and focussed on the ‘folk devil’ of Eric Casebolt, the White policeman who responded for his authoritative, no-nonsense, approach to the chaotic aftermath of ongoing Black invasions of a swimming pool in a predominantly White area of McKinney, Texas. The disparity in reactions and portrayals between McKinney on the one hand, and Florence (which happened on the same day) on the other, offer clear insight into the diseased sense of morality that the mass of our people currently adheres to. We also get to see, in microcosm, moral lines being drawn in relation to land and territory.

Take, for example, the situation in McKinney. The Guardian, always a source of the most turgid contrivances of the Marxist scribblers, argues that the poor Blacks were forced to invade Craig Ranch, the predominantly White neighborhood, and seize their pool facilities because the evil Whites are still oppressing them through ‘soft’ segregation. So in this context, Whites have no right to defend what is theirs. They are morally compelled to share, even if this means a gradual (and inevitable) loss of quality in the area/provision/facility. And even if this ‘sharing’ is only the beginning of wholesale displacement. Contrast this with the media silence on cases in which Whites have been mostly dispossessed of their territory/facilities/provisions. Here, the lesson is that when Whites give way, their territory will gradually succumb to decay and degradation, and all against a backdrop of White victimization. The horror of White displacement will be smothered in a blanket of silence to hold up the rotten narrative of White evil. Only Whites take territory and terrorize the ‘Other’ within it.

This is the Kool-Aid narrative our society imbibes. Of course, there are those who refuse to sip from the well of lies, but the morality perverts ensure they are cut off quickly before dissent can become entrenched. Karen Fitzgibbons, an elementary school teacher in Lubbock, Texas, was fired for a Facebook post in which she wrote: “The Blacks are the ones causing the problems. … I’m almost to the point of wanting them all segregated on one side of town so they can hurt each other and leave the innocent people alone. Maybe the 50s and 60s were really on to something.” Fitzgibbons is the kind of independent, astute woman I would like teaching my children, but she aligned herself with the ‘folk devil’ Eric Casebolt and is thus anathema to the establishment. She will be deprived of gainful employment to the greatest extent that the system can achieve in this age of soft gulags. Casebolt, meanwhile, is in hiding amid threats to his life.

Surveying these, and many, many similar developments, I can’t help but conclude that ‘Open Season’ on Whites has begun in earnest. There were at least 19 Black-on-white murders in the first 15 days of 2015, and at least 136 so far this year. The police will not protect us any longer. They have been repeatedly castrated by too many cleverly orchestrated and propagandized media scandals, and our people’s expectations of policing have changed for the worse. Our deluded fellow Whites would rather froth at the mouth over the manhandling of a disobedient Black teen, than express indignation at the near-murder of one of their own whose only crime was trying to find somewhere to eat breakfast. Faced with total abandonment by the police, future White self-defense is likely to be increasingly pushed in the more radical direction of vigilantism and paramilitary action. From here it will probably be designated as terrorist activity.

And then, at that stage, the criminalization of White attempts to simply survive will be achieved.

I am reminded of “The Anti-Semite’s Catechism,” printed by the journalist and publisher Theodor Fritsch in 1883. Within it, Fritsch outlined principles that can broadly be interpreted as practical steps for White survival in a Jewish-dominated world. These took the form of a kind of “Ten Commandments.” In the context of what we have discussed above, the tenth bears mentioning:
Thou shalt use no violence against the Jews because that is unworthy of thee and against the law. But if a Jew attack thee, ward off his Semitic insolence with German wrath. 
Fritsch couldn’t imagine a world when Whites would be confronted with violence from masses of foreign races in Europe, or places where Europeans had established hegemony. He couldn’t imagine a world in which the police would neglect to protect their own people. We don’t seek or promote violence. We want only to be left unmolested. And yet we will eventually be forced to educate and organize in order to ensure that future acts of insolence on the part of our ungrateful guests are met with the utmost severity of our wrath.


via Age of Treason

Listen Now

We’re going to compare and contrast two recent controversies, one involving Bruce Jenner, the other involving Rachel Dolezal. And of course we’ll also discuss what this all has to do with the jews.

The two controversies revolve around the same core issue – the poisonous concept of fluidity, an extension of identity politics, which is itself an extension of the constantly metastasizing jewish intellectual movement known as cultural marxism or multiculturalism. Fluidity is the idea that individuals have a right to choose who they are, to be what they want to be, that social considerations or even physical biological realities are not or should not be any real constraint. It’s the idea that what what you think and believe and imagine you are matters more than anything else.

This idea of fluidity is part of a larger social context in which integration, mixing, blurring, “diversity” – anything degenerate, really – is put forth by cultural and political elites as right and good, and thus something that can and has been compelled by force. Meanwhile anything separate, homogeneous, with clear borders – anything necessary for the continuity and survival of a people, really – is portrayed as wrong and even evil, and thus can and has been targeted for destruction.

Such an abstract and objective description is really just the universalist sugarcoating over a deeper fraud, a misrepresentation or misinterpretation of the racial animus that’s behind multiculturalism, driving it all. The driving force and it’s goals are not at all universalist but utterly particularist. It is really all about tearing down and destroying anything and everything European or White. It’s about marching through the institutions created and formerly dominated by Whites, now dominated by jews, and using those positions of authority to denounce Whites, to make the world safe for the jews first and foremost.

Clouding the issue is the fact that the jewish nature of this aggression has all along been largely disguised, cloaked by the earlier promotion and preeminence of “liberalism” – particularly secularism, individualism, and pluralism. The aggression has advanced most recently under the pretense of promoting “freedom” and “tolerance” and “equality” for everyone, even as the efforts have become ever more especially and obviously to secure special preferences and privileges for various “minorities”, and accompanied by ever shriller condemnations of “White supremacy”, “White privilege”, and Whites generally.

Identity politics is only superficially about everyone having and celebrating their unique identities equally. Behind the facade it’s a thoroughly jewish construct. It’s about jews with a strong jewish identity and racial animus for Whites spinning a historic narrative of victimhood and oppression. Jews and their holocaust narrative are at the absolute center, serving as the template, defining and driving a larger coalition of narrowly self-interested deviants, degenerates, feminists, and non-White “people of color”, inciting and uniting and directing them against Whites, and especially White heterosexual men.

So it’s against this cultural backdrop that we have in the first instance this idea of fluid gender in the spotlight, focused at the moment on Bruce Jenner, a famous White man, Olympic gold medal winner, married three times, father of four children. Jenner declared that he had long wished he was a woman and had finally resolved that he would undergo surgery to make himself look more like one physically. He then appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair magazine, dressed in a woman’s swimsuit, sporting breast implants, long hair, and makeup. The caption read, “Call me Caitlyn”, the new name Jenner has selected for himself. The jewsmedia celebrated.

Unfortunately, most of us have heard of this kind of sexual deviance before – transexuals, trannies, the T in LGBT – but Jenner’s fame and the jewsmedia’s hoopla took the already toxic contemporary popular culture to a whole new level of bizarre. What’s new about transgenderism is that it goes beyond tolerating a mentally deranged individual’s desire to be something they’re not, and becomes a metric by which everyone else’s value is measured by their willingness to say they approve of behavior that should repulse anyone healthy and normal. Abnormal and unhealthy are the new normal and healthy.

Late last week the other controversy sprang up, this one around a relatively unknown local leader of a black political organization named Rachel Dolezal. The initial report concerned her claim that she was the victim of “hate”, her 8th or 9th such complaint in as many years. This time around she claimed she had received a letter whose contents she found offensive. Pictures of nooses or whatever. This time it was also almost certainly a hoax, since the letter was supposedly received at a post office box that only herself and her staff had access to, and yet it’s stamp had not been cancelled, signifying that it had not actually been handled by anyone at the post office.

The jewsmedia regularly announces “hate” crimes, and almost as regularly but more quietly and ambiguously announce the corresponding hoaxes, when the supposed victim actually turns out to be the perpetrator. What made the Dolezal story stand out was the revelation that she had all along been hoaxing her blackness, that she was in fact a White woman who had simply frizzed her hair, darkened her skin, and passed herself off as black.

In Dolezal’s case the spotlight is shining on transrace, the fluidity of race. Coming so soon after the celebratory circus the jewsmedia had made about Jenner, the glaring similarity of their bizarre pretense is easy to see, and easy to mock. A glaring contrast is also clear. The jewsmedia which hailed Caitlyn Jenner has been either ambivalent or disapproving about Dolezal. The most common theme is an irrational insistence that the two situations are completely different.

The size, swiftness, and character of the public response has been telling in it’s own way. However relentless and pervasive the jewish promotion of the lie that neither race nor gender are rooted in biology, it is a lie, and many people aren’t buying it. The general consensus, in social media for sure, but even in the jewsmedia, is that Dolezal is a fraud, that she can’t possibly be black because she has no black ancestors. In other words, when it comes to racial identity, genes are the decisive factor. What Dolezal’s case demonstrates is that you can feel black, marry black, go to a black school, dedicate your life to serving blacks, you can look and act and you might even be mistaken as black, but none of that can actually make you black. For that you have to have black ancestors.

The case is similar for Jenner, though the jewsmedia treats it as though it is different. Despite Jenner’s surgery he’ll never really be a woman. The jewsmedia hype about him will in fact make it less likely he will even be able to even sincerely fool anyone. Just like Dolezal now that she’s been outed.

There are a few articles about these controversies that I’d like to cite, read excerpts from, and comment on, tying into and adding to what I’ve already said. However tempting it may be to simply disregard what’s happening and chalk it all up to insanity, the overarching point I’d like to make is that there is some sense that can be made of this if we read between the lines.

Paul McHugh, the former Psychiatrist in Chief of Johns Hopkins Hospital, wrote an article about Jenner titled, Transgenderism: A Pathogenic Meme, published on the web site Public Discourse. McHugh noted that what is today called transgenderism used to be a rare phenomenon but has dramatically increased in recent years. He describes this pathological behavior as “mental unrest” and attributes it’s spread to the spread of a pathogenic meme:
The champions of this meme, encouraged by their alliance with the broader LGBT movement, claim that whether you are a man or a woman, a boy or a girl, is more of a disposition or feeling about yourself than a fact of nature. And, much like any other feeling, it can change at any time, and for all sorts of reasons.
. . .
But the meme—that your sex is a feeling, not a biological fact, and can change at any time—marches on through our society. In a way, it’s reminiscent of the Hans Christian Andersen tale, The Emperor’s New Clothes. In that tale, the Emperor, believing that he wore an outfit of special beauty imperceptible to the rude or uncultured, paraded naked through his town to the huzzahs of courtiers and citizens anxious about their reputations. Many onlookers to the contemporary transgender parade, knowing that a disfavored opinion is worse than bad taste today, similarly fear to identify it as a misapprehension.
I am ever trying to be the boy among the bystanders who points to what’s real. I do so not only because truth matters, but also because overlooked amid the hoopla—enhanced now by Bruce Jenner’s celebrity and Annie Leibovitz’s photography—stand many victims.
. . .
Ten to fifteen years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to twenty times that of comparable peers.
Emperor’s clothes indeed, but even McHugh’s truth-telling is couched in semitically correct compassion for the most botched. The suicides are only the tip of the iceberg. The bulk of the harm is being done to the many more otherwise healthy men and women whose minds are more subtly poisoned by this pathologenic transgender meme, who as a consequence will never form a proper family, and thus never reproduce.

McHugh does at least try to identify the source and driving force. He notes that:
both the state and federal governments are actively seeking to block any treatments that can be construed as challenging the assumptions and choices of transgendered youngsters
The larger issue is the meme itself. The idea that one’s sex is fluid and a matter open to choice runs unquestioned through our culture and is reflected everywhere in the media, the theater, the classroom, and in many medical clinics. It has taken on cult-like features: its own special lingo, internet chat rooms providing slick answers to new recruits, and clubs for easy access to dresses and styles supporting the sex change. It is doing much damage to families, adolescents, and children and should be confronted as an opinion without biological foundation wherever it emerges.
But gird your loins if you would confront this matter. Hell hath no fury like a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle.
McHugh’s diagnosis of transgenderism dovetails very well with Kevin MacDonald’s description of the jewish culture of critique. A comparable diagnosis surely applies to transracialism. At the center of the moral fury in both cases is the jewish holocaust narrative.

Another psychologist commented was quoted in an article at People.com titled, Psych Expert: Rachel Dolezal Not Like Caitlyn Jenner. The author claims that “most people” think Jenner and Dolezal have “very little in common” but:
Some commenters on the internet likened Dolezal to someone who is “transracial”
To explain how “very different” transracial is from transgender she quotes a “racial identity expert”, who says:
“I would say being LGBTQ, there is strong evidence that there is a biological [reason behind it],” . . . “Caitlyn Jenner is not identifying with being a woman because of the upbringing and cultural conditioning.”
This is at odds with what McHugh described as the pathogenic meme behind transgenderism, “the idea that sex is a feeling, not a biological fact”. I think McHugh’s view is far more credible for reasons I’ll describe in a bit.

Concerning the problematic internet comments connecting transgender to transracial:
“I think [the comparison] is all an attempt to not really see the issue. The issue is deception, honesty and pretense. You have to get to the bottom of that.”
The “expert” is referring here to the jewsmedia talking point, popping up in many places now, that the big difference is that Dolezal was a fraud, dishonest. The reality is that Jenner, if he’s telling the truth now, has admitted that he has been lying to his friends and family for a much longer time.

The reality is that the idea that gender is not essentially biological is just as false as the idea that race is not essentially biological. Both ideas are a very deliberate deception. As McHugh puts it, anyone who confronts the deception faces fury.

The issue here is honesty, says the “racial identity expert”. The name of this expert, according to the article, is Derald Wing Sue. The article fails to identify Sue as a professional non-White anti-White. As his page at Wikipedia describes him:
Sue was born in Portland, Oregon to a Chinese American family. He lived in a predominantly white neighborhood, with his parents, four brothers, and one sister[3] where was reportedly bullied and teased on a regular basis, due to his race[4] which later influenced his studies in cross cultural counseling.[5] Two individuals who influenced Sue’s path of study were Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr.[3]
. . .
first president of the Asian American Psychological Association
. . .
Sue’s ethnic minority status was his biggest influence in pushing for multiculturalism in psychology.
What’s more, Sue teaches this pathogenic meme known as “White privilege”. It’s the explicit premise of a presentation of his on the internet titled, What Does It Mean to Be White. It describes how he did some “research” that sounds like a stripped down version of the Whiteness Project I wrote about in November of 2014. In academia the word Whiteness is a deception. What it really describes is anti-Whiteness.

When this chinaman asked Whites what Whiteness means to them they mostly claimed they didn’t know, didn’t care. They were visibly disturbed and agitated by the question. He also asked non-Whites, and they revealed their sympatico with the “White privilege” meme Sue teaches – they see Whites as oblivious of their “privilege”, and they think being White means always being right, never having to explain yourself or apologize.

The fact that a racial alien who has not only demonstrated his anti-White animus but is actually paid to do so is called upon by the jewsmedia to comment on the behavior of White people in any way is a good sign that Whites do not have any tangible political power, never mind privilege.

The NAACP Statement on Rachel Dolezal came shortly after she was outed as White:
One’s racial identity is not a qualifying criteria or disqualifying standard for NAACP leadership. . . . the NAACP remains committed to securing political, educational, and economic justice for all people, and we encourage Americans of all stripes to become members and serve as leaders in our organization.
More deception. This is a good example of a particularist organization trying to cloak itself with universalist-sounding rhetoric. What the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is claiming is that it doesn’t discriminate against anyone who is willing to help them advance black interests.

On Monday Dolezal announced her resignation. She made no apologies. Instead she reiterated her commitment to “human rights” and advancing black interests.

Dave Chappelle a black who has made a career out of joking about race was serious about Dolezal:
“The world’s become ridiculous,” he told the awestruck grads at George Washington University’s Lisner auditorium. “There’s a white lady posing as a black lady. There is not one thing that woman accomplished that she couldn’t have done as a white woman. There’s no reason!
I think this reflects the poisonous effect that “White privilege” propaganda has even on blacks. They see even deranged Whites like Dolezal as golden, simply because she’s White. The false assumption is that Whites have even one university which teaches a positive view of our race, or even one organization that can provide us a with a stable career working for the advancement of our race. The truth is that Dolezal’s anti-White career was, materially speaking at least, far easier to pursue and more lucrative than any pro-White career. The race-based “storm” she says she’s experienced for a few days, and couldn’t take, is a taste of what she would have faced on a regular basis as a White woman openly trying to advocate for the advancement of her own race out of an office in Spokane.

The New York Times, the belly of the jewsmedia beast, ran an article titled Black or White? Woman’s Story Stirs Up a Furor:
Faking a racial history, in either direction, raises difficult questions about what race is and why it matters, and about the assumptions people make.
Jim Crow laws often imposed a “one-drop rule” so that people with even a sliver of black ancestry, no matter how white they appeared, were legally considered black. It is only because of that history that Ms. Dolezal could be accepted as black, said Martha A. Sandweiss, a history professor of Princeton University.
“There was very little to be gained by identifying yourself as black, so if you did, no one questioned it,” said Ms. Sandweiss, author of “Passing Strange,” an acclaimed book about a man who did just that in the late 19th century. “It shows how absurd racial classifications often are.”
What the Dolezal incident demonstrates is that there is something to gain, and there’s a new one-drop rule. No matter how black you appear, you need at least a sliver of black ancestry. So far as I know the current anti-White regime has squelched or avoided any legal challenge of it. Dolezal sued Howard University for discrimination against her, as a White woman. She lost.

Martha Sandweiss is another one of these deceptive “experts” on race. In fact, it appears she’s transracial, like Dolezal but different in an important way. From what I can tell she’s actually a jewess who’s posing as “white”. And like the chinaman “expert”, her expertise, her profession, is being critical of Whites.

There was an article about Sandweiss in the Princeton Alumni Weekly in 2009, with a title based on her jewsmedia-acclaimed book, Passing Strange: A Gilded Age Tale of Love and Deception Across the Color Line. American Renaissance reprinted it in 2009 under the title A Strange Double Life. The jewess’ double life as “white” went unmentioned.
If this story reminds readers of The Human Stain, Philip Roth’s novel about a half-black, half-white man passing as white and Jewish, you’re not alone. Sandweiss thought of it frequently during the four-and-a-half years she spent writing Passing Strange, especially with the number of times she had to fill in historical blanks.
“That was absolutely an inspiration for this book. I admire that book so much, how Roth gets inside of his character’s heads and imagines their motivations. Certainly many times working on this book I wished I was a novelist so I could narrate with a kind of a magnificent omniscience what’s really going on here.
“But I’m not a novelist, and I’m certainly not a brilliant novelist like Philip Roth. I’m a historian who lives and dies by her footnotes. This is a history book.”
(Uptown Girls is Sandweiss’ 2013 NYT review of Miss Anne in Harlem by Carla Kaplan. More of the same – concerning the “fiction of race”, the “absurdity of the one-drop rule”, and effusive praise for a tribemate spreading similar poisonous memes.)

Here’s why the jewsmedia attitude toward the transracial idea is generally negative even while their attitude toward transgender is positive. The jews deliberately promote fluidity of both race and gender, but the fluidity of race is of more critical importance to their parasitic lifestyle. Promoting a certain one-way belief in the fluidity of race helps enable jewish infiltration and manipulation of their hosts. The promotion of gender fluidity comes later, as part of the exploitation and parasitic castration of their hosts. Naturally jews are interested in racial identity and passing, thus they set themselves up as authorities on these subjects. They think deeply about these things, but they don’t want their hosts thinking too deeply about it.

Last week Andrew Joyce published a good article following up and expanding on a point I took issue with in Gaslighting. In Jews, Communists and Genocidal Hate in “Whiteness Studies” Joyce examines not just Noel Ignatiev but the jewy clique around him. He doesn’t directly address gender or race fluidity, but he does at least identify the jewish source and driving force behind these poisonous anti-White memes.
The open pursuance of ‘Whiteness Studies’ must be perceived as nothing less than an act of extreme, even violent, aggression against the White race.
Joyce gets less coherent toward the end when he tries to tie it in with his previous description of “White pathology” and “suicide”:
One major factor facilitating this ethnically suicidal behavior is the ongoing Jewish domination of academia and the constant mutation of what may loosely be termed ‘Frankfurt School’ ideologies into superficially novel intellectual movements. There is really nothing novel at all about ‘Whiteness studies.’ It is simply the latest guise for the radical critique of White culture and, all Talmudic logic about ‘race as a construct’ aside, the active promotion of White genocide. The hypocrisy of the Jewish architects of ‘Whiteness studies’ is self-evident — made clear in their total lack of identification with Whites, and in their very strong identification with Jewish culture and group interests. It is tragic, criminal in fact, that this corrupt cabal of ethnic activists and dysfunctional Communist wannabe-Jews has hijacked positions on faculty, has obtained access to elite publishing outlets, and with it, significant power and influence over culture.
The second factor at play in the success of ‘Whiteness studies’ is the ongoing problem of White pathology. One side of white pathology is altruism towards other races. The even more insidious side is the tendency towards self-hate.
Even according to the details of his own description of the non-jews who were involved as wannabe-jews, it’s really the same single factor – a jewish intellectual movement. I find it frustrating that a mainstream figure like McHugh won’t mention the jews, but will at least identify the ideas jews promote as pathogenic, whereas Joyce will bluntly identify the jews and what they’re doing, but still talks about the pathological behavior of Whites as if it’s something separate.

To conclude, the jist of what I’m getting at this time, which bears repeating, is that abnormal is the new normal. Trans-reality is a jewish construct.

Now more clearly than ever before in history, the problem is jewish rule. The fact is that jews are so powerful and privileged that hardly anyone in any position of power dares to openly challenge them or any of their cultural or moral dictates, no matter how obviously destructive. When supposed leaders and pundits aren’t snickering nervously, mocking “conspiracy theories” about “the jooos”, they’re loudly proclaiming their respect and admiration for jews, as a group, as a people, and denouncing anyone who doesn’t as the enemy, as literally evil. It’s more bizarre really than even the controversies around Jenner and Dolezal.

My point is that jews clearly use their influence in media and academia to define and promote pathogenic memes – the fluidity of gender and race are just two prominent examples. They do this because it’s good for the jews. They benefit from the almost-anything-goes atmosphere they create. In particular, they are the foremost practitioners of transracialism. They’ve used it throughout their history, not just recently, and not only to infiltrate and manipulate White hosts.

White People for Africa

via Amerika

Currently in Europe, we are witnessing a flood of refugees. It’s hard not to sympathize with the refugees, as they flee the damages created by naïve Western liberal policies. Many of those same liberals demand of us Europeans to allow millions upon millions of these refugees into our countries.

What happens if we allow 10% of the population of Africa to immigrate to Europe? Africa now has 1.1 billion people. This means its population would be reduced to 990 billion people. In Europe, the population would rise by 110 million people, further overpopulating our continent and especially our cities.

What would happen to Africa? The 10% of people who flee Africa would in all likelihood be the smartest ten percent of the nation. They would be the most secular oriented people, the least superstitious, the wealthiest, the best educated, the most innovative share of the population. Europe on the other hand, would be faced with the struggle of assimilating an ever growing minority of the population, who live in segregated neighborhoods where they hardly ever meet any Europeans.

If Europe makes the most generous gesture of ignorant empathy imaginable, by accepting 10% of the African population into our continent, Africa would be worse off. It would still be a continent where albinos are used for witchcraft and pygmies are eaten to acquire magical powers. It would still be a continent where girls have their clitoris sliced of with a broken bottle and their breasts ironed flat by their mothers to make them less attractive to rapists. It would still be a continent where babies are raped in an effort to cure HIV. It would be the same Africa we know today, but without its smartest, wealthiest, best educated, most secular share of its population, as those people would have been the first to flee to Europe.

Leftism is an outgrowth of Christianity, maintaining its values, without its faith in God. Ultimately, leftists don’t want to end suffering, they want to be seen addressing it, so that they are seen as good people. Mother Theresa used to say that suffering brings the poor closer to Jesus. Similarly, importing immigrants delivers you an opportunity to spend your whole life addressing an endless deluge of pointless suffering. If we recognize the Christian cultural values that govern our policies as a continent, we recognize how we arrived at our suicidal and unproductive policies.

Conservatives respond to this stupidity, by feigning autism. Intelligent right-wing men try to blend into the crowd of libertarian/conservative Joe Sixpacks and proclaim that they couldn’t care less if some young girl is gang-raped by the local village brutes or some particular African country just entered the genocide season again this week, because they fear that humanizing the third world inevitably leads to our governments pouring its population out over our own nations.

Thus the right wing response to the endless list of atrocities splattered on our newspapers on a daily basis is to claim that this is “not our responsibility”. I don’t think this is a very legitimate point to make. Besides the fact that humans are very bad at feigning autism for very long, it’s hard to defend the suggestion that we have no responsibility in regards to Africa whatsoever.

Besides the fact that these were our colonies for centuries, nations we used to fuel our industrialization and win world wars, our intervention never really stopped, decolonization just made our interventions more damaging. Now we were earning money selling technology to nations that were not ready to cope with its consequences.

We find nations with fertility rates of eight children per woman and forests turned into deserts thanks to agricultural practices we introduced to them. Rates of soil erosion in Africa have increased twenty fold between 1974 and 2004, according to the Worldwatch institute. Free market capitalism allows our companies to continue operating in Africa, but without any sort of ethical oversight, thus turning their presence there into a limbo dance of tax dodging, estimated to cost some nations up to 13% of their GDP.

So what would be a rational yet compassionate response to the seemingly endless catastrophe? First we have to ask ourselves what makes Europe so attractive in the first place Africans don’t come to Europe because of the weather. Like it or not, they come to Europe, because Europe is full of white people.

If the average African knew what Argentine, Australia, Canada or any other nation full of white people looks like, they would be more than happy to move there too if given the opportunity. Most however, are only familiar with England, seen as the paradise worth traversing the Sahara desert and the Mediterranean sea for.

The yearning for white people doesn’t stop as soon as they are in Europe. Children in Dutch multicultural schools demonstrate in the streets, asking for more white kids to attend their school. As these children grow up, they may flee to Tumblr, where they will proclaim that they “do not need a white savior” along the lines of Rachel Dolezal, but every action taken and every policy endorsed demonstrates the opposite, a desire to have white people around.

Now, the idea that has to be considered here is that rather than inviting Africans to enter a Darwinian triathlon, where most people drown, suffocate or starve, while the toughest make it to Europe and win the privilege of getting to live as a perpetual underclass in a majority-white society, why not try the opposite? Why not encourage white people to migrate to Africa instead?

Now, note that I am not calling for forceful annexation or anything along those lines. I am also not calling for some sort of genocidal replacement. Rather, I would suggest that African nations and European nations should seek to enter voluntary agreements, where African nations receive foreign aid in the form of European immigrants. It would probably be best for these immigrants to maintain European citizenship.

Sending young people to Africa would be a blessing for Europe too. All the type of people stirring up trouble now by sheltering illegal immigrants, calling people racists and Islamophobes and attempting to restrict free speech would have something better to do with their days. Europe would have a decisive majority again, of people who want to preserve Europe’s original cultural identity.

White people in Southern Europe are dealing with youth unemployment rates of anywhere around fifty percent. These young people spend their days stacking degrees on top of each other and moving from internship to internship, learning irrelevant information in the hope of one day finding a real job. In Africa, simply knowing how to use birth control can be a valuable skill. If the average IQ in an African country is 85, an estimate higher than most studies even by left wing academics suggest, with a standard deviation of 15, any white immigrant with an IQ above 115 would be smarter than 97.5% of the local population.

In the long run, such policies would also save us money. Instead of paying for our citizens’ endless educational expenses and unemployment benefits, they engage in productive activities abroad. We could stop patrolling the Mediterranean sea and avoid growing influxes of immigrants in our home countries. The demographic that votes for left-wing open border parties voluntarily leaves our continent.

There is a valid argument coming from the fringes of the political spectrum, that Africa does not per definition benefit from “development”. This depends of course on what kind of African we speak of. Is an Aka pygmy living in the rainforest of Congo, where he climbs in trees to gather honey and uses bow and arrow to hunt for animals, better off working in a call center? Obviously not. It shouldn’t be incredibly hard to make a drug addicted orphan on the streets of Monrovia better off however.

We have no obligation to assimilate every single African into a Western lifestyle. We merely have to guide the process of development into a trajectory that is least destructive, based on the lessons we learned during our own industrialization. Currently, the process of industrialization in Africa is leading to rampant deforestation and the genocide and displacement of primitive societies. Nigeria lost half of its remaining forest between 2000 and 2005, African elephants are expected to go extinct within a decade. Clearly, doing nothing isn’t working. It should certainly be possible for us to reign in the worst outgrowths, that both opponents and proponents of development can agree should be avoided.

For Africa to have a future, Europe needs to have a future. This requires Europe to develop a sense of self-respect again. Our history books and our movies will happily discuss slavery, but nobody is interested in hearing how the British empire fought wars in Africa to bring an end to slavery, as it doesn’t fit into our mood du jour of self-flagellation. Then, when our people return to a state of sanity, us fortunate few can finally share the fruit we harvested from the tree of knowledge, without injuring its roots.

Rachel Dolezal and the Quest for Identity

via Radix

The Rachel Dolezal controversy offers such ripe, low-hanging fruit, the hardest part is choosing where to begin. 

There is a poetic coincidence that Rachel Dolezal and Caitlyn Jenner emerged into the public imagination around the same time. Both, you could say, are grotesque examples of the postmodern—and deeply American—ideal of self-creation and reinvention . . . of “bein’ who you wanna be” . . . even to point, in the cases of Madonna and Lady Gaga, of existing as a series of images and masks.

Many conservatives have asked, ironically, “If Caitlyn, then why not Rachel?” That is, if our culture has sunk so low as to embrace transsexuals, then how can we condemn “transracials,” this latest human category in need of civil-rights protection?

The Daily Caller:
We’ve accepted that Caitlyn Jenner, despite being born in a male body and having a Y chromosome and fathering six children, was actually a woman all along and simply forced into a male role by a sexist, patriarchal society held back by quaint notions such as “people with penises are men.”
So why can’t we accept that Rachel Dolezal, despite a European lineage stretching back countless generations, was simply born in the wrong flesh, with the wrong melanin count and the wrong cultural heritage? Why are we attacking her, when we should sympathize with the tragedy she endured growing up, raised by parents who suppressed her inner Igbo?
And so on…

But all of this really misses the point.

What’s important—that is, what’s revealing about contemporary consciousness—is the asymmetry between the mass media’s embrace of Bruce/Caitlyn and their mocking condemnation of White/Black Rachel (or, at the very least, their assumption that something is very wrong with this woman and her choice of careers).

The media punished anyone who voiced what was, no doubt, all of our gut reactions when we saw Annie Leibovitz’s Vanity Fair cover: “That’s gross/ridiculous/sad.” But behind this enforcement of dogma lay a tacit sense that little was really at stake, that Caitlyn’s act was ultimately personal and harmless to others. In the words of Kris Jenner, Caitlyn’s supportive ex-wife, “[I]t’s about you, and I just want you to be happy.”

Rachel’s transformation is something altogether different. Putting aside legal questions of fraud, Rachel engaged, not in self-actualization, but in identity theft. She stole and demeaned African-Americans’ being and history. The media’s punishment of Rachel—greater than that inflicted on those who ridiculed Caitlyn—reveals the degree to which race really matters, especially to those who identify as liberal and leftist.

In understanding this, it is important not to take leftist dogma at face value. According to “social justice” logic, Rachel was, in fact, Black. For some eight years, she forewent “White skin privilege” and lived her life as a Black woman, recognized as such by White and Black alike. But ultimately, she can’t be Black. And in a month or so, at the end of her running the media’s freak-show gauntlet, she will be remember as a disturbed . . . hilariously bizarre . . . maybe tragic White woman. That’s a fate Rachel will never escape.

The American Left is, we are told, committed to the proposition that “race doesn’t exist” and functions as a “social construct.” In repeating such mantras, we overlook how much liberals and leftists are passionately and genuinely committed to the existence of race. Race is denied on the level of biology, to the extent that it is correlated with intelligence, behavior, and social outcomes, and thus becomes an unchosen “fate” for individuals. On the other hand, race is embraced as the formation of collective identity, meaning, history, and culture.

It is the Left that has been most active in racial consciousness formation: on campus, they have created not only African-American Students Association but “Asian” Students Associations, that is, racial consciousness where little cultural commonality existed.

Conservatives like to demean such things as “identity politics,” as just another car on the gravy train. But the reality is that Leftists are engaging in the kind of ideological project that traditionalists should be hard at work on—the formation of “meta-politics,” consciousness that transcends and precedes any political issue. Put simply, thinking racially—and by that I mean thinking spiritually, historically, and mythologically.

It is self-styled “conservatives,” not liberals, who “don’t get race”—and most furiously want to resist its power and meaning. “Conservatives” have erased identity in themselves, in favor of suburban bourgeois nothingness; they demand that other peoples follow their lead.

It might be tempting to see Rachel’s parents—missionary Christians from rural Montana—as “heroes” in this saga, for they were the first to tell the truth. In fact, there is little that is admirable about them, and they seem to suffer from the same psychosis as their daughter.

A striking aspect of Dolezal’s deceit is that she didn’t just pursue a secret identity as a Black woman but re-imagined her life and genealogy. She created what could be called a “useable past.” Whiteness is a big zero—an identity that lacks authenticity and carries only the taint of oppression. Rachel thus imagined that she grew up in a teepee, hunted for food with a bow and arrow, and even spent time in post-Apartheid South Africa. This reached its limit when she claimed that her biological father was a Black man and, further, that her “step father” (her real biological father) subjected her to abuse. And it was abuse that Dolezal envisioned in the most sadomasochistic and absurdly “racist” fashion, involving torture instruments used for baboons and slaves. In reality, Rachel’s father is as dedicated to the Black race as she is; a decade ago, he left his family to work in South Africa, spreading the gospel (as well as Young Earth Creationism) to the downtrodden.

Of course, we should ask, What kind of woman would invent such lies? But we must also ask, What kind of parents have a daughter like Rachel Dolezal? For something doesn’t come from nothing, and no child is an island, all to herself. Even—or especially—when children rebel or reject their parents, they are being influenced by them.

Rachel first began identifying with Black culture after her parents adopted African infants in the mid-‘90s. (Rachel would later claim that these adopted siblings were her “children.”) Rachel’s parents observed that their daughter began “sounding African-American on the phone” in 2007. And as she moved up the ranks of the Black political infrastructure—becoming the leader of the Spokane, Washington, NAACP chapter as well as a part-time African-American Studies professor—she became increasingly estranged from her parents. This ended in the ultimate insult—her rejection of them, to the point of denying their existence.

But then, psychoanalytically, Rachel’s transformation could be seen as a desperate, ambivalent attempt to please mom and dad. In this line, Rachel viewed her parents’ adoption of African children as symbolizing that she wasn’t good enough or special enough. Her entire adult life—from being fascinated by Black culture to marrying a Black man to becoming Black herself—was, unconsciously, an attempt to make herself into the child her parents really wanted.

No doubt, this reading carries a kernel of truth . . . though, as an explanation, it also seems a little too easy, much as it would be too easy to conclude that Rachel is simply a “sociopath” or “master manipulator.”

The answer to “Who are the Dolezals?” might be found in biology and history, more specifically, in a certain historical American type.

Knut Hamsun described the migration of men to America as such:
Day after day, day after day, a world’s mass of people flooded the prairie, people of every race and language, countless good men, bankrupts and criminals, adventurers and the insane, priests and Negroes—all limbs of the pariah breed from the whole of the earth. And no noble souls.
America’s self-styled “conservatives” like to boast of their right-wing, uncouth ways vis-à-vis the over-civilized, over-liberal, over-indulgent, de-natured Europeans (“cheese-eating surrender monkeys,” as they were called during the run-up to the Iraq war). But in reality, there are aspects to the American personality and mentality that remain shockingly anti-traditionalist to any European. (Here, I’m not referring to “naive optimism” or the “can-do spirit,” which can be laudable traits.)

While decadent Europeans might vacation in the Third World, dutiful American Christians go there to save, convert, or kidnap and bring home non-White races. What kind of people do this? What kind of people adopt Africans as their “children”? What kind of people willfully erase their history and identity? (One should remember that even if Dolezal was untruthful, she was genuinely dedicated to uplifting the Black race.)

Some “limbs of the pariah breed,” as Hamsun called them, who left their homelands for America, were those Europeans most prone to hyper-religiosity, hyper-altruism, and hyper-conformism. They defined portions of the American nation, culturally, spiritually, and genetically—much as they defined the nations of Europe through their absence. Rachel Dolezal might have been the latest expression of this selfless, missionary breed.

Shadows and Reflections: The Lunar Race

via Gornahoor

Julius Evola begins the topic of the Lunar Races with The Demetrian Race. First, let’s clarify Evola’s method and its relationship to Mother Right by J J Bachofen.

Bachofen’s book is a diachronic study of various cultures over time: their origin and evolution. Each one is guided by a different spiritual type; Bachofen is heavily dependent on the use of myth. Evola converts that to a synchronic study. That is, he recognizes each type as active and manifesting at the same time. The myths, then, describe the characteristics of various types of people, which Evola identifies as the “races of the spirit”. As such, the specific historical and pre-historical manifestations of societies of a given type are not the major concern, except for purposes of illustration.

The Demetrian race does not recognize transcendent spirituality. Its focus is on the earth, matter. It lacks a spiritual center, so is prone to pantheism and universalism. Its concern is with the laws of nature, agricultural cycles, and cosmic harmony of the “we are all one” type. Since, for it, everything is “natural”, it fails to recognize anything as deviant.

The Lunar Race is not self-effulgent. That is, it can only reflect the light from an external source. This is characteristic of the intellectual type who can only study or contemplate nature. This is also the Hermetic teaching. Valentin Tomberg identifies the 18th Arcunum, “The Moon” with “materialistic intellectuality”. This then eclipses the “creative light of consciousness” for human intelligence.

In Arcanum XIX, The Sun, Tomberg goes on to say that the “task of human intelligence is to liberate itself from the magical enchantment which separates it from spontaneous wisdom … to arrive at intuition.” This intuition is the spontaneous wisdom of the heart, as Evola also points out.

You can take this as a warning, if you like, against incessant chatter and infinite discussion. What is necessary is a higher realization, not to waste your time the among the “shadows of ideas and things“.

Native Americans?

via BUGS

There are people who say they are “part Indian” and act like they are worried about “racists.”

Almost none of them have any non-white features. I have seen photographs of meetings of groups who have qualified for government money for “land stolen from their ancestors.” This usually requires about one part Indian in thirty two.

This means you have one great great great grandparent who was an Indian, and have the records to prove it.

Every member of the group dates back to early settlers. Contrary to the Party Line, America was not a Nation of Immigrants back when the Constitution was written.

Waves of northern European immigrants came in and their numbers doubled in less than thirty years.

At the time of the Revolution there was a smaller American population of white Americans who were immigrants than at any other time in our history.

My mountain ancestors spoke only German back then, but they had been in America a century before the Revolution.

The groups of people who claim Indian rights look very white because they are descended from one Indian and thirty one of the whitest people on earth.
The legal definition of Native American is never discussed publicly.

All of the native populations in America, all the way down to Tierra del Fuego, were in what is now the United States for many years.

You could not walk from Alaska to Mexico without being in the present United States for a while.

You could not walk from Alaska to Mexico several thousand years ago without spending a substantial amount of time in today’s continental United States.

There is a whole industry built on the guilt complex about whites driving innocent pacifistic people off their land. If you talk about the people what we call Native Americans may or may not have driven off their lands you threaten an entire branch of the Guilt Industry.

The White Guilt Industry is enormous. One Jewish writer’s book is called “The Holocaust Industry.”

All these Guilt Industries love to say there is no such thing as a white race. At the very same time they blame everything on white people.

It is insane to collect money by blaming a race that does not exist.

The only way to keep insanity in power is to crush anybody who dares to talk about it.

Better Call Saul!

via Counter-Currents

Readers of this site are aware of my great love for Breaking Bad (see here and here). Just about every like-minded man I know who saw the series found the story of Walter White, high school chemistry teacher turned drug king pin, to be as inspirational as I did. Weirdly inspirational, of course. But these are weird times. Walt’s story was not intended to be a glorification of crime (though, well, it does kind of turn out to be). It’s the story of a man becoming a man; becoming what he is. It’s the televisual, inspirational equivalent of Fight Club.

But when I heard that the producers were planning a spin off based around the odious but amusing crooked lawyer Saul Goodman (played by Bob Odenkirk), I was dubious. Again, I found the character amusing. But I didn’t like him at all, and I didn’t see how he could carry an entire series. Plus, no Walt. The spin off covers the life of Saul Goodman prior to his meeting Walter White (and also gives us a glimpse of Saul’s life after Walt).

By the time I actually thought of taking a look at the episodes, I wasn’t even sure if the series had been cancelled. I was halfway expecting it to lay an egg, and I’d heard no buzz about it at all. (But then again, I practically live in a cave.)

Well, it turns out I really should have had more faith in Vince Gilligan, the genius who gave us Breaking Bad. For having now watched all ten episodes of season one of Better Call Saul, I am pleased to report to my readers that it is not only a worthy successor to Breaking Bad, but a fine series in its own right (which could be understood and enjoyed by someone who had never seen Breaking Bad — though it helps in a major way to have seen the first series, as I’ll come to in a moment).

I wasn’t terribly impressed with the first episode, however. It was, I believe, by episode three that I realized I was engrossed. (Though I think some of my initial resistance was due to my lingering skepticism, and if I went back and watched the first two episodes again I might feel differently.) Let me explain the premise. The series is set several years before Breaking Bad. We knew from the earlier series that Saul’s real name is Jimmy McGill, and that he chose the name “Saul Goodman” in order to sound like a slick Jewish lawyer (something that still gives me a good laugh).

Our Jimmy, we are told, started out as “Slippin’ Jimmy,” a con artist and all-around loser from Chicago. He lives in the shadow of his older brother, Chuck, an extremely successful lawyer with the firm of Hamlin, Hamlin, and McGill (HHM) based in Albuquerque, New Mexico. After his brother gets him out of a major problem with the law (which could have sent him to prison for some years), Jimmy relocates to Albuquerque and accepts a position in the mail room of HHM. His brush with incarceration changes Jimmy, and he decides to go straight. But he has no desire to remain in the mail room. Secretly, he puts himself through an off-shore, mail-order law school (an accredited one, nevertheless), and passes the bar on his third attempt. (Nothing to be ashamed of, say my lawyer friends.)


Jimmy expects that his brother Chuck and his preening alpha male asshole partner Howard Hamlin will hire him. No such luck. In their eyes he will always be Slippin’ Jimmy — though it takes a while for Jimmy to figure out that his brother sees him this way. So, with nowhere else to turn, Jimmy sets up his own law office in a tiny back room behind a Vietnamese nail salon. The office also doubles as Jimmy’s apartment, where he sleeps on the sofa bed and drinks a good deal of cheap booze.

Chuck is played by Michael McKean, in a brilliant performance. (McKean was the odious Lenny of the odious pair “Lenny and Squiggy” from the odious ’70’s shitcom Laverne and Shirley.) By the time the series opens, Chuck has been absent from his firm for several years. For reasons never made entirely clear, Chuck has descended into an extreme obsessive-compulsive disorder, with a dash of paranoid schizophrenia. He is terrified of electricity (to which he claims to be “allergic”) and of electronic signals. He is almost completely incapable of leaving the house, and spends hours wrapped in a foil “space blanket,” which is supposed to protect him from electromagnetic contamination. He destroyed his home’s electrical connections, and lives by lantern light, storing food in a big cooler filled with ice. Contrary to what you may have concluded, Chuck is not bat-shit crazy. He is generally calm and capable of carrying on intelligent conversations. And it is clear that the man has a brilliant mind — now going to waste.

Jimmy loves his brother, and spends a good deal of time taking care of him (partly, no doubt, because Chuck’s big house is a lot more comfortable than Jimmy’s room in the nail salon). In the evenings, Jimmy brings him food and fuel and ice and newspapers. By day, Jimmy ekes out a tiny living as a public defender (paid a mere $700 for each case he takes). He checks his messages every day hoping that some clients will come along. They don’t.

(SPOILER ALERT! If you have not seen the series, you may want to stop here.)

Jimmy begins to get fed up, and considers returning to a life of crime. He tries to scam a married couple who have stolen more than $1 million from the state into taking him as their lawyer. (These are the Kettlemans — a hilarious portrait of affluent “American exceptionalism.”) But when his scheme goes awry and puts him in the crosshairs of the psychotic Tuco Salamanca (Raymond Cruz), who we met in the early days of Breaking Bad, Slippin’ Jimmy is scared straight yet again. Now he throws himself into being a public defender and something amazing happens: he turns into a pretty good lawyer, and realizes it. And, something still more amazing: he turns into a pretty decent guy. A guy who, for example, returns the $1 million stolen by the Kettlemans (long story — watch the show) because it’s “the right thing to do.”

Can this be our Saul Goodman?

And this is why, dear reader, it really helps to have seen Breaking Bad before watching this show — despite the fact that the uninitiated could still enjoy Better Call Saul on its own. We, the initiated, know what’s going to happen to Jimmy. He’s going to turn into the odious but amusing, crooked Saul Goodman. Better Call Saul puts us in suspense: how is he going to get there? How do you turn a good man into Saul Goodman? What happens to a soul to make it Saul? (Soiling?)

Well, in truth, our Jimmy starts out as a crooked loser. But he’s got a heart, and a sense of decency that kicks in now and then. He’s lovable. And he is loved — in the series by his sorta girlfriend Kim Wexler (Rhea Seehorn), a lawyer at HHM and a very appealing and likeable character.

Attentive viewers will notice in the first episode many parallels to Breaking Bad’s set up. A good deal of time is spent making clear to us how much Jimmy’s life really sucks, and how dissatisfied he is. Like Walt, he is placed in humiliating positions. Like Walt, he has to stand by and watch as former associates thrive. And, like Walt, he feels he’s been cheated. Walt was effectively cheated out of his share in the company Gray Matter, and Jimmy feels like he’s been screwed by HHM. In the first several episodes it is made clear that Jimmy is eaten up by resentment against Howard Hamlin. To the point that, when he at last acquires a bit of cash, he spends some of it buying a tailor-made replica of one of Hamlin’s suits, then has himself photographed in it for a billboard advertising “The Law Offices of James M. McGill,” even ripping off HHM’s logo. Oh, and then he has the billboard placed on the route Howard takes to work.

Jimmy reminds me of Mr. Mundy in The Fountainhead, who asks Howard Roark to build him a replica of “the Randolph place”: the mansion of some upper crust snobs Mundy was in awe of when he was a poor boy in Georgia. Roark tries to dissuade him patiently, but a bit too honestly:

“Don’t you see?” Roark was saying. “It’s a monument you want to build, but not to yourself. Not to your own life or your own achievement. To other people. To their supremacy over you. You’re not challenging that supremacy. You’re immortalizing it. You haven’t thrown it off — you’re putting it up forever. Will you be happy if you seal yourself for the rest of your life in that borrowed shape? Or if you strike free, for once, and build a new house, your own? You don’t want the Randolph place. You want what it stood for. But what it stood for is what you’ve fought all your life.”

Our Jimmy exhibits some seriously weak character, folks. Weak and infantile in a big way. And though Jimmy is likeable and, as I’ve said, sometimes actually decent, he is not a strong man. Ultimately, he cannot resist the darker nature within himself. Ultimately, he becomes not Slippin’ Jimmy, but something much more extreme, Saul Goodman: the Alberich of Albuquerque.

When he thinks he has another shot at getting a job with HHM, Jimmy finds out that his own brother has blackballed him. When Jimmy confronts Chuck, the latter is finally frank with him: “You’re not a real lawyer! You’re Slippin’ Jimmy. The law is sacred. With you it’s like handing a machine gun to a chimp. People don’t change.” It’s a devastating scene (one that actually gave me a nightmare the evening after I saw it). My immediate reaction was to side with Jimmy and to resent Chuck for his injustice. Until I realized the next day that Chuck is right. People — most people — don’t change. They are too weak to change. And we know already from Breaking Bad that Jimmy doesn’t change (or, if he changes, it is for the worse). Certainly, it can be argued that Chuck’s lack of faith drives Jimmy to become Saul. But the obvious answer to this is that a strong man would say “fuck you” and prove him wrong.

Instead, Jimmy’s “fuck you” is, once more, of the Alberich variety. His “I’ll show you! I’ll show you all!” moment consists in becoming not just what Howard and Chuck see him as, but rather an astonishingly worse version of it: a buffoonish, tasteless caricature of a crooked, ambulance-chasing shyster. And a Jew. (Again, just like Alberich!)

By the final episode of season one, it seems Jimmy is just on the verge of becoming Saul. And I will admit to being somewhat disappointed with the rapidity of this transformation. I kind of like Jimmy. I don’t know if I can like Saul. But I’ll reserve judgement until season two.

The major difference from Breaking Bad should now be obvious. The earlier series gave us an imperfect character with whom we could identify, and who inspired us. This series gives us a very imperfect character with whom we can sympathize (up to a point), but with whom we can identify only in so far as all of us, from time to time, have been weak. But I can’t be inspired by Jimmy, and the Saul of Breaking Bad never inspired me. If Better Call Saul is going to become a great show, it probably won’t be because it’s inspirational. The saga of Saul will, I predict, provide us with suspense, and frequently make us cringe. But it may turn out to be nothing more than what Breaking Bad isn’t, but what a square and a prig might take it to be: a cautionary tale.

Nevertheless, these ten episodes are compelling. And I highly recommend them. Stylistically, they are very much like Breaking Bad. If you enjoyed the wry humor, visual style, solid acting, and solid storytelling of Breaking Bad, you will like this show a lot. And I have said nothing about one of the series’ major assets: it also tells the story of Mike Ehrmantraut (Jonathan Banks), my favorite character from Breaking Bad, after Walt. Mike is everything Jimmy/Saul isn’t, and it may be his character who provides the inspiration here. Indeed, he may just steal the show.

And now for something completely predictable: You better watch Saul.