Jun 22, 2015

Traditional Youth Network's Emergency Fundraising Appeal

via TradYouth

We’ve bit off a bit more than we can chew with our activism this Summer. Our opponents are speculating that we have a secret donor who’s been making all of our cross-country traveling, organizing, networking, and activism possible. Not exactly. Our top three donors are: Thomas Buhls, Matthew Heimbach, and Matt Parrott. We have several other regular and irregular donors who’ve made it possible to take it to this level, but we need a little help from our friends to take our work to the next level.

You want proof that your investment is going toward meaningful activism with a real world impact? We’ve wrangled our way onto Chelsea Handler’s upcoming NetFlix series, an upcoming hour-long BBC documentary, and several local and national news stories just in the month of June alone. Each and every time we achieve media attention, we try to pitch the proven “mantra” messages alongside our attractive message of faith, family, and folk. Each and every time we achieve media attention, it’s to promote our cause and our message, not ourselves.

We’re also mindful that street activism and media engagement are just the tip of the agitation iceberg. Paying our talented writers costs money. Eric Striker’s articles have become the definitive resources for folks on forums and social media calling attention to the kosher racket and the Jewish role in peddling pornography. We’ve added multiple active chapters with promising leaders in the past couple months. We even have one in Australia, now! We’ve proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a bold and radical embrace of both identity and tradition is the way to electrify youthful audiences.

Not conservatism. Not libertarianism. Not hipster posturing. Not supremacism or craniometry.

Our project is succeeding by all but one metric right now; fiscal sustainability. We’re approaching escape velocity, but we’ve burned through just about all of our rocket fuel to get here. We’re behind on paying our writers. We’ve skipped the printshop and made professional signs by studying arts and crafts. We sleep on random comrades’ couches when we travel. Legend has it that copper wire was invented by two Jews fighting over a penny, but we goyim are also getting pretty good at stretching each penny as far as it will go.

Today, Saturday, we’ll be on the street in Knoxville opposing the gay agenda. A couple days later, we’ll be in South Carolina sharing our message of identity and tradition with Black Nationalists on a global media platform. A couple days after that, we’ll be in California to support and speak at a major conference. We’ve hustled to bring all these things together, and we’ve got even bigger projects ready to roll out in the next few weeks. But we don’t quite have the money to pull it all off.

If you’ve got some to spare and you support what we’re doing, right now would be an excellent time to help.

Dylann Roof’s Victims: Tragic Collateral Damage of White Genocide

via White GeNOcide Project

The killing of 9 people at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church in Charleston, SC was done by a single disturbed young man.

But that young man’s disturbed state was partly collateral damage from the anti-white program of White Genocide.

White Genocide is being carried out by massive immigration and forced assimilation in White countries worldwide, and in all those countries, Whites’ ability to resist their genocide has been weakened by restrictions placed on Whites and by constant propaganda that tells Whites that they’re no good.

Whites are denied the free speech that non-whites are allowed, and in the U.S., non-Whites are favored over Whites in hiring, college acceptance, job promotion, and the awarding of scholarships and contracts.

Anti-white policies have dissolved families and communities and have destroyed standards of behavior, and when young Whites glimpse the true state of affairs for themselves and for their race, a small number of them will tragically but inevitably snap and react with inappropriate violence.

The President of the Council of Conservative Citizens Statement Regarding Dylan Roof

via American Renaissance

It has been brought to the attention of the Council of Conservative Citizens that Dylann Roof — the alleged perpetrator of mass murder in Charleston this week — credits the CofCC website for his knowledge of black-on-white violent crime.

This is not surprising: The CofCC is one of perhaps three websites in the world that accurately and honestly report black-on-white violent crime, and in particular, the seemingly endless incidents involving black-on-white murder.

The CofCC website exists because media either “spike” such stories, or intentionally obscure the race of black offenders. Indeed, at its national convention some years ago, the Society of Professional Journalists adopted this tactic as a formal policy.

The CofCC is hardly responsible for the actions of this deranged individual merely because he gleaned accurate information from our website.

We are no more responsible for the actions of this sad young man, than the Olin Corporation was for manufacturing the ammo misused by Colin Ferguson to murder six whites on the Long Island Railroad in 1993.

The CofCC does not advocate illegal activities of any kind, and never has. I would gladly compare the honesty and law-abiding nature of our membership against that of any other group.

Earl Holt III, President, CofCC

Dylann Roof’s Manifesto

via Counter-Currents

Counter-Currents Editor’s Note: The following text purports to be Dylann Roof’s 2,440 word “manifesto” from the website lastrhodesian.com. It was saved under the name “rtf88.txt.” I am reprinting it unaltered, typos and all. It seems unlikely that this manifesto is fake, since Roof is alive and could expose it if it were. 

It turns out that Roof is a White Nationalist, aware of the racial and Jewish problems. He makes it clear that he was awakened by the Trayvon Martin affair. I imagine many people were, because calling George Zimmerman a white man — and sticking to it — is the most elegant proof possible that the establishment wishes to whip up black hatred against whites by creating the utterly false impression that blacks are disproportionately the victims rather than the perpetrators of interracial hate crimes.

The media had to consciously lie to sell that story, right down to editing the tape of Zimmerman’s 911 call. And they knew that, by triggering resentful and impulsive blacks, whites blood would flow. They considered that justice. And they also knew that black blood would flow when police showed up on the scene. But they considered that acceptable collateral damage. They also knew — indeed, they hoped — that whites would strike back, further polarizing the races. It took a while, but Dylann Roof did just that. It was a predictable and desired consequence of the Trayvon Martin operation, which was the template for subsequent black agitation in Ferguson, New York City, Baltimore, and eventually everywhere there are blacks who run afoul of the law. So I blame the Left.

It goes without saying that choosing to shoot 9 people at a Bible study in Charleston was a stupid and evil. It is a shame that when journalists lie, other people die. (James Foley being an exception.) But maybe Roof’s choice of target was not random. It will be interesting to see if that particular church, with its long history of civil rights agitation, played a role in the Trayvon Martin op as well.

The whole world will soon be reading this manifesto, and the establishment will respond with predictable lies, distortions, evasions, and emotional blackmail. Thus I am issuing a crowdsourcing appeal to our readers. In the comments below, please post links to reputable sources for every documentable factual claim that Roof makes in his manifesto. I will then choose the best of them and issue an annotated version.

I was not raised in a racist home or environment. Living in the South, almost every White person has a small amount of racial awareness, simply beause of the numbers of negroes in this part of the country. But it is a superficial awareness. Growing up, in school, the White and black kids would make racial jokes toward each other, but all they were were jokes. Me and White friends would sometimes would watch things that would make us think that “blacks were the real racists” and other elementary thoughts like this, but there was no real understanding behind it.

The event that truly awakened me was the Trayvon Martin case. I kept hearing and seeing his name, and eventually I decided to look him up. I read the Wikipedia article and right away I was unable to understand what the big deal was. It was obvious that Zimmerman was in the right. But more importantly this prompted me to type in the words “black on White crime” into Google, and I have never been the same since that day. The first website I came to was the Council of Conservative Citizens. There were pages upon pages of these brutal black on White murders. I was in disbelief. At this moment I realized that something was very wrong. How could the news be blowing up the Trayvon Martin case while hundreds of these black on White murders got ignored?

From this point I researched deeper and found out what was happening in Europe. I saw that the same things were happening in England and France, and in all the other Western European countries. Again I found myself in disbelief. As an American we are taught to accept living in the melting pot, and black and other minorities have just as much right to be here as we do, since we are all immigrants. But Europe is the homeland of White people, and in many ways the situation is even worse there. From here I found out about the Jewish problem and other issues facing our race, and I can say today that I am completely racially aware.


I think it is is fitting to start off with the group I have the most real life experience with, and the group that is the biggest problem for Americans.

Niggers are stupid and violent. At the same time they have the capacity to be very slick. Black people view everything through a racial lense. Thats what racial awareness is, its viewing everything that happens through a racial lense. They are always thinking about the fact that they are black. This is part of the reason they get offended so easily, and think that some thing are intended to be racist towards them, even when a White person wouldnt be thinking about race. The other reason is the Jewish agitation of the black race.

Black people are racially aware almost from birth, but White people on average dont think about race in their daily lives. And this is our problem. We need to and have to.
Say you were to witness a dog being beat by a man. You are almost surely going to feel very sorry for that dog. But then say you were to witness a dog biting a man. You will most likely not feel the same pity you felt for the dog for the man. Why? Because dogs are lower than men.

This same analogy applies to black and White relations. Even today, blacks are subconsciously viewed by White people are lower beings. They are held to a lower standard in general. This is why they are able to get away with things like obnoxious behavior in public. Because it is expected of them.

Modern history classes instill a subconscious White superiority complex in Whites and an inferiority complex in blacks. This White superiority complex that comes from learning of how we dominated other peoples is also part of the problem I have just mentioned. But of course I dont deny that we are in fact superior.

I wish with a passion that niggers were treated terribly throughout history by Whites, that every White person had an ancestor who owned slaves, that segregation was an evil an oppressive institution, and so on. Because if it was all it true, it would make it so much easier for me to accept our current situation. But it isnt true. None of it is. We are told to accept what is happening to us because of ancestors wrong doing, but it is all based on historical lies, exaggerations and myths. I have tried endlessly to think of reasons we deserve this, and I have only came back more irritated because there are no reasons.

Only a fourth to a third of people in the South owned even one slave. Yet every White person is treated as if they had a slave owning ancestor. This applies to in the states where slavery never existed, as well as people whose families immigrated after slavery was abolished. I have read hundreds of slaves narratives from my state. And almost all of them were positive. One sticks out in my mind where an old ex-slave recounted how the day his mistress died was one of the saddest days of his life. And in many of these narratives the slaves told of how their masters didnt even allowing whipping on his plantation.

Segregation was not a bad thing. It was a defensive measure. Segregation did not exist to hold back negroes. It existed to protect us from them. And I mean that in multiple ways. Not only did it protect us from having to interact with them, and from being physically harmed by them, but it protected us from being brought down to their level. Integration has done nothing but bring Whites down to level of brute animals. The best example of this is obviously our school system.

Now White parents are forced to move to the suburbs to send their children to “good schools”. But what constitutes a “good school”? The fact is that how good a school is considered directly corresponds to how White it is. I hate with a passion the whole idea of the suburbs. To me it represents nothing but scared White people running. Running because they are too weak, scared, and brainwashed to fight. Why should we have to flee the cities we created for the security of the suburbs? Why are the suburbs secure in the first place? Because they are White. The pathetic part is that these White people dont even admit to themselves why they are moving. They tell themselves it is for better schools or simply to live in a nicer neighborhood. But it is honestly just a way to escape niggers and other minorities.

But what about the White people that are left behind? What about the White children who, because of school zoning laws, are forced to go to a school that is 90 percent black? Do we really think that that White kid will be able to go one day without being picked on for being White, or called a “white boy”? And who is fighting for him? Who is fighting for these White people forced by economic circumstances to live among negroes? No one, but someone has to.

Here I would also like to touch on the idea of a Norhtwest Front. I think this idea is beyond stupid. Why should I for example, give up the beauty and history of my state to go to the Norhthwest? To me the whole idea just parralells the concept of White people running to the suburbs. The whole idea is pathetic and just another way to run from the problem without facing it.

Some people feel as though the South is beyond saving, that we have too many blacks here. To this I say look at history. The South had a higher ratio of blacks when we were holding them as slaves. Look at South Africa, and how such a small minority held the black in apartheid for years and years. Speaking of South Africa, if anyone thinks that think will eventually just change for the better, consider how in South Africa they have affirmative action for the black population that makes up 80 percent of the population.

It is far from being too late for America or Europe. I believe that even if we made up only 30 percent of the population we could take it back completely. But by no means should we wait any longer to take drastic action.

Anyone who thinks that White and black people look as different as we do on the outside, but are somehow magically the same on the inside, is delusional. How could our faces, skin, hair, and body structure all be different, but our brains be exactly the same? This is the nonsense we are led to believe.

Negroes have lower Iqs, lower impulse control, and higher testosterone levels in generals. These three things alone are a recipe for violent behavior. If a scientist publishes a paper on the differences between the races in Western Europe or Americans, he can expect to lose his job. There are personality traits within human families, and within different breeds of cats or dogs, so why not within the races?

A horse and a donkey can breed and make a mule, but they are still two completely different animals. Just because we can breed with the other races doesnt make us the same.

In a modern history class it is always emphasized that, when talking about “bad” things Whites have done in history, they were White. But when we lern about the numerous, almost countless wonderful things Whites have done, it is never pointed out that these people were White. Yet when we learn about anything important done by a black person in history, it is always pointed out repeatedly that they were black. For example when we learn about how George Washington carver was the first nigger smart enough to open a peanut.

On another subject I want to say this. Many White people feel as though they dont have a unique culture. The reason for this is that White culture is world culture. I dont mean that our culture is made up of other cultures, I mean that our culture has been adopted by everyone in the world. This makes us feel as though our culture isnt special or unique. Say for example that every business man in the world wore a kimono, that every skyscraper was in the shape of a pagoda, that every door was a sliding one, and that everyone ate every meal with chopsticks. This would probably make a Japanese man feel as though he had no unique traditional culture.

I have noticed a great disdain for race mixing White women within the White nationalists community, bordering on insanity it. These women are victims, and they can be saved. Stop.


Unlike many White naitonalists, I am of the opinion that the majority of American and European jews are White. In my opinion the issues with jews is not their blood, but their identity. I think that if we could somehow destroy the jewish identity, then they wouldnt cause much of a problem. The problem is that Jews look White, and in many cases are White, yet they see themselves as minorities. Just like niggers, most jews are always thinking about the fact that they are jewish. The other issue is that they network. If we could somehow turn every jew blue for 24 hours, I think there would be a mass awakening, because people would be able to see plainly what is going on.

I dont pretend to understand why jews do what they do. They are enigma.


Hispanics are obviously a huge problem for Americans. But there are good hispanics and bad hispanics. I remember while watching hispanic television stations, the shows and even the commercials were more White than our own. They have respect for White beauty, and a good portion of hispanics are White. It is a well known fact that White hispanics make up the elite of most hispanics countries. There is good White blood worht saving in Uruguay, Argentina, Chile and even Brasil.

But they are still our enemies.

East Asians

I have great respent for the East Asian races. Even if we were to go extinct they could carry something on. They are by nature very racist and could be great allies of the White race. I am not opposed at all to allies with the Northeast Asian races.


I hate the sight of the American flag. Modern American patriotism is an absolute joke. People pretending like they have something to be proud while White people are being murdered daily in the streets. Many veterans believe we owe them something for “protecting our way of life” or “protecting our freedom”. But im not sure what way of life they are talking about. How about we protect the White race and stop fighting for the jews. I will say this though, I myself would have rather lived in 1940’s American than Nazi Germany, and no this is not ignorance speaking, it is just my opinion. So I dont blame the veterans of any wars up until after Vietnam, because at least they had an American to be proud of and fight for.

An Explanation

To take a saying from a film, “I see all this stuff going on, and I dont see anyone doing anything about it. And it pisses me off.”. To take a saying from my favorite film, “Even if my life is worth less than a speck of dirt, I want to use it for the good of society.”.

I have no choice. I am not in the position to, alone, go into the ghetto and fight. I chose Charleston because it is most historic city in my state, and at one time had the highest ratio of blacks to Whites in the country. We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet. Well someone has to have the bravery to take it to the real world, and I guess that has to be me.

Unfortunately at the time of writing I am in a great hurry and some of my best thoughts, actually many of them have been to be left out and lost forever. But I believe enough great White minds are out there already.

Please forgive any typos, I didnt have time to check it.

How the Alt-Right Saves Lives

via Alternative Right

Dylann Roof, the young man who shot and killed nine relatively decent Black people in a Charleston church, used a gun (obviously) and was motivated by White nationalism (apparently).

Because of this there will be talk of banning guns and clamping down on White nationalism.

But banning guns in America is simply not doable. This is because gun ownership is embedded in American culture and society, and the continuing threat from Black and Hispanic dysfunction will mean that Whites will continue to support it.

In fact, because of recent political pressure on police to not shoot dangerous Blacks, support for gun ownership among Whites is only likely to rise. In addition, there are also strong economic interests that support gun ownership, which naturally translates into significant media support.

Clamping down on White nationalism will also be hard as White nationalism is already as culturally suppressed as it can be. They could try "hate speech" and "crime think" laws, like they have in Europe, but even this would be ineffective from their point of view.

Terminology can be easily changed and moderated, but once it is it has ever greater potential to spread through the public consciousness. The experience of Europe, where nationalist-lite parties are on the verge of power in many countries supports this.

Also, taking down the small number of blogs and on-line discussion groups where heretical WNs gather, and banning them from social media, will remove the only places these people can vent or sublimate their aggression into profanity, humour, and, more importantly, intellectual and political development.

Whenever some young White kid picks up a gun and blows away some PoCs in a racially motivated way, you can be sure that, along with skipping his Xanax, he simply hasn’t been online enough reading informative content, developing a greater understanding of the problem, and exchanging thoughts with people who share his concerns.

In this way, sites like Alternative Right, Radix, Counter-Currents, Trad YouthThe Right Stuff, and even the extremely venty The Daily Stormer, all provide an invaluable service to the establishment by giving young, enraged White men a non-violent way to cope with their displacement and marginalization – and to not feel alone.

Through the Alt-Right, the kind of spiritual energy, courage, dedication, and sacrifice that would otherwise be wasted in countless and pointless lone wolf attacks, can be focused in positive directions to work out and promote the reality-based solutions that our societies will eventually turn to when their present lies and illusions crumble to dust at their feet.

When that day dawns the Alt-Right will be in a position to save even more lives than it is doing now.

A Fireable Thought

via Taki's Magazine

When a Nobel Prize winner can be hounded from his university chair by the harridans of the Internet (or any other self-constituted group of fanatics), the outlook for freedom of speech is not good. The West, having undergone its own Cultural Revolution, has taken up the baton of Maoist self-criticism.

I refer to the forced resignation of Professor Timothy Hunt from University College London. Hunt was the discoverer of a type of chemical important in cell division, for which he won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2001. And that discovery was far from being his only contribution to science.

What was the terrible wrongdoing that brought about his ignominious fall? He made a few remarks while in South Korea to the effect that relations between the sexes in scientific laboratories are often complicated, that women scientists when criticized often burst into tears, and that unisex laboratories are therefore a good idea. These remarks were intended lightly, no doubt ironically, but such is the modern thirst for moral or political outrage, which is the tool of the mediocre to bring about their revenge upon the gifted, that words are now taken in the most literal sense and given thereby the worst possible interpretation. The mediocre wait to take offense as a spider awaits its prey in a web; the spider needs its prey to live, the mediocre their offendedness to feel a sense of purpose to their lives.

“The ultimate aim, of course, is that of Newspeak as described in Nineteen Eighty-Four: that certain things should not only be unsayable but unthinkable.” 
Professor Hunt was forced to resign from his chair by what in effect was a witch hunt, or a lynch mob. He also had to resign from the grant-allocation committee of the Royal Society, one of the oldest and most distinguished scientific societies in the world, and one whose website claims, inter alia, that science needs women. Professor Hunt was speaking as an individual, not in any official capacity; but the Royal Society propagates its disgraceful lie officially, as almost the highest scientific authority in the country, probably from moral cowardice. But it is obvious that science doesn’t need women, it needs scientists, just as art needs artists and literature needs writers; whether they are men or women is irrelevant. There is no female science any more than there was Jewish or bourgeois science, of late unhappy memory.

Women who are successful in business or politics often claim to bring specifically female qualities to their activities, usually such as compassion or understanding or comparative lack of aggression. I am not sure I believe them, because it is perfectly plausible that in order to succeed in these traditionally male-dominated spheres the women who succeed have more rather than less of the supposed male qualities of ruthlessness, aggression, etc.

Plausible, but not therefore true. I seem to recall articles in the press at about the time of the crisis following the collapse of Lehman Brothers that claimed that, if only there had been more women in positions of authority in the financial system, the crisis would have been averted, for women are more cautious and less risk-averse and competitive than men. They are also more honest, or so it was likewise claimed. If women had been in charge of Goldman Sachs, for example, that powerful organization would never have connived at the deception practiced by the Greek government to qualify for entry to the European common currency. Suffice it to say that I am not entirely convinced by this: My one close-up experience with the current head of the International Monetary Fund suggested to me that she was at least as alpha as any alpha male and could strut with the best (or worst) of them. I am more than willing to admit that this is not conclusive evidence in the scientific sense, but the question of the proper relations between the sexes is seldom discussed in purely scientific terms.

It is not truth that is usually the aim of such discussions, but power. Few of those who were outraged (and were delighted to be outraged) by Professor Hunt’s remarks bothered to consider, not even for a fraction of a moment, whether there might be some element of truth in them. After all, Professor Hunt’s experience of work in laboratories was greater than theirs; he might merely have been alluding to his own experience, from which he generalized. To demand that he should not do so, on pain of excommunication, is to demand that he deny his own experience. That, of course, is the purpose of propaganda in the worst totalitarian regimes: to force starving people to acquiesce to the proposition that they have never eaten so well.

The Charleston Shooting in Perspective

via Theden

According to preliminary reports, on Wednesday evening a young white man named Dylann Roof entered into a black AME church in Charleston, South Carolina and opened fire, killing nine. He then fled the scene and was apprehended by authorities in North Carolina early Thursday morning.

Once again according to preliminary reports, this seems to be the racially motivated, white-on-black violence that the mainstream media salivates over. (Many sites were flashing “Hate Crime!” headlines before the suspect had even been identified.) This is the smoking-gun story that they love to give 24/7 national coverage, proving once and for all the threat that white America poses to their innocent black co-citizens.

The reality—dramatic events like the Charleston Shooting notwithstanding—is quite different, however. Putting events like Roof’s shooting spree in context with wider national trends shows how flimsy the mainstream narratives about race are.

Dylann Roof murdered nine black victims. This is the exact death toll, coincidentally enough, that blacks in Baltimore endured over Memorial Day weekend due to black-on-black violence. It is well below the death toll blacks in Chicago endured over 4th of July weekend last summer due to black-on-black violence. In other words, the threats that black Americans face from sprees like Roof’s pale into insignificance when compared to the threats they face from their fellow black Americans day in and day out in major cities nationwide.

If anyone were actually concerned with reducing the number of black lives lost to gun violence, they would start with the number one perpetrator of these murders: blacks. But then the headlines wouldn’t be so sensational.

Peruse the FBI Supplementary Homicide Reports. According to those reports for 2012 (the most recent year such data is available), blacks murdered approximately 5,251 fellow blacks. It would take 583 events of Roof’s magnitude (more than once per day) for evil white spree shooters to match the rate at which blacks kill one another. People like Roof are not a significant threat to the black community at large.

The story is similar if you ignore intra-racial violence entirely and only focus on inter-racial violence.

According to the same FBI database, the number of blacks murdered by whites in 2012 was 458. Yet in that same year the number of whites murdered by blacks was 1,182. So even in the realm of inter-racial violence, the hypothesis that it is whites who pose a threat to blacks falls flat. It is eminently more likely for a white to be murdered by a black than the other way around.

Regardless of these or any facts, the media will run will incidents like the Charleston shooting because they fit the narrative that the media wants to push: a noble and innocent black America suffering under the hatred and violence of white America. That blacks murder blacks in droves every year and that blacks murder white several times more frequently than the reverse is of no consequence to them.

Boom, boom, boom, boom!

via Western Spring

Many people will be saddened and dismayed by the news of the shooting that took place at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina on Wednesday, in which a young White man, Dylann Roof, murdered nine of the church’s Negro congregation in cold blood.

During the shooting in which Roof allowed one member of the congregation to escape, to “tell the world what happened”, Roof is alleged to have told his victims: “I have to do it. You rape our women and you’re taking over our country. And you have to go”, and so it would appear he had a racial motive for his actions. Also, Roof’s college room-mate told ABC News that Roof had been ‘planning something like that for six months’.

“He was big into segregation and other stuff,” the roommate, Dalton Tyler, said. “He said he wanted to start a civil war. He said he was going to do something like that and then kill himself.”

So what are we White racialists to make of these events?

Firstly we have to look at Roof’s motivations and acknowledge that in the USA a transformation of society is taking place, just as it is throughout the Western World in which the demographic status quo is being reversed, that based on current trends American society and the societies of every other Western nation will within the foreseeable future become majority non-White.

The situation in the USA is somewhat different to other Western states in that there has been a sizeable Negro population for hundreds of years since the days of slavery, but that non-White population is bourgeoning with the arrival in the USA of an unprecedented number of illegal immigrants from Africa, South America and Asia, and in effect this is nothing short of an invasion, just as Europe and other Western States are subject to an invasion of refugees, asylum seekers, economic migrants and illegal immigrants – call them what you will.

We humans are territorial creatures – nature made us this way – and throughout our long evolution, it has been the role of young men to defend our lands from foreign invasion. It is only natural therefore that young men today will feel an instinctive need to take up arms and to drive out those they see usurping our living space and crowding us out of our traditional homelands. Clearly however in this modern age in which governments have become divorced from the needs of our people, and in which governments no longer concern themselves with the genetic survival of our kind, the situation is more complex and where young men would once have been applauded for their patriotism, they are instead denigrated and criminalised.

I am not suggesting that in 21st Century Britain and America we should condone our young men taking up arms and attacking people of ethnic minority, but in a healthy society, which acknowledges healthy instincts, there should be scope for our people to express our opposition to the current demographic transformation of our homelands. Opposition to the entry to our countries by people who are racially, ethnically and in terms of religion and lifestyle completely different to our own should be regarded as a legitimate and respectable political position, and those who voice such opposition should not face denigration, marginalisation and ultimately criminalisation for our beliefs.

At the very least, people who do not want to live in a multiracial society should be allowed within the law to establish all White communities from which people of alien race and ethnicity are excluded. If this was permitted, those people who wish to live in a multiracial environment could do so, and those who do not could also do as they wish. There would be freedom of choice.

However there is no freedom of choice allowed, we White people are being forced to live in a multiracial society, whether we wish to or not. The multiracial and multicultural regime under which we live is a totalitarian regime and those who oppose it are either treated as pariahs, marginalised or criminalised for our beliefs.

Any society that attempts to use the force of law to stifle the expression of normal, healthy, instinctive behaviour, which criminalises the expression of opinions as ‘hate speech’, and which imposes a totalitarian regime upon it’s people to suppress freedom of expression will inevitably experience regrettable instances such as happened last Wednesday, in which having no legitimate outlet for their feelings, individual young men find themselves unable to suppress their instinctive drives and end up committing regrettable acts of violence against those they perceive to be threatening the survival and wellbeing of our people.

Our reaction should therefore be one of regret for what has happened, one of sorrow for the lives taken and one of sorrow also for Dylann Roof, a young man whose life has now been ruined, because Dylann Roof is as much a victim in this situation as the people he so misguidedly shot.

It is a source of dismay for me that this shooting will be used as propaganda by our mass media and political establishment to further demonise White racialists in the eyes of the wider public and consequently one of my greatest sources of dismay is that in venting his frustrations, Dylann chose to kill a group of Black people who are evidently among the least objectionable Black people one could find. In the eyes of the wider public there will be no mitigating factors here, as there might have been if Dylann had chosen to shoot some of the Black people who have actually been responsible for “raping our women” and for committing other dastardly crimes against our people – the kind of crimes that even the most liberal person could not fail to acknowledge as crimes.

So my message to any other young White men who find themselves struggling to contain their instincts, is that they should seek help from racially conscious White leaders who can assist them in directing their energies into something constructive, but if they really cannot contain themselves any longer and must visit violence upon somebody, at least have the courage, the common sense and decency to select appropriate targets. Don’t do the cowardly thing and shoot defenceless God fearing men, women and children in their churches and places of worship, find some drug pushers, some pimps, some thieves or muggers — or find a corrupt politician – but visit your violence upon somebody who deserves it, so we can at least respect you for it afterwards.

A Review of 'The Devil That Never Dies' by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Part 1

via The Occidental Observer

Daniel Jonah Goldhagen is best known for his 1996 book Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. Despite its flawed historiography, this polemical work attracted enormous media attention and established his reputation as a putative authority on “anti-Semitism” and the “Holocaust.” He was soon given a regular platform to peddle his extreme brand of Jewish apologetics in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, the New Republic, and other Jewish-controlled media organs around the world.

A former associate professor of political science and social studies at Harvard University, Goldhagen has since produced further books that morally indict Europeans for their inveterate “anti-Semitism” and supposedly enthusiastic participation in the “Holocaust.” These include A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and Its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair (2002), and Worse than War: Genocide, Eliminationism, and the Ongoing Assault on Humanity (2009). His latest offering is his 2013 book The Devil That Never Dies: The Rise of Global Antisemitism, published by a major commercial publisher and touted as “a groundbreaking — and terrifying — examination of the widespread resurgence of antisemitism in the twenty-first century.”

Goldhagen favors using the term “antisemitism” over the hyphenated “anti-Semitism” — doubtless because the latter implies the existence of a “Semitism” which could (and indeed does) provide the dialectical basis for “anti-Semitism.” Goldhagen, in this way, signals his rejection of the reality that hostility to Jews stems from conflicts of interest between Jews and non-Jews in a Darwinian world. The assertion by Jews of their ethnic interests (Semitism) inevitably leads to resentment from those whose interests are compromised as a result (so-called anti-Semitism). To admit this basic truth is to admit that non-Jews (including Europeans) have interests that are legitimate, and that the desire to resist those opposed to our interests is eminently rational.

Daniel Jonah Goldhagen
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen

For Goldhagen, however, Jewish behavior is irrelevant for understanding the hostility to Jews that has existed across nations and cultures for over two millennia. He observes that: “Antisemitism has moved people, societies, indeed civilizations for two thousand years, and has done so despite the other vast changes in the world and in these civilizations and societies — economic, scientific, technological, political, social, and cultural.”[1] Despite the persistent, and often intense, antagonism between Jews and non-Jews throughout much of recorded history, Goldhagen argues that “attributing antisemitism to a reasonable (if sometimes exaggerated) reaction against the Jews’ own conduct” is an example of “faulty thinking.”[2]

Explaining “Antisemitism”

Rather than being a predictable and rational response to Jewish behavior, anti-Jewish sentiment is, for Goldhagen, a form of demonic possession. He labels “antisemitism” a “devil” and claims that “millions upon millions” of morally dysfunctional non-Jews are in the thrall of this fiendish embodiment of unparalleled evil.
The devil, with us for two thousand years, is back. This devil has already insinuated itself into hundreds of millions. He has warped religions. He has inflamed minds and hearts the world over. Unleashed riots and pogroms. Led to the expulsion of millions. He has so perverted people’s sensibilities that he has convinced them to brutalize and torture masses of people in the name of goodness and God. He has gone further, inducing people to commit mass murder again and again, including one of humanity’s most cataclysmic assaults, the attempted murder of an entire people, felling six million of them in one historical instant. The devil, after a period of relative quiescence, has reappeared, flexes his muscles again, and stalks the world, with ever more confidence, power and followers. The devil is not a he but an it. The devil is antisemitism.[3]
The words “antisemitism,” “antisemitic” and “antisemite” have almost supernatural powers of imprecation for Goldhagen; for him they denote the purest form of evil that exists on the planet. By contrast, Jewish hostility to non-Jews has no equivalent labels — leading us to falsely assume that it does not exist. In case we have any doubt as to what “antisemitism” is, and who is deserving of the dreaded epithet of “antisemite,” Goldhagen solemnly informs us that:
Antisemitism is thought. It is emotion. It is speech. It is action. It is inaction. Antisemitism exists and can be identified if any of these in an anti-Jewish form are present, and a person is antisemitic if he or she engages in any of them. A person speaking antisemitic thoughts, prejudicial thoughts against Jews, is an antisemite regardless of his emotions, his words, his actions, or inactions. A person with an aversion or hostility toward Jews, which he feels as instinctive, even without having more coherent prejudicial thoughts or uttering words or taking actions against Jews, is an antisemite. A person who engages in antisemitic action against Jews, regardless of his views of them, is an antisemite. When it comes to prejudice, as with many other things, when you do bad things (your inner thoughts and emotions notwithstanding), you are what you do. And if a person fails to see that obviously prejudicial words against Jews is [sic] prejudicial and therefore antisemitic, this emerges from prejudicial perception bias, and it too constitutes antisemitism.[4]
Having claimed, in truly paranoid words, that even thoughts (or the lack of them) can be “antisemitic” and pose an existential threat to Jews, Goldhagen discusses the results of surveys conducted by the Anti-Defamation League to assess the extent of anti-Jewish sentiment around the world. These supposedly “show that tens of millions, indeed hundreds of millions of people on different continents are antisemitic.”[5] However, these findings, he claims, significantly underreport the extent of “antisemitism” because “people are reluctant to express their prejudicial views when such views are not sanctioned in the public sphere, and such views might get them dubbed racists or antisemites, especially as the latter might be seen to link them to Hitler and the gas chambers.”[6] For Goldhagen, the alleged homicidal gas chambers are absolutely central to the “Holocaust” narrative and the social and political order that has been founded upon it, because without them the “Holocaust” would “not have become synonymous with evil and so delegitimized everything, including antisemitism, that seemed related to it.“[7]

Goldhagen informs us that “according to surveys that tap only a few of many possible antisemitic themes,” some 150 million in the European Union and 45 million in the United States “hold multiple interlocking antisemitic views of Jews — and thus the reservoir for the expansion of antisemitic discourse and other antisemitic manifestations is considerable, disturbingly so.”[8]  Nevertheless, while claiming that “antisemitism” in the United States remains “alarming” and a “substantial problem,” Goldhagen finds it is “extremely heartening” that “the number of people who held multiple and interlocking antisemitic notions in 1964 was about one in three (30 percent),” while “today it is one in seven (15 percent).”

He ascribes this decline to the fact that: “Americans and the character of the public culture and politics they have forged have brought this improvement about,” and proposes that: “Education, which in the United States decidedly teaches people anti-prejudicial views and integrates them more into society’s public discourse, profoundly lessens antisemitism.”[9] Similarly, in Europe, “Younger generations, reared in new public discourses with new plausibility structures and taught in schools a non-antisemitic paradigm of the world, inevitably grew up less antisemitic, so antisemitism became less prevalent across Europe, especially in its antisemitic heart, Germany.”[10]

The “education” and “new public discourses” that Goldhagen refers to are euphemisms for the Jewish domination of the West’s educational, media and entertainment sectors, and their assiduous policing of all public discourse — especially as it relates to Jews. The reality is that Jews are the only identifiable people that, except for the internet, control the flow of information throughout the West, and have a profound need to do so. When Jewish motivations and behavior are widely known and discussed, anti-Jewish sentiment inevitably rises. With the consolidation of Jewish power throughout the West from the 1960s onwards, Western governments and the media closed off critics of Jews’ access “to the public sphere and to shaping its discourse.” The result was that potential critics of Jews were “publically muzzled and had to exercise enormous self-censorship.”[11]

Goldhagen notes that people in Europe and North America must still be careful in how they talk about Jews because “the taboos on the manner of many aspects of antisemitic expression … still hold.”[12] This is hardly surprising given that everything people hear from the mainstream media has passed through the media filter. The unmediated peer-to-peer communication offered by the internet is deeply disturbing to Goldhagen who worries that “the Internet in particular is available to everyone all the time anywhere, with the power of fuelling and sustaining prejudice that is vast, new, in this respect revolutionary, and continuing only to increase in scope and intensity.”[13]

Jews have attempted to change the West’s conception of free speech from freedom of political speech (the original intention of the First Amendment) to freedom to engage in obscenity and pornography — which they are keen to promote because, in line with the conclusions of The Authoritarian Personality, they associate sexual and moral looseness with philo-Semitism, and sexual continence and moral rectitude with fascism and anti-Semitism. Thus, while keeping the external appearance of free speech, they have changed its essence through propaganda films like The People v Larry Flint. Free speech traditionally meant the right to criticize those in power, not the right to broadcast pornography, as Jewish activists would have us believe.

Through their control of the mainstream media and entertainment industries, the anti-White agenda of a tiny hostile two-percent minority has become the mass culture of the contemporary West. In this culture there are no taboos about attacking and insulting White people. It is never hate when Hollywood is attacking “rednecks,” or “white trash,” or “Euro-trash,” or “dumb blonds” or preachers or Germans or Southerners or Catholic priests. That is never hate. It is only hate when people make pointed criticisms of Jews, factual or not. Hollywood subjects White people to an endless barrage of insults where White women are routinely depicted as stupid, brainless sluts, and White men are depicted as weak, wimpy, foolish and useless. The blonde male as arch villain is a longstanding Hollywood trope. Meanwhile, ruthless, avaricious bankers are always depicted as sociopathic WASPs rather than as the Jews who actually dominate the banking and finance industries. Unappealing Jews or Blacks are cast as leading men and the love interests of attractive White women, regardless of how improbable this is in the real world.

Hollywood pushing the meme that Black men are enormously attractive to White women
Hollywood pushing the meme that Black men are enormously attractive to White women

Because Blacks and Whites (except in marginal cases) do not naturally mix, this has to be propagandized. So the message from Hollywood to White women is: “Go mate with Blacks, Blacks are really cool and noble, and athletic, and powerful, and they are sexually superior.” All these memes are continuously put out by Hollywood in order to persuade Whites to do what they would not do naturally. This propaganda continuously chips away at the margins of White society and over time it has an erosive effect — it erodes the stable homogenous, White bulk of the population. This is exactly what Hollywood and the media, are doing. They systematically work away at White heterosexual normativity.

Unsurprisingly, Goldhagen offers us no corresponding analysis of Jewish attitudes towards non-Jews. Besides the fact that such information is not even collected, for Goldhagen, Jewish attitudes are not even relevant for understanding the historical and contemporary phenomenon of “antisemitism.” Indeed, he (apparently with a straight face) assures us that: “We do not need to know much about Jews in order to study antisemitism. Prejudice is an attribute of the prejudiced people and not of their victims. This is especially true for antisemitism and Jews.”[14]

He thus attempts to quarantine Jewish behavior (and the Jewish mindset) from any form of critical analysis, and contends that: “The diversity of Jews over time and today — similar to Europeans and Christians — and their many, depending on time and place, communal and individual differences of concerns and practices, render finding the common denominator, especially with regard to how Jews relate or would relate to non-Jews, an exercise in absurdity,”[15] This is incredible hypocrisy and disingenuousness coming from someone who made his name advancing a generalizing hypothesis about Germans in his book Hitler’s Willing Executioners.

Even Hannah Arendt, that doyen of Jewish intellectuals and activists, was willing to concede that Jewish attitudes and behavior were integral to understanding the historical and contemporary phenomenon of “anti-Semitism.” In The Origins of Totalitarianism she notes that:
It was Jewish historiography, with its strong polemical and apologetical bias, that undertook to trace the record of Jew-hatred in Christian history. … When this Jewish tradition of an often violent antagonism to Christians and Gentiles came to light “the general Jewish public was not only outraged but genuinely astonished,” so well had its spokesmen succeeded in convincing themselves and everybody else of the non-fact that Jewish separateness was due exclusively to Gentile hostility and lack of enlightenment. Judaism, it was now maintained, chiefly by Jewish historians, had always been superior to other religions in that it believed in human equality and tolerance. …
This self-deceiving theory, accompanied by the belief that the Jewish people had always been the passive, suffering object of Christian persecutions, actually amounted to a prolongation and modernization of the old myth of chosenness. … Historiography “has until now dealt more with the Christian disassociation from the Jews than with the reverse,” thus obliterating the otherwise more important fact that Jewish dissociation from the Gentile world, and more specifically from the Christian environment, has been of greater relevance for Jewish history than the reverse, for the obvious reason that the very survival of the people as an identifiable entity depended on such voluntary separation and not, as was currently assumed, upon the hostility of Christians and non-Jews.[16]
In his masterful work The Ordeal of Civility, sociologist John Murray Cuddihy likewise noted that: “Attention must be paid to the deeply apologetic structure of Diaspora intellectuality” whereby the Jewish “intelligentsia ‘explains,’ ‘excuses,’ and ‘accounts’ for the otherwise offensive behavior of its people. All the ‘moves’ made in the long public discussion of the Jewish Emancipation problematic [i.e. Jews leaving the ghetto and confronting a more refined European culture] constitute, in the case of the detraditionalized intellectuals, an apologetic strategy.”[17] The Devil That Never Dies stands squarely within this Jewish tradition of apologetic ethnic strategizing.


In a work of some 486 pages which purports to be a rigorous and exhaustive analysis of historical and contemporary “antisemitism,” Goldhagen fails to mention (let alone discuss) the role of Jewish activist organizations in spearheading the demographic transformation of the West through successfully lobbying for open borders and state-sanctioned multiculturalism, and the hostility this inevitably provokes on the part of dispossessed Whites. Indeed, the words “immigration,” “multiculturalism,” “Frankfurt School,” and “Hollywood” are not even included in the book’s (13-page) index. So it is not surprising that no mention is made of Kevin MacDonald and his theory of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy — including an extensive discussion of Jewish intellectual apologetics in Chapter 7 of Separation and Its Discontents. And this despite the fact that Goldhagen, with his obsession with every conceivable manifestation of “antisemitism,” is undoubtedly aware of both the man and the theory. We can only conclude that the reason for this omission is that he is incapable of offering a halfway convincing refutation of MacDonald’s thesis.

Goldhagen acknowledges the far-reaching significance of the intellectual revolution initiated by Darwin which fundamentally transformed our understanding of ourselves and our place in the world. Nonetheless, for him, Darwinian conceptions of Jewish relations with non-Jews remain illegitimate lines of inquiry — doubtless because they inevitably fail to exonerate Jewish behavior as a likely cause of “antisemitism.” He even, breathtakingly, proposes that Jews have never really competed with non-Jews for access to resources, claiming that “there was no acute, objective conflict over territory, resources, or political control or domination.”[18]

On this farcical basis he dismisses the applicability of the most compelling intellectual framework we have for understanding intergroup dynamics, claiming that “science has often been perverted to justify such [“antisemitic”] thinking and practice… by merging it with a new body of derivative social Darwinian thought that rendered Jews a biologically-based race of evildoers.”[19] So according to Goldhagen’s circular reasoning, any attempt to understand “antisemitism” along Darwinian lines is necessarily a perversion of science and is itself an example of “antisemitism.” 

Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy

Paradoxically, given that he rejects the validity of Darwinian interpretations of relations between Jews and non-Jews, Goldhagen readily (if unintentionally) concedes that Judaism is a group evolutionary strategy geared to ensuring the survival of Jews as genetically distinct population. He acknowledges, for instance, that Judaism comprises “a mutually reinforcing religion and ethnicity — Judaism and Jewishness — that provided Jewish communities around the world the solid foundation to resist the natural tendencies to assimilate.”[20] Furthermore, he notes that:
From the beginning, the notion existed that Jews formed a people, an identifiable ethnic group, like a large family — after all they were the twelve tribes — and not merely a freely come together collection of believers. More than just a religious group, and still more than merely an ethnic group, the Bible refers to Jews as Am Yisrael, the People of Israel, or better translated as the Nation of Israel, an ethnic group with an overriding corporate sense of community that also possesses a territorial home. Even when in a diaspora with no foreseeable prospect of establishing their country, Jews thought of themselves as a nation, with a fixed idea of a national home’s existence — the land of ancient Israel and Jerusalem as its capital. Only in the post-Enlightenment period, and then ever more so in the twentieth century, when the prospect of citizenship and genuine acceptance in other countries seemed possible did this notion of nationhood begin to break down — though Jews’ sense of peoplehood and their commonality as an ethnic group still endured.[21]
According to Goldhagen, the capacity of Israeli Jews to “survive and prosper under a state of siege, and ongoing existential threat, for more than sixty years, is but the latest installment of this profound determination to adapt and survive.”[22] Meanwhile, any profound determination on the part of non-Jewish groups to adapt and survive has, at least since the early twentieth century, been deemed by Jewish intellectuals and activists to be pathological.

Judaism’s status as a group evolutionary strategy, rather than a proselytizing religion, which is reflected in how it has erected “considerable impediments deterring potential converts,” has, according to Goldhagen, “been significant for Jews’ relations with the worlds of non-Jews, and for antisemitism’s especial strangeness, because Jews have not competed for non-Jews’ bodies and souls.[23] Whilst it is true that Jews have not competed with Christianity and Islam for converts (rather the opposite), they have aggressively competed with non-Jews for access to resources and the enhanced reproductive opportunities that accompanies such access. In their quest to outcompete other groups, diasporic Jews have also, since the Enlightenment, attempted to reshape other societies in their own interests through subjecting them to radical critique, direct ethno-political activism, and through their domination and construction of culture.

While promoting pluralism and diversity and encouraging the dissolution of the racial and ethnic identification of Europeans, Jews have endeavored to maintain precisely the kind of intense group solidarity they decry as immoral in others. They have also initiated and led movements that have attempted to discredit the traditional foundations of Western society: patriotism, the Christian basis for morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint. At the same time, within their own communities, they have supported the very institutions they have attacked in Western societies. This is Darwinian group competition played out in the human cultural arena.

Nature knows no pluralistic racial harmony. Nature knows only struggle for position. Even plants fight with each other for physical space and access to sunlight and to water. So it is with human demographic change. The races, just like ants and every other lower form of animal, fight and struggle for room, for sunlight, and for all the things they need to thrive. “White flight” reflects the fact that when living conditions have become unsuitable for Whites to reproduce and to live happily, they exit those conditions and seek better conditions elsewhere; that’s why 85 percent of the time, Whites move to a Whiter area. While some claim that “Whites are suicidal” or “don’t care” about being displaced, their behavior shows that a great majority of them do care. What they are missing is leadership that is willing to stand up to the forces that seek our destruction.

One of the ways that races do battle for position is through controlling the thought and ideas that go into the minds of their competitors. That explains the push by Jews for ownership of the media and entertainment industries. Media influence is simply another aspect of ethnic competition: filling the heads of their competitors with things that are not true, but things which help Jews to thrive. Those non-Jews who are aware of what is going on naturally resent this waging of ethnic warfare through the selective dissemination of information.

When seen from this broader sociobiological perspective, “antisemitism” becomes easily comprehensible and loses its “especial strangeness.” Goldhagen, however, is willfully blind to this reality, and for him “antisemitism” remains a tormenting mystery:
Antisemitism has perplexed people for centuries. Why is there so much hatred against Jews? Ordinarily we would expect such a numerically small, historically mainly impotent people to have been ignored or, at most, been the object of some local prejudices. But instead Jews have been the targets of an enduring, widespread, and volcanic animosity, the world’s all-time leading prejudice. Why are people around the world — this is especially relevant to Europeans — so susceptible to antisemitism?[24]
We would indeed expect a “numerically small, historically impotent people” to have been ignored. However, this description does not accurately apply to Jews. The amount of hostility directed at, say, Gypsies, much less  Mennonites or Mormons, trifles in comparison to that directed against Jews. Anti-Jewish hatred has been a defining component of major historical upheavals, such as the Spanish Inquisition, and the rise of National Socialism — due in no small part to Jews being an elite with radically different interests than the people they have lived among.

Numerically small they may have been (though not always), but “historically impotent” is an egregious misrepresentation of Jews. Any history of the Jews will invariably stress the profound influence they have exerted on others, and how the scale of this influence has been largely independent their numbers. One outstanding area of influence has, of course, been in the realm of religion. Goldhagen’s moral indictment of Christianity for its inherent “antisemitism” will be examined in Part 2 of this review.

[1] Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, The Devil That Never Dies (New York NY: Little, Brown & Co., 2013), 1
[2] Ibid. 406.
[3] Ibid. Ix; 9.
[4] Ibid. 22-3.
[5] Ibid. 255.
[6] Ibid. 256.
[7] Ibid. 110.
[8] Ibid. 287.
[9] Ibid. 286; 282.
[10] Ibid. 122.
[11] Ibid. 327.
[12] Ibid. 329.
[13] Ibid. 253.
[14] Ibid. 12.
[15] Ibid. 20.
[16] Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (Orlando FL;Harcourt, 1966), xii-xiv.
[17] John Murray Cuddihy, The Ordeal of Civility: Freud, Marx, Levi-Strauss and the Jewish struggle with Modernity (New York NY; Beacon, 1987), 6.
[18] Goldhagen, The Devil That Never Dies, 79.
[19] Ibid. 4.
[20] Ibid. 14.
[21] Ibid. 15.
[22] Ibid. 14.
[23] Ibid, 13.
[24] Ibid. 11.

Understanding the Charleston Church Massacre

via Counter-Currents

On Wednesday, June 17th, a 21-year-old white man, Dylann Storm Roof, entered the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, and killed nine blacks gathered for Bible study with a 45. pistol, then fled the scene. He was arrested the next day in North Carolina and returned to Charleston less than a day after the killings.

As a white person, I look down upon the criminals among us. I do not reflexively defend and glorify them. This was a terrible act, an act that was illegal under slavery, illegal under Jim Crow, and illegal today. I hope Storm receives a fair trial and just punishment, but that seems unlikely given the racially charged atmosphere in America today.

We obviously don’t know all the facts yet, but apparently the killings were racially motivated. Still, I can say three things with confidence.

First, this could not have happened in a homogeneously white society. I have no desire to absolve Dylann Roof, much less blame his victims. But he would not be a killer, and they would not be dead, if blacks and whites did not live in the same society. When different races are forced to live together in the same system, frictions are inevitable. These frictions give rise to misunderstandings, distrust, alienation, and long-simmering resentments, which flare up into hatred, violence, and social upheaval. Dylan Roof’s actions are predictable consequences of multiculturalism — as are the far more numerous racially-motivated hate crimes committed by blacks against whites, crimes which the establishment and media prefer to ignore.

Blacks and whites have shared North America for almost 400 years, and race relations are getting worse rather than better. If this were a marriage, we would have filed for divorce long ago. Thus the New Right stands for the principle of racial divorce. It is time for whites and blacks to go our separate ways and pursue their our own destinies. We stand for the creation of separate racially homogeneous societies, through the peaceful and humane process of redrawing borders and shifting populations.

In the case of recent immigrant populations, the best solution is for them to return to their homelands. I also think that is the best solution for groups like Jews, Japanese, and Chinese who have been in America for a long time but still maintain strong ties to their homelands. In the case of indigenous peoples and some older immigrant populations (including the descendants of African slaves), territorial partition would seem to be in order.

Second, we should resist dismissing Dylann Roof with the all-too-easy claim that he was “crazy.” Sure, he looks dweeby and autistic. Sure, there are reports of illegal drug use, which is often both an effect and a cause of mental illness. Sure, there are reports that he was prescribed mind-altering legal drugs as well.

But I am not going to simply disown Dylann Roof and label him “one of them”: one of those evil, crazy white racists who are fundamentally different from the rest of us, the “good,” “sane,” “tolerant” white people. For the truth is, Dylann Storm Roof is “one of us.”

By “one of us,” I simply mean that he is a white man, and all white people have innate ethnocentric tendencies, wired deep in our brains. We love our own and we fear strangers. As diversity increases, all of us will bear increased psychic costs, even those who pursue wealth and status by selling out their own people in favor of foreigners.

Roof and people like him may be nothing more than canaries in a coal mine: the first to sense the presence of a threat to the survival of us all. Roof may have just been abnormally sensitive to the terrible psychic consequences of losing control of our society to aliens: stress, alienation, anger, hatred, rage, etc. This heightened sensitivity might also go along with a whole suite of other abnormal traits. But we dismiss people like Roof at our own risk. For in the end, all of us will feel the same effects — unless we heed the warning signs and turn back the rising tide of color.
Third, Roof’s “solution” to his rage and alienation — killing innocent people — just makes the racial situation worse rather than better. There is no evidence so far that Roof was affiliated with or influenced by any white racialist group. But his actions certainly resemble those of racially-motivated spree killers like Anders Behring Breivik, Wade Michael Page, and Frazier Glenn Miller, all of whom are products of what I call “Old Right” thinking.

By the “Old Right,” I mean classical Fascism and National Socialism and their contemporary imitators who believe that White Nationalism can be advanced through such means as one party-politics, terrorism, totalitarianism, imperialism, and genocide. Today’s Old Right scene is rife with fantasies of race war, lone wolf attacks on non-whites, and heroic last stands that end in a hail of police bullets. Intelligent and honorable people have emerged from this milieu. But there have been more than a few spree-killers as well.

This kind of violence is worse than a crime. It is a mistake. It does nothing to advance our cause and much to set us back.

Given that reason, science, and history are all on our side, and the greatest apparatus of coercion and brainwashing in human history is on the enemy’s side, doesn’t it make sense to attack the enemy at his weakest point rather than at his strongest? This is why the North American New Right pursues White Nationalism through intellectual and cultural means: we critique the hegemony of anti-white ideas and seek to establish a counter-hegemony of pro-white ideas.

Only a fool picks a battle he cannot win, and we cannot win with violence. Fortunately, we don’t have to. The Left lost the Cold War but won the peace through the establishment of intellectual and cultural hegemony. We can beat them the same way, and we don’t have to all be rocket scientists to do it, since anyone of even moderate intelligence can make real progress by simply repeating Bob Whitaker’s talking points about white genocide.

Furthermore, the only form of violence that even has a chance to be productive in halting multiculturalism and non-white immigration would target the people responsible for these policies, not random innocents. Moreover, killing innocent people (at a place of worship!) has entirely predictable results. First, such violence creates sympathy for the victims. (Even I feel sympathy for them, and I would deport them all tomorrow if I had the power.) Second, it plays into the establishment narrative of evil, crazy, intolerant whites whose gun rights must be taken away.

So Roof’s choice of targets was superficial and frankly stupid. (Yes, he killed a state senator. But what are the chances that he knew that?) Was he even thinking about the greater good of our people? Or was he merely indulging in blind, self-destructive spite? And how exactly does praising repugnant killers help White Nationalists establish ourselves as representatives of the long-term best interests of our people?

I wish I could erect a wall between myself and the kind of unstable, undisciplined people who go on killing sprees, but you can’t change the world from a bunker. Thus responsible white advocates need to adopt the next best course of action: (1) we must be alert to the signs of mental instability and inclinations toward violence and rigorously screen out such people, and (2) we need draw clear, unambiguous intellectual lines between New Right and Old Right approaches.

I just hope I don’t have to do this often. But apparently it will be often enough that I have been able to dust off one of my previous spree-killer essays and merely change a few particulars.

Hold to the Vision

via Cambria Will not Yield

There is no grander, no more superb spectacle than that of the white men of the South standing from ’65 to ’74 quietly, determinedly, solidly, shoulder to shoulder in phalanx, as if the entire race were one man, unintimidated by defeat in war, unawed by adverse power, unbribed by patronage, unbought by the prospect of present material prosperity, waiting and hoping and praying for the opportunity which, in the providence of God, must come to overthrow the supremacy of “veneered savages,” superficially “Americanized Africans” – waiting to reassert politically and socially the supremacy of the civilization of the English-speaking white race. – John Sharp Williams
Twas the hour when rites unholy
Call’d each Paynim voice to prayer
And the star that faded slowly,
Left to dews the freshen’d air.
Day his sultry fires had wasted,
Calm his sultry fires had wasted,
Calm and cool the moonbeams shone;
To the Vizier’s lofty palace
One bold Christian came alone.

– Walter Scott

I’ve always felt that the Midwestern states of the United States are the most unabashedly liberal ones in America. It’s the over-compensation factor: Midwestern liberals feel that they’re not quite as cutting-edge liberal as their East and West Coast counterparts, so they always try to prove to the East Coast and West Coast liberals that they are every bit as liberal as they are. Consequently they comprise the most thoroughly liberal region of the United States. In fact, as a region they have much in common with Canada, whose liberals feel that they must not appear like some kind of backwater nation, so they push liberalism even harder than the U.S. In Canada, like in the Midwest, they make their draconian liberalism explicit.

Because of this over compensation factor, the St. Paul School District in Minnesota has instructed its teachers not to punish black students if they misbehave in school. Instead, they are to try to find out what some bad white person did to “trigger” a violent response in the good blacks. This stated policy has been the unstated policy of white European law enforcement agencies for the last 25 years at least, but it is significant that people in Minnesota have decided to make it the stated policy. And even more significantly there has been no white outrage. But then you didn’t expect there to be any white outrage, did you? Whites become outraged when their local sports team trades a black athlete whom they all adore, but they do not become outraged when police departments hand their homes and their lives over to black barbarians. “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” White people are more concerned that ‘their team’ stays intact than with the survival of their people. (1)

For many years now, I’ve been trying to understand the grazers. You see, I understand the liberals; they are evil, their hearts belong to Satan. But the grazers? What are they? Case in point – I visited an old, country-style gun shop a few weeks ago to purchase another firearm. The shop was filled with grazers, who talked about this and that gun, made some jokes about Obama, and in general took right-of-center stances on most political issues. They were genial pagans, like most of the men I served with on the police force. But did you ever try and stir up any kind of blood and soil sentiments in such individuals, a genuine love for kith and kin? It can’t be done. They love their sport teams, and they love an abstract idea of their country, and they want both to be powerful, because it makes them feel powerful. And they want to be thought well of by respectable society. Never mind that ‘respectable society’ is run by Satanists. Society is a generic, eternal thing with the grazers, which is why they always court its collective approval. Grazers get mad at liberals who call them white racists, but they don’t get mad at liberals for not being white racists. So who are the grazers? They are the lukewarm; much better company than the liberals, but ultimately a very depressing, and thus spiritually draining group of people. Never, if you are an antique European, make the mistake of thinking a grazer is your friend just because he makes an Obama joke or is interested in military memorabilia. The grazer views kith-and-kin Europeans as kooks, and a kook is not respectable. “How can you trust a man who doesn’t support the team?” is the grazer’s rationale.

It’s ironic; in America we probably have more guns in the hands of private citizens than any other nation in the world, and yet we have retreated before the colored barbarians to an even greater extent than the nations that have banned firearms. Need I state the obvious conclusion? Something besides armaments determines the outcome of wars. Of course a fighting man must pay careful attention to his weaponry, but what is more important is the spiritual armor that St. Paul writes about. The European grazers have left their spiritual armor in the attic for the last century and as a consequence they have become Undines, men without the spiritual discernment to know who the enemy is, and men without the inward Charity of Honor that makes a man fight for hearth and race rather than for democracy and the local sport team.

The grazer is always at the mercy of the liberals, because the liberals have a faith and the grazer does not. So if a young grazer wants to fight, he must join the liberals’ militia, and if an older grazer wants to feel fuzzy-patriotic, he must wave the flag of multiculturalism. If the grazer had a genuine faith, as his European ancestors did, he would feel in his bones the truth of John Sharp Williams’ words against false patriotism:
But mere physical courage is a thing too common amongst the men of the race to which we belong to be worthy of any sort of celebration for its own sake. Mere fighting is no virtue: far from it. Indeed, the man who is not great enough and brave enough not to fight when he ought not to is a poor excuse for a man.
Well said! What a man fights for and what he does not fight for tells us about the man. The grazing whites in the European nations will not fight for their racial nation, but they will fight for the liberals’ negro-worshipping nation. Why? It is because they have no faith, so they are dependent on the liberals to provide them with the wars and the athletic contests that stir their blood enough to make them feel they are alive and not merely grazing in the fields of oblivion. But they are grazing in the fields of oblivion, because no man or woman truly becomes alive, as the European fairy tales tell us, until he loves much. Our European ancestors became one with Him whom they loved, the living God, because they loved Him in and through their people. And the liberals love the devil in and through their people, the negroes. So the grazer is left out in the cold without a God, unless he embraces the liberals’ gods. This is why despite his grumblings about The Obama and welfare chiselers, the grazer will always side with the multiculturalists of Liberaldom. Where else can he go? He could stand with the fighting remnant of his own race, like those brave young Spartans of South Africa or that small fighting remnant of Englishmen, but that would mean standing in the right with two or three against a multitudinous army of liberals and colored barbarians. Such a stand is impossible for a man without faith. But with faith? Then miracles occur.

When Ben Jonson said that his friend William Shakespeare was a greater dramatic poet than the Greek dramatic poets, it was considered quite a controversial statement. The pagan Greeks were considered to be at the highest level of human achievement in all the arts. But how could a pagan plunge the depths of the human soul to the same extent as a European Christian, who had the benefit of living in a society that had formed an incorporate union with Christ? We see in Shakespeare and all the great poets who followed him the reason why Christianity triumphed over paganism: It satisfied the deepest longing of the human heart, the longing to know that there was a divinely human heart at the center of the universe, a divine Personality whose charitable love for His people was revealed in the God-Manhood of Jesus Christ. The pagan blood rites were Christianized and became rites of spirit and blood. Our blood was blended with the blood of the Lamb! All this needs to be stated, because modern Europeans no longer have a blood connection with the people who saw the Christian God as something more than the end product of a syllogism.

Some 15 years ago, when the United States was involved in one of its many bombing missions of the Arab nations, I had a conversation with a female grazer who professed to be a believing Christian. After agreeing with me intellectually about the immorality of the war, she then blurted out, “But I support it, because saturation bombing gives me a rush!” For me that woman represents the failure of intellectual Christianity. At the depths of a Christian’s soul there is an unquenchable flame of charity that gives us something more than the ‘rush’ of the sex and blood of paganism. But if we don’t plunge to the depths, if we only stay on the philosophical surface of Christianity, we will be bored stiff with the whole Christian bit, and we will seek to return to the fleshpots of Egypt. The liberals embrace the new Babylon with all their heart, mind, and soul, while the grazers embrace it second-hand; but they remain captive of the liberals, because they find Christianity to be a bloody bore. And Christianity is a bore if we adapt the false Christianity of the theologians and the philosophers. The true faith is a sword of divine charity that does not kill; it brings the heart of man into the Divine Presence: “And there reigns love, and all love’s loving parts…”

We all know the ‘rush’ of the pagan things, but our people once knew something greater than the rush of paganism. They felt, through charity, which never faileth, the joy of being connected to the living God. When Pickwick forgives Jingle, when Quentin Durward renounces vain glory for charity’s sake, and when all the ‘ordinary’ Europeans of faith consecrated their hearts to the Man of Sorrows, because He first loved them, we feel in our sympathetic connection to those people, the transcending and purifying fire of divine charity enveloping our hearts and taking us to a fairy tale land far above the Babylonian hell of the liberals and the grazers. And that is the tragedy of the grazers: They share the hell of the Babylonians, because they are lukewarm, without the spiritual strength to walk away from the opiates of multiculturalism and return to their racial hearth fire where the God of their ascending race resides.

Something holds the grazers in Liberaldom. Sport teams and respectability seem to be the primary necessities that keep the grazer in the city of Babylon; there may be other darker reasons as well. The antique European can only hold on to his counter-vision, the vision of eternal Europe bequeathed to him by his European ancestors. If we hold to that vision until we are relieved by our Lord, we might be astounded to learn that some grazers actually have left the fields of oblivion to follow in our train as we follow those heroic Europeans of old, who loved much and were forgiven by the God whose love passeth the understanding of the Babylonians of modern Europe. 

The white South African people are in a desperate struggle for survival. Shouldn’t we be more concerned about them than we are about multiracial sport teams? And all of the European nations are now – or will be soon – facing the same black menace that threatens the white South Africans. I don’t care about the survival of democracy, of football, or of multicultural America. I care only about the survival of my own people.

Everything is grist for the liberals’ white-hating mill. The recent tragedy in South Carolina is an example. That shooter should be executed. He killed innocent people without any cause other than his own bloodlust. But white people should not let the liberals make this an occasion to further their white-hating agenda. The battle flag should remain, and whites should stress that it is only in cultures like the white Southern culture, which the battle flag represents, that criminals of every color are genuinely punished for their crimes, and a true climate of Christian charity, which discourages such crimes, can exist. The fight is always for a white Christian Europe. If the battle flag and what it represents disappears, the white holocaust will continue, and such random acts of violence and insanity that occurred in South Carolina will increase tenfold.