Aug 20, 2015

Donald Trump’s Breakthrough Statement on Immigration

via The Occidental Observer

I certainly counted myself among the skeptics when it comes to Donald Trump’s candidacy. But it’s clear now that he is going full populist on the issues that matter, first with his statements on trade deals, but now — and more importantly — on immigration. Ann Coulter calls his immigration statement “the greatest political document since the Magna Carta,”

I agree—if it can actually end up influencing policy. While other candidates like Scott Walker and Rick Santorum have mumbled things about legal immigration, the immigration issue will now define Trump’s candidacy. White Americans can finally express themselves on what kind of country they want to live in. As Coulter also points out, immigration is the only important issue:

Suddenly the cozy consensus among elites on immigration is exposed. White American voters started this election cycle with the deadening belief that it was going to be Hillary vs. Jeb in the election, with nary a mention that immigration was even an issue. Flip a coin, because it makes no difference to the big money or anyone else—the politics of oligarchy in action. Here’s a cartoon of a person who had hanged himself, his feet dangling down in front of a TV screen showing a presidential debate between Jeb and Hillary. Exactly. And in that debate there would be zero questions on immigration—just the way the big media wants it.

But now Trump is saying what White Americans have been actually thinking for a very long time. This passage gets at the heart of the issue.
Put American Workers First Decades of disastrous trade deals and immigration policies have destroyed our middle class. Today, nearly 40% of black teenagers are unemployed. Nearly 30% of Hispanic teenagers are unemployed. For black Americans without high school diplomas, the bottom has fallen out: more than 70% were employed in 1960, compared to less than 40% in 2000. Across the economy, the percentage of adults in the labor force has collapsed to a level not experienced in generations. As CBS news wrote in a piece entitled “America’s incredible shrinking middle class”: “If the middle-class is the economic backbone of America, then the country is developing osteoporosis.”
The influx of foreign workers holds down salaries, keeps unemployment high, and makes it difficult for poor and working class Americans – including immigrants themselves and their children – to earn a middle class wage. Nearly half of all immigrants and their US-born children currently live in or near poverty, including more than 60 percent of Hispanic immigrants. Every year, we voluntarily admit another 2 million new immigrants, guest workers, refugees, and dependents, growing our existing all-time historic record population of 42 million immigrants. We need to control the admission of new low-earning workers in order to: help wages grow, get teenagers back to work, aid minorities’ rise into the middle class, help schools and communities falling behind, and to ensure our immigrant members of the national family become part of the American dream.
The populist labor-market critique of immigration policy, pioneered by Senator Jeff Sessions and based on sound academic research, is finally getting into the political mainstream. The incredible reality is that putting American workers first is anathema to elites among both Democrats and Republicans. We talk a lot about implicit Whiteness here, and it has often been said that implicit Whiteness is not enough. But certainly the start of the revolution to restore a White America need not be explicitly White at all. The labor-market argument applies to the vast majority of Americans, Black and White alike. The idea that importing millions of uneducated, impoverished Third Worlders into the US — or any other European-derived country — would actually benefit the country is ridiculous.

It’s never been about the needs of most Americans, but rather the desires of businesses for cheap labor, the desires of the ethnic lobbies to get more of their people here to increase their power, and the desires of predominantly Jewish elites against the idea of a homogeneous White America. If there has been one constant threat of Jewish intellectual and political activity since World War II, it has been to oppose populism. Obviously, they much prefer an oligarchy of the wealthy with control of the media and in control of the donor class of both Republicans and Democrats.

And oligarchy is what they have gotten: The idea that Western societies are democracies is an  illusion. In fact, an oligarchic model fits U.S. politics much better than a democratic model (see Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page in Perspectives on Politics, Sept. 2014, “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens“).The Trump candidacy is the most hopeful sign that the present oligarchy could be circumvented at the presidential level.

What the establishment fears most is a highly visible, personally attractive, honest, populist candidate who cannot be shut out of the media and with enough money to run a viable campaign.

This Washington Examiner article is right on the money in showing that Trump’s statement actually fits well with the views of most Americans.
Donald Trump set off yet another wave of anguish and frustration among Republican political elites Sunday with more provocative statements about immigration, along with the release of a Trump immigration plan influenced by the Senate’s leading immigration hawk. But there are indications Trump’s positions on immigration are more in line with the views of the public — not just GOP voters, but the public at large — than those of his critics. “Donald Trump: Undocumented Immigrants ‘Have to Go,'” read the headline at NBC News, where Trump appeared on “Meet the Press.” “They have to go,” Trump told moderator Chuck Todd, referring to immigrants in the U.S. illegally. “We either have a country or we don’t have a country.”
At the same time, Trump unveiled a brief immigration position paper, created in consultation with Republican senator Jeff Sessions, calling for, among other things, an end to the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship. Some of Trump’s presidential rivals, and no doubt many in the GOP establishment, were appalled. “Our leading Republican is embracing self-deportation, that all of the 11 million have to walk back where they came from, and maybe we’ll let some of them come back,” Sen. Lindsey Graham said on CBS. “I just hope we don’t go down that road as a party. So our leading contender, Mr. Trump, is going backward on immigration. And I think he’s going to take all of us with him if we don’t watch it.”
Let’s watch Graham run on that and see where it gets him (he is at zero percent in the latest poll). All his sucking up to the Israel Lobby has gotten him nowhere.

The real importance of the Examiner article is in highlighting a study showing just how out of touch elites are on immigration:
But are Trump’s views on immigration as far out of the mainstream as Graham suggests? Are they out of the mainstream at all? A recent academic paper, by Stanford professor David Broockman and Berkeley Ph.D candidate Douglas Ahler, suggests a majority of the public’s views on immigration are closer to Trump’s than to the advocates of comprehensive immigration reform.
Here are the results Broockman and Ahler got: 4.7 percent supported Option One; 17.4 percent supported Option Two; 10.8 percent supported Option Three; 12.0 percent supported Option Four; 17.0 percent supported Option Five; 13.8 percent supported Option Six; and 24.4 percent supported Option Seven. The largest single group, 24.4 percent, supported the most draconian option — closed borders and mass deportation — that is dismissed by every candidate in the race, including Trump.
Add in the next group that supported Option Six, which would allow only a “small number” of highly skilled immigrants to enter the U.S. and also involve mass deportations, and the number increased to 38.2 percent. Then add Option Five, which would allow only highly skilled immigrants while physically blocking the border, and the number increased to 55.2 percent.
“Many citizens support policies that seem to fall outside of the range of policy options considered in elite discourse,” Broockman and Ahler conclude.
Shocking! We have said all along that the anti-White revolution is a top-down phenomenon initiated and maintained by hostile elites with very little popular support, especially among White people — which is why these elites continue to import millions of non-Whites. Those percentages show that an immigration platform something like Trump’s is a winner.
Trump’s immigration stance appears to fall somewhere between Option Five and Option Six, perhaps a little closer to the latter. It’s probably fair to say that, if Broockman and Ahler are correct, a majority of Americans — not just Republican voters, but all Americans — hold views that are consistent with Trump’s position, or are even more restrictive.
Opponents like Graham portray Trump’s immigration position as far out of the mainstream, but that doesn’t appear to be the case.
Just a couple comments on Trump’s position paper which should be read in its entirety. It may be considered the Jeff Sessions playbook on immigration, including ending birthright citizenship. The only other presidential candidate mentioned is Marco Rubio:
When politicians talk about “immigration reform” they mean: amnesty, cheap labor and open borders. The Schumer-Rubio immigration bill was nothing more than a giveaway to the corporate patrons who run both parties. …  Mark Zuckerberg’s personal Senator, Marco Rubio, has a bill to triple H-1Bs that would decimate women and minorities.
Beautiful. And he could have mentioned Rubio’s ultra-Zionist backers, Norman Braman, Larry Ellison, and Sheldon Adelson. Sounds like a pattern. Obviously, one of the big strengths of the Trump candidacy is that he is not dependent on the donor class. He gets another dig in at the donors:
Real immigration reform puts the needs of working people first – not wealthy globetrotting donors. We are the only country in the world whose immigration system puts the needs of other nations ahead of our own.
Unfortunately, all European-derived countries have immigration policies that are absolutely opposed to the interests of their native populations. We can now expect that a raging conflagration of media attacks against Trump and that Republican elites will continue to do all they can to derail Trump’s candidacy. This will be political theater at its best.

Trump/Sessions for president/vice-president in 2016!

Trump's Immigration Plan and Mainstreaming

With respect to what I wrote here, let's look at Trump's latest immigration plan, and the hysterical reaction of the Neocons, who represent the current mainstream of GOP politics.  

Although Trump's plan is somewhat weak by WN standards, by "Republican conservative" standards, it is "radical" and "extremist" - to the extent that the mainstream labels it "White identity politics."  Note Trump's continued popularity and the lack thereof for mainstreaming Jeb Bush.

If we make an analogy between the GOP and the "movement," then Trump is akin to, say, The Turner Diaries, and Jeb Bush is akin to Derbyshire speaking about HBD at an Amren conference. Trump is like Golden Dawn and Jeb Bush is like Marine Le Pen or Orban.

Sure, the Establishment is against Trump and will sabotage his campaign in every way possible. However, looking at personal popularity among base supporters, radical is "in" and mainstream is "out."

Savages: American Indian Warfare on the High Plains

via The End of Zion

Like most war movies in general, if one watched only the Hollywood version of the American Indian wars on the High Plains they might be left with the impression that the red man in battle comported himself somewhat similar to his blue-coated counter-poise, the US cavalryman. True, both sides in such films are a little rough around the edges, commit a few bloody barbarities here and there, but for the most part once the battle has been won or lost each side returns to his respective camp and that is pretty much where the film goes dark.

Curiously, it is only in some of the older American films of the 1930’s and 40’s where one even gets a whiff of how such contests really played out. Though he was released when Calamity Jane (played by Jean Arthur) broke down and tearfully revealed the route the soldiers were taking, Wild Bill Hickok (played by Gary Cooper) nearly got himself barbecued in the movie The Plainsman when the Sioux strung him up and stoked a fire around his legs. A few other movies at the time mentioned in passing Indian torture but for the most part, this grisly business was left to one’s imagination. It’s just as well.

In no movie of the past, and certainly in no movie of the politically correct present, have I ever seen an accurate depiction of Indian warfare and especially, of Indian torture, as it really occurred in the Nineteenth-Century.

The following is from my book, Scalp Dance—Indian Warfare on the High Plains, 1865-1879.
As we got farther into the Indian country, I found that the enthusiasm for the wilds of the West I had gained from Beadle’s dime novels gradually left me. The zeal to be at the front to help my comrades subdue the savage Indians . . . also was greatly reduced. My courage had largely oozed out while I listened to the blood-curdling tales the old-timers recited. But I was not alone in this feeling. When we got into the country where Indian attacks were likely to happen any moment, I found that every other person in the outfit, including our seasoned scouts, was exercising all the wit and caution possible to avoid contact with the noble red man. Instead of looking for trouble and a chance to punish the ravaging Indians, the whole command was trying to get through without a fight.
So wrote Alson Ostrander, expressing a fear felt by many a novice new to the prairie. Romantic and adventuresome as it might have seemed back in Rochester and Middlebury in the safety of their own homes, once a young “greenhorn” like Ostrander reached the frontier, reality soon set in. Suddenly, fighting with his comrades to “subdue the savage Indian” lost all of its charm. For good reason might the young private and his fellow troopers have cause to pause and reconsider.


Although unacknowledged as such by the US Congress, from 1865 to 1879 a war in all but name was waged on that great wide swath of America known as the Great Plains. Here, on a largely treeless, wind-swept wilderness of sage and cactus, of buffalo and hawk, the ill-prepared US Army was up against some of the best natural fighters and expert horsemen the world has ever known. Indeed, far from dealing effectively with the warring Sioux, Cheyenne, Kiowa, Arapahoe, Comanche, and other plains tribes, the average American trooper on his large grain-fed mount was utterly out-classed by his red counterpart on his fleet war pony.

According to one soldier who had faced Indians many times in battle, George Armstrong Custer:
The Indian warrior is capable of assuming position on his pony . . . at full speed, which no one but an Indian could maintain for a single moment without being thrown to the ground. The pony . . . is perfectly trained, and seems possessed of the spirit of his rider. . . .
Once a warrior was seen to dash out from the rest in the peculiar act of “circling” which was to dash along front of the line of troopers, receiving their fire and firing in return. Suddenly his pony while at full speed was seen to fall to the ground. . . . The warrior was thrown over and beyond the pony’s head and his capture by the cavalry seemed a sure and easy matter. . . . The troop advanced rapidly, but the comrades of the fallen Indian had also witnessed his mishap and were rushing to his rescue. He was on his feet in a moment, and . . . another warrior mounted on the fleetest of ponies was at his side, and with one leap the dismounted warrior placed himself astride the pony of his companion; and thus doubly burdened the gallant little steed, with his no less gallant riders, galloped lightly away, with about eighty cavalrymen, mounted on strong domestic horses, in full cry after them.
There is no doubt but that by all the laws of chance the cavalry should have been able to soon overhaul and capture the Indians in so unequal a race; but . . . the pony, doubly weighted as he was, distanced his pursuers and landed his burden in a place of safety. Although chagrined at the failure of the pursuing party to accomplish the capture of the Indians I could not wholly suppress a feeling of satisfaction, if not gladness, that for once the Indian had eluded the white man.
Small, unsightly, ill-mannered, the Indian pony was also incredibly swift, resilient and could seemingly run all day on little more that a mouthful of buffalo grass and stagnant water. In virtually every contest with the much larger “American” horse of the US cavalry, the pony not only out-maneuvered but also out-performed and out-distanced his foe with seeming ease. Naturally, as a people devoted to war and violence, warriors placed much value in their animals. Again, George Custer:
Indians are extremely fond of bartering. . . . They will sign treaties relinquishing their lands and agree to forsake the burial ground of their fore-fathers; they will part . . . with their bow and arrows and their . . . lodges even may be purchased . . . and it is not an unusual thing for a chief or warrior to offer to exchange his wife or daughter for some article which may have taken his fancy. . . . [B]ut no Indian of the Plains has ever been known to trade, sell, or barter away his favorite war pony. . . . Neither love nor money can induce him to part with it.
When encounters occurred, it was almost always on the Indians’ terms. Though pitched battles and dramatic charges did occur, especially when the odds favored them, hit-and-run tactics were the warriors’ forte. And, after years of practice, the Indian had become a master of them. Expecting the open and “manly” combat displayed during the American Civil War, many novices to the plains at first laughed at what they construed as cowardly behavior.

“I only wish you could witness the Indian mode of fighting; it really is amusing sometimes!” Albert Barnitz wrote to his wife, Jennie. “The Indians maneuver so much like wolves! They always ride at full speed, whooping, and . . . are no sooner driven from one sand hill, than they pop up on another, always passing around its base, and ascending it from the far side.”

If Barnitz initially found Indian tactics amusing, he and many others soon discovered that they were engaged in deadly serious work. The captain continues:
[They are] always watching for a chance to make a dash, and cut off some straggler, or drive through some thin part of a line! One morning, just as we were breaking camp, a party dashed down suddenly and cut off two men of “F” Troop, and 4 horses and were off like a flash, carrying off the men—whom they had wounded—on their ponies—a vigorous and immediate pursuit forced them to drop one of the men, who although badly wounded will probably recover, but the other could not be rescued, and if he lived long enough they doubtless had a war dance around and tortured him to death.
“[I]n less time than it takes to write this, six Indians dashed up out of that hidden gully, filled Blair with arrows, took his scalp, then tomahawked him right before our eyes.” So wrote Alson Ostrander, sketching a scene he and hundreds of horrified soldiers would witness during their years on the plains. As Ostrander, Barnitz, and others learned firsthand, those who treated Indian tactics lightly, did so at their peril. Moreover, any who at first discounted the warriors’ weapons gained new respect after suddenly facing them. Although hostiles increasingly carried firearms, the bow and arrow remained their weapon of choice. As an officer’s wife, Margaret Carrington, sagely noted:
Popular opinion has regarded the Indian bow and arrow as something primitive . . . and quite useless in a contest with the white man. This idea would be excellent if the Indian warriors would calmly march up in line of battle and risk their masses . . . against others armed with the rifle. . . . At fifty yards, a well-shapen, iron-pointed arrow is dangerous and very sure. A handful drawn from the quiver and discharged successively will make a more rapid fire than that of a revolver, and at very short range will farther penetrate a piece of plank or timber than the ball of an ordinary Colt’s navy pistol.
Added Captain Eugene Ware:
While a revolver could shoot six times quickly . . . it could not be reloaded on horseback on a run with somebody pursuing. But the Indian could shoot six arrows that were as good as six shots from a revolver at close range and then he could shoot twenty-four more in rapid succession. And so, when a soldier had shot out all his cartridges he was a prey to the Indian with a bow and arrow who followed him.
There was another item about which newcomers to the West were soon made aware of. Of all the horrors the plains had to offer, falling into hostile hands alive was the most terrible. “Save the last bullet for yourself” was stock advice uttered in deadly earnest.

“The great real fact,” declared one colonel, “is that these Indians take alive when possible, and slowly torture.”

“You could always tell which casualties had been wounded [first],” one sergeant reminisced, “because the little Indians and the squaws, after removing the clothes, would shoot them full with arrows and chop them in the faces with hatchets. They never mutilated a dead man, just those who had been wounded.”

“A favorite method of torture was to ‘stake out’ the victim,” revealed Colonel Richard Dodge:
He was stripped of his clothing, laid on his back on the ground and his arms and legs, stretched to the utmost, were fastened by thongs to pins driven into the ground. In this state he was not only helpless, but almost motionless. All this time the Indians pleasantly talked to him. It was all kind of a joke. Then a small fire was built near one of his feet. When that was so cooked as to have little sensation, another fire was built near the other foot; then the legs and arms and body until the whole person was crisped. Finally a small fire was built on the naked breast and kept up until life was extinct.
A similar procedure used by the red torturers was to slice with a sharp knife a small inch of skin on the foot then peel it up slowly in long strips until the head was reached. This agonizing procedure was repeated on all sides of the body until the crazed victim eventually “seeped” to death hours, even days, later.


War: Undeclared
While such sadistic torture was deliberate and drawn out, hideous mutilation might occur in the blink of an eye. Soon after two soldiers left their column to cut hay near Julesburg, Colorado, drummer James Lockwood and his companions watched in disbelief as the men were jumped by Indians. “[I]n less time than it takes to read this,” Lockwood later wrote, “they were stripped of their clothing, mutilated in a manner which would emasculate them, if alive, and their scalps torn from their heads.”

Ghastly mutilation and torture of comrades was terrible enough. When the young soldier had seen the results of an Indian raid on unsuspecting settlers, however, he often became a different sort of man. Captain Henry Palmer:
We found the bodies of three children who had been taken by the heels by the Indians and swung around against the log cabin, beating their heads to a jelly. Found the hired girl some fifteen rods from the ranch staked out on the prairie, tied by her hands and feet, naked, body full of arrows and horribly mangled.
Not surprisingly—and in spite of attempts by officers to stop it—many men were quick to respond in kind.

“We were bewhiskered savages living under canvas,” admitted one soldier.
After a fight with troops near Fort C. F. Smith in 1867, Sioux warriors were forced to retire, leaving one of their slain behind. The whites soon decamped but, according to one witness, “before leaving the ground they scalped the dead Indian in the latest and most artistic style, then beheaded him, placed his head upon a high pole, leaving his carcass to his friends or the wolves.”

At another skirmish along the North Platte River in Wyoming, Lieutenant William Drew describes an incident that was all too common.
In one of the charges the boys shot a Cheyenne chief through the bowels. He threw his arm over the neck of his pony . . . and went into a thicket of brush, where the chief fell off. Two of the boys rode into the thicket and found the chief apparently dead. One man jumped off his horse and stabbed the Indian about the heart. He did not give the least sign of life. Then the trooper commenced to scalp him. As soon as the knife touched his head, the Indian began to beg, when another man shot him through the brain. The Indian’s belief is that if a warrior loses his scalp, he cannot go to the happy hunting ground. Indians will lose their lives without the least sign of fear, but want to save their scalp. . . . About ten days before this, the Indians had captured one of our men, and had tortured and mangled his body in a shocking manner. Our boys swore that if they ever got hold of an Indian they would cut him all to pieces, and they did.
And, as in any army, a small but active minority used war as an excuse to live out their most sadistic fantasies.

“[T]hey were scalped, their brains knocked out,” admitted one soldier after whites captured an Indian village in Colorado. “[T]he men used their knives, ripped open women, clubbed little children. . . .”

“In going over the battleground,” added a comrade from the same camp. . . .
I did not see a body of a man, woman, or child but what was scalped, and in many instances, their bodies were mutilated in a most horrible manner—men, women, and children’s privates cut out. . . . I heard one man say that he had cut a woman’s private parts out, and had them for exhibition on a stick. . . . I also heard of numerous instances in which men had cut the private parts of females, and stretched them over their saddle bows, and some of them over their hats.
Not surprisingly, because of the ghastly torture and mutilations, few victims survived an Indian massacre. One man who did was Bill Thompson, a section worker on the Union Pacific Railroad. When Thompson’s maintenance crew was ambushed one dark night in central Nebraska while looking for a break in the telegraph wire, the seriously wounded man wisely feigned death until the red raiders moved on. At length, on terribly weakened legs, Thompson stood up, then staggered back down the tracks to the nearest station—shot, stabbed and scalped.


Bill Thompson: Survivor
Because Indians commonly dug up bodies and scalped them, when army columns moved out they marched over graves to obliterate all trace. Again, violation of burial sites was a ghoulish game some soldiers were not slow to learn. After discovering an Indian burial ground in Montana, Lieutenant Edward Godfrey recounted with disgust:
A number of their dead, placed upon scaffolds or tied to the branches of trees, were disturbed and robbed of their trinkets. Several persons rode about exhibiting their trinkets with as much gusto as if they were trophies of their valor, and showed no more concern for their desecration than if they had won them at a raffle.
“Ten days later,” Godfrey added with a note of ironic satisfaction, “I saw the bodies of these same persons dead, naked and mutilated.”

Considering the unspeakable fate awaiting them should they fall into hostile hands, it is not surprising that, when facing Indians, many soldiers “skedaddled.” Occasionally, officers too showed the “white feather.” Recalled Captain R. G. Carter:
Once a detail was sent out scouting under Lt. _______ . They were attacked by Indians outnumbering the men two to one. This officer ran—unqualifiedly ran, begging his men to follow and “not fire a shot for fear of angering the Indians.” [Sergeant] Charlton rode beside him and said: “Lt., if we stop and make a stand they will run.”
“No! no! we can do nothing but try to out-run them.” ______ said.
Charlton then took command and also chances of being tried for disobedience of orders, made a stand with the men, who were more experienced in such warfare than this young untried officer, and drove the Indians off. This officer came to him afterwards and asked him not to say anything about this at the post, and Charlton told me that he never did.
For every coward, though, there was a hero. Courage in a gallant, popular conflict was often rewarded with fame, fortune and rapid promotion. In a vicious, forgotten war waged in the wilderness, however, the reward for valor was often nothing more than a painful death, a dusty grave . . . and a simple memory that burned in a man’s soul forever. Lieutenant Charles Springer:
We buried Morris in the morning . . . . No head board, nor marble catafalk marks the spot of a good soldier who died in the noble and generous act of helping a comrade to get out of the hands of the foe; no soldier salute sounded war like over the grave, no muffled drum solemnized the burial, no tears of relations were shed upon the grave. Was buried upon an open ground, the body scented with turpentine, then the whole wagon train drove over his grave to prevent the Indians from finding his grave and scalping him. I read a chapter from the Bible and acted the preacher—James Morris is no more—Requiscat in pace.

The End Is Near

via Radix

For so many of us growing up, secularity was the norm. God and religion, we were told, belong to the past. Whether in politics, popular culture, science-fiction, or actual science, there are people and matter, but no God, gods, or anything supernatural. (One notable exception was “The Force.”) Religions are outdated children’s tales, each contradicting the other. They should be discussed in history courses and in respectable churches, where God is treated mostly a metaphor; some “fanatics” might still believe in God, but they are delusional. God is dead; man killed him; or something like that. We are heading towards “progress.” There are problems yet to solve; but the world should keep on improving, and getting ever more secular. 

This perspective appeared as “common sense” only a few dozen years ago. As many products of modernity, however, it has suffered an ignominious fall.

Much of this has to do with the trajectory of the Left, which has set itself, almost without exception, against the White man’s identity, history, and heritage. The academic Left succeeded in shaming most every pre-1960s progressivism as too White, too male, and too “Eurocentric.” Christianity has been a frequent target of this onslaught. Yet, ironically, there has so often been a Christian tenor and metaphorical quality to the Left's discourse: the White man bears the “original sin” of the evils of the world, be it colonialism, slavery, the Holocaust, or simply succeeding more than others.

Whether God has really “died” or not, we haven’t been freed from the memes of “original sin.” Nor have we stopped feeling like we need some kind of “salvation.” Unfortunately, apologizing and bowing to the Oppressed™ and other victimization professionals will never be enough. The only good path lies in a kind of sacrifice. Sacrifice your manhood by embracing the transgendered; sacrifice your ancestor’s and children’s identity through race mixing; sacrifice your sane and regular desires by being a feminist slave–er, “good man"; sacrifice essential parts of yourself in order to achieve goodness. Maybe the Moshes of this world will absolve you when you die. Or maybe they will use you as a villain in their next version of history. No concession is ever enough for those behind the “culture of critique,” not even oblivion.

Those reading this essay have, in all likelihood, a certain immunity to the culture of critique. Yet criticizing it does not undo its work and its power. Going away from the path of sacrifice doesn’t mean we have another path to follow. Merely struggling against it makes us, in Roman Bernard’s words, dolls saying “no” to everything. Positivism or secularism, as well as God, gave an order to history and told us where we were in the universe. More important, they told us where we were going. As both Christianity and older forms of progressivism have been deconstructed, with nothing left in their places, we lack a solid vision of both the world and history.

Such visions are can be found immanent in historiographies like Marxism or positivism, but also in monotheistic religions, as well as in other mythologies. They have also been inquired upon in a 2013 book that deserves our attention, Hervé Ryssen’s La guerre eschatologique (“The Eschatological War”). Prior to this book, Ryssen published several volumes on Judaism as a political project and on the Jewish mafia. This latest book goes into mythology as a source of meta-political frames. Without mentioning memetics, La guerre eschatologique inquires into the roots of various historiographic traditions, which are rarely mentioned but lurk in the background of people’s minds. Confronting both Abrahamic monotheism and the cyclical, Traditionalist worldview, Ryssen asks what does each one say about the End Times.

Across the centuries, Jews lived in close-knit communities, “ghettos,” as it were; among other things, this experience allowed them to protect and sustain their beliefs and folkways. Their activism and tribalism suffered neither from the Enlightenment nor any other crisis. Muslims have their own way, too. Though often times Muslims will lead contradictory lives, mixing visits to the Mosque with gangsta behavior, to the extent of celebrating both crime and sainthood. The rapper Morsay Truand  declares “scamming, swindling, trafficking? Do it! Respecting, praying, going to the mosque? Do it!” That said, some Muslims are genuinely concerned with being good people, as the Quran dictates. As for Christianity, its present weakness should not hide its lasting influence and presence as the origin of contemporary memes.

What do those ancient visions say about the End Times? What mindsets do they carry and where do these come from? More importantly, what are their political consequences? These questions, which are central to La guerre eschatologique, give us invaluable insights into alien worldviews, as well as those lurking in the subconscious background of our own minds. With an erudite and consistent turn of thought, Ryssen achieves a sharp understanding that allows him to criticize both the monotheists and the so-called Pagans. He rejects a certain breed of Traditionalism in order to uphold a more realistic, victory-prone worldview. La guerre eschatologique is a lesson in structured erudition, consistency, and sharp perception, beyond both the enemy’s deceptions and one’s all-too-easy rationalizations of inaction.

Abrahamic monotheisms—Linear, Progressive History

Readers here may be familiar with Kevin MacDonald’s view on Judaism as a group strategy. In contrast to Europeans—who evolved from hunter-gatherers to individualists with a strong sense of social reputation, but who give relatively little importance to the group—Jews have always been much more collectivist. They have been endowed with a potent sense of kinship, and they put less emphasis on reciprocity; indeed, Jews have a twofold morality, distinguishing between the in-group and out-groups. According to MacDonald, those differences are likely to be innate, selected by the evolutionary process. Cultural differences logically come later and must be understood with an eye towards their evolutionary roots.

Ryssen’s approach towards Judaism is different. He examines it by looking for core features in both ideas and actions, without bothering too much with human nature. French thought in general tends to focus on ideas, collectivity, and culture, whereas Anglo-Saxon thought puts a greater weight on individuals and the rooting of phenomena in nature. This difference can result in a denial of human nature in French literature (which is the main reason why I felt something was missing there and took up on learning English seriously). But even without a grounding in nature, Ryssen gives us a sharp understanding of the Jewish phenomenon.

Behind the curtain of rites and religion, he says, Judaism is essentially a political project. The Jewish God is the only God. Though the Creator of the whole world, He chose the Jews to play a crucial role in history. He promised them a Messiah, who is still to come. Significantly, for the Messiah to come, Jews must satisfy a number of conditions. The most important of those consists in establishing a global world peace: people “will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks” (Isaiah 2:4).

In practice, the project of world peace must come from a global government. Nations, families, and other social structures must be torn apart in order to prevent non-Jews from waging wars. Non-Jews should not even have the power to wage wars. Subjugating all nations–Israel aside–to global institutions and all individuals–Jews aside–to the culture of critique is not a sin in Jewish eschatology. To the contrary, it is, as Lloyd Blankfein might say, “doing God’s work.” The dispossession of nations by debt, their depletion by wars, as well as their destructions by sponsored revolutions—all these are merely means for establishing the great “world peace.” Then, once all are subjugated, the Messiah will come and be applauded by the whole Earth. Our world will then become a Garden of Eden, at least for Jews:
every believer will have ten thousands Pagan slaves to wash his feet and care for him. Duchesses and princesses will be maids and governesses for Jewish children, just as said in the book of Isaiah. (Isaac Bashevis Singer, quoted in La guerre)
Remember that “Pagan” here denotes all non-Jews, including Christians and Muslims.
Judaism has the immense advantage of giving Jews a huge motivation. It sparks enthusiasm. Jews live in an acute tension revolving around the Messiah, a tension made only greater as human action plays a determinant role for provoking his coming. As the Chosen People, Jews are endowed with a special mission on Earth and must do whatever it takes to turn the whole world into a state of “peace.” (As Ryssen says, this is the kind of “peace” that comes after all enemies are crushed.)

It is important to notice that Messianism is more important than religion itself. God is remote, and one may believe in Him or not. Messianism, on the other hand, applies to the world we live in. A culture revolving around it gives a particular turn of thought, a powerful habitus of seeing one’s group as special and project-bearing. More than God, the global project itself is sacred to the utmost. It may need centuries to be achieved, as well as extreme means, such as exterminating millions of people by regimes dedicated bringing about the culmination of History. The global project will win because it is written in history itself. It is a prophecy beyond doubt, a promise that will be fulfilled, provided that Jews work tirelessly. Individual Jews may believe in God or not: what matters is their cooperation and faith in the project itself. Thus eschatology plays a central role in Jewish identity, as well as their behavior and their activism and social betterment.

Ryssen then goes onto Christianity. With the notable exception of Zionist evangelism, the Christian religion features some peculiar traits that result in a very different attitude. The Apocalypse of John predicts great calamities for all peoples: a third of all animals will be destroyed; a third of global clear water will disappear; fire and storm shall fall upon the Earth, etc. More important, the Antichrist will come and take power over the Earth. His venue is a necessary condition for the Day of the Lord and the Last Judgment:
Don’t let anyone deceive you in proclaiming the arrival of that day, for it will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. (Thessalonians II, 2:3)
The Messiah has already revealed himself as Jesus Christ. He will come again, only after great calamities, predicted by both John and Paul. There is neither messianic tension nor hope in a terrestrial, world-changing victory. Our world shall be almost totally destroyed and taken over by evil before Jesus returns. And that course of events has been written a long time ago; no part of it depends on human action. Thus, while Jews are highly motivated to act and subjugate the world for a particular orientation, Christians are bred for passivity. They should merely resign and wait passively with the hope of a reward after death.

Before modern times, Jews were largely subjugated by the Catholic Church; nevertheless, that institution had, in its way, sanctified Jews by giving the “chosen people” a special status. Christians recognized the Ancient Testament in a kind of alliance with the New, whereas Jews had no obligation to recognize Christianity as anything more than heresy. This imbalance between Christianity and Judaism, as well as Christian resignation, resulted in a fatalism that is characteristic of so many Europeans. Christians should accept all the evils bestowed upon them; the Church itself should be destroyed; all such calamities are necessary conditions for the arrival of the Antichrist and the subsequent return of Jesus. In a nutshell, Christianity is a slave morality. Jews are meant to win; Christians are meant to lose.

A notable exception to this mentality can be found in evangelical Zionism. Rupert Murdoch, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and other Protestant neoconservatives share a vision, in which some Christians were “chosen” along with the Jews. Consequently, they must help them achieve the global state and world “peace.” As they give a prominent role to the Ancient Testament, these Christians share the Jews’ activist mindset and pursue the Great Israel without conditions. Their vision grants a much greater role to human action than Christian resignation, but dedicates all its productivity to the global Jewish project. Needless to say, from the point of view of anyone who wants to preserve nations—or any sanity in the world—evangelical Zionism is part of the enemy.

Ryssen then goes on to the last Abrahamic monotheism—Islam. That faith is quite dynamic and, though it is hard to guess from the sight of North Africans in Europe, leads to a much more promising outlook on the world than Christianity. Here Ryssen draws from the reading of Sheikh Imran Hosein, an Islamic scholar who has been an imam at the United Nations.

The Quran recognizes Jesus Christ as a prophet, sent by God after Moses; Jesus’ message is completed by the last of all prophets, Muhammad. The Quran also predicts Jesus’ subsequent return. Before the End Times, Satan will come to Earth, as embodied in a particular person, the Dajjal. Note that the Dajjal is not a mere metaphysical concept or abstraction: he will be a real person, descending from Jewish ancestry, able to speak well and gain influence over the majority of the world population. The Dajjal, it is added, will master usury and lead many people to apostasy. According to Hosein, who has read both the Bible and the Quran with a keen eye, the description of the Dajjal in the latter completes the depiction of the Antichrist in the former. The Quran, however, gives a more warlike and down-to-earth prediction: Christ himself will come back, kill the Dajjal by his own hands, then proclaim the End Times and the glory of God (Allah).

Hosein’s conclusion has an astounding resonance: the Muslims’ Antichrist is the same as the Christian Antichrist; and the Dajjal or Antichrist is the same person as the Jewish Messiah. In other words, the Messiah feverishly expected by the Jews is not the envoy of God but the embodiment of Satan himself. The Antichrist will build again the Temple of Jerusalem (which is today a mosque); will be worshipped there; and will re-establish ancient Jewish rites, such as blood sacrifices. Ryssen finds support for Hosein’s thesis in the writings of Catholic theologians, both traditional and modernist.

It seems as though all three Abrahamic monotheisms share an interesting convergence. Each of them points towards the same nexus: the venue of a particular person, marking a crucial step in History. Whether he is the Jewish Messiah, the Christian Antichrist, or the Islamic Dajjal, he will subjugate the majority of humans and start a new era.

At this point, the prophecies start to diverge: Jews believe that their messiah will inaugurate a period of infinite “peace,” with all humanity being their slaves; Muslims, on the other hand, believe that Christ will come back to Earth, kill the Antichrist, and order Christians to recognize Muhammad as the last prophet. Thus shall begin the Last Days.

Traditionalism: A Cyclical History and Pessimistic Outlook

Ryssen takes a surprisingly critical position towards the Traditional worldview. Mentioning Guénon, Evola, and a few others, he casts them as “men turning in circles.” Traditionalism, he says, is merely reversed progressivism. Instead of witnessing progress through history, we witness decline, following the Hindu doctrine of the Four Ages. Today would be the Kali-Yuga or Iron Age. It started out of a necessary course and must go on until its apocalyptic end. The world will have to go through cataclysms before some survivors discover the sacred again and start a new cycle, beginning with a new Golden Age.

Traditionalism, Ryssen says, is a kind of fatalism. It asserts the necessity of sinking into evil before being brought back to the Golden Age. Though it doesn’t promise rewards in the afterlife, it leads to the same pessimistic, passive resignation of Christianity. Evola’s Riding the Tiger, which searches for an “interior path,” merely allows one to live according to the principles of the Golden Age and the superior consciousness of the “initiated,” but also excludes any potential worldly improvement before the Iron Age ends.

It seems like Ryssen has found a real problem here. Many on the Right find various ways to justify inaction, sometimes going through articulate rationalizations. Christians should pray; traditionalists should meditate on the peaks; and so on. Such views become excuses for not doing anything. But if one wants to become a part of history, one must put aside grandiloquent fictions and go into the world. Just like missionary priests, Ryssen says, we should go and preach. Jews do so through their activism. National Socialists did so, too, and although they were defeated, they had a far greater influence than any breed of the Right that followed them.

Although I broadly agree with Ryssen’s criticism, it seems to be, at times, excessive, as if he is taking an extreme position as a way of proving a point. Evola was not an idle thinker, ensconced in comfort and safety while sniping at ideological foes, like so many figures of the contemporary intellectual landscape. Living consistently with his ideas, Evola was fearless enough to walk outside during the Allies’ bombing, which relegated him to a wheelchair, and he traveled to war-torn Vienna in order to examine the Masonic archives. The Baron also gave us a relevant, penetrating perspective on the contemporary world by gaining a critical distance from it, understanding our times vis-à-vis the “world of Tradition.” It’s one thing for Ryssen to encourage us to establish our own critical distance from Evola; it’s another to discard Evola’s intellectual achievement all together.

A New Faith for a New World

Hervé Ryssen is a realist. He focuses on the evidence, outlines the principles and thoughts of others, without himself adopting speculative schemes (such as the cyclical theory of history). La guerre eschatologique is clear and consistent from the first to the last page. Had it been translated into English, I would recommend you order the book immediately.

Jews have something we don’t. Maybe they are more tribalistic and collectivistic, but it can also be considered plausible that their grand project matters to them much more than their communities. The future “world peace,” where everyone will bend before the “chosen,” harbors a huge, irresistible motivation. Individual Jews have few qualms devoting their whole lives to something that will hasten the Messiah’s arrival—or however The End is conceived under secular guides—even if only their great-great-grandchildren may witness the event. They have a grand project and think long-term. The Chinese, another high-IQ group that is forming diasporas of growing importance, tend to think in the long term, too—long enough to ask countries in which they invest how they see themselves in 40 years. Contemporary Westerners have difficulty planning for the next 40 days.

We Identitarians need a project. We need a vision tailored for the globalized world under construction—a vision for a European future. We need faith in our project, faith in our irremediable goodness; and we need to discard the culture of resignation, just as much as we need to discard the culture of critique. We don’t need to dwell on the failure of “conservatives”—who’ve been transformed into either Zionist neocons or functionaries in Conservatism, Inc.—in order to perceive conservatives’ similarities with what Ryssen calls the “Calimero spirit”—the Right that merely complains about the Left instead of forging its own future. We need a culture of victory, a doctrine of victory, a faith and trust in our cause.

The Jewish project of “peace” is a crime, not only against Whites but against the whole of humanity. We Europeans, on the other hand, tend toward reasonableness, recognition of the Other, and the desire to be morally good. We should question what lessons we could glean from a people who think in a way that we find immoral, distasteful, and blood-thirsty. In this regard, Ryssen’s prose becomes impassioned, even bombastic:
One should never submit to the Jews. Never. Facing them, one must attack, attack and attack again. We need not only to be aggressive but even more aggressive than they are. Only so we can make them back down. If you aren’t finger-wagging the lobby, the lobby is crushing you underfoot, as Édouard Drumont noted. Actually, the moment you start to try exculpating yourself from the accusation of anti-Semitism, you have already lost… We don’t accept anymore the hypocrisy of Judeo-Zionists who accuse the Whites of what themselves do: plundering the Third World, altering the economy through speculation, waging wars in the Middle East. (La guerre eschatologique, 162)
In my opinion, Ryssen’s metaphysical analysis needs to be combined with Carl Schmitt’s concept of the enemy in order to deliver its full potential. We suffer from the replacement of White populations in Europe and North America, yet it is increasingly evident that we aren’t the only ones to suffer because of Jewish activism or the encroachment of a monoculture. After decades of growing illegal immigration in Europe, North African countries are subjugated by the same effect: Chinese immigrants come and take jobs, while a flux of Blacks lash out in the suburbs of Algiers. In Japan, the race-mixed Ariana Miyamoto has recently been promoted as Miss Japan in order to instruct the Japanese on their multiracial future: “I want to start a revolution. . . [I]n 100-200 years there will be very few pure Japanese left, so we have to start changing the way we think.”

The sufferings of Palestinians, the Islamic State, the “Arab Spring” and “color revolutions” in Eastern Europe, the great replacement of White peoples, hysterical SJWs, massive Wall Street Speculations, all down to that umpteenth deranged, degraded celebrity. Each of these contributes to the dissolution of families and nations; they cripple every culture or individual. Hence, I believe there is potential for building alliances. Even people we may not be fond of—or people we don’t like at all—are undergoing the same suffering that we are. As it means the systematic destruction of all cultures, nations, families, even the sexes, the messianic project should be considered a crime against humanity. Why should we be alone in opposing it?

In this line, Alain Soral has created a “faith front,” uniting Christians, Muslims and individual Jews, who wish to emancipate themselves from the infamous project they were born into. As a cultural Christian born into a secular family, I often feel closer to some traditionalist Muslims than the increasingly degenerate mainstream culture, where transgendering and gangsta-rap have become normal.

And we have been too quick in Europe and America to simply take the Old Testament as part of our culture and not look critically at the kind of mindset it depicts. How could God, if He existed, order the extermination of whole peoples, as he does in the Ancient Testament? Why should a benevolent and perfect Being reward systematic deception and the systematic destructions of the nations He created? If I were a believer, I would think that the Ancient Testament bears a heavy mark of Satan himself. Is not the true God much closer to the spirit of the heroic Christ?

As a man with an eye on masculinity–as Evola understood it–I would also, if forced to choose, favor Islam over postmodern degeneracy. Today, a sane man is blamed for simply existing. He must apologize for being “hetero-normative” and must support parasitic groups, whose members think of themselves as the avant-garde. By contrast, Islam respects the dignity of both sexes, gives the normal guy a responsible social role of pater familias, and connects everyone to the divine through a perennial book.
Those considerations made–and I am pretty sure some will accuse me of being an “Islamophile” or apologist—I am not advocating for a conversion to Islam. We should seek allies, recognize others, particularly vis-à-vis a common enemy—but without forgetting who we are. Most of all, we must overcome resignation, of either the Christian or Traditional variety, and understand ourselves as historical agents, who will make a new world, a better one than today’s.

Where Have all the White Men Gone?

via Koinen's Corner

Never mind the flowers...

Where have all the White men gone?
So sadly missing, every one...

Where were all the true White patriots -- the White men who should, throughout the 20th Century and right up to the present time, have stopped the Jews from instigating all the devastating wars that have resulted in the unnecessary death and maiming of so many of our young men, millions of other casualties, and unbearable misery and monetary costs?

Where did all the White men go -- the ones that could have prevented the Jews from perpetrating their 'holocaust' hoax; and the men who, had they stood their ground and done their duty, could have stopped the Jews, feminists, liberals, and politically-correct corruptors from causing our children to be taught all the other lies of history and false biology and genetics, and could have insured that they were taught the truth of racial reality?

Whatever happened to the White men who should have been there to stop the Jews from virtually taking over our news and entertainment media -- just a couple results of which have been the poisoning of our information stream and the shaping of opinions, and the overwhelming negrification of television programs and commercials, movies, and print advertising?

Where were all the strong White men who might not have caved in by allowing the Jews, with their money and lobbyists, to take over and control our political system, elections, and the government itself?  Who failed to stop those who let our once Eurocentric societies and systems come to be ruled by Jews, Negroes, mestizos, radical feminist women, and queers (President, judges, legislators, supremes, cabinet members, and top-level bureaucrats and functionaries)?

Whatever became of all the White men who should long ago have prevented, stopped, and reversed the non-White invasions of the White nations in Europe, North America, Australia, and elsewhere?  Where were the White men who should long ago have put an end to such things as the 'colored' Muslim flood of immigration into Europe, the invasion onto southern Europe's shores by the dark Africans coming across the Mediterranean by the boat-full, the Negro/Muslim assault on the English Channel tunnel in recent weeks, the mestizo invasion across our own southern border (both quasi-legal immigration and illegal-alien invasion), and churches importing Black African primitives into nearly all-White communities in places such as New England, Minnesota, and towns across the country?

Where did all the White men go who should have prevented our country from succumbing to the radical feminists and weak politicians who, at the behest of their Jew string-pullers, have allowed women to essentially take over so many male functions in our society -- jobs, governance, and more?

Where were the White men -- husbands, fathers, statesmen, and patriots -- who should have 'been there' to stop the Jewish-promoted normalization and popularization of homosexuality and transgenderism and their deviant so-called lifestyles?

Where were the White fathers who should have insisted on raising their sons as boys and young men instead of allowing Jews, radical feminists, schools, politically-correct fools, and misguided mothers to rob them of the essence of their masculinity; thus helping to turn them into liberal-minded wimps and future cuckolds?

Where were all the White men when America decided to let the Jews degrade/pervert/negrify our popular culture, and even our art and music?

Why were there no White men ready to prevent the sub-civilized Negroes and mestizos from taking over and literally destroying entire cities and whole areas in America?  Where were the White men needed to stop all the racial and political cowards when decisions were made to just abandon control of those once-White places to the colored mobs, and let them become off-limits ('no-go areas') for our people?

Where were all the good White men when they were needed to put a stop to all the deracinated, self-hating, guilt-ridden, and/or racially delusional Whites who brought about such things as 'affirmative action' and racial preferences for the Negroes; the men who could have prevented our once-great nation from honoring (actually, glorifying) Michael (a.k.a. 'Martin Luther') King, Jr. by naming a national holiday and countless city streets all over the country after that communist, plagiarist, and philanderer?

Whatever became of all the White men, and especially the husbands and fathers, who should have and could have prevented and stopped the onslaught of Black/Brown-on-White violent crime in America (and in other White countries as well, for example Sweden, England, France, etc.) -- crimes such as the raping of our wives and daughters, the assault and beatings of our sons, and the kidnapping, torture, and murder of our people?

For that matter, where were all the White men who could have stood strong and refused to effectively abandon our legal-justice system and necessary and proper policing in the face of the onslaught of Negro-thug crime?  Were they all replaced by White cuckolds who decided to let the uncivilized Negro mobs dictate the way we police and control criminality in America -- to get down on our knees and abandon our traditional law and order in deference to their demands for special treatment?

Where, oh where, were they when we needed them:

In earlier years:

  • leaders more concerned with building empires and taking money and political direction from the Jews?
  • excessively enamored of flappers, bootleg booze, and the 'Charleston?'
  • more admirably -- a lot of them working their rear ends off just to survive and raise their families?
In more recent times:
  • watching Negro-dominated football or basketball on TV?
  • sitting on their couches with their cold beers?
  • playing too much of the time with their latest 'big-boy-toys' instead of being responsible fathers and citizens?
  • spending too much time doing drugs, partying, or playing childish games with their buddies?
  • letting their women run the essential things (family, schools, communities) so they could go fishing, bowling, or to the drag races?
  • watching porn on their computers, or even just allowing themselves to become overwhelmed by our Jew-induced, prurient, over-sexualized culture?
  • busy supporting, via their attendance and patronage, all the sick Jewish media offerings on TV, in movies, at 'rock concerts,' etc.?
  • concentrating on their overeating or other overindulgences?
When will we ever learn?

Wherever they have been and whatever they have been up to, it's pretty clear that White men have all too often been missing in action when they were most needed, both in the past for going on a hundred years now, and right up until today.

Alex Jones vs. David Duke: Some Thoughts

via Counter-Currents

Alex Jones
For years Alex Jones has been criticized as a kosher spin artist who jumps through hoops to avoid talking about Zionism and Jewish power. He and his alt-media outfit Infowars has, since its inception, served to misdirect the sheeple into a myriad of dead-ends.

Jones’ modus operandi has always been to evoke elusive and shadowy phantoms to throw people off the trail of the Zionists.

Finally, to his credit, Jones went out on a limb and had David Duke, a veritable expert on the “Jewish question,” on his show. They went at it for more than two hours.

This show was more of an extended David Duke monologue than a real debate. Throughout the interview/debate, Jones said basically nothing to counter Duke on any point, and just kept repeating the platitude that “Jews are a diverse people” who are not monolithic.

Even that claim is false. Jews may differ with each other on inconsequential issues that have no real effect on the group’s overall well-being and status in society, and they do from time to time engage in infighting among their own. But when push comes to shove, all but a tiny handful of principled Jews – most of whom call themselves ‘ex’ Jews – side with their tribe and its corrupt leadership against the collective enemy who the rabbis have taught them to fear and hate, the Goyim.

David Duke
Even among the Jewish leadership there is disagreement, but only on the methods and strategies used to subjugate the Goyim, not on the ultimate end goal of global Jewish hegemony as prophesied in Jewish religious texts.

Now, while Duke clearly has a superior position to that of Jones, that is not to say that he doesn’t have shortcomings of his own. Critics could argue that Duke is engaged in one-track thinking where he searches out the Jewish factor in every issue, while downplaying and neglecting all other dynamics. Granted, Duke does do this. His characterization of all non-Jews involved in globalist institutions like the Federal Reserve, the CFR, the Bilderberg Group, etc., as well as in government and media power positions, as mere screens or front-men for Jews is somewhat simplistic, and errs on the side of being a reverse apologist for Gentile criminals.

Obviously not all wars and conflicts on earth have been started by Jews. Obviously not all corruption and evil in the world emanates from Jews. However, as Duke successfully argues on the show, Jewish supremacists are disproportionately powerful and have been the leading element behind a significant amount of corruption, wrongdoing and malfeasance, particularly over the past few centuries, and that should be open for discussion.

At the end of the interview Duke is challenged by one of Jones’ Jewish staff members Rob Jacobsen. Jacobsen’s retort to Duke’s naming and shaming of powerful Jews was to highlight the founding members of the US Federal Reserve Bank, a key globalist institution. Of the six founders (Nelson Aldrich; A. Piatt Andrew; Frank Vanderlip; Henry P. Norton; Paul Warburg; Benjamin Strong), only one, Paul Warburg, was Jewish. The rest are of Anglo stock.

This is a fair point. Clearly not every nefarious deed in history has been the sole calculation of Jews.

Duke’s position is that Jews sit atop the global financial and political power structure, and that the influential Gentiles involved are traitorous puppets. This is true to some extent, but Duke downplays the historic alliance between Jews and the Anglo-Saxons of England. Jewish banking dynasties and individual financiers made England their home base, and over the centuries began intermarrying with the British Gentile aristocracy. This is documented quite well in the book Warwolves of the Iron Cross: Albion and Zion United, edited and published by Veronica Clark. Prevailing English supremacist attitudes of the era were, in a sense, steered by Jewish supremacist financiers like Rothschild and Montiefore to secure resources and markets around the globe under the mandate of the British Empire. The Rothschild/Sassoon-inspired Opium Wars and the Rothschild/Oppenheimer/De Beers-driven South African gambit are two major examples of this phenomenon.

This Anglo-Jewish alliance seems to form the basis of today’s current Anglo-American-Israel nexus of power. It is the Anglo-derived countries (Britain, USA, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa under apartheid) that have been and are today the staunchest collaborators with and proponents and facilitators of Zionism and Jewish power in the world. Some of this cooperation stems from the legacy of Christian Zionism and British Israelite ideology. Like the Jewish supremacists, Anglo supremacists like Cecil Rhodes believed that the Albionist people were ‘chosen’ by God to inherit the earth. Writing in his last will and testament, Rhodes said of the English race:
I contend that we [the English] are the finest race in the world and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race. Just fancy those parts that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimens of human beings what an alteration there would be if they were brought under Anglo-Saxon influence… Why should we not form a secret society with but one object the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule for the recovery of the United States for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire.
These twin supremacist ideologies, Anglo and Judaic, form the crux of what Duke calls the ‘Zio Matrix of Power.’ Alex Jones’ impetus is to ignore the prominent and perhaps dominant role that Jews play in that equation and only focus on the Anglo Gentile element. He descends further into la-la land by promulgating phony Nazi conspiracies at every turn. He assuredly does this deliberately.

So, in a sense Duke is right that Jews are largely administrators on the global power hierarchy, but he is wrong to not include the Anglos as willing collaborators in this quest for global Anglo-Jewish hegemony. It could be argued that, since the fall of the British Empire, the prevailing Jewish-Zionist element has thrown their Anglo henchmen under the bus in pursuit of other agendas, but that does not negate the prominent Anglo contribution to many of these nefarious globalist and imperialist schemes, including establishing the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913 which appears to have been a joint Anglo-Jewish venture.

Another criticism leveled against those who promote the strictly Jewish conspiracy is that they sometimes engage in sloppy research and unempirical argumentation. For instance, they will label anyone in a position of influence with a remotely Jewish-sounding name a Jew without any real research or documentation to back it. This methodology is flawed because Jewish-sounding names that end in Stein, Rosen, Berg, etc., are of German origin. For example, the chief ideologue for the Nazis was a man named Alfred Rosenberg. Was he Jewish? On top of that, Jews often adopt Gentile names so it’s sometimes impossible to tell from the name alone. Moreover, they’ll assume that any Jew in any position of power is working for the larger Jewish interest, when that is not always the case, and certainly requires additional evidence. Even David Duke, who is usually more scholarly than your average Internet sleuth, engages in some of this.

Kevin Macdonald’s scholarly, empirical approach to demonstrating what constitutes a “Jewish” movement as opposed to a movement that has some individual Jews in it warrants more praise than the lackluster guesswork of Internet-based pundits.

As far as what David Duke proffered on the Alex Jones show, even if only 50% of what he said about Jewish-Zionist intrigue is true, that is bad enough. It is the unreserved hypocrisy emanating from Organized Jewry, their holier-than-thou attitude and their attempts to scuttle open debate about these issues that irks me more than anything.

Obviously not all Jews are “bad” and not all of the world’s problems can be laid at their feet. But with that said, it must be recognized that powerful Jews who adhere to a supremacist and messianic ideology have played a significant role in creating and exacerbating many terrible calamities throughout history in pursuit of their own sectarian ends. And they continue to occupy a large seat, if not the largest seat, at the table of world power.

Indigenous Hawaiian Racial Nationalism and White Racial Nationalism

via Western Spring

A recent Internet column on an American conservative site rails against a move to give Native Hawaiians a vote on their self-determination.
I disagree strongly with those who would deny the Native Hawaiians this right as a distinct people. Of course, my position is consistent with and rooted in my belief in racial nationalism, which, in my case, since I’m White, is particularized as White Nationalism.

In other words, I agree with the Native Hawaiians and with all distinct peoples who want to continue to exist and not be blended away, and to their right to practice self-determination.

You may prefer the term “assimilated,” to blended away, but the point is the same.  The blending of genetically distinct people into a Tan Everyman is what the blenders want.  They don’t want distinct races, distinct religions, or distinct nations.

White Nationalists, on the other hand, and non-Whites with similar beliefs (some Native Americans, for example), don’t want to be blended away. They want to stop the genocide of their people and continue to exist as pure as possible for who and what they are, and to have their own nations, their own cultures, and their own religious beliefs and they want to live among their own kind with no genetic, cultural, or religious distortions that occur when genetically different peoples are forced to live together.

White nations for Whites; Black nations for Blacks and so forth. And, blended nations for those who prefer to live that way.  In other words, let people live as they want and not force either a blended or a nationalist ideology on anyone. Isn’t it obvious that forcing genetically different peoples together just doesn’t work?

For example, White police in Black communities bring in White sensibilities and genetically determined ways of acting and reacting and this leads to the shooting of many Blacks.  Wouldn’t it be better to have Black cops in Black areas? The different races are not the same.  Trying to pretend they are, is causing a lot of harm. Here, again, are two important and germane statements that are worth remembering:
“[T]he varieties of mankind are so different that similar differences found in any other animals would warrant their classification in different species, if not in different genera.” –Charles Darwin

“Living organisms must necessarily compete, for food, for mates and for living space, especially with other members of their own species [i.e. those they can breed with]. They must avoid predators and other dangers. For all these various reasons, some will leave more offspring than others, and it is the genetic characteristics of such preferred replicators which will be passed on preferentially to succeeding generations.  This is the essence of natural selection.” — Francis Crick (Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of the shape of DNA)
In other words, we Whites are competing with other “races” of humans for our survival and continued existence, just as the Neanderthals competed with modern humans. The Neanderthals lost their struggle for survival and existence because they didn’t make enough more of themselves and they interbred with modern humans and disappeared from history. Don’t let this happen to you or yours. The Native Hawaiians are also competing for their survival. Many, if not most, Native Hawaiians are now mixed race. Those who are pure race want to reverse this, and this is part of what is going on in Hawaii. If the pure Hawaiians are allowed to call the shots, and if things go as they want, it is possible that they’ll slowly breed out non-Hawaiian genes and at some future date become a pure race once again.

In thinking along these lines, it is important to look at the genetic struggle, not just from our everyday view of the world around us but also, and more importantly, from the DNA Code perspective.  It is the DNA Code that is one with each of us and which is complete in every cell of our body that has a nucleus that must be protected from being wiped out.  This DNA Code that makes us, us, is passed on to our children but only if we mate with our fellow Whites.  If we miscegenate the DNA Code for Whiteness is corrupted and the White chain is broken and our family line begins turning non-White. I call this devolution–a return to an earlier type of human.  It can even be a genetic return to Africa without ever going there physically.

I call this competition that is especially important within groups that can breed with each other, the  Gene Wars, and the Gene Wars are eternal and are being waged in all living things including in humans as the genes for one characteristic struggle for expression and expansion against genes for alternatives of those characteristics.  When Whites miscegenate, they lose the gene wars.  Their children and their family lines become non-White. This is their personal and their family’s suicidal genocide. To remain White we must be a separate people and we must isolate ourselves as best as possible from gene flow from non-Whites.