Aug 21, 2015

Civic Nationalism: Separation of Ethnicity from Identity in an Effort to Enable White Genocide

via Counter-Currents

Languages, peoples and ethnopolitical
divisions of Europe 1815-1914

Separation of Ethnicity from Civic Identity

Western nation-states should be based on civic values alone, individual rights, private property, and equality under the law, without any reference to ethnicity. This is one of the most powerful contemporary tenets. Europeans have been made to believe that a state that identifies its citizens in ethnic terms cannot be for liberty. Just as a liberal state is said to be one in which religious affiliations are decided by private individuals, and that the state should not “impose” any religious beliefs on its citizens, cultural Marxists have effectively imprinted on the minds of Europeans the notion that a nation-state can be true to liberal values only when the identity of its citizens are conceived without any collective reference to their ethnic identity. Ethnicity should be a matter of individual choice and the state has no business identifying the state with any ethnicity.

The only political/collective identity a liberal state can encourage among its citizens is civic, that is, the identity of being a member of a nation state where everyone regardless of race, sex, and religious orientation is afforded the same rights under the law. It is true that, since the nineteenth century, liberals have recognized civic rights for minorities already established inside the nations of Europe. What has transpired in the last few decades goes well beyond this. We are now being told that liberalism requires civic nations to be thoroughly diversified in order to fulfill the ideals of a nation that is truly civic. In other words, there is a mandate accepted by all mainstream political parties and all political theorists that Western nations must cease to be populated by citizens belonging to one race or a majority race, with a culture that reflects the history and traditions of this race. The diversification of the citizenry along both racial and cultural lines is now hailed as the liberally progressive thing to do. Those who oppose mass immigration in the name of preserving their age-old ethnocultural characterare automatically classified as illiberal. You can criticize immigration on economic grounds but never for the sake of maintaining the ethnic character of your nation.

How did we reach this position, from recognition of the individual rights of minorities to widespread consensus among current elites that liberalism demands the diversification of Western nations through mass immigration?

The Intellectual Proponents of Civic Nationalism

Be it noted that the nations states of western Europe, as will be briefly shown below, actually emerged as civic nations in conscious celebration and awareness of their millennial ethnic heritage. So why did liberal theorists come to accept the argument that Western nations, to be truly civic, cannot be based on ethnicity? It seems to me that this identification of Western nations with civic identities cannot be understood apart from the very successful theoretical efforts of Hans Kohn, Karl Deutsch, Ernest Gellner, and Eric Hobsbawm against any notion that Western nations were rooted in primordial ethnic identities. According to Azar Gat, an Israelite whose book Nations: The Long History and Deep Roots of Political Ethnicity and Nationalism (2013) I will be examining below, these authors were

all Jewish immigrant refugees from central Europe. . . . All of them experienced changing identities and excruciating questions of self-identity at the time of the most extreme, violent and unsettling eruptions. It was only natural that they reacted against all this.[1]

In other words, feeling excluded from nation states with strong ethnic identities in central Europe, they reacted by formulating the argument that the nation states of western Europe were inherently intended to be civic only.

None of these writers denied that people in the premodern era had a sense of communal kin affinities within their respective tribes or localities. Their focus was on the modern nation states of Europe, and their argument was that these nation states, and the corresponding ideology of nationalism, were “artificial historical constructs,” “invented traditions,” designed by political elites interested in forging powerful territorial states among previously scattered and loosely related rural communities lacking a sense of national-ethnic identity. The claim that European nations contain a strong ethnic core was not factual but an ideological weapon employed by state-elites seeking to create states with mass appeal, a national infrastructure, official languages, centralized taxation, national currency and laws, through the modern era, culminating in the nineteenth century. The exhortations of nationalists in the 19th and 20th centuries about the kin-ethnic roots of their nations were mere rhetorical ploys to induce in the masses support for elite efforts at extending their power nationally over an otherwise disparate, never ethnically conscious, population consisting of multiple dialects, ancestries and local loyalties.

With the experience of World War I and II, both within liberalism and Marxism, this critique of nationalism turned into a concerted critique of ethnic nationalism, which came to be associated with German militarism in WW I and Fascism thereafter. While Marxists, such as Hobsbawm, started advocating working class internationalism, liberal theorists such as Kohn, Deutsch, and Gellner began to formulate a strictly civic form of nationalism, while discrediting ethnic nationalism as both an artificial construct and as the source, in the words of Hobsbawm, of “demotic xenophobia and chauvinism” with no basis in reality.

Obviously, there were other intellectual currents percolating through the West, Frankfurt School ideas, civil rights in the United State, feminism, postmodernism, and, not to be underestimated, the pressure from corporations for cheap immigrant labor and consumer demand, coinciding and reinforcing each other in a grand effort to produce a totally new form of Western identity against the perceived dominance of European patriarchs. Much has been written about these developments, but the writings of the progenitors of liberal or civic nationalism have been neglected. This subject deserves far more than I am offering here. Suffice it to say that in Western countries civic nationalism has become the only accepted form of national identity. The meaning of civic nationalism is neatly captured in the first sentence of the Wikipedia entry:

Civic nationalism is a kind of nationalism identified by political philosophers who believe in a non-xenophobic form of nationalism compatible with values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights.

According to Hans Kohn, Western nation-states were civic from their beginning in the late eighteenth century. “Illiberal ethnic nationalism” was a phenomenon of Eastern Europe, Russia, and Fascism, places that hyped up the ethnic character of the people while suppressing individual rights.

Civic nationalism came out of western-north European countries where a solid middle class had developed; the members of this class were inclined to a conception of the state as a voluntary association of individual wills. This was a progressive class, or so argued Kohn, in wanting a form of citizenship based on laws originating out of the free reasoning of individuals; this class did not like states that impose an ethnocultural identity on its members. Ethnic nationalism, by contrast, come out of cultures lacking a middle class, driven by regressive classes suspicious of free willing individuals, and preferring states that impose on their people an irrational sense of ethnic collective identity inspired by emotions rather than by factual historical realities.

Celebrating the Ethnicity of Others while Accusing Europeans of Ethnocentrism

These ideas resonated greatly in the aftermath of WWII. The term “ethnicity” itself came to be defined in strictly cultural terms without any reference to race or biological distinctions among different groups. Every textbook in the social sciences in the 1950s and after came to endorse this culturalist definition. Combined with this definition academics added an instrumental and/or functionalist definition, according to which ethnic identification was a superstructural phenomenon behind which stood the real interests of ruling classes consolidating their power, or the functional requirements of a national system of education, administration, war-making, and overall modernization. Here is what Jonathan Hall says about the usage of ethnicity:
In the wake of the Second World War — and more particularly the Holocaust — the motives for treating ethnic identity as a valid area of research were discredited…The anthropological response to the crisis of scholarship occasioned by the Second World War was the ‘instrumentalist’ approach to ethnicity which proclaimed that ethnic identity was a guise adopted by interest groups to conceal aims that were more properly political or economic.[2]
But Jonathan Hall then notes that this cultural-instrumental approach also came to be seen, from the 1970s on, as inadequate in not being able to account for numerous post WWII national liberation movements across the world that were self-consciously identifying themselves along blood lines and viciously fighting for their “ancestral territories.” What Hall leaves out, and should be kept in mind as we read this next passage, is that social scientists were starting to view ethno-kin identities in the non-Western world as progressive, not as fixed identities but as “negotiable” identities, in reference to “oppressed minorities” and without reference to genetic traits.
Yet the ethnic resurgences of the 1970s and 1980s presented a clear challenge to the validity of the instrumentalist approach; this prompted a renewed anthropological interest in the subject of ethnic identity. . . . Current research tends to grant at least an intersubjective reality to ethnic identity, though it differs from pre-war scholarship on a number of important points. Firstly, it stresses that the ethnic group is not a biological group but a social group, distinguished from other collectivities by its subscription to a putative myth of shared descent and kinship and by its association with a ‘primordial’ territory. Secondly, it rejects the nineteenth-century view of ethnic groups as static, monolithic categories with impermeable boundaries for a less restrictive model which recognises the dynamic, negotiable and situationally constructed nature of ethnicity. Finally, it questions the notion that ethnic identity is primarily constituted by either genetic traits, language, religion or even common cultural forms. While all of these attributes may act as important symbols of ethnic identity, they really only serve to bolster an identity that is ultimately constructed through written and spoken discourse.[3]
Clearly, this passage admits that “a putative myth of shared descent and kinship” and “primordial territory” may play a role in the self-identification of groups, but then proposes that ethnicity is never static but dynamic and “situationally constructed,” and, in the end, decides that it is “ultimately constructed” through discourses. This is actually the state of the research on ethnicity today — a postmodern mishmash seemingly playing multiple sides yet “ultimately” defining ethnicity in discursive terms very similar to Hans Kohn’s civic definition, while avoiding any substantive biological references. Hall does not reveal the political considerations underlying this renewed emphasis on ethnic kinship. He assumes it was a purely scholastic affair conducted by university professors pursuing the truth. He ignores the growing voices both for the ethnic authenticity of non-European minorities and for the inauthentic character of Western civic nations. Just as the ethnic identities of non-Europeans were being heralded as liberating and progressive, the notion that Western nations were civic since the 18th century, or earlier, was increasingly subject to criticism due to their “discriminatory” treatment of minorities inside their borders, their imperial designs, and their “white only” immigration policies, which pointed to the presence of ethnic discrimination and thus the reality of ethnicity.

Of course, this is not quite how the revival of interest in ethnicity was interpreted by its proponents. There is no denying either that the idea that Western nations were simply civic just seemed out of touch with reality, regardless of one’s political intentions. The leading critic of the concept of civic nationalism was Anthony Smith, starting with his book, The Ethnic Origins of Nations, and multiple publications since. His main contention was that modern nations were not created ex nihilo on the basis of civic values alone or because the ruling elites wanted to augment their authority through modern infrastructures; rather, nation states were created on the basis of pre-existing ancestral ties and sense of historical continuity. A sense of nationhood predated the modern era and could be traced as far back as ancient times and throughout the world. The nations of Europe were not mere “inventions” or functional requirements of modernity, but were factually rooted in the past, in common myths of descent. While the rise of modern industry and modern bureaucracies allowed for the materialization of nation-states in Europe, these nations were primordially based on a population with a collective sense of kinship.

Smith’s work was undoubtedly fruitful in challenging the notion that Western nations were inherently civic. Yet, for all this, Smith’s concept of ethnicity was more about the importance of past communities, a rough territory, a language, artistic styles, myths and symbols, states of mind, than about emphasizing any form of identity along blood lines — actual common lineage and consanguinity. To be sure, an ethnic group cannot be categorized as a race, but his concept of ethnicity followed the mandated social science prohibition against the inclusion of biological references, physical characteristics, skin color, body shape, and other features that have a racial dimension. Ethnicity was defined by Smith in terms of cultural traits, linguistic, historical and territorial traits, common mythology and folkways.

Meanwhile, as Smith was busy writing historical works, and without his full awareness, an avalanche of ethnically oriented programs, hundreds of conferences and academics were eagerly affirming the value of ethnicity, but only in relation to “oppressed” groups. Writing about this would require a separate paper. Perhaps the best way to sum up our current obsession with ethnic talk is to look at the mission statements of Ethnic Studies programs or departments. These are very vocal in claiming that race is a reality of the West that cannot be ignored because racism has been and continues to be one of the “most powerful social and cultural forces in American society and in modernity at large.”

Azar Gat’s Politically Correct Sociobiological Perspective

There is one current writer cited earlier, Azar Gat, Professor of Political Science at Tel Aviv University, who does appear to offer a strong biological conception of ethnicity, in his book Nations: The Long History and Deep Roots of Political Ethnicity and Nationalism.

This book is said to be written from a “sociobiological perspective”. The opening chapters and the conclusion definitely state that nations “are rooted in primordial human sentiments of kin-culture affinity, solidarity, and mutual cooperation, evolutionarily engraved in human nature.”[4] Agreeing with “much” of what Smith says, he still finds wanting his lack of emphasis on human nature, evolutionary theory, and unwillingness to break away from a culture-oriented perspective. He writes that “ethnicity is by far the most important factor” in national identity and that through history nations “overwhelmingly correlate with and relate to shared kin-culture traits.”[5] Welcoming the application of evolutionary theory to explain human behavior, he says:
Its [sociobiology] relevance to our subject can be summarized as follows: people tend to prefer closer kin, who share more genes with them, to more remote kin or ‘strangers’. As a propensity, this is not necessarily conscious.[6]
But it soon becomes apparent that Gat (despite his correct recognition that humans have strong genetic dispositions and that preference for one’s kin is an evolutionary selected behavior, rather than an “irrational” “epiphenomenon of something else”) is not willing to recognize, or even say anything about the rational ethnic dispositions of Europeans, but actually takes it as given that Europeans inhabit nations dedicated to the creation of new immigrant ethnic identities under the umbrella of a common culture that cannot but be defined in civic terms. Gat is quite effective in documenting the importance of kin-ethnic attachments and common culture for premodern states, including empires, origins of modern European states and non-European states.

Yet, when it comes to the current Western nations experiencing mass immigration, it never occurs to Gat to consider the ancestral attachments and kin-relatedness of the peoples who have inhabited these lands the longest and transformed them into modern nations. He simply accepts without question the experience of mass immigration as if it were a natural occurrence consistent with the ethnic histories of Western nations. He proposes a new definition of ethnicity to deal with the reality of mass immigration, which is inconsistent with his sociobiological perspective. He proposes indeed an immigrant definition of ethnicity, by indicating that, while his definition of ethnicity is not restricted to culture, it views ethnicity “as an ongoing process” not exclusive to one ethnicity but capable of explaining the formation of “immigrant states” and how such states “habitually integrate new comers into a broad cultural and kin community.”[7]

There is no space here to go over some of the things he says about Spain, France, Britain, and Canada. Highlighting what he says about the United States and Europe generally should suffice to illustrate his rather civic-oriented and ultimately multiculturalist approach when it comes to current European ethnic identity. Although Gat insists that American nationhood is not founded on liberal propositions alone, and that “there exists a very distinct American culture, widely shared by the large majority . . . common American-English language and all-pervasive folkways . . . entertainment industry, Hollywood, and television,”[8] with a strong Anglo-Protestant lineage, he acquiesces to a cultural definition of America in viewing American ethnicity as a changing reality, not only with respect to diverse European immigrants, but with respect to post-1965 immigration policies, which he sees as a natural continuation of earlier trends.

My point is not to deny that American ethnicity is changing but to ask why he refuses say a word about “the deep human preferences toward one’s own”[9] that Europeans Americans may feel in the face of mass immigration since 1965 from non-Europeans nations. Or, if he thinks European Americans are satisfied with mass Mexican immigration, why is that the case, and does it mean, therefore, that American nationality is indeed strictly cultural? Or, could it be that Gat is unaware of the wider political realities shaping the way we think about ethnicity, and that European peoples, and only European peoples, are prohibited from affirming their ethnicity in the face of a system of mass immigration imposed across the Western world, and that social scientists such as Gat have been incentivized to go along with the program, unless they are willing to risk their careers?

Gat’s effort to argue that America is a nation with an immigrant identity carries weight when one considers the pre-1965 immigration period, which, after difficult racial tensions resulting from the high levels of immigration from diverse European nations in the 19th and early 20th century, became a well united nation by the 1950s, except for its non-European inhabitants, Africans and Natives. But he does not consider whether this immigrant identity was successfully nurtured due to the compatible ethno-European heritages of most immigrants. Instead, he takes it as given that America’s post-1965 immigration patterns are the same as before, writing that “the Latino immigration is not fundamentally different from earlier waves of immigration in its gradual acculturation.”[10] While he is aware of challenges to this argument, he thinks he can emphasize America’s ethnic immigrant identity simply by appealing to the common usage of the English language, ignoring how common Spanish is becoming in many localities across the United States and how whites exhibit implicit patterns of race separation in their choice of residential areas to raise their families and educate their children, notwithstanding their explicit claims about the benefits of diversity.

Having painted the United States as a nation with a uniquely immigrant ethnicity, he seems at a loss trying to account for the importance of ethnic identities in current European nations and Canada. “The phenomenon of mass immigration has transformed the map of identities in Western countries in recent decades.”[11] How and why are current Europeans allowing the millennial ethnic identities grounding the formation of their nations states to be radically diluted if ethnic nationalism is truly, in the words of Gat, “one of the strongest forces in history”? How did they overcame their genetic predisposition to have a preference for their own, and why is Gat taking mass immigration as if it were a natural process or somehow part and parcel of Europe’s national identity without even asking a question ? An honest sociobiological approach would have required such questions, but Gat only poses cultural Marxist questions to the effect that “not a few immigrants and their descendants are in fact integrating, culturally and socially, well enough for them to be described as ‘joining the nation.'”[12] But how are the original ethnic nationalities of Europe integrating with the new immigrants? If ethnic identity is so important why are Europeans expected to accept, in his words, a “weakening connection”[13] between their nation state and their ethnocultural heritage? In the end, Gat has no choice but to shift his take on ethnic identity in the direction of the liberal values Hans Kohn equated with Western nationalism; more than this, he has no choice but to endorse a liberal multicultural definition of Western identity.

He thinks a good indication in Europe of a common national culture is the recent “retreat” from multiculturalism “which has led to a reemphasizing in many Western countries of the official connection between (majority) culture and polity”[14] but he never brings up any shared aims between immigrants, a majority culture, and the state. The one factor he can muster in the name of a common immigrant culture, to repeat, is the fact that immigrants are learning the language of the immigrant nations. How about patriotic attachments to past European symbols, folk-songs, legendary historical figures, food, that is, shared traits that can be categorized in ethnic-kin terms? Not a word. Instead we get the usual attitude that things must be working since there is no civil war, immigrants are trying to be successful economically and educate their children. The only common culture that seems to be tying together Western immigration is cultural Marxism, an ideology imposed from above, without democratic consent, by bureaucratic elites convinced that diversity is an improvement and that Europeans are racist unless they interbreed with millions of non-whites. He regularly cites Will Kymlicka, calling him “the chief theorist of liberal multiculturalism” in a sympathetic manner, without ever bringing to attention Kymlicka’s open call for an end to any intrinsic links between the nation states of Europe and any form of ethnicity that can be called “European.” Is it not quite revealing that the same author who writes a book dedicated to a sociobiological approach on the ethnic roots of nations ends up sympathizing with the foremost advocate of multiracialism in the West?


The sensible response one should reach on examining the debate between civic and ethnic nationalism is that the historical research validates the idea that European nation-states were founded around a strong ethnic core even if there were minorities co-existing with majorities. The states of Western Europe developed liberal civic institutions within the framework of this ethnic core. Sociobiological research further supports the natural inclination of humans to have a preference for their own kin. This biologically based research demonstrates that humans cannot be abstracted from an ethnic collective. The claim that such a preference is an irrational disposition imposed from above by regressive elites is false. Ethnocentrism is a rationally driven disposition consistent with civic freedoms. Civic freedoms are consistent with a collective sense of kin-culture. What is not consistent with rationally based research, with individual rational decision making, and with our collective kin-dispositions, are the claims that Western nations were civic in origins and the current enforcement of mass immigration without allowance of open rational debate.


1. Azar Gat, Nations: The Long History and Deep Roots of Political Ethnicity and Nationalism, 2013: 16
2. Jonathan Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge University Press, 1997:1
3. Ibid. 2
4. Gat: 380
5. Ibid. 24
6. Ibid. 27
7. Ibid. 20
8. Ibid. 271
9. Ibid. 386
10. Ibid. 276
11. Ibid. 349
12. Ibid. 349
13. Ibid. 350
14. Ibid. 350

Can Donald Trump Be 'Uncucked' to Oppose White Genocide?

via BUGS

Donald Trump’s candidacy has produced varying reactions from opponents of White Genocide, ranging from feverishly supportive to sullenly cynical.

Here’s an abridged exchange from another site that plays on the term “cuckservative”:
Trump can uncuck himself any time by saying he is 1000% opposed to the White Genocide that’s being carried out by massive third-world immigration and forced assimilation in all White countries.
It may appear that Trump has done more in a very short time than BUGSers have done in a considerably longer time to open up the public arena to more open expression of pro-White views.
But the opening that Trump seems to be creating may prove to be ephemeral, or limited in its scope (if Trump is elected and by the end of his second term has come even close to speaking the phrase “White Genocide,” it will be only because of the hard work of Bob Whitaker and the worker bees at BUGS!

The lasting effect of Trump is very much still in doubt, but the spreading of the terms “anti-white” and “White Genocide” and the other STOP WHITE GENOCIDE memes  is beginning to have the appearance of being inexorable.

The term “anti-White” is rocketing now in the mainstream…it is after all a term that both linguistically and socially/politically has been absolutely needed…it fills a gigantic hole, and fills it perfectly…and the term “White Genocide” is also appearing to be irresistible (imagine yourself a blogger or a newsperson and ask yourself how would you NOT want to write about such a term!)

White Genocide is discussed in these recent articles in the NY TimesThe Atlantic, and the Globe and Mail.

Last Letters Home from Kamikaze Pilots

via Alternative Right

Lately, I have been reading The Divine Wind, a book which details the kamikaze campaign launched by the Japanese air force during the waning months of World War II.

Kamikaze literally translates to "divine wind"; the word obtains its origin from a legend of two mighty typhoons which were ostensibly sent by the gods to protect Japan from Mongol invasions in the thirteenth century. Of course the definition of the term with which we're most familiar is the one synonymous with "suicide pilot."

From late 1944 onward, many young Japanese men were willing to give their all, literally, in an effort to repel the encroaching enemy from invading their homeland. It was believed – it was fervently hoped against hope – that such missions would rescue the Empire of Nippon from ignominious defeat and inglorious ruin.

Kamikaze pilots attempted to collide their planes into American aircraft carriers, with an eye toward inflicting as much damage as possible. The "Yanks," like most Westerners, were astonished and appalled by these fierce and relentless attacks; something about the very notion of deliberately causing one's own fiery death – that is, not just being willing risk one's life, as is common in wartime, but striving to die on purpose – simply did not compute in the Occidental mind. Suicide, after all, has long been understood to be a sin against nature, forbidden by divine authority ("O, that the Everlasting had not fixed his canon 'gainst self-slaughter!"); much as we sometimes chafed against life, we still generally held it our duty to go on until we no longer could.

For the Japanese, however, there was absolutely no shame in giving one's life for Emperor and country. Such was in fact held to be the most glorious of destinies. The pilots manning these planes were generally quite young; in choosing to become kamikazes, they made a conscious decision to sacrifice not only their immediate lives, but also the futures that surely lay ahead of them. Yet for all that, they appeared to have few misgivings, taking patent pride in their role as "human bombs," and never shrinking from their targets.

What was going through their heads during the crucial days leading up to their terminal sorties? Did they have any doubt that the culmination of their existence was to crash and burn on a chunk of metal in the middle of the bleak Pacific ocean? These questions should fascinate and enthrall everyone contemplating the notion of sacrifice for a greater good: namely, of protecting and defending a worthy civilization from infiltration, assault, and targeted destruction.

The most compelling section of The Divine Wind is the last chapter, which includes actual letters that kamikaze pilots sent home to their parents prior to launching their final missions. I have selected excerpts from five of these letters, and committed them to audio. One can see that these men range widely in personality and belief; one of them even sounds quite cynical, attacking "wily politicians" and expressing skepticism in the myth of "the purity of (his) ancestors," and "feeling a strong attachment" to life, earnestly asking, "Is that a weakness on my part?"

Others, however, are more uncomplicatedly devout in their zeal. "Please congratulate me," one writes. "I have been given a splendid opportunity to die... I wish that I could be born seven times, each time to smite the enemy!"

Say it Isn't so: Obummer Is Right?

via traditionalRIGHT

Real conservatives hate war. War is the most expensive activity the state can engage in. Its outcome is always uncertain. Only revolution is a more powerful agent of social and cultural change, change conservatives exist to oppose (and war may be a prelude to revolution). Large standing armies are both an enormous expense and a threat to the rule of law. No wonder Edmund Burke, when Parliament was debating a possible war in the Low Countries, exclaimed, “A war for Antwerp? A war for a chamber pot!”

President Obama was thus right in both senses of the word when he said on August 5th of his deal with Iran, “Let’s not mince words: The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy and some sort of war–maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon.”

The President was right because, in the end, we have two choices: a deal with Iran, or war with Iran. There is no evidence we could negotiate a better deal than the one the Obama Administration got. All the (well-financed) debate you will hear and read over specific terms of the deal are irrelevant. If we reject it, for whatever reason, we are on course for yet another war in the Middle East.

If Congress rejects the Iran deal, Iran will see no path to removal of the economic sanctions that hurt not just the regime but the Iranian people. The Iranian public will agree with the radicals that American enmity is implacable. The regime and the people will come together in favor of a greatly expanded nuclear program, one that will include numerous nuclear weapons and delivery systems for them. They will be able to purchase both the know-how and the systems themselves from Noth Korea, which has them now and would probably be happy to sell them tomorrow. That could reduce Iran’s “break-out time” to weeks.

Given the (unwise) statements by American political leaders across the spectrum, including President Obama, that the U.S. will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, such action on Iran’s part would mean war. None of our leaders has the courage to say that an Iranian bomb is no threat to the U.S. and that we are not going to start yet another war on behalf of a certain small Middle Eastern country. The current leadership of that country and its agents here are always happy to fight to the last American soldier.

Some voices in Washington will argue that a war with Iran would be a naval and air war, which we could win easily at small cost. That assumes the Iranians are stupid enough to play our game. I doubt they are. We have thousands of American troops within easy reach of Iran, in Iraq and Afghanistan. One phone call from Tehran to the Shiite Iraqi militias would be enough to round up the roughly 3000 American soldiers in Iraq tomorrow and turn them into hostages. American troops in Afghanistan would be a longer reach, but one that would be easy enough if Iran were to make a deal with the Taliban, which so far it has fought against. An alliance with a lesser enemy against a greater is an old strategic gambit. The world’s oil supply would be another American hostage: plan on oil at $300 a barrel if you can get it.

President 0bama’s deal with Iran is right diplomatically and strategically. It is also on the right politically, i.e., it is conservative. No real conservative can want another Middle Eastern war, especially after we have lost two. That may point to the likely outcome of a third. The Pentagon has learned nothing from its failures.

Meanwhile, Jeb Bush just announced that he has learned nothing from his dumb brother’s failures and would like to repeat them. According to the August 12th Cleveland Plain Dealer, Jeb said he would fight ISIS in Syria by uniting
the moderate forces fighting IS in that country and for U.S. troops to “back them up as one force.”
“And we should back that force up all the way through — not just in taking the fight to the enemy, but in helping them form a stable, moderate government.”
Why not? It worked so well in Iraq.

Ironically, Jeb made his modest proposal of turning Syria into Switzerland in a speech attacking Hillary, who is equally enthusiastic about “humanitarian intervention”.

Obama has stayed out of Syria, except for the usual bombing, and out of other Middle Eastern wars, at least after the debacle in Libya. Perhaps he learned from that blunder. Bush, Clinton et. al. seem incapable of learning, even from many blunders. At least when it comes to questions of peace or war, Obama is the real conservative.

Traditionalist Parties: Reasons

via TradYouth

“Traditionalism” broadly represents faith, family, kinship, fertility, honor, respect, honesty, work ethic, and duty. These are the pillars of a healthy society and even civilization itself. These are the pillars of advanced civilization, stimulating harmony and prosperity wherever they’re upheld. Today, however, traditional and family values are stigmatized as “outdated” and “undeveloped” by the biased media and political elites in the Western world.

Present-day Western culture forcefully frames these values with so much disgust as antiquated bigotry to cure and eradicate. These same tactics that were used by European colonialists to obliterate Third World traditional communities and drive them into submission and poverty are today fiercely imposed by the American society on itself, a fashion that also seems to soar in popularity at Euro-Atlantic countries. The final stage in the global advance of the colonial capitalist oligarchs is the reverse colonization of and cultural destruction of the nations in their own backyard.

This insidious Leftist agenda dominated America’s political institutions and has infected nearly every element of public life in America. It wants to wipe out all traces of traditional heritage and create a society with rampant immorality, widespread gender confusion, overindulgence in luxuries, and disregard for the religion and tradition of the people. It’s a social situation in which Family, the central institution of a stable culture, is destroyed by pervasive depravity.

Sadly, these symptoms that in the past brought the fall of the Roman Empire are once again prevalent in our society. And the present situation makes it clear that unless we revive our traditional and moral values and bring amelioration to human society – the nations, just like Rome, will corrupt from inside and ultimately die.

Because this isn’t just a problem for American society, but everywhere in the world where the globalist propaganda has influence, people with their respective nations need to unite against the Marxist butchery of their cultural and religious integrity. Forgetting the traditional and religious nature that’s been imprinted in the cultural DNA of every nation doesn’t only mean distorting our national heritage, but demolishing the very foundations of the natural God-given laws that prevent societies from falling into demise.

Unfortunately, many nations throughout the Middle East and North Africa have already experienced this kind of cultural destruction by globalist and terrorist organizations like ISIL and its satellite formations. Through force, the oldest and holiest of Christian communities sitting in the very lands where Christianity was born are being destroyed. The globalist forces committing these brutal atrocities in Syria and Iraq have made their message of expending their system of obscenity and barbarism across the whole world very much clear.

Identity is all about belonging. And belonging is all about standing side by side with others in the wider community of nations. All nations have to stand together in this cultural match between the Globalists and the people who uphold their national identity. We need to band together to confront the declared war on our traditions, our languages, our religions, and our cultural identities. We need to define ourselves in the common heritage that binds us as separate nations and venture out to revive the social order.

In modern times, liberal and leftist bigots prefer propaganda over reality. Through the use of distorted media coverage, deceit, denial, and overall bias they push wrong political ideas in the minds of people. Globalists hold the key and main factors driving the means of public information and therefore are the main influence on public opinion.

The people endorsing traditional values never had a clear voice on the world stage. Traditional communities are next to extinct and the supreme institutions running the System do little to nothing to prevent their destruction. Untraditional ways of “marriage” are being legalized, billionaire oligarchs rule the economy, existential threats to society erupt every day, everything is being globalized so that those at the top can run everything, and all of this on the backs of the middle-class and working-class peoples.

It is prime time that the nation unites itself and raises its voice against the inhumanity, against the abuse, against the obscenity and violation of its beliefs and practices. Raising its head up high and putting a final end to the societal oppression it’s been under for so long. If not through revolution, then through political activism, organization, and mutual support.

Darwin and Social Surgery

via Gornahoor

Man as a physical being is subject to gravity and other laws of physics, not to mention chemical laws. As part of biological life, he is also subject to various biological laws. In particular, this includes the two scientific laws of neo-Darwinism (incorrectly called the “theory of evolution”). Darwin’s insight relied on these two principles.
  1. Variation refers to random changes.
  2. Selection refers a method to select or prefer certain changes over others.
As such, that is not yet a scientific theory. For example, the eminent biologist Richard Dawkins created a thought experiment in which the phrase “METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL” could arise through random variations. First, there is a random variation of letters. Then a selection process will select the letters that most resemble the target phrase until eventually it is eventually reached. Unfortunately, this sneaks in two metaphysical principles:
  • Final cause: the selection principle is goal oriented.
  • Formal cause: the phrase is a possibility of manifestation. If, for example, the letter W was stuck on the typewriter, no amount of time could produce the phrase.
A properly scientific theory, on the other hand, relies only on material and efficient causes. Hence, the following modifications define the biological theory.
  1. Genetic Variation refers to random mutations in the genotype that are inherited by the descendants.
  2. Natural Selection refers to the survival and reproductive success of the phenotype within its environment, thereby preserving those mutations.
When I was a boy taking classes at the Boston Museum of Science, we were taught that cosmic rays created genetic mutations. Now it is accepted that the copying process itself is subject to imperfections. Interspecies mating may also possibly create genetic variations. Since most mutations are deleterious, presumably “nature” will select the best “fit” offspring to survive and reproduce, while the least fit will produce no descendants. The selection process is still in dispute, e.g., the role of group selection vs kin selection. Darwin claimed there was a sexual selection, which we see in the tendency toward assortative mating, especially in humans. Of course, there is artificial selection in which humans create various breeds of certain animals for designed purposes.

As such, there is nothing objectionable to neo-Darwinism, since variations and selection can be observed. However, there are four things that this theory does not account for, although the popular imagination often believes so.
  • Completeness: variation and selection do not account for all the features of the phenotype. Specifically, the process does not explain how consciousness, thought, etc., arise. It just doesn’t, no matter what you hear. A scientific theory needs to explain all the steps involved.
  • Descent: man, for example, does not descend from a “monkey”. No biologist claims that a monkey gave birth to a human. A true descendent will contain the genetic material of the parents. A new species arises, according to the theory, when the variation is sufficiently large to be considered something different; i.e., it is not a descendent in that sense.
  • Complexity: the theory does not explain emerging complexity, or in other words, there is no “direction” to evolution, even if it appears that way. There is no good definition for complexity, and “evolution” could just as randomly produce less complex beings. Actually, half the biomass is single-celled organisms and they will continue to exist when multicellular organisms become extinct. Neo-darwinism may offer an explanation for the possibility of the development of more complex life forms, but not an explanation for its necessity.
  • Eugenics vs fitness: there is no “moral” basis to survival. “Fit” just means fit to survive. “Bigger, stronger, faster” are irrelevant. Certain life forms will survive better as the human population density increases. For example, rats thrive in human cities. Social parasites like dogs and housecats do so likewise. There is a tacit agreement with livestock and poultry that they will be allowed to breed and propagate their genes in return for becoming foodstuff for humans.

Social Surgery

Although man is subject to the laws of biology, he also transcends biology. Given the knowledge of variation and selection, to what extent then should man direct his own future (biological) evolution? Some geneticists claim that the human race is in genetic decline. This is due to the accumulation over generations of deleterious mutations. In previous eras, high childhood mortality would prune the population with the weakest genetics.

That is probably true, but it lacks biological relevance. The selfish gene theory stipulates that the genes strive to perpetuate themselves. Whether the organism is intelligent, pretty, or healthy or not is irrelevant, as long as the organism is able to reproduce itself. Nevertheless, such a prospect is disheartening to intellectuals who overvalue their intelligence, especially if they also misunderstand the point of life. They have various utopian ideals, never compatible with each other.

As a thought experiment, the British philosopher Francis Bradley posed an interesting question about the relationship between science and human progress: to what extent should scientific knowledge influence and direct social policy? Another way to pose it is this: should science be used to oppose the roots of order in favor of an ideological system or should it reinforce that order?

Despite the claims of the educated classes that they rely on science, scientific knowledge plays little role in social policy. Pressing issues in economics, crime, education, and so on, are more tractable than they appear, although there is little will to actually employ effective measures whenever they might conflict with ideological presuppositions. Bradley goes directly to the heart of the issue. In the case he defends, he acknowledges that there will be religious opposition to his proposal.

Bradley proposed what he called “social surgery”, which includes compulsory euthanasia. Writing shortly after Darwin, Bradley noted:
We have the moral code of Christianity … but we do not realize how in its very principle the Christian ideal is false … Darwinism seems destined to intervene. It will make itself felt, I believe, more and more effectually. It may force on us in some points a correction of our moral views and a return to a non-Christian and perhaps a Hellenic ideal.
He was correct about the destiny of Darwinism, but for the wrong reason:
The community, though it may have grown naturally to be what it is, should now more or less consciously regulate itself, and deliberately play its own Providence.
Specifically, given that the struggle for existence has been ameliorated, the inferior types are not weeded out naturally. Hence, the community must take on the “selection” task itself, since it can no longer rely on natural selection. He realized that certain religious attitudes would cause opposition:
[For Christianity] the individual in the next world has an infinite value; the things of this world, our human ends and interests, are all alike counted worthless … the good of the whole can confer no right to interfere with its members. … Once admit that life in this world is an end in itself, and the pure Christian doctrine is at once uprooted. For, measured by that end and standard, individuals have unequal worth … the community is itself its own Providence.
The right of the individual to spawn without restriction his diseased offspring on the community, the duty of the state to rear wholesale and without limit an unselected progeny—such duties and rights are to my mind a sheer outrage on Providence. A society that can endure such things will merit the degeneracy which it courts.
Of course, from a strictly biological perspective there are indeed no such “rights”. From genetic selection alone, parasitism (no more overtones intended) is often a fit strategy, as long as the host is not destroyed. On the other hand, if group selection is valid, the Bradley’s proposal is merely an example of its manifestation.

As such, it is a perversion of Providence. As we have recently pointed out in the essay on Predestination and Predilection, individuals have unequal worth, even from the perspective of Providence. However, the criterion of “worth” may be quite different. If man is solely biological, then Bradley must be correct. On the other hand, if man’s true end is indeed transcendent, then what we consider to be of worth is quite different.

A traditional society will not endure many things that a modern society, and presumably Bradley himself, not only endures but promotes. The degeneracy of the modern world has been courted for much longer than Bradley realizes; there is a moral degeneracy that is more deleterious than any biological mutation.

Nota Bene

As an unanswered objection, and food for thought, we end with two quotes from the Jesuit paleontologist, Teilhard de Chardin:
How should we judge the efforts we lavish in all kinds of hospitals on saving what is so often no more than one of life’s rejects? Something profoundly true and beautiful (I mean faith in the irreplaceable value and unpredictable resource contained in each personal unit) is evidently concealed in persistent sacrifice to save a human existence. But should not this solicitude of man for his individual neighbour be balanced by a higher passion, born of the faith in that other higher personality that is to be expected, as we shall see, from the world-wide achievements of our evolution?
To what extent should not the development of the strong (to the extent that we can define this quality) take precedence over the preservations of the weak? How can we reconcile, in a state of maximum efficiency, the care lavished on the wounded with the more urgent necessities of battle? In what does true charity consist?
~ Human Energy
So far we have certainly allowed our race to develop at random, and we have given too little thought to the question of what medical and moral factors must replace the crude forces of natural selection should we suppress them. In the course of the coming centuries it is indispensable that a nobly human form of eugenics, on a standard worthy of our personalities, should be discovered and developed. Eugenics applied to individuals leads to eugenics applied to society.
~ Phenomenon of Man

Slovakia Says NO to Muslim Immigrants

via British National Party

Slovakia’s interior minister has said it will turn away Muslim asylum seekers because they will not fit in with Slovakian society and culture.

Spokesman Ivan Metik stated: “We don’t have any mosques in Slovakia so how can Muslims be integrated if they are not going to like it here?”

Instead of being forced to take 800 Muslims, the small Eastern European country has agreed to play a part in the EU asylum quota by taking in 200 Syrian Christians.

Slovakia’s move to protect their national identity and the interests of the Slovakian people has enraged Eurocrats who have threatened legal action.

Last month the EU announced that it would take 32,000 Syrian refugees and a further 7,000 over the next four months.

The party for peace.

In 2013, BNP delegates undertook a daring mission to Damascus, meeting with high level government officials in the Syrian Parliament and successfully reopened diplomatic relations.

BNP delegates assisted the Syrian Government in writing an official letter to Westminster politicians hours before a crucial vote on whether Britain should carry out the bombing of Syria.

The letter succeeded in swaying the vote against bombing the last moderate and secular Muslim state in the Middle East.

Since then, David Cameron has quietly defied the vote and used British Armed Forces to bomb the country, further weakening the Assad Government while aiding ISIS and other Islamist terror groups to commit the atrocities which have resulted in floods of Syrian refugees fleeing their homeland and seeking asylum in Europe.

The BNP supports the commonsense approach of the Slovakian Government to preserve its national identity and campaigns against British interference in foreign conflicts that have nothing to do with Britain.

The Identity Explosion

via Radix

Just when you thought Rachel Dolezal’s 15-minute freak show was over, Shaun King, a prominent #BlackLiveMatter activist, has raised the specter of White people impersonating Black people at the highest levels of SWJ. 

It’s easy to view the Dolezal and King stories as merely opportunities for Schadenfreude: the hypocrisy of the Left is laid bare—as well as the shameless mendacity and ruthlessness of some of its high priests and preistesses.

But something bigger is happening. The Dolezal phenomenon—transracialism—has entered into the public consciousness; it will echo throughout the progressive Left and unleash a paradox that will decimate identity politics.

There has always been a certain contradiction in the kind of identity politics favored by the Left. On one hand, it argues that society must not discriminate against the lifestyle choices made by “alternative” individuals. On the other, there are no choices. Homosexuality is biological, innate, and immutable. The same goes for transgenderism, wherein men who identify as transgender are said to have “female” brains, and vice versa for transgender women.

The struggle between these two competing views of the world is best illustrated by the Left’s infatuation with race. America is seen as a White supremacist country, wherein Whites exclusively benefit from a discriminatory system. Because of this, it is important for people of color to advocate ruthlessly for their own self advancement, so as to overcome the institutional handicap of their skin color. At the same time, race does not exist. It is entirely irrelevant, and while evolution contributed to the differing physical characteristics of the races, evolution has not in any way acted upon mental faculties. Africans, Europeans, Asians, and Jews are completely identical from an intellectual standpoint. Any distinction in crime rates, civilizational status, and IQ scores is due purely to historical factors. In other words, race does not matter in any meaningful sense, but race does matter in that people of color are continually faced with the prospect of overcoming their own historicity, yet seemingly incapable of doing so.

Progressives want nothing more than to reach the point where race is no more meaningful than boxers or briefs. Yet, for this to happen, transracialism must also be acceptable. Consider a theoretical progressive utopia in which race does not matter. In this reality, it would be acceptable to engage in transracialism. If blackface were seen as deeply insulting, then obviously race would continue to matter, and the utopia would be invalid. The entire goal of progressivism is the absolute fungibility of the individual, but this remains impossible given the progressive fixation on race and, to a lesser degree, sex.

This is why Rachel Dolezal and Shaun King are so problematic. Their existence reframes the concept of race from being an issue of identity to being one of choice. This contradiction has always existed, but the unmasking of Dolezal and King has forced a confrontation that could have remained buried.

Men can already choose to be women, as Caitlyn Jenner has so pointedly shown. But at this point, what validity do feminist critiques of society have? After all, cannot women choose to be men, and thus reap the rewards of a patriarchal system? A feminist may say that women should not have to become men in order to advance, but why not? They are both identical, or are they not?

If a feminist says anything other than, “Yes, men and women are identical. For a woman to become a man in order to exploit the remaining historicity of the system is perfectly acceptable,” then she is exposing herself to dire contradictions. For a feminist to answer in any other way is to argue for male and female characteristics that are both distinct and immutable. This is unacceptable, given the premise of equality.

This argument applies in exactly the same way to the racial question. Why can’t a Black man say that he is White? Race is a social construct, after all. If this sounds off, but the aforementioned transgender argument sounds correct, then think again. The only reason that they seem different is acclimation to transgendered claims. Both ideas are simply dishonest thought experiments that have managed to gain traction in the cultural landscape.

Already on college campuses, to ask a person’s sex is offensive. Currently, it is merely a microaggression. Soon, it will be a hate crime. A White man has attended Wellesley, an all-female college, while continuing to be referred to by his male name. His genitalia is intact, and he is essentially a transvestite. And yet, he was accepted into Wellesley despite his disingenuous claim of womanhood. When reality is subject to whimsy, there could be no other end. But what if he had claimed to be Black, as Rachel Dolezal had? Would anyone have said anything? Could political correctness allow for anything to be said? For now, yes, but as political correctness and Progressive ideology continues to distance itself from reality, the flight from truth occurs at a faster and faster rate.

That transracialism has entered into the discussion is evidence of its inevitability. The ramifications of this are the unmaking of identity politics, affirmative action,diversity, and even the concept of Progressivism itself. This is the trap that the Left has set for itself. Racial- and identity-based politics and radical egalitarianism do not mix; they are antithetical. This will be their undoing.

The consequences will best be seen in the tech industries, where the best and brightest (read: least diverse) gather. In this arena, it is survival of the most creative, the most ruthless. Once they realize that diversity quotas can be reached without the need to hire low-productivity token minorities, the floodgates will be unleashed. A software company could even specialize in hiring transracial Blacks (e.g. nerdy White guys). It is already a grave faux pas to ask a transgender if he is a woman where it counts. The same will happen for race. To ask a White man if he is really Black is to question the authenticity of his chosen identity, and more importantly, question whether identity is something that can actually be chosen in the first place.

The Progressive Left has no way out of this ideological Catch-22. To be Progressive is to promote the fluidity of identity, but to advocate for this is to create a world in which identity politics becomes impossible, and thereby the means by which Progressives accumulate power is eliminated. In other words, the fulfillment of the Progressive movement will bring about its own destruction . . . as well as set the stage for a new movement based on the reality of racial and sexual differences.

The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945, Part 8

via Carolyn Yeager

Carolyn reads chapters 14 and 15.

Chapter 14 is titled "The Western Theater of War" which covers:
  • Crimes by English soldiers against civilians, mainly in Belgium;
  • Crimes against German soldiers in France;
  • The French Resistance.
Chapter 15 is titled "Crete":
  • Violations of International Law  by British Armed Forces and Cretan civilians;
  • Mutilation of German corpses was widespread, which brought on reprisals against civilians;
  • Eyewitness reports by Wehrmacht survivors of British killings of wounded Germans. 1hr11min

The Labour Party Turns on the Israel Lobby

via The Occidental Observer

Jeremy Corbyn
It would be fair to say the massacre of around 100 Palestinian villagers by Jewish Stern Gang and Irgun terrorists in the village of Deir Yassin nearly 70 years ago is not well remembered today.

Like many of the horrific events surrounding the creation of the state of Israel, the massacre on April 9, 1948 has been quietly dropped down the memory hole.  It was a horrific tale of British betrayal and Jewish ruthlessness, and is still too embarrassing for both Jewish elites and the British government.

But those events have now come back from the grave and might have a pivotal effect on who is to become a future British prime minister. For Britain is on the verge of a small political earthquake if, as seems likely, a far-left politician becomes leader of the opposition Labour Party. Not only is  Jeremy Corbyn a bit of a seventies throwback with his beret, beard and leftie enthusiasm for anti-austerity measures, there is another factor that sets him well apart from the other three safe, establishment candidates.

For no friend of Israel is he. Jeremy Corbyn is a long standing supporter of the Palestinian cause and has shared platforms with many Muslim radicals in the past including Hamas.

And the prospect of him as leader — and potential future prime minister — has been enough to send the Jewish media lobby into a meltdown. As a result Corbyn has been on the receiving end of the biggest media barrage of abuse since Nigel Farage’s anti-immigration UKIP looked like it was making huge gains at the last general election.

This is where Deir Yassin comes in. For one of the directors of the Deir Yasin Remembered group set up to commemorate the memory of those horrific events, is a Jewish blogger called  Paul Eisen who is also a Holocaust revisionist.

Eisen is an ardent supporter of Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn has attended Deir Yassin Remembered meetings in the past, and so by dint of the smearing tactic known as ‘guilt by association’, his critics have chosen to attach the word “holocaust denier” to him.

This has been enthusiastically seized by the Daily Mail  which decided Eisen was effectively public enemy number one and that Corbyn was tainted because of their past friendship.

The Jewish Chronicle then made much of its “seven questions that Corbyn must answer” . The Jewish-owned Daily Express  then repeated the Jewish Chronicle accusations and asked if Corbyn was anti-Semitic himself.

Finally Corbyn did answer back, and an interview on Channel 4 News by Jewish journalist Cathy Newman, was particularly striking for her insistence that Corbyn’s alleged anti-Semitism was the only possible issue that British voters could care about.

There is no mistaking the tone of incandescent anger and bafflement of the elite Jewish media clique at this turn of events. From the Guardian on the left to the Express on the right to Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post, they have been popping fuses.

You would think this internal fighting would warm the hearts of Labour’s opponents. But as is usual, it is remarkable how Jews from across the political spectrum will circle the wagons. Here, for instance, is a Jewish Chronicle  column by — Conservative — advisor Lord Finkelstein, a good friend of David Cameron, and, remember, a political opponent.
The election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader would not be a problem for the Labour Party. It would be a debacle. A catastrophe. A calamity. A disaster.
While Ed Miliband was not wildly popular with most Jews, he took a respectable position on Israel. It wasn’t one I shared, and I was heavily critical of it. It even outraged many members of the community, who were bitterly disappointed with his position on the last Gaza action. It was, however, a respectable position, for all its faults.
Jeremy Corbyn is in a different place altogether. He shares the virulent anti-Zionism of the hard left. One that seeks to make Israel a pariah state. One that treats Israel as if it were the central cause of all foreign affairs problems. One that treats with Hamas and is friendly to Hizbollah.
Where are the rallies featuring every person who has ever served in a Labour cabinet or Shadow cabinet? Where is Gordon Brown’s national tour? Where is Ed Miliband’s personal appeal?…do panic!
The Twitter feed of Jewish Chronicle editor Stephen Pollard has been glowing white hot with indignation as has that of the other members of the Jewish media chorus.  Oliver Kamm, Hugo Rifkind, and David Aaronovitch of The Times.  In the Spectator Nick Cohen claims that Corbyn reveals anti-Semitism on the left is now as bad as on the right.

For the Financial Times the Labour Party electing Corbyn is akin to the Greeks installing Syriza. It would be a “catastrophe” and not just for Labour — “a full-throated protest movement against fiscal austerity and ‘neoliberalism’.”

The FT asked “It also raises questions of protocol: should the government share sensitive information about national security with the opposition leader, as is the convention? If Mr Corbyn’s economic policies are quaint, his outlook on foreign policy is more troubling, as is some of the company he keeps in the anti-war movement.”

Even former Labour prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have waded in and said Corbyn would be a disaster.  Corbyn responded with a promise that there would be war crimes investigations into the Iraq war if he came to power.

Elites on both sides correctly see that Corbyn could be the undoing of not only Labour but of the Conservatives as well.  For in a system where both parties are just the same bottle with different labels, exposing one undoes the other.

Corbyn would certainly be a break in a long line of PM’s all of whom have bent the knee to Israel. Corbyn was a leading member of the anti-war movement, led the protests against Israel’s atrocities against Palestinians and has also spoken out against the deportation of various Islamic preachers. He has also called for a British boycott of Israeli universities.  This Channel Four interview gives a fair taste. Here is another one.

Jewish writers are baffled that they seem to have lost the Labour Party. All this seems to have come out of a clear blue sky and there is a tone of disbelief in the Chronicle’s articles. Writes Josh Glancey
Rather unexpectedly, this beardy socialist is now the leading contender to become leader of the Labour party. If he does, it is fair to say that Jewish Labour in this country is all but finished.
You can understand the frustration.  Under Tony Blair and his successors the Labour Party was in the pocket to Jewish financiers to such an extent that it might as well have had Star of David ribbon around it.  David Cameron’s sole achievement with his Conservative government has been to make his party even more subservient to the Jewish lobby.

Owen Jones has described the political class nervousness about all this in the New Statesman:
Indeed, the Corbyn surge is just one element of a much bigger phenomenon. In the aftermath of the recent Greek crisis, in which the Syriza government was humiliated, Donald Tusk — the head of the European Council — declared that he was “really afraid of this ideological or political contagion, not financial contagion, of this Greek crisis. … For me, the atmosphere is a little similar to the time after 1968 in Europe,” warning of a “widespread impatience” which, when “a social experience of feeling” became “the introduction for revolutions.” Indeed, all over Europe, social democracy is crumbling in favour of xenophobic right-wing parties, like Ukip, the National Front and the True Finns, or populist left-wing parties like Syriza and Podemos. There is a growing political ferment, finding its expression in lots of different ways, causing mounting fear among the European elite. Corbynism is just one manifestation.
This point bears repeating: European politics has entered into a very unstable phase, and that terrifies current elites that have brought about the current state of dissatisfaction with the status quo.

Most members will have cast their postal votes by the end of this week although the result will not be announced until September 12.

Every poll has shown that Corbyn is the favourite with the rank and file and it is not hard to see why.  As with Donald Trump it is a relief to see someone — however flawed —  who at least seems to be his own man and says what he thinks.  Also there is no hiding the fact that a huge section of the Labour Party are delighted that someone who is not a pre-vetted, “Friend of Israel” can make it to the top.

While it is always fun to see the elites tear themselves apart, be warned — Jeremy Corbyn is no friend of Whites. He is a Marxist to the core. He was a stalwart anti-White campaigner in the past and has fought with tooth and nail, any attempt to reduce immigration.

There is another factor that no-one is mentioning.  There are only about 300,000 Jews in Britain. The potential four million Muslim block has formed an increasing proportion of the Labour vote and will only grow larger. Indeed, Muslim Labour Party voters control some of the most rotten and corrupt boroughs in Britain. It is a fair bet they will not be turning out for Israel’s convenience.

It would be ironic that the Jewish lobby, which has always looked at the Labour Party as in the bag, were to be undone by the very mass immigration policies which they have pushed for.

As has been said, not for the first and last time,  be careful what you wish for.

The Last Refuge of the Incompetent

via The Archdruid Report

There are certain advantages to writing out the ideas central to this blog in weekly bursts. Back in the days before the internet, when a galaxy of weekly magazines provided the same free mix of ideas and opinions that fills the blogosphere today, plenty of writers kept themselves occupied turning out articles and essays for the weeklies, and the benefits weren’t just financial: feedback from readers, on the one hand, and the contributions of other writers in related fields, on the other, really do make it easier to keep slogging ahead at the writer’s lonely trade.
This week’s essay has benefited from that latter effect, in a somewhat unexpected way. In recent weeks, here and there in the corners of the internet I frequent, there’s been another round of essays and forum comments insisting that it’s time for the middle-class intellectuals who frequent the environmental and climate change movements to take up violence against the industrial system. That may not seem to have much to do with the theme of the current sequence of posts—the vacuum that currently occupies the place in our collective imagination where meaningful visions of the future used to be found—but there’s a connection, and following it out will help explain one of the core themes I want to discuss.
The science fiction author Isaac Asimov used to say that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. That’s a half-truth at best, for there are situations in which effective violence is the only tool that will do what needs to be done—we’ll get to that in a moment. It so happens, though, that a particular kind of incompetence does indeed tend to turn to violence when every other option has fallen flat, and goes down in a final outburst of pointless bloodshed. It’s unpleasantly likely at this point that the climate change movement, or some parts of it, may end up taking that route into history’s dumpster; here again, we’ll get to that a little further on in this post.
It’s probably necessary to say at the outset that the arguments I propose to make here have nothing to do with the ethics of violence, and everything to do with its pragmatics as a means of bringing about social change. Ethics in general are a complete quagmire in today’s society.  Nietzsche’s sly description of moral philosophy as the art of propping up inherited prejudices with bad logic has lost none of its force since he wrote it, and since his time we’ve also witnessed the rise of professional ethicists, whose jobs consist of coming up with plausible excuses for whatever their corporate masters want to do this week. The ethical issues surrounding violence are at least as confused as those around any of the other messy realities of human life, and in some ways, more so than most.
Myself, I consider violence enitrely appropriate in some situations. Many of my readers may have heard, for example, of an event that took place a little while back in Kentucky, where a sex worker was attacked by a serial killer.  While he was strangling her, she managed to get hold of his handgun, and proceeded to shoot him dead. To my mind, her action was morally justified. Once he attacked her, no matter what she did, somebody was going to die, and killing him not only turned the violence back on its originator, it also saved the lives of however many other women the guy might have killed before the police got to him—if they ever did; crimes against sex workers, and for that matter crimes against women, are tacitly ignored by a fairly large number of US police departments these days.
Along the same lines, a case can be made that revolutionary violence against a political and economic system is morally justified if the harm being done by that system is extreme enough. That’s not a debate I’m interested in exploring here, though.  Again, it’s not ethics but pragmatics that I want to discuss, because whether or not revolutionary violence is justified in some abstract moral sense is far less important right now than whether it’s an effective response to the situation we’re in. That’s not a question being asked, much less answered, by the people who are encouraging environmental and climate change activists to consider violence against the system.
Violence is not a panacea. It’s a tool, and like any other tool, it’s well suited to certain tasks and utterly useless for others. Political violence in particular is a surprisingly brittle and limited tool. Even when it has the support of a government’s resource base, it routinely flops or backfires, and a group that goes in for political violence without the resources and technical assistance of some government somewhere has to play its hand exceedingly well, or it’s going to fail. Furthermore, there are many cases in which violence isn’t useful as a means of social change, as other tools can do the job more effectively.
Pay attention to the history of successful revolutions and it’s not hard to figure out how to carry out political violence—and far more importantly, how not to do so. The most important point to learn from history is that successful violence in a political context doesn’t take place in a vacuum. It’s the final act of a long process, and the more thoroughly that process is carried out, the less violence is needed when crunch time comes. Let’s take a few paragraphs to walk through the process and see how it’s done.
The first and most essential step in the transformation of any society is the delegitimization of the existing order. That doesn’t involve violence, and in fact violence at this first stage of the process is catastrophically counterproductive—a lesson, by the way, that the US military has never been able to learn, which is why its attempts to delegitimize its enemies (usually phrased in such language as “winning minds and hearts”) have always been so embarrassingly inept and ineffective. The struggle to delegitimize the existing order has to be fought on cultural, intellectual, and ideological battlefields, not physical ones, and its targets are not people or institutions but the aura of legitimacy and inevitability that surrounds any established political and economic order. 
Those of my readers who want to know how that’s done might want to read up on the cultural and intellectual life of France in the decades before the Revolution. It’s a useful example, not least because the people who wanted to bring down the French monarchy came from almost exactly the same social background as today’s green radicals: disaffected middle-class intellectuals with few resources other than raw wit and erudition. That turned out to be enough, as they subjected the monarchy—and even more critically, the institutions and values that supported it—to sustained and precise attack from constantly shifting positions, engaging in savage mockery one day and earnest pleas for reform the next, exploiting every weakness and scandal for maximum effect. By the time the crisis finally arrived in 1789, the monarchy had been so completely defeated on the battlefield of public opinion that next to nobody rallied to its defense until after the Revolution was a fait accompli.
The delegitimization of the existing order is only the first step in the process. The second step is political, and consists of building a network of alliances with existing and potential power centers and pressure groups that might be willing to support revolutionary change. Every political system, whatever its official institutional form might be, consists in practice of just such a network of power centers—that is, groups of people who have significant political, economic, or social influence—and pressure groups—that is, other groups of people who lack such influence but can give or withhold their support in ways that can sometimes extract favors from the power centers.
In today’s America, for example, the main power centers are found in what we may as well call the bureaucratic-industrial complex, the system of revolving-door relationships that connect big corporations, especially the major investment banks, with the major Federal bureaucracies, especially the Treasury and the Pentagon. There are other power centers as well—for example, the petroleum complex, which has its own ties to the Pentagon—which cooperate and compete by turns with the New York-DC axis of influence—and then there are pressure groups of many kinds, some more influential, some less, some reduced to the status of captive constituencies whose only role in the political process is to rally the vote every four years and have their agenda ignored by their supposed friends in office in between elections. The network of power centers, pressure groups, and captive constituencies that support the existing order of things is the real heart of political power, and it’s what has to be supplanted in order to bring systemic change.
Effective revolutionaries know that in order to overthrow the existing order of society, they have to put together a comparable network that will back them against the existing order, and grow it to the point that it starts attracting key power centers away from the network of the existing order. That’s a challenge, but not an impossible one. In any troubled society, there are always plenty of potential power centers that have been excluded from the existing order and its feeding trough, and are thus interested in backing a change that will give them the power they want and don’t have. In France before the Revolution, for example, there were plenty of wealthy middle-class people who were shut out of the political system by the aristocracy and the royal court, and the philosophes went out of their way to appeal to them and get their support—an easy job, since the philosophes and the nouveaux-riches shared similar backgrounds. That paid off handsomely once the crisis came.
In any society, troubled or not, there are also always pressure groups, plenty of them, that are interested in getting more access to the various goodies that power centers can dole out, and can be drawn into alliance with a rising protorevolutionary faction. The more completely the existing order of things has been delegitimized, the easier it is to build such alliances, and the alliances can in turn be used to feed the continuing process of delegitimization. Here again, as in the first stage of the process, violence is a hindrance rather than a help, and it’s best if the subject never even comes up for discussion; assembling the necessary network of alliances is much easier when nobody has yet had to face up to the tremendous risks involved in revolutionary violence.
By the time the endgame arrives, therefore, you’ve got an existing order that no longer commands the respect and loyalty of most of the population, and a substantial network of pressure groups and potential power centers supporting a revolutionary agenda. Once the situation reaches that stage, the question of how to arrange the transfer of power from the old regime to the new one is a matter of tactics, not strategy. Violence is only one of the available options, and again, it’s by no means always the most useful one. There are many ways to break the existing order’s last fingernail grip on the institutions of power, once that grip has been loosened by the steps already mentioned.
What happens, on the other hand, to groups that don’t do the necessary work first, and turn to violence anyway? Here again, history has plenty to say about that, and the short form is that they lose. Without the delegitimization of the existing order of society and the creation of networks of support among pressure groups and potential power centers, turning to political violence guarantees total failure.
For some reason, for most of the last century, the left has been unable or unwilling to learn that lesson. What’s happened instead, over and over again, is that a movement pursuing radical change starts out convinced that the existing order of society already lacks popular legitimacy, and so fails to make a case that appeals to anybody outside its own ranks. Having failed at the first step, it tries to pressure existing power centers and pressure groups into supporting its agenda, rather than building a competing network around its own agenda, and gets nowhere. Finally, having failed at both preliminary steps, it either crumples completely or engages in pointless outbursts of violence against the system, which are promptly and brutally crushed. Any of my readers who remember the dismal history of the New Left in the US during the 1960s and early 1970s already know this story, right down to the fine details.
With this in mind, let’s look at the ways in which the climate change movement has followed this same trajectory of abject failure over the last fifteen years or so.
The task of the climate change movement at the dawn of the twenty-first century was difficult but by no means impossible. Their ostensible goal was to create a consensus in the world’s industrial nations that would support the abandonment of fossil fuels and a transition to the less energy-intensive ways of living that renewable resources can provide. That would have required a good many well-off people to accept a decline in their standards of living, but that’s far from the insuperable obstacle so many people seem to think it must be. When Winston Churchill told the British people “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat,” his listeners roared their approval. For reasons that probably reach far into our evolutionary past, a call to shared sacrifice usually gets a rousing response, so long as the people who are being asked to sacrifice have reason to believe something worthwhile will come of it.
That, however, was precisely what the climate change movement was unable to provide. It’s harsh but not, I think, unfair to describe the real agenda of the movement as the attempt to create a future in which the industrial world’s middle classes could keep on enjoying the benefits of their privileged lifestyle without wrecking the atmosphere in the process. Of course it’s not exactly easy to convince everyone else in the world to put aside all their own aspirations for the sake of the already privileged, and so the spokespeople of the climate change movement generally didn’t talk about what they hoped to achieve. Instead, they fell into the most enduring bad habit of the left, and ranted instead about how awful the future would be if the rest of the world didn’t fall into line behind them.
On the off chance that any of my readers harbor revolutionary ambitions, may I offer a piece of helpful advice? If you want people to follow your lead, you have to tell them where you intend to take them. Talking exclusively about what’s going to happen if they don’t follow you will not cut it. Rehashing the same set of talking points about how everyone’s going to die if the whole world doesn’t rally around you emphatically will not cut it. The place where you’re leading them can be difficult and dangerous, the way there can be full of struggle, sacrifice and suffering, and they’ll still flock to your banner—in fact, young men will respond to that kind of future more enthusiastically than to any other, especially if you can lighten the journey with beer and the occasional barbecue—but you have to be willing to talk about your destination. You also have to remember that the phrase “shared sacrifice” includes the word “shared,” and not expect everyone else to give up something so that you don’t have to.
So the climate change movement entered the arena with one hand tied behind its back and the other hand hauling a heavy suitcase stuffed to the bursting point with middle class privilege. Its subsequent behavior did nothing to overcome that initial disadvantage. When the defenders of the existing order counterattacked, as of course they did, the climate change movement did nothing to retake the initiative and undermine its adversaries; preaching to the green choir took the place of any attempt to address the concerns of the wider public; over and over again, climate change activists allowed the other side to define the terms of the debate and then whined about the resulting defeat rather than learning anything from it. Of course the other side used every trick in the book, and then some; so? That’s how the game is played. Successful movements for change realize that, and plan accordingly.
We don’t even have to get into the abysmal failure of the climate change movement to seek out allies among the many pressure groups and potential power centers that might have backed it, if it had been able to win the first and most essential struggle in the arena of public opinion. The point I want to make is that at this point in the curve of failure, violence really is the last refuge of the incompetent. What, after all, would be the result if some of the middle class intellectuals who make up the core of the climate change movement were to pick up some guns, assemble the raw materials for a few bombs, and try to use violence to make their point? They might well kill some people before the FBI guns them down or hauls them off to life-plus terms in Leavenworth; they would very likely finish off climate change activism altogether, by making most Americans fear and distrust anyone who talks about it—but would their actions do the smallest thing to slow the dumping of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and the resulting climate chaos? Of course not.
What makes the failure of the climate change movement so telling is that during the same years that it peaked and crashed, another movement has successfully conducted a prerevolutionary campaign of the classic sort here in the US. While the green Left has been spinning its wheels and setting itself up for failure, the populist Right has carried out an extremely effective program of delegitimization aimed at the federal government and, even more critically, the institutions and values that support it. Over the last fifteen years or so, very largely as a result of that program, a great many Americans have gone from an ordinary, healthy distrust of politicians to a complete loss of faith in the entire American project. To a remarkable extent, the sort of rock-ribbed middle Americans who used to insist that of course the American political system is the best in the world are now convinced that the American political system is their enemy, and the enemy of everything they value.
The second stage of the prerevolutionary process, the weaving of a network of alliances with pressure groups and potential power centers, is also well under way. Watch which groups are making common cause with one another on the rightward fringes of society these days and you can see a competent revolutionary strategy at work. This isn’t something I find reassuring—quite the contrary, in fact; aside from my own admittedly unfashionable feelings of patriotism, one consistent feature of revolutions is that the government that comes into power after the shouting and the shooting stop is always more repressive than the one that was in power beforehand. Still, the way things are going, it seems likely to me that the US will see the collapse of its current system of government, probably accompanied with violent revolution or civil war, within a decade or two.
Meanwhile, as far as I can see, the climate change movement is effectively dead in its tracks, and we no longer have time to make something happen before the rising spiral of climate catastrophe begins—as my readers may have noticed, that’s already well under way. From here on in, it’s probably a safe bet that anthropogenic climate change will accelerate until it fulfills the prophecy of The Limits to Growth and forces the global industrial economy to its knees. Any attempt to bring human society back into some kind of balance with ecological reality will have to get going during and after that tremendous crisis. That requires playing a long game, but then that’s going to be required anyway, to do the things that the climate change movement failed to do, and do them right this time.
With that in mind, I’m going to be taking this blog in a slightly different direction next week, and for at least a few weeks to come. I’ve talked in previous posts about intentional technological regression as an option, not just for individuals but as a matter of public policy. I’ve also talked at quite some length about the role that narrative plays in helping to imagine alternative futures. With that in mind, I’ll be using the tools of fiction to suggest a future that zooms off at right angles to the expectations of both ends of the current political spectrum. Pack a suitcase, dear readers; your tickets will be waiting at the station. Next Wednesday evening, we’ll be climbing aboard a train for Retrotopia.