Aug 18, 2015

The Future of the West: White Revolution, Brazilification, or Argentinization

via Alternative Right

A wise man – presumably one sitting on a rock in a lotus position – once said, "Nothing is as difficult to predict as the future."

Indeed, it is usually pointless to attempt it, except at the highest "macro" level, where we can confidently say things like "The Earth will eventually be swallowed by the Sun," "Empires collapse," or "Democracy is unworkable in the (not so) long term."

But despite the poor returns in terms of marketable facts, predicting the future is still worth attempting because it helps develop a certain kind of engaged consciousness that might one day manifest as willed control of our destiny, rather than passive acquiescence – the difference between being truly human and being an animal.

One of the things that distinguishes the alternative right from all other political and ideological movements is our readiness to contemplate this ever unreliable future. This is one of the reasons why we are the most humanistic of ideologies.

Marxism, of course, had – via Hegel – a weird form of secularized millenarianism – essentially a passive faith – and a belief in a future economic utopia. In its present, New Leftist incarnations, however, this outlandish futurology has dwindled to a nebulous state of mild optimism dependent upon ever-increasing intellectual ghettoization and reality denial.

As for Conservatism’s futurology, this is simply an inversion of the past filtered through "cuckservative" White dispossession – the 1950s with Mexicans and jetpacks, if you like.

As likely as specific predictions are to be wrong, only the alt-right is capable of seriously addressing the future. So what does our crystal ball say?

Identitarian Future

First of all, we, as a movement, are ourselves a macro-prediction: the alternative right is predicated on the belief that politics (and thus history) will return to an identitarian basis, and that the conflict inherent in this will give rise to various forms of competitive hierarchy that will overthrow the lie of egalitarianism in most of its forms.

In this general anticipation, the alt-Right, even in its short life, has not been proved wrong. Far from it! Things have moved – and continue to move – in an increasingly identitarian direction. The more that identity is denied by the mechanisms of the modern globalist West, the more it is seen to reassert itself at the grass roots level.

But this is not even a conflict between ideologies. In its essence, it is a struggle between humanity and economics, between man and mechanism. Outside of certain manipulative elites, nobody but a minority of mentally diseased Whites actually want the mass, multicultural, universalist, egalitarian world enshrined in Western globalism.

Rather than a vision, this is simply a materialistic compromise that comes from the limitations of mankind's first post-Malthusian economic system. It is driven by the diminishing returns of an over-extended capitalist system, seeking the near impossible profits and expansion of its glory days, and in the process being forced to consume itself.

In short, the modern Left are merely hangers-on of several economic factors: feminism, anti-natalism, monetary laxness, foreign interventionism, welfarism, over-regulation, mass immigration, etc. – all phenomena that serve the function of artificial, short-termist economic stimulus and the temporary maintenance of profits at the cost of severe long-term socio-economic damage.

With our superior foresight and readiness to at least contemplate the future beyond the election cycle, we in the alt-right see the lay of the land, and perceive the dim outlines of the cliff edge our societies are collectively heading for.

Already, the mere fact of growing multiculturalism on the social and cultural levels has already created a marked upswing in identitarian politics across Europe and even America, the two centres of the "globalist empire," not to mention a plethora of anti-globalist movements elsewhere in the World.

Geert Wilders, a Dutch nationalist of partly Indonesian heritage.

What else is UKIP and France's Front National, the ethnic sifting of US voting patterns on the extremely low gradient provided by the marginal differences between Republican and Democratic Parties, and the Trump phenomenon – not to mention ISIS, Boko Haram, the Bolivarian movements in South America, and the dominance of the BJP in India?

The truth is the globalist West was predicated on a core of secure White societies that did not need to question too closely their own ethnic identities, backed up by a margin of semi-colonial and petty dictatorial African and Latin American states, as well as the comparative weakness – through command economy communism – of competing systems (the Soviet Bloc & China). In other words the world circa 1970. Those conditions have long since lapsed.

The Benefits of Suicide

With regard to mass immigration and multiculturalism, there is, of course, some truth in the Leftist case that it "benefits" those economies subjected to it. This is effected by increasing the population while decreasing the dependency ratio, increasing consumption and demand, pushing up property prices, creating non-productive (and therefore economically unfalsifiable) jobs via the service economy (education, social work, police, and prisons, etc.), and through strengthening central government’s moral and political imperative to expand credit and spending.

Assimilation gone wrong, 410 AD.
But such economic effects can rightly be compared to Rome deciding to employ barbarian hordes to defend its frontiers in the Later Empire Period. Any benefits are extremely temporary, with massive long-term destructive consequences – merely the first course in a cannibal feast of self consumption.

But what will happen as those short-term benefits dissipate and the long term disadvantages set in?

At the macro level, the trajectory is clear, as is the fact that we are locked onto our present course. The rather drastic measures needed to alter course and rectify the situation cannot be made through our present social democratic political systems, awkwardly balanced coalitions of divergent interests, and a post-Christian morality cossetted by affluence.

The best proof of this is the situation on the South coast of Europe, where migrant hordes are not only not resisted but are actively assisted in invading Europe, with the various navies of the EU nations effectively serving as ferry services, because stopping these migrants would involve a little bit of brutality and unpleasantness.

A similar example is seen in America's so-called "amnesty cities" and the ridiculous farce being played out at Calais, where those illegals who have made it to Europe are seeking out  the yet lusher pastures of the UK.

As much as the popular will favours clamping down on "immivasion," both in Europe and America, it is alas not ready to countenance the little bit of skull cracking and the occasional drip-drip of tragic deaths that results from defending one's borders and disincentivizing invasion. The consequence of this is that thousands of "tragic deaths" are already happening in the Mediterranean, every time an overloaded rust bucket sinks before the EU's dedicated "ferry service" can reach it.
Micro-prediction: as long as the phrase "tragic deaths" is widely used every time migrants die trying to invade the West, the West will continue to be invaded.
But "drastic measures" not only require a more callous attitude to the migrants outside our societies, but also to those already here, who represent an unassimilated fast-breeding demographic time bomb. Even if the borders are secured, which is clearly unlikely for some time, the fundamental problems of dysgenia and growing ethnic and racial divisions will remain.

The questions, then, are:

  1. What degree of immivasion will be required to provoke a significant countervailing force?
  2. How socially disruptive will that countervailing force be, and will this inhibit its manifestation?
  3. What form will that force take?

The Countervailing Force

Every society, even the most decadent and depraved, can be counted on to make some attempt at self preservation.

The Roman Empire and its rump successor state, the Byzantine Empire, exhibited a resilient statist life force. Both struggled long and hard, through centuries of decline, to maintain their power, before finally collapsing.

Even in its decline, the West can be expected exhibit similar tendencies, and so vast is the superiority of the West that there is even the possibility that it could revive itself through these processes and even retain its global dominance in a changed form.

There are two main possibilities of how the decline will be halted: White Revolution or "Argentinization," both terms that need explication. Outside of these two possibilities, lie only increasing decline, colonization, and extinction.

White Revolution: This is the idea most familiar to those on the alternative right. This means a mass racial awakening and the political definition and pursuit of White interests.

The main problem with this option is that, under present conditions, it requires White countries to become saturated with large numbers of non-Whites to take effect. In the case of America, due to various factors – the power of Jews, the universalist influence of Christianity, White guilt, the comparative ease of racial self-segregation, American affluence, the relative limits on central government, etc. – it may require Whites to in fact become a minority before it occurs.

In Europe, the possibility of a White Revolution is heightened by the comparative weakness of Jewish and Christian influence, the stronger and more rooted ethnic identities of the countries threatened, as well as the inherent incompatibility and hostility of the Muslims who form the bulk of the incomers, not to mention various economic factors. This suggests that a viable White Revolution is possible at a much earlier stage in Europe than it is in America.

This is important because a White Revolution at a later stage faces additional obstacles. For example, in the hypothetical case of a future America, where Whites were reduced to a minority and their power threatened, a White awakening and revolution would not go uncontested. It would thus raise the spectre of significant instability, chaos, and economic collapse, which would act as a deterrent for people supporting this course, especially cosy, middle-class Whites.

The middle-class family: the enemy of history.
The main problem that the West has is that it is the centre of a globalist economic system that radically inhibits the degree to which it can assert its own identitarian interests. The UK is perhaps the best example.

Britain's post-industrial economy is now centred on the financial services (banking, insurance, commodities, money laundering, etc.) of the City of London. The UK therefore relies on good relations with Middle Eastern oil sheikdoms and Commonwealth countries, amongst others. A White Revolution that impacted adversely on its large and growing non-White population would threaten to severely damage the UK's web of economic relationships. The sudden economic damage this would create therefore incentivizes Britons to resist identitarianism and prolong multiculturalism, despite ever increasing dissatisfaction with it.

Countries like Germany, which produce quality exports, would be less susceptible to these negative pressures. For this reason, we can expect Britain to lag behind any identitarian awakening in Europe.

Argentinization: There is a relatively common idea that the future of America (and other parts of the West) will roughly follow that of Brazil, hence the term "Brazilification," which is often heard. This essentially means that racial divisions will be replaced by subtle and imperceptible racial gradations, enabling the nation to avoid group polarization and retain a sense of loose unity. Even though the idea of "Brazilification" exists, it is, at least to some degree, mythical, serving to hide Brazil's very real ethnic divisions.

America attaining the idealized state of non-divisive racial gradation denoted by the word, seems unlikely, because America’s racial divisions are deeply ingrained and heavily politicized. The main racial division – Black vs. White – has also become a template for further anti-White racial divisions: Hispanic vs. White, Jewish vs. White, and Asians vs. White.

These divisions are likely to remain, but rather than Whites becoming a impotent minority, and losing power, a more likely outcome is that White identity will retain its dominance and high status, while losing some of its purity. This is more or less what happened in Argentina, and the reason why the "Argentina is White" meme has such power to amuse.

In the case of the USA, some Whites already are partially mixed, with elements of non-White races, such as Jews, Hispanics, Red Indians, etc. In the future, White or Whitish Hispanics, Jews, some Middle Easterners, very pale mulattoes and mestizos, as well as some other groups, could, under the right circumstances, start to identify as "White," thus bolstering the numbers of the dominant, highest status group. As many Hispanics and Middle Easterners in the USA are Christian, Christianity also provides a cultural catalyst that can further this process. Transracialism, which usually involves "special snowflake" Whites identifying as other races, could even start to flow the other way.

The maintenance of a less pure – some would say "polluted" – White identity would provide a relatively stable dialectical solution to the contradictions of American identity politics that would not involve direct White disempowerment, severe racial rupture, or a series of partitions and civil wars that would rob America of its power.

Given the intense economic problems and sheer suffering that a "purist" racial rupture would involve, it must be conjectured that American state power will have a tendency to avoid this, and instead flow towards the retention and conscious recognition of America's dominant historical "White" identity, combined with a certain degree of dilution and miscegenation of that identity.

The America of the future is likely to be a largely "White mongrel" nation, in the same way that Argentina is. While there will continue to be genuine Whites, there may also be a looser "White" identity that hides within it considerable mulatto and mestizo strains.

In colonial Argentina, the proportion of Africans hovered around 50% in half the country's provinces. Also, due to the relative absence of women immigrants, there was considerable interbreeding with native Indian women, yet Argentina sees itself as 97% White!

This pattern is much more likely to provide a useful template for America than "Brazilification."

The most important precondition of such a stabilization will be to establish tight borders of the sort currently being advocated by Donald Trump. An additional precondition would be to revert to something like America's old immigration policy, favouring immigration overwhelmingly from White countries, even though White demographics elsewhere in the World do not, at present, support this.

First Peoples?

via West Hunter

Were Europeans the real First Peoples?
There are two new papers out on the early colonization of the Americas, one in Science and one in Nature.  The Science paper claims that all Amerindians stem from a single Siberian population that moved into Beringia about 23,000 years ago and entered America about 15,000 years ago, splitting into northern and southern branches about 13,000 years ago. They also found a touch of Australo-Melanesian ancestry among some, not all, living Amerindians – they saw it in Aleuts and the Surui ( Amazonian Indians). They concluded that this ancestry must have arrived well after the initial colonization of the New World:    “The widely scattered and differential affinity of Native Americans to the Australo-Melanesians, ranging from a strong signal in the Surui to much weaker signal in northern Amerindians such as Ojibwa, points to this gene flow occurring after the initial peopling by Native American ancestors.” In much the same way, the fact that you see widely different amount of Bushman admixture in Bantu groups  in southern Africa ( a lot in the Xhosa, almost none in some other groups) suggests that the Bushmen arrived after the Bantu,  except that it doesn’t of course.

The Nature paper concentrates on the Australo-Melanesian story: they see it mainly in the Amazon Basin,  1-2%. The  closest extant population is the Onge, pygmies of the Andaman Islands, but you see this anomalous relatedness in the Papuans, Australian Aborigines, Mamanwa (Philippine Negritos), and at lower levels in a number of groups in South Asia. In many Amerindian groups this component is much weaker or nonexistent.

The authors of the Nature paper believe that this admixture most likely happened before the settlement of the Americas, but they aren’t sure: the linkage disequilibrium says some time between 40,000 and 4,000 years ago, probably after the Ancient North  Eurasians mixed into the Amerindians. They talk about population Y, a separate movement into the Americas by a population that had probably already acquired this Australo-Melanesian component.

The background fact is that the earliest skeletons, especially in Brazil, look like Australo-Melanesians.  Long skulls.  If population Y were almost entirely standard Amerindian, with only a smidgen of Australo-Melanesian ancestry, they would have looked like Amerindians.  On the other hand, if the original settlers of the Americas were mostly or entirely Australo-Melanesian (or more exactly something vaguely related to those existing populations) they would have those long, narrow skulls.  This is the Paleoamerican model – and if true, it means that an Onge-like population arrived first, and that the incoming Amerinds almost completely wiped out them out later,  with here and there a bit of admixture.

As I understand the law, this would mean that we have to build little casinos inside the existing casinos.  For some small establishments, this might mean designating the proceeds of a single slot machine to various Amazonian tribes, or possibly to the Onge as next of kin.

* It’s complicated.

Black Lives Matter Leaders Frustrated by Responsive Politicians

via TradYouth

Black Lives Matter leaders are becoming frustrated by politicians who respond positively to their message.  Movement leaders say that politicians’ shift away  from their fabricated crisis, white cops shooting black men, and towards comprehensive reform in the ways that police use force is endangering their treasured position as institutionally disadvantaged minorities.

“The Black Lives Matter movement has been exceptionally useful for us when bilking the city, county and state governments out of money for our welfare programs,” former BLM-organizer Shoshanna Johnson said. “We’re finding that black men are worth more when they’re dead.”

Johnson spent the last year helping organize the Black Lives Matter movement in and around Ferguson, Missouri.  She gained national notoriety after successfully orchestrating an hours-long blockade across Interstate 70 near Ferguson.  Johnson’s stalwart efforts caught the attention of the Ferguson city commissioners who offered her a job at a community outreach center.  Johnson accepted that job.

“I mean, it’s nice having a job where I can help black people get on welfare, but I don’t think that’s going to help the black community,” Johnson uncomfortably explained.  “The most valuable thing that young black men can do is to get shot by a white police officer.  Nothing brings more pity and support for welfare programs in the black community than a dead black man lying in the street.”

Ferguson Mayor James Knowles III praised the city commissioners’ decision to give Johnson a job.

“This is the best thing that has ever happened to my administration.  That makes one less experienced activist agitating against me,” Knowles said.

Johnson says her work as a Black Lives Matter organizer was predicated on putting black men into a crisis-packed situation in which violence was likely to occur.  She says this was necessary because were it not the case then the cops would look like “the good guys.”

“Part of my work as a Black Lives Matter organizer meant that I had to vet black people and decide if they were going to be a suitable face for the movement,” Johnson said.  “After a while I realized that it didn’t matter who we chose to lead the movement because the media would always find some ‘gentle giant’ to stand in for an interview with them and downplay any violence we commit.”

Johnson says she will miss working for the Black Lives Matter movement.  However, she is also looking forward to her new job as a community outreach organizer.  Part of Johnson’s job requires her to screen unemployment applications.  This means she evaluates new claims and decides if a person’s claim will be approved or denied.

“I can help a lot of people in my community by making sure that only black people receive these benefits,” Johnson said while rapidly rubber-stamping a pile of incomplete applications from black people.  “White people have white privilege so they can take care of themselves.”

Melissa Harris, a white mother of two, sat in the waiting room filling out an application while her two children watched television in the office lounge.  She claims she has been to this office more times than she can remember trying to request Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits.

“We’re starving right now.  This is my fourth time here this month,” Harris said with an audible frustration in her voice.  “I’ve lived here my whole life and only quit working five years ago after my first child was born.  I’ve done everything right and I never get approved for help.”

Harris says her family was “doing great” until members of the Black Lives Matter movement burned the CVS drug store where her husband worked.  Harris picked up her children and went to the desk to hand Johnson her application, to which Johnson glibly replied, “Thank you ma’am, I’ll make sure this gets to the responsible clerk for processing.”

Johnson waited until Harris had left the lobby before unceremoniously feeding the application into an overflowing paper shredder under her desk.

“I can’t wait for another black man to get shot by a white cop,” Johnson said.  “Every time a black man dies the world ignores welfare problems in the white community and starts throwing money at us.”

Meet the Greedy, Subversive Jew behind N.W.A.

via The Realist Report

Antarian Jew, Jerry Heller
Tablet, the respectable online Jewish magazine focusing on a variety of topics pertaining to the Jewish community and the Jewish state of Israel, recently published an incredibly revealing article focusing on Jerry Heller, the greedy, subversive Jewish manager of the notorious gansta rap group N.W.A. – an abbreviation of Niggaz Wit Attitudes.

In the article, it is revealed Heller is a typical Jewish shyster, accused of financially exploiting and stealing from the reprehensible rap group following their rise to stardom thanks in large measure to their promotion by the Jewish-controlled pop culture industry. Straight Outta Compton, a heavily hyped movie named after the 1988 album that led to the rap group’s widespread popularity, is set to debut this weekend. The movie is based on the real life story of the repugnant and entirely destructive rap group.

Picture 2

A biopic of the pioneering rap group N.W.A opens in theaters across the country this weekend. Titled Straight Outta Compton, after the name of the group’s iconic 1988 album, the film portrays the life and rhymes of the hip-hop collective—members Arabian Prince, DJ Yella, Dr. Dre, Eazy-E, Ice Cube, and MC Ren—including the relationships between the members, their massive success, and the group’s ultimate disbanding. Jerry Heller is the Jewish music manager and mastermind behind the group that inspired a gangsta rap movement, and coined the phrase “Fuck Tha Police,” which became their anthem. Heller plays a central—but certainly not flattering—role in the N.W.A story. He propelled the group to fame and fortune, however he is also, in some circles, believed to have swindled money out of the group by taking advantage of their success. […]
Heller first got involved with the burgeoning California gangsta rap scene in 1987. Before this he had had moderate success as a road manager, arranging the transportation of rock ‘n’ roll stars to and from their concert venues. However, his career never quite took off—that is, not until he met Eric “Eazy-E” Wright when he was in his forties […]
Heller became N.W.A’s manager, and the group subsequently enjoyed the success of six platinum records while becoming a cultural phenomenon. Out of all the members of N.W.A, Heller had a particularly close relationship with Eazy-E, who saw Heller as a father figure. However, it was the close nature of this relationship that eventually contributed to the souring of Heller’s relationship with N.W.A. Eazy-E and N.W.A began to suspect Heller of financial impropriety—taking percentages of the group’s earnings that weren’t rightfully he is. For the rappers, this was tantamount to betrayal. […]
I have an honest question: is there any subversive, destructive social and/or cultural phenomenon (let alone economic or political) that is not led and promoted by Jews? I seriously cannot think of any.

Every subversive, disgusting, and unnatural social and/or cultural phenomenon we see in our world today – “homosexual rights”, “gay marriage”, transgenderism, feminism, multiculturalism, mass immigration, anti-racism, sickening pop culture, excessive hedonism and materialism, degenerate music, etc. – is a direct result of Jewish instigation, promotion, and organization. We need to understand that basic fact. Incredibly, the Jews often openly admit these hidden truths in their own newspapers, magazines, and other publications.

Lenon Honor, an insightful and honorable Black author and researcher who has appeared on The Realist Report on two separate occasions (MP3s are here and here), has produced a series of videos critically analyzing N.W.A. and the movie that is set to be released this weekend promoting this disgusting rap group. The video series is worth watching, in my opinion, even if you don’t entirely agree with all of the statements made and opinions offered by Lenon (which I most certainly do not).

A Copycat League — Except When It Comes to the Patriots

via Caste Football

The New England Patriots won Super Bowl XLIX in exciting fashion, sealing the win with a goal line interception in the final minute.

The win marked the fourth Super Bowl victory for the Patriots this century. Along with wins following the 2001, 2003, and 2004 regular seasons, the Patriots also nearly won Super Bowls in 2008 and 2012, losing to the Giants late in those games on miraculous plays. Besides the wins and appearances in those six Super Bowls in 14 years, the Patriots have made it to two other AFC title games for a total of eight, and have been in the playoffs 12 times. During that time they have consistently been one of the best teams in the NFL.

However it is more than just their success which has distinguished the Patriots from other NFL teams, in a league where nearly 80% of the players are black, the New England Patriots are starkly different, starting 9 White players on offense in the Super Bowl and even though New England’s roster has always been majority black, the team has been among the relatively “Whitest” NFL teams for nearly all of their long years of winning.

Obviously the mainstream media has problems with the New England Patriots. Because of the rigid social orthodoxy regulating discussions of racial issues they are not allowed to refer to White group interests in any way but negative ones. They can talk about White bigotry, White racism, White prejudice, etc., but it is forbidden to discuss White success. Thus any mention of the Patriots relative “Whiteness” is apart from their achievements.

The media will trumpet any non-White successes endlessly. If an all-black little league team wins the Little League World Series, as recently happened, it is cause for celebration. (Although it turned out that the team cheated and had its title stripped away). If a black tennis player has success, or a black ice skater, or a black swimmer, there is constant fawning media attention paid to them.

There are those that might rationalize the absurdly over the top pandering to non-White achievement as being an attempt to celebrate some concept of growing equality or an acknowledgement that some minority group has overcome daunting odds to succeed against the imaginary bogeyman of White racism. If, however that is the case then why is it not worthy of note that the team with the fewest black players dominates a mostly black league?

You might say that it is because Whites are in the majority, but of course in football, like basketball, they are not. If you believe this is because of the superiority of black athleticism then isn’t it noteworthy that a group of Whites are overcoming those daunting odds? In an environment where each milestone of fading White majority status is being trumpeted from the front page of every newspaper and television network in a positive manner, why isn’t the success of the Patriots similarly newsworthy? If it is significant in some way that White children will soon no longer be more than 50% of that age group, why is it not significant that the highly successful Patriots are Whiter than any other team?

And it is not that the Patriots are representative of some small percentage of the teams. They are far and away Whiter then almost any other team. Nine White starters on offense is not just unusual it is unheard of in recent decades, since the Caste System went into overdrive in the mid-1980s; many teams hardly have few White starters on offense, and the majority have no White starters at all on defense.

The Patriots threw touchdown passes in the Super Bowl to three different White pass catchers. Most teams don’t have a single White receiver. The White players on the Patriots are not just offensive lineman, like on most other teams, they are also the prime movers of the offense.

To the media commentators the fact that the Patriots are highly successful while at the same time highly White cannot be commented on except in a negative way. So instead they are targeted for criticism and mockery and if any small issue arises which might diminish their standing it is made into a major news item. Favorite among the criticisms is that they “cheat.” Successfully painting the Patriots as cheaters has the advantage of explaining away that while the league is nearly all-black, those “White boy” Patriots continue to win.

Before the Super Bowl, in the two week dead time between the conference championships and the big game, the sports media manufactured a cheating controversy so contrived and ridiculous that it was amazing it could have been taken seriously. “Deflate-gate” as it was labeled by the media, for easier internet searches no doubt, was based on some thin evidence that the balls used by the Patriots had a couple less ounces of air in them then the balls used by the Colts in the AFC conference championship game. This was a game in which the Patriots thoroughly destroyed their darker opponents. But for nearly two weeks the media tried to make it seem that those few ounces of air were significant in the outcome.

Rational voices made the whole concept of some advantage from under inflated balls a ridiculous theory, but not until the whole of the anti-Patriot, (also anti-White) members of the sports brainwashing complex, had the chance to smear as much as possible the long, successful legacy of the team.

The end result was that the Super Bowl was turned into a referendum on the reputation and history of winning of the organization, and especially directed at the two main representatives of the frighteningly White Patriots, head coach Bill Belichick and quarterback Tom Brady. As such it was also construed to be a comment on the Patriots Whiteness as the insinuation that they weren’t really that good for 15 years but were instead the recipients of an unfair advantage.

Nothing can make the anti-White sentiment of the NFL and the media more obvious than in the fifteen years this team has been so successful no other team has tried to emulate their success. The NFL has rightly been referred to as a “copycat” league. Whenever a team has some measure of success, other teams will attempt to acquire personnel of the same type, run the same offensive and defensive schemes and try to replicate that success. Not in this case though. Despite a generation of winning and unprecedented success in the modern NFL — which is relentlessly engineered so that there is “parity” between the teams — there is no rush for teams to find similar players and run a similar offense as the New England Patriots. The NFL, the sports media, and apparently the declining White fan base, always led by media cues, is just fine with that.

The major sources of media, moving in lockstep with each other, following a bible of unwritten rules on race and how it can be discussed cannot say it, but the New England Patriots recent Super Bowl win and their long record of winning is a source of pride for many White people. In a society where all peoples except Whites are granted the option of feeling pride when someone that “looks like them” has success, I feel pride in Bill Belichick, Tom Brady, Julius Edelman, Rob Gronkowski, Danny Amendola, Nate Solder, Daniel Connolly, Bryan Stork, Ryan Wendell, Sebastian Vollmer, Rob Ninkovich, and all of our other fellow European-Americans that exhibited qualities we respect so much in our people: character, skill, strength, teamwork, intelligence, and the will to win.

Post-Conviction Relief—A Short Story

via The Occidental Observer

Jack Schoenherr was a soft-spoken and introverted Michigan attorney who had practiced almost exclusively in the area of criminal defense over the course of his twenty-two year legal career.  He swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the State of Michigan when he was sworn in as a lawyer all those years ago, and he swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States every time he sought admission to a federal court.

Prior to attending law school, he had graduated with a degree in philosophy from the University of Michigan, and he had spent much time during his legal career safeguarding the rights of people who had been charged with crimes.  As an attorney and as a self-styled “armchair philosopher” who read classical texts of Western civilization as a hobby, Jack knew better than most why due process and ordered liberty are sacrosanct to the human experience, and he was well aware of his oath as an officer of the court.

But now Jack Schoenherr could not care less of his ethical obligations, the law, or his former philosophical musings about the purpose of justice being about the rehabilitation of his clients, because his only child—sixteen-year-old Caroline—was murdered by an eighteen-year-old, tattoo-covered, drug-abusing gangbanger named Tyrone Washington a year-and-a-half ago to the day, and since then, Jack’s wife—Claire—had untimely passed away due to heart failure.  The doctors had told him at the hospital that his daughter’s murder had caused his wife to lose weight and suffer stress to such an extent that it simply broke her heart.

Tyrone had been convicted of first degree murder by a jury just over one month ago after a trial that had lasted three days, and it took the jury all of two hours to convict him for shooting Caroline in cold blood with a stolen revolver for no reason other than that he wanted to show off his “polar bear hunting skills” to prospective candidates eager to join his gang.

The judge had imposed a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, but Tyrone acted in the courtroom like the prosecution of him was a badge of honor.  It was on more than one occasion he had grinned, jeered, and laughed as Jack gave his heartfelt and tear-filled victim impact statement.  Prior to sentencing, Tyrone’s court-appointed attorney delivered a speech that Jack was accustomed to giving for his own clients:  “Your Honor, for mitigation prior to sentencing for the crime of [insert name of crime], I would like the Court to know that my client grew up in a dysfunctional home—which was not his fault—, his [insert father/uncle/brother/step-father] often beat him when he grew up—which was not his fault—, he did not thrive with education due to the blight of his community in which he lived—which was not his fault—, he feels really sorry for what he did, he hopes that the Court will let him prove to society that he will rehabilitate while in custody and can become a productive member of society, and we respectfully ask for a reasonable sentence in light of the background of [insert client’s name].”  The canned speech sickened Jack as he thought of how many times he had delivered it over the course of his legal career.

Jack, driving a 2010 black Ford Focus, drove his vehicle into the parking lot of the Macomb County Jail.  “I’m here,” he mumbled to himself, as he contemplated who was contained within the facility.

Looking at the rear-view mirror after he had parked his car, Jack observed how much he had aged in recent months:  there were pronounced bags under his eyes, his eyes no longer had even a spark of happiness in them but instead appeared sullen and dull, he had gained significant weight, and his hair was starting to turn gray.  He had, however, a newly dyed-brown goatee and had dyed his naturally blond hair brown as well.

It was a cold wintry day, which is typical for Michigan during February.  The sky was white and hazy and overcast, the wind was blowing calmly from the west, and the snow cracked under Jack’s black shoes as he walked towards the main entrance.  He looked no different than the other lawyers, sheriff’s deputies, and civilians milling about—except for the look of fury contained within his blue eyes, which were now focused forward like laser beams.

“Are you here to visit a client?” the middle-aged, blonde, female sheriff’s deputy who stood next to the metal detector in the lobby of the jail asked Jack as he placed his metal pen and yellow notepad in a plastic box to be passed through a scanner.  “Yes,” Jack answered as he handed her his bar card and a time-stamped court filing.  “I entered my appearance for the client with the Court of Appeals yesterday and filed my notice of appeal, too.”

The deputy looked at the document.  “Tyrone Washington?” she asked rhetorically and not expecting an answer, for the name was clearly printed on the entry of appearance.
“Yes,” Jack smiled.  “I’m here for post-conviction relief.”

“It’s good you are here now.  He is going to be moved shortly since his trial is over,” she said.  “Take the elevator to the fifth floor and the guards there will take you to a conference room.”

“Thank you,” Jack said as he walked toward the elevator after collecting his pen, notepad, bar card, and court filing.

Upon entering the elevator, Jack silently congratulated himself on the plan he had formulated.  He wanted the thug who murdered his daughter to die, and he was here to do the deed himself.  Although he was once relatively politically progressive and boasted to his prosecutor-friends at bar association functions that he took immense pride in the fact that Michigan was the first English-speaking government in the world to abolish the death penalty for crimes—excluding treason—and never executed a person since becoming a state in 1837, his purpose on Earth now was consumed with meting out the death penalty to one person—nay, man-animal—who called the Macomb County Jail his home.

The plan is brilliant, Jack thought to himself.  As an attorney, he had fancied himself a problem-solver for his clients who had serious problems, and now—as one who had a problem—, he utilized his analytical skills to solve his own problem:  Tyrone Washington.

“It’s hard to break out of jail,” Jack laughed to himself as he smiled at the security video camera in the elevator that was taking him up to the fifth floor.  “But it is really easy for an attorney to waltz right in.”

Upon the chime sounding and the elevator doors screeching open, Jack walked onto the fifth floor and greeted the guard sitting behind a desk.  “I’m here to see my client, Tyrone Washington.”

“I’ll get a conference room for the two of you,” the overweight male deputy said.
“Thanks,” Jack said.  “But if you would, please do see to it that he remains handcuffed.  I was warned by his trial attorney that he is a little physical and intimidating.”

“Will do,” the guard said.

Jack flashed a toothy grin, which was concealed in part by his facial hair.

As the guard summoned a colleague via an intercom to take Tyrone to a conference room, Jack sat down in a nearby chair to gather his thoughts, which quickly drifted to the topic of justice—a subject for which he had written two bar review articles, had lectured about as a guest speaker at multiple venues, and to which he had believed he had committed himself to pursuing over the entirety of his legal career.

“Rehabilitation,” Jack shuddered.  “What a crock of bull.”

Since the murder of his daughter had occurred, Attorney Jack Schoenherr was transformed from being a civil rights-loving liberal into a law-and-order type who would have been well-suited to meting out justice as a judge for Hammurabi in Mesopotamia nearly four millennia ago.  Simply said, Jack had a newfound appreciation for retributivist justice.

“Your client is in the third conference room after you go down the hallway and take a right at the first intersection,” a newly arrived male deputy said to Jack.

“Thank you,” Jack said, as he stood up from the chair.

As he walked down the hallway to the conference room that contained his daughter’s killer, Jack thought about his life of yesteryear:  How sick and twisted fate is for him to be here now, for his law-abiding and hard-worked life to come to this.  Instead of watching his daughter grow up, his wife and him traveling during their retirement as they had planned, and simply enjoying life, their lives were ruined for the mere thoughtless whim and perverse entertainment of a miscreant.

As he approached the doorway to the room, a middle-aged male deputy gestured for Jack to enter.  Jack’s heart skipped a beat and his stomach knotted as he approached, and it appeared as if time has slowed as he did so.  A week of methodical planning had come to this.

As Jack entered the windowless, fifteen square foot conference room that had a desk and two chairs, his eyes gazed upon Tyrone Washington, who slouched in the chair furthest away from the door.  “You mah appointed lawyer for da’ appeal?” Tyrone asked.

“Yes,” Jack answered momentarily after being asked the question.  He doesn’t recognize my brown hair and goatee.

“Good,” Tyrone said.  “Because I gotsa get out of here.”

“Deputy, thank you, but I’ll need the door closed so as to maintain attorney-client confidentiality,” Jack directed to the guard standing near the door.  The guard left and closed it.

“I am Attorney Paul Kersey,” Jack lied as he took the chair opposite Tyrone.

“Whatever,” Tyrone said as he theatrically rattled the handcuffs restraining his hands.  “Just gets me outs of here.”

Jack, sitting straight up in the chair with an aura of intent about him, pondered his situation as he stared at Tyrone Washington:  Could there not be a more stark contrast between him and me?  I worked hard my whole life to go through undergraduate and law school, I worked hard to pay back my student loan debt and to provide for my family, I played by the rules in everything I did, and I never hurt anyone.  He, on the other hand, never worked a day in his life, he stopped going to school after the sixth grade, he is a leech on law-abiding people of whom he committed crimes, and he offends everything with which he has dealings.  Even the tattoos on his body—especially the “THUG” one on his forehead—constitute a manifestation of his repugnant nature.

“What’s we gonna talk about?”  Tyrone asked inquisitively as he continued staring at his handcuffed hands.

“Justice,” Jack smiled.  “Justice.”

“What about it?” Tyrone asked.

“Enough about it that you will have a good grasp of it when we are done here today.”  Jack said.

Jack stood up and slid his wooden chair into the table as he did so.  “Did you know that in the time of Hammurabi, a murderer was always killed upon conviction?  Did you know that per Anglo-Saxon common law—even in the United States during the colonial period—, all felonies required the death penalty?”

“Nah,” Tyrone exhaled as he slouched further in his chair.

“It is true,” Jack replied.  “Throughout Western history—well, excluding the last fifty years—, justice required that wrongdoers be punished and not rehabilitated.  Justinian, the Byzantine emperor, opined about seventeen hundred years ago that ‘justice is the constant and perpetual wish to render to every man his due.’  In Germanic and Nordic countries, blood feuds would develop whereby families would seek revenge against those who murdered their kin—the heirs to a decedent’s estate would even inherit the decedent’s obligation to kill someone per an existing wrong that must be righted.”

Tyrone drooled and snorted as he slouched further in his chair as Jack continued his lecture:  “Philosophically, a lot of people are under the impression that the purpose of criminal justice is to rehabilitate offenders, but this is a misconception because if rehabilitation was the goal then a person who does no actual wrong but who is philosophically deviant from the Spirit of the Age could be penalized—which would be offensive to natural law—, while at the same time, if a person does something absolutely monstrous but wakes up the next day after finding Jesus or Mohamad or appearing to appreciate right and wrong and being able to act accordingly, then they could not be subjected to punitive measures—which would be offensive to society and the victims and this would prevent people from guiding their actions by positive law after they recognize the lack of real ramifications for their actions.”

Tyrone stared at the ceiling of the conference room, utter boredom palpably afflicting him.

“Retributivism is the only legitimate basis for justice, because through retributivism, good is rewarded with good and bad is punished with bad.  This is the purpose of justice, after all—so says Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics.”

Jack doodled a picture with his black ink pen on his notepad of a stick figure being hanged.  He crudely x’ed out the eyes with such vigor that the pen striking the paper was heard by Tyrone, who did not take note of what Jack had drawn.

“Immanuel Kant once observed that even if a number of people were on a deserted island, they were planning to go their separate ways the next day never to see each other again, and one person committed murder that evening, it would clearly be an injustice to not punish the murderer—even though the punishment would have no deterrent effect since the people would never see each other again.  Deterrence is not the basis for justice, even though it can be a beneficial aspect of it.”

Jack summarized things for the one for whom he passed judgment long ago:   “Rehabilitation?  Not a basis for justice.  Deterrence?  Not a basis for justice.  Retributivism?  Now that is justice.”

“What’s this gotsa do with mah appeal, bro?” Tyrone asked.  “I don’t wanna to be in dah slammer fo’ life, man.”

“An appeal?” Jack laughed as he walked around the table at which Tyrone—handcuffed—sat.  My learned thoughts are lost on him.  Gripping his metal pen with the strategically sharpened tip that the deputies did not notice in his fist, Jack quipped, “I’m not here for an appeal.  I’m here for my post-conviction relief following your trial.”
After Jack acquired the relief the Michigan justice system could not deliver and has not delivered since its statehood, he sat down in the chair across from the slumped over and bloodied body of the convicted murderer who had crudely taken his daughter’s life for the thrill of it.

“I rest my case,” Jack decreed.

TOO's Editor's Note: This story earned fifth place out of thirty-one short stories submitted by Michigan attorneys, which resulted in the story receiving an “Honorable Mention” and a $300.00 donation being made to the Access to Justice fund, which supports legal aid for the poor—a poverty law center, if you will, that actually does poverty law!

More information about the contest can be read online here.

Charles Dickens Understood Liberal Pathology

via The West's Darkest Hour

Charles Dickens
In the twenty-first century, liberals pride themselves on their sophistication and discernment. In fact, they’re as naïve and prone to self-deceit as liberals were in the nineteenth century. If you want proof of that, just turn to Charles Dickens and his character Mrs Jellyby, who neglects her own children in favour of Blacks in far-off Africa:
We passed several more children on the way up, whom it was difficult to avoid treading on in the dark; and as we came into Mrs. Jellyby’s presence, one of the poor little things fell downstairs—down a whole flight (as it sounded to me), with a great noise.
Mrs. Jellyby, whose face reflected none of the uneasiness which we could not help showing in our own faces as the dear child’s head recorded its passage with a bump on every stair—Richard afterwards said he counted seven, besides one for the landing—received us with perfect equanimity. She was a pretty, very diminutive, plump woman of from forty to fifty, with handsome eyes, though they had a curious habit of seeming to look a long way off. As if—I am quoting Richard again—they could see nothing nearer than Africa!…
The room, which was strewn with papers and nearly filled by a great writing-table covered with similar litter, was, I must say, not only very untidy but very dirty. We were obliged to take notice of that with our sense of sight, even while, with our sense of hearing, we followed the poor child who had tumbled downstairs: I think into the back kitchen, where somebody seemed to stifle him.
But what principally struck us was a jaded and unhealthy-looking though by no means plain girl [Mrs Jellyby’s daughter Caddy] at the writing-table, who sat biting the feather of her pen and staring at us. I suppose nobody ever was in such a state of ink. And from her tumbled hair to her pretty feet, which were disfigured with frayed and broken satin slippers trodden down at heel, she really seemed to have no article of dress upon her, from a pin upwards, that was in its proper condition or its right place.
“You find me, my dears,” said Mrs. Jellyby, snuffing the two great office candles in tin candlesticks, which made the room taste strongly of hot tallow (the fire had gone out, and there was nothing in the grate but ashes, a bundle of wood, and a poker), “you find me, my dears, as usual, very busy; but that you will excuse. The African project at present employs my whole time. It involves me in correspondence with public bodies and with private individuals anxious for the welfare of their species all over the country. I am happy to say it is advancing. We hope by this time next year to have from a hundred and fifty to two hundred healthy families cultivating coffee and educating the natives of Borrioboola-Gha, on the left bank of the Niger… No, Peepy! Not on my account!”
Peepy (so self-named) was the unfortunate child who had fallen downstairs, who now interrupted [his mother] by presenting himself, with a strip of plaster on his forehead, to exhibit his wounded knees, in which Ada and I did not know which to pity most—the bruises or the dirt. Mrs. Jellyby merely added, with the serene composure with which she said everything, “Go along, you naughty Peepy!” and fixed her fine eyes on Africa again. [From Dickens’ novel Bleak House, 1853]
Dickens was a liberal who didn’t allow his emotions to over-rule his intellect, which is why he satirized figures like Mrs Jellyby.


The above is a text from today’s article by Tobias Langdon. On The Occidental Observer Jack Frost commented:
The interposition of the Dickens character Mrs. Jellyby is provocative. Her behavior towards her own children contradicts evolutionary theory, doesn’t it? She would seem to have her counterpart in those other nineteenth century do-gooders across the pond, the American abolitionists, who were more concerned with the supposed plight of the negro slave than they were with their own posterity’s.
They were the ones who set loose the negro land sharks to swim among the white fish, and they did it without being “controlled” by Jews, unless Christianity is conceded to be such a means of control.
Or can we point to any other Jewish cause of these phenomena other than the long-standing influence of Christianity in creating a culture of moral masochism? Who were the Jews behind the Mrs. Jellybys and the Harriet Beecher Stowes of this world besides Jesus and his apostles?
And exactly the same can be said of Wuthering Heights.

Shifting the Cost

via Occident Invicta

Here’s a comment I left on Robert Lindsay’s blog pertaining to female rule.
I wouldn’t really call this ‘female rule’ as women were never meant to rule. What feminists have done is merely shift women’s dependence away from men/husbands and onto the nanny state. What feminists are trying to do is create a new sort of ‘Eden’ and America is perfectly suited to this project. Resources are abundant (and siphoned through the state) and replace an authoritarian (albeit benevolent) God with the State.
The financial upkeep of feminism is now currently being borne by the male taxpayer and the state. If women were made to bear this expense themselves by taxing working women for the all social welfare programs that they are exclusively entitled to, feminism would be dead by next Friday. If women were taxed at a higher rate and were made to pay for the illegitimate children of other women, the stigma against single motherhood would make a radical comeback.
The reason for Western women running amok nowadays is due to the fact that the State (and society in general) are currently paying the social and financial costs for their shenanigans. If the social/financial costs of female bad behaviour could be shifted back onto women, they would fervently begin to police their own behaviour.
“Equality” is a lucrative business for professional victim groups (women/gays/visible minorities) when somebody else is paying for it.

François Mitterrand: European Statesman, Anti-American, & Judeophobe

via Counter-Currents

President François Mitterrand with
German Chancellor Helmut Kohl
President François Mitterrand is a notoriously ambiguous figure and one which, indeed, is an object of both interest and repulsion for the European Right. In his trilogy of little memoirs, hastily written at the end of his life, the president and founder of the European Union makes clear that his passion for “European integration” was founded upon a hostility to the United States of America’s domination of the Old Continent. Intense hostility to American power as well as Jewish power is also evident from private comments he made to his friends and associates. Yet, Mitterrand was also instrumental in the ostracism and persecution of French nationalists from the 1980s onwards.

Mitterrand had been traumatized by the Fall of France in 1940 – during which he had been captured as a soldier before escaping to Vichy after two previous failed attempts. He had personally witnessed European nations’ fratricidal war and calamitous fall from world-hegemony to imperial dependencies of the American and Soviet superpowers. The solution, as he saw it, was eternal peace in Europe and the creation of a European superpower through a fusion of nations, and in particular of France and Germany.

Hostility to American power is evident throughout Mitterrand’s memoirs. He says he rejected the proposed European Defense Community in the 1950s – which would have created a kind of European army made up of French, West German, Italian, and Benelux troops – because it would have been under effective American control:

To refuse the [European Defense Community] was to take the risk of knocking down the fragile edifice of the emerging Europe. To accept it would be a contradiction. To build the Europe of generals before a serious embryo of political authority existed, especially in this period of cold war, left the field too open to general staffs who would have been in a position to determine the fate of Europe and of the countries making it up through the military necessities they would have alone been judges of. And as speaking of general staffs in the plural was in addition no more than a fiction, this defense community would only have been an additional instrument at the service of the Pentagon. That is to say of the Americans. I had not forgotten that at [Georges] Bidault’s request [John] Foster Dulles had gone so far as to imagine deploying the atomic bomb in Vietnam. I could not conceive of Europe being so colonized, and I feared would be destroyed both the body and the soul of what appeared to me as the great ambition of men of my time.[1]

Mitterrand’s attitude towards U.S. influence in Europe had not fundamentally changed between the 1950s and 1990s. He said on the American view of post-Cold War Europe: “the concept of European unity did not mean the same reality depending on if one was American or French.”[2] He rejected closer ties with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who was gravely concerned about the return of German power, citing the same concerns:

Great Britain did not have sufficient leeway to escape the control of the United States, and I would not exchange European construction, of which Federal Germany was one of the pillars, for a Franco-English entente which was desirable but reduced to good wishes.[3]

In private, Mitterrand would go further, telling the journalist Georges-Marc Benamou, with whom he was co-writing one of his memoirs:

France is at war with America. Yes, a constant war, a vital war, an economic war, a war without death. In appearance. Yes, they are very tough, the Americans, they are rapacious, they want undisputed power over the world . . . You saw, after the Gulf war, that they wanted to control this part of the world. They left nothing to their allies.[4]

Certainly, those on the Right have long lamented that after the Second World War all the nations of Europe were subjected to the Soviet and American Empires. The Soviet Union imposed crude military coercion. The United States in contrast reduced Western Europe to a fluctuating combination of economic, military-atomic, political, and, most perniciously, cultural dependence.[5]

But why was Mitterrand so concerned with American power over Europe? What, exactly, is the problem from a so-called universalist liberal-democratic perspective? Mitterrand’s private comments perhaps provide an indication. On May 17, 1995, his last day in office as president, Mitterrand told a friend inquiring about the continuing media-political campaign surrounding his association with former Secretary-General of the Police René Bousquet (who had deported Jews during the Second World War): “You are observing here the powerful and harmful influence of the Jewish lobby in France.”[6] If France, according to François Mitterrand, suffers from “the powerful and harmful influence of the Jewish lobby,” well then what dark forces of disintegration, eternally hostile to Europe, are lurking in America?

Mitterrand the European and Prussophile

Perhaps surprisingly for a Frenchman, Mitterrand saw the shattered German realm of Prussia as an important part of Europe’s redemption. He considered Prussia’s destruction by the Allies in 1945 as a great injustice designed to “strike Germany to the head,” reducing that great nation to decerebrated impotence. Mitterrand notes: “The influence of the United States exercised itself more strongly over the Federal Republic than over France – or at least with more success.”[7] But the Germans, unlike the British, at least wanted to “build Europe.”

Mitterrand sharply distinguishes between the culture and civilization of Prussia and National Socialism.[8] He seems to imagine German Reunification as a kind of return of Prussia to the Federal Republic:

Prussia, home of civilization and culture, inseparable from the civilization and culture that we, Frenchmen, claim as our own . . . before the end of the century Prussia would reappear in her real dimension, one of the richest reservoirs of men and means of Europe and Germany.[9]

Germany would then find its “head” through reunification with “Prussia,” which in turn would free Europe, through Germany’s union with France.

Indeed, Mitterrand went so far, in one of his last speeches in Berlin, to praise the courage of the Third Reich’s soldiers, offending many Jews:

I knew what there was of strong in the German people, its virtues, its courage, and his uniform matters little to me, and even the idea which inhabited the spirit of these soldiers who would die in such large numbers. They were brave, they accepted to lose their lives. For a bad cause, but their gesture had nothing to do with that. They loved their country.[10]

In any event, Mitterrand’s Prussophilia was too optimistic to not say archaic. Prussia is not reborn. Reunification, in destroying the oddly national socialist German Democratic Republic,[11] actually furthered Germany’s demographic collapse with a sharp fall of fertility in the east and continued economic retardation. But there are flickers in the embers: The Patriots Against the Islamization of the West (PEGIDA) protests are strongest in former Prussia, and it is eastern Germans who have radicalized Alternative for Germany (AfD) towards focus against immigration.

Mitterrand rejected the “Europe of Generals” in the 1950s. Yet he proved was the single most important figure in pushing for the “Europe of Bankers” created by the Maastricht Treaty in the 1990s, with its unlimited free movement of capital and its formal reduction of states to dependence upon financial markets. But Mitterrand apparently hoped this would be compensated by the creation of a European common currency – the écu or the Euro – and a powerful, autocratic European Central Bank. In destroying the Deutsche Mark and creating a formidable European currency to rival the U.S. dollar, Mitterrand believed the monetary dominance of the German Bundesbank and of the U.S. Federal Reserve would be ended. The Mitterrandian poetry reaches its greatest heights on this theme of Franco-German reconciliation and European power:

The incessant tumult of History teaches the vanity of treaties as soon as the balance of power changes. . . . I cannot give up however of the idea that a society can survive only by its institutions. So it will be with Europe. Given that everything thus far rests upon force which itself gives way only to violence, let us break this logic and replace it with free contract. If the community, the daughter of reason, adopts lasting structures, victor, vanquished, these notions will belong to our prehistory. The smallness of our continent, the birth of the [European] Community which includes two thirds of its inhabitants, the need felt in both the east and West of Europe to exist and influence the destiny of the planet by widening the vice which, from Asia and America, is closing upon us, are pushing for this realization. I dream of the predestination of Germany and France, which geography and their old rivalry designate to give the signal. I also work towards this. . . . If they have kept within themselves the best of what I do not hesitate to call their instinct of greatness, they will understand that this here is a project worthy of them. I am drawing a design which I know will be muddled, compromised year by year, beyond this century. . . . France is always tempted by withdrawal upon herself and the epic illusion of glory in solitude . . . The great powers of the rest of the world will seek to ruin the arrival of an order which is not theirs. Those nostalgic for death on the street corner, of the hospital one crushes beneath bombs, of car bombs for the sole honor of raising up a plot of land as a nation, with its border posts at the first hedge, will wrap themselves in the folds of a thousand and one flags . . .[12]

Mitterrand’s Failure

François Mitterrand with Marshal Philippe Pétain.
François Mitterrand with Marshal
Philippe Pétain

France, whether embodied in a De Gaulle, a Mitterrand, or a Le Pen, has often provided inspiration for Europeans in other countries who dream of freeing the Old Continent from foreign domination. The French enjoyed a relative freedom and national ambitions far beyond anything the occupied Germans could be allowed to have.

France’s decline is viscerally-felt and painful for the French. Indeed, the French political class, at least from the beginning of the presidency of Charles de Gaulle in 1958 to that of Nicolas Sarkozy in 2007, was sincerely motivated to strengthen French and Europe as a power in the world. This was evident in autonomy within NATO, a relatively independent “Arab policy,” the push for European integration, efforts to promote French language and culture through various protectionist measures, and opposition to the 2003 Iraq War. These efforts were overwhelmingly conservative ones, however, and completely disregarded the deep roots of the nation’s decadence, and were thus doomed to failure.

Mitterrand himself was haunted by the decline of France. He told Benamou:

In fact, I am the last of the great presidents . . . Well, I mean the last in the line of De Gaulle. After me, there will be no more in France . . . Because of Europe . . . Because of globalization . . . Because of the necessary evolution of institutions.[13]

Charles de Gaulle had a similar view. But while the General believed Europe had been strongest, most free and alive, when there had been vigorous warring nations, Mitterrand famously declared that “Nationalism is war!”

Mitterrand was entirely complicit in the demonization of European nationalisms and the rise of the Shoah to what Éric Zemmour has called “the official religion of the French Republic,”[14] notably with the passage of the Fabius-Gayssot Act criminalizing critical historical study of the Holocaust. He empowered Jewish “anti-racist” organizations such as the CRIF, the LICRA, and SOS Racisme. He participated in a concerted police and politico-media campaign to frame the Front National for the desecration of a Jewish cemetery at Carpentras in 1990, indefinitely excommunicating that party from respectability in the eyes of mainstream public opinion. Mitterrand did this for personal and political gain, pandering to the most powerful ethnic networks in the country, and working to keep the Socialist Party in power, despite its manifest economic failures, by dividing the opposition into a “mainstream” right and a “far-right.”

Alain Soral has said that whomever rises by the Jews must fall by the Jews. And, sure enough, Mitterrand was caught in his web of sins: He empowered Jewish organizations to persecute revisionist historians and nationalist activists in the name of the Shoah, but in turn an ever-more-vocal fraction of this same community resented Mitterrand’s own so-called “ambiguities” on the Vichy period, namely his youthful admiration for Marshal Philippe Pétain, his postwar association with Bousquet, and his refusal to officially debase France by recognizing collective and national guilt for participation in the Holocaust.[15]

Characteristically, Mitterrand chose to write his three memoirs with the collaboration of three Jews: the infamous Elie Wiesel, the young Georges-Marc Benhamou, and the atrociously-botoxed publisher Odile Jacob. This no doubt reflected the density of Jewish networks around Mitterrand, many in which still had affection for the old leader, but also (especially in the case of the High Priest of Holocaustianity Wiesel) an attempt by Mitterrand to secure his legacy and respectability before the Jewish community.

Mitterrand’s attempts to appease ethnocentric Jews[16] naturally failed. He continued to be attacked until his dying day and, after his death, Wiesel all but called the recently-departed president a liar, accusing him of “a deformation of facts” and “falsehood” concerning “that bastard Bousquet.”[17] Benamou also repeatedly tried to get Mitterrand to confess some imagined guilt, but failed:

Actually, François Mitterrand did not believe in the specificity of the holocaust, despite his fascination for the Old Testament and his ‘friendship for the Jewish people.’ He had not understood the Twentieth Century and its tragedy. . . . He had always been indifferent to the Jewish question, and that is a positive point, in view of his milieu. The flip side is that this indifference never allowed him to understand the scale of the Jewish tragedy. He was a man of the Nineteenth Century, that is, a man who considered the greatest tragedy of all time to be Verdun, those thousands square kilometers overturned by bombs, that ossuary. . . .
But the cornered monarch had closed in on himself. This confrontation had taken for him such an obsessive turn that to concede apologies on behalf of France, in his eyes, was a personal humiliation. He had convinced himself of this and became again, in these movements, that Gaulish chieftain that I did not like very much.[18]

Indeed, neither Wiesel nor Benamou could tolerate the arrogance of a goy prince who would put his own dead, those French peasants rooted for millennia, before those of their own Tribe. Mitterrand could protest to Benamou that wartime was complicated: “Young man, you do not know what you are talking about,” to no avail.

Mitterrand apparently believed that Europe could become a world-power despite the hegemony of a hostile anti-European culture, despite the demonization of any European ethno-national self-assertion, and despite the founding of the “European Union” on fundamentally neoliberal and plutocratic principles of open borders.

So far, his œuvre has singularly failed, with the Eurozone in particular being a byword for economic failure and permanent crisis. Perhaps this is unsurprising. Indeed, even in his own day Mitterrand had a singular contempt for the man he had appointed to oversee – or perhaps, merely, spectate over – his grand design: European Commission President Jacques Delors. Mitterrand mocks Delors as a non-entity, doing who-knows-what in Brussels, superficially idealized by the French media. He reacts to Delors’ declaration that he would not be running for president despite the superficial polls in his favor: “Oh, what a non-event on live television, that doesn’t happen every day!”[19] It seems very strange of Mitterrand to be so invested in the European Union as his “legacy,” and yet be so mocking of his chosen executor. Indeed, elsewhere he argues that European leaders will know to be conciliatory and push forward with integration precisely because of the fragility of the project: “They know that the European Meccano would collapse if one piece were removed.”[20] That is not exactly a vote of a confidence in a sound foundation.

The ultimate legacy of the flawed Union Mitterrand bestowed upon Europe remains unclear. Perhaps, it is a bridge too far in transnationalism which will, in a dialectical response, bring about a nationalist regime firmly dedicated to the restoration of the nation-state. Perhaps, as Guillaume Faye hoped, the Union can in time be hijacked as an effective power which would enable Europe’s emancipation from the small-states’ seductive temptation of collaboration with American political and military power. Perhaps the whole EU project will simply prove irrelevant to the continued steady decline of Europeans in the face of American cultural-political hegemony and Afro-Islamic demographic submersion.

And what can we conclude on Mitterrand? Every man is indelibly marked by the world of his childhood. In the case of Mitterrand, he was raised a French-speaking, Right-wing Catholic milieu in which America, Jewry, and high finance were seen with suspicion as corrupting and overlapping entities. The values of Mitterrand’s childhood milieu had many similarities with those of a Charles de Gaulle, a Léon Degrelle, or a Hergé, men who also dreamed, each in their way, of a Europe free from America.

There is little logic in Mitterrand’s sinuous rise to power besides perhaps a hostility to an overbearing De Gaulle, openness to alliance with the French Communists, and a good feel for the political center of gravity of the country. Mitterrand served as a decorated Vichy official, joined the Resistance, quickly rose as a postwar minister in the corrupt, parliamentary Fourth Republic and pledged to defend French Algeria. After over two decades in the desert of opposition, he finally became the first Socialist President of the Fifth Republic in 1981, after which he quickly had to renege upon his exaggerated social promises, but maintained his power in part through collaboration with ethnocentric Jewish networks.

In a sense, Mitterrand betrayed the values of his childhood and yet he never went far enough to fully appease a large fraction of the Jewish community. I cannot help but think, in his sincere reconciliation with Germany and his clumsy efforts to set the foundations for a European superpower, Mitterrand also sought to redeem his European soul.


1. François Mitterrand, Mémoires interrompus (Paris: Odile Jacob, 1996), 212-3.
2. François Mitterrand, De l’Allemagne, de la France (Paris: Odile Jacob, 1997), 45.
3. Mitterrand, De l’Allemagne, 43.
4. Georges-Marc Benamou, Le dernier Mitterrand (Paris: Plon, 1996), 52.
5. Kevin B. MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (1st Book Library: 2002).
6. Renaud Dely, “Quand Mitterrand parlait du ‘lobby juif’,” Libération, August 27, 1999.
7. Mitterrand, De l’Allemagne, 139.
8. Indeed, anti-Nazism is the stated center of Mitterrand’s moral universe. In fact there are both breaks and continuity between Frederick the Great’s Prussia and Adolf Hitler’s Germany. Among the points of continuity: autocracy, militarism, and sacrifice.
9. Mitterrand, De l’Allemagne, 125.
10. Jean Guisnel, “Mitterrand célèbre les soldats morts, allemands compris,” Libération, May 10, 1995.
11. The GDR, despite its obsessive anti-Nazism, appeared very national socialist in its Prusso-Stalinism. Indeed, from a demographic point of view East Germany was a superior regime, maintaining higher birth rates and encouraging the more educated to have children.
12. Mitterrand, De l’Allemagne, 128-9.
13. Benhamou, Mitterrand, 146. Indeed, Mitterrand seems to be the last French president whose name American journalists can remember, as miserable an indicator as any.
14. Éric Zemmour, “The Rise of the Shoah as the Official Religion of the French Republic,” The Occidental Observer, May 12, 2015.
15. Towards the end of his term as president, Mitterrand famously rejected on live television the Sephardic journalist Jean-Pierre Elkabbach’s relaying Jewish organizations’ demands for “apologies” for Vichy:
Mitterrand: “They will wait a long time. They will not get any. France has no need to apologize, nor has the Republic. I would never accept it. I consider that it is an excessive demand from people who do not deeply feel what it means to be French and the honor of being French, and the honor of the history of France. . . .
Elkabbach: “[You successors] will also feel the pressure.
Mitterrand: [Scoffs.] “Perhaps in a hundred year still too? What does this mean? This maintains hatred and it is not hatred which must govern France.”
16. And Wiesel is truly absurdly ethnocentric in his unenlightening book of interviews with Mitterrand. He opens the book with: “For us, Jews,” and never stops. At least half the questions must have a Jewish focus or framing. I am sorry if I must appear unkind but such selfish self-centeredness is rightly mocked. In his interventions, Wiesel mentions the synagogue, the concentration, the psychoanalyst, the Talmudic sage, a Talmudic saying, “the death of a Hasidic master,” the trauma of forgetting his speech scrolls while in Israel (because he is “very pious,” he says), his being raised “the Bible” [sic], the Jewish tradition, the Yiddish writer, the rabbi, Kafka’s equaling Dostoevsky, and on and on and on. As the libertarian comedian Doug Stanhope has put it: “Jew, Jew, Jew, Jew, Jew, Jew, Jew, Jew!” Wiesel also repeatedly, and quite transparently, emotionally manipulates through selective righteous indignation, either to distract (Biafra, Yugoslavia) or to harass the Jews’ enemies (Islamic fundamentalism in Iran and Algeria, Iranian and Libyan efforts to get nuclear weapons . . .) without a peep on Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians or its nuclear weapons. François Mitterrand and Elie Wiesel, Mémoire à deux voix (Paris: Odile Jacob, 1997).
17. Christophe Barbier, “Wiesel Contre Mitterrand,” L’Express, October 3, 1996.
18. Benamou, Mitterrand, 199-201.
19. Benamou, Mitterrand, 90.
20. Mitterrand, De l’Allemagne, 129-30.

The Vast White-Wing Conspiracy

via Renegade Tribune

After it was revealed that Bill Clinton got a blowjob from Monica Lewinsky, Hillary claimed it was all the result of a “vast Right-wing conspiracy.” There was no way Bubba could have done anything wrong. In the many Clinton scandals that followed, Hillary never again placed blame on the conspiracy again, but this phrase has remained within the public consciousness. Is there any merit to this conspiracy theory?

27/01/1998 WIRE: US President Bill Clinton with wife Hillary delivers his strongest denial to date, of allegations of an alleged affair with former intern Lewinsky, at the White House in Washington DC, 26/01/1998. Pic. Reuters

27/01/1998 – US President Bill Clinton with wife Hillary delivers his strongest denial to
date, of allegations of an alleged affair with former intern Lewinsky, at the White House
in Washington DC.

Of course I do not buy into the idea that the Clintons are innocent do-gooders, unfairly targeted by evil forces on the Right. When examining the Lewinsky scandal closer, it becomes apparent that Bill was not targeted by a Right-wing conspiracy, but rather a Kike-wing conspiracy. Monica Lewinsky, Ken Starr, Matt Drudge, and other key players in breaking the story to the world just happen to be jews. One can only guess why Bill was targeted in the 90s, as he was fulfilling jewish agendas during his presidency, and it is clear he is still considered a good Shabbos goy for the Chosen.

bill wailing

Both Bill and Hillary have had
illustriousnotorious post-Lewinsky careers, while Matt Drudge has become perhaps the most influential newsman on the “Right” wing. Vice-president Al Gore made his bid for the White House, but Bill’s recent disgrace, along with Jeb Bush’s vote-rigging in Florida, made it so George W. Bush would become king.

This is all part of the “Right” wing conspiracy, right?


The Neo-cons who took power in Washington were really revolutionary neo-Trotskyites, and perhaps even more radical than the previous Democrat administration. These insane jews crafted the Plan for the New American Century (PNAC) and then orchestrated the attack of September 11th, 2001, along with the Mossad, to fulfill their goals of waging a war on terror and destabilizing the Middle East.


This “Right-wing conspiracy” is not “Right” at all.
The real American Right-wing was effectively neutralized in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, which appears to have been carried out by the Clinton administration as a way to stop the burgeoning militia movement. And then the events of 9/11, though getting us to direct our attention toward perceived external threats, were still used to justify a further crackdown on Right-wing patriots, most of whom just happen to be proud White people. This vast Kike-wing conspiracy has been trying to tighten its grip on us ever since, using multiple false flag shootings and bombings as justification.

So let’s differentiate ourselves from the “Right” we hear so much about. I think it is good and healthy to have the “alternative Right” calling out the Cuckservatives, making sure everyone understands that these White sell-outs do not represent us. It is rather hysterical that the Cuckservatives have claimed that the anti-Cucks are really just Democrat operatives working for Hillary Clinton. Ah, so Cuckservatives are just victims of a vast Left-wing conspiracy? Considering the relatively favorable write-up the Jew York Times recently did about Cuckservatives, perhaps people like Rand Paul or Marco Rubio will actually believe it is Democrats who are trolling them. Ha!

right wing

I don’t really mind being labeled as “Right-wing,” as I am right (I consider myself to be correct), but I hate being associated with people like Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Michael Savage, etc. Also, I like to take a more balanced approach, utilizing both the left and right hemispheres of my brain. I am a long-haired heathen who eats a plant-based diet (not really the stereotypical Christian conservative we hear about), but I am still considered “far-Right” by most people, simply because I think White genocide is a bad thing, even though White interests were once protected by the Left (Democrat Klansmen), and because I think National Socialism did a lot of things correctly, even though this political ideology has “socialism” right in its title.

This is why I suggest it might be more accurate if we think of ourselves as the White-wing. At this point I do not feel the need to explain why our cause is righteous and just, as I have already been doing this for the past few years.


Because of the tyranny of our jewish occupational government our ideas have largely been relegated to the fringes, shut out of “politically correct” discourse. This has forced our people away from organizations, which have been heavily infiltrated, and into the underground. There are now lone wolves, infiltrators, sleepers, and agents of all sorts in key positions, loosely networked together. The White-wing is actually quite vast.

Perhaps you don’t believe me. This is understandable, but something you should consider is that our people do not always “signal” like the Left does. Since they are currently in power, it is beneficial to show off how “progressive” and anti-White they are. Such overt signalling from the White-wing could result in job loss, detection (blowing cover), family problems, federal agents at the door, and other negative outcomes, so the signals are often kept under the radar.

Of course there are elements out there that fly the swastika, confederate flag, etc. or get 14/88 on their foreheads, but these people are just the tip of the iceberg, and not really the big power players. Don’t get me wrong, though, I think it is a good sign that there is much more open signalling occurring around the world. I do it too.


I will briefly go through some of our power centers and show how our strength is growing.

Average Joe – Although I do not support Donald Trump, as I consider him a steam valve, I see him as a good barometer. A majority of the people on the “Right” (and elsewhere) agree with him, which means they also agree with many of our core issues. This election cycle provides fertile grounds for recruiting.

Business – Small to medium-sized businesses have been hit especially hard by jewish economics, outsourcing, state-sponsored Black riots, and tax-cuts for the multinational corporations. Although these smart businessmen risk much by being associated with the White-wing, they will invest in our cause if we can show a decent chance of success.

Militia – Did the OKC bombing actually change the minds of any of the millions of militia members in the 1990s? This event really just forced people to become less public, but most never stopped training and stocking up. The militia will be a crucial force if law and order really breaks down, especially if they are known and trusted by the public. Ideally the militia would not be squaring off with the military, but working with it, or at least elements of it.


Military – Large segments of the military are aware of the jewish crimes in 9/11 (see above) and elite units are already primarily White, with some of them being legitimately pro-White. Yes, the military is currently accepting illegal aliens and promoting all sorts of LGBTQ degeneracy, but this will only serve to awaken more of our folk within the machine. If we are able to get a large chunk of the military on our side, our job will be much easier.

Intelligence – Anyone that has been assigned to monitor me and my compatriots has been getting a huge dose of truth. Seriously, how could you work in “intelligence” and not see the devastating effects of jewish power and criminality? It would be erroneous to think that every single person within the various alphabet agencies is working against us.


Law Enforcement – Police are on the front lines of the race war ever single day and many of them are coming to understand what is happening in our world. They have been aggressively targeted by the jewish media and “Black power” presidency, painted as the ultimate racists against the poor Black folks (who dindu nuffin), and they are sick and tired of this shit. I understand that police (like the military) are working for a jewish occupied government, but it’s much better to have them on our side than against us.

Internet – We have been dominating online so much that the jews and cucks have been scurrying to “shut it down” for some time. Youtube videos, websites, comments sections, etc – the truth is everywhere, damaging them greatly. Our propaganda efforts need to be put at full steam ahead so that we get as much high quality media out to our folk as quickly possible.


This is not a comprehensive list of where our power lies, but hopefully it gets you thinking about how far we have already been able to penetrate, and where we could possibly recruit more. We currently do not have much influence in politics, media, or banking, but these could all fall under our control very quickly once the White-wing mobilizes.

Seriously, we have more power than most of us ever could have imagined. The key to our enemies’ success has been convincing us that we are isolated, impotent, and losers. Even if we are outnumbered, it is by hordes of braindead idiots, unorganized thugs, and paycheck prostitutes. We are struggling for our future, on our own soil, against traitors of the worst kind. We are in the RIGHT.

It is time that the world once again respects and fears the power of the White Man.