Sep 3, 2015

“It’s the Blacks, Stupid!”: Powerful Graphics Explains Interracial Violent Crime

via The Daily Stormer

A feminist gun activist, Leah Barrett, executive director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, has, in the wake of a high-profile Black-on-White murder, said “it’s the guns, stupid!”

The actual fact is that it is the Blacks, and rather than calling for gun control, activists against violence should be calling for the mass deportation of these people back to Africa.

Come on now.

Come on now.

There is no mystery here.

There is no mystery here.
We can see this as obvious before we even begin to discuss this:




51% of Immigrant Households Use Welfare

via American Renaissance

A new study by the Center for Immigration Studies is the first in recent years to examine immigrant (legal and illegal) and native welfare use based on the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). The SIPP provides the most accurate picture of welfare participation. The survey shows immigrant households use welfare at significantly higher rates than native households, even higher than indicated by other Census surveys. Welfare includes Medicaid, cash, food, and housing programs.

View the entire 53-page report here.

“If immigration is supposed to benefit the country, then immigrant welfare use should be much lower than native use,” said Steven Camarota the Center’s Director of Research and the report’s author. “However,” he continued, “two decades after welfare reform tried to curtail immigrant welfare use, immigrant households are using most programs at higher rates than natives. The low-skill level of many immigrants means that although most work, many also access welfare programs. If we continue to allow large numbers of less-educated immigrants to settle in the country, then immigrant welfare use will remain high.”

Among the findings:

In 2012, 51 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) reported that they used at least one welfare program during the year, compared to 30 percent of native households.
  • Welfare use is high for both new arrivals and long-time residents. Of households headed by immigrants who have been in the country for more than two decades, 48 percent access welfare.
  • No single program explains immigrants’ higher overall welfare use. For example, not counting subsidized school lunch, welfare use is still 46 percent for immigrants and 28 percent for natives. Not counting Medicaid, welfare use is 44 percent for immigrants and 26 percent for natives.
  • Immigrant households have much higher use of food programs (40 percent vs. 22 percent for natives) and Medicaid (42 percent vs. 23 percent). Immigrant use of cash programs is somewhat higher than natives (12 percent vs. 10 percent) and immigrant use of housing programs is similar to natives.
  • Welfare use varies among immigrant groups. Households headed by immigrants from Central America and Mexico (73 percent), the Caribbean (51 percent), and Africa (48 percent) have the highest overall welfare use. Those from East Asia (32 percent), Europe (26 percent), and South Asia (17 percent) have the lowest.
  • Many immigrants struggle to support their children, and a large share of welfare is received on behalf of U.S.-born children. However, even immigrant households without children have significantly higher welfare use than native households without children–30 percent vs. 20 percent.
  • The welfare system is designed to help low-income workers, especially those with children, and this describes many immigrant households. In 2012, 51 percent of immigrant households with one or more workers accessed one or more welfare programs, as did 28 percent of working native households.
  • The large share of immigrants with low levels of education and resulting low incomes partly explains their high use rates. In 2012, 76 percent of households headed by an immigrant who had not graduated high school used one or more welfare programs, as did 63 percent of households headed by an immigrant with only a high school education.
  • The high rates of immigrant welfare use are not entirely explained by their lower education levels. Households headed by college-educated immigrants have significantly higher welfare use than households headed by college-educated natives–26 percent vs. 13 percent.
  • In the four top immigrant-receiving states, use of welfare by immigrant households is significantly higher than that of native households: California (55 percent vs. 30 percent), New York (59 percent vs. 33 percent), Texas (57 percent vs. 34 percent), and Florida (42 percent vs. 28 percent).
Conclusion: The high rate of welfare use associated with immigrants may seem surprising, given the restrictions on their eligibility. But the limits only apply to some programs; most legal immigrants have been in the country long enough to qualify for welfare; the restrictions often do not apply to children; states often provide welfare to new immigrants on their own; naturalizing makes immigrants eligible for all programs; and, most important, im­migrants (including illegal immigrants) can receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth.

Illegal immigrants are included in the Census Bureau data used in this analysis. In a forthcoming report, we will estimate welfare use for immigrants by legal status. However, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of immigrant households using welfare are headed by legal immigrants.

September 2015 White House White Genocide Meme Messages

via Fight White Genocide

Please take a few minutes and sign this months White House White Genocide meme messages. Recently these messages have been quoted by several different media publications.

Investigate why Vester Flanagan wasn’t informed that White Genocide is supposed to be carried out non-violently

When teaching hatred of Whites, teach that White Genocide is being carried out by massively flooding White countries with non-Whites, and forcing Whites to “assimilate” with them which will blend Whites out of existence.

Explain that chasing down Whites to commit violence against them is unnecessary, since Whites are being chased down and assimilated by “diversity,” which is a codeword for White Genocide.

Africans aren’t being chased down in African countries to be blended out of existence with non-Africans, and Africans who object called “racist.”

Asians aren’t being chased down in Asian countries to be blended out of existence with non-Asians, and Asians who object called “racist.”

This is only being done in White countries, which is why we say,
“Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White”

Proclaim Professor Kevin Allred of Rutgers University “Anti-White of the Month” for his anti-White tweets

Prof. Allred indoctrinates White youths to hate themselves and to accept White Genocide: “until the entire system changes – THERE ARE NO GOOD #WHITEPEOPLE. THERE ARE ONLY LESS BAD WHITE PEOPLE!!!”

White countries worldwide are being flooded with third world non-Whites with whom Whites are forced by law to integrate, so as to “assimilate,” i.e. intermarry and be blended out of existence.

Massive immigration and forced assimilation is genocide when it’s done in Tibet, and it’s genocide when it’s done in White countries, by UN Convention:
“Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.”

Prof. Allred says he’s anti-racist. What he is is ANTI-WHITE!

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.

Ask Donald Trump: “Mr. Trump, can you uncuck yourself enough to help us fight White Genocide?”

Will Donald Trump denounce White Genocide that’s being carried out by massive immigration and forced assimilation in White countries worldwide?

Or will Mr. Trump be just another “cuckservative,” another political White cuckold who accepts White children becoming a vanishing minority through LEGAL, not illegal immigration?

President Obama and Mr. Trump, join together and fight the restriction that no school, no town, no club, no country may ever be WHITE!

Censure the refugee resettlers and other anti-Whites who chase down Whites with “diversity.”

Oppose those who say they’re anti-racist, since what they are is anti-White.

President Obama, may you and Donald Trump shake hands and say together,
“Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.”

“Diversity is a code word for White Genocide.”

Stop funding anti-White “charities” to chase down Whites!

Asia for the Asians, Africa for the Africans, White countries for EVERYBODY?
“Diversity” means chasing down the last White person!

These groups chase down White communities and pour the third world into them:
Lutheran Immigrant Aid Society, US Conference of Catholic Bishops, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Church World Service, Domestic and Foreign Missionary Service of the Episcopal Church of the USA.

They say they’re anti-racist. What they are is anti-White.

Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White.

Diversity is a code word for White Genocide.

Psychoanalyzing Trump: How to Write a "New York Times" Op-Ed in Three Easy Steps!


It's not Trump who needs psychoanalysis,
it's his critics
Today we’ll talk about how to write a New York Times op-ed in 45 minutes or less. We all like labor-saving tips!
The main point to keep in mind is that your op-ed is not intended to elucidate, educate or amuse. These are status pieces meant to strike a pose, signaling that you are a good person.

After reading your op-ed, readers should feel the warm sensation of being superior to other people—those who don’t agree with you. The idea is to be in fashion. It’s all about attitude, heavy on eye-rolling.
(1) Psychoanalyze conservatives as paranoid and insecure. Liberals—who, to a man, have been in psychoanalysis—enjoy putting people they disagree with on the operating table and performing a vivisection, as if conservatives are some lower life form.
Thus, for example, an op-ed in this week’s Times by Arthur Goldwag [Email him] was titled “Putting Donald Trump on the Couch.”
This should not be confused with Justin A. Frank’s 2004 book, “Bush on the Couch,” offering a detailed diagnosis of Bush’s alleged mental disorders.

Nor should it be confused with a column that went up on Daily Kos the day after I wrote this column, psychoanalyzing me. (I’m just glad I snubbed the guy in high school.)

Goldwag explained: “Mr. Trump’s angry certainty …”

Let’s pause right here. I am obsessed with Donald Trump. I wish I could cancel my book tour and just lie in bed watching his speeches all day long. I’m like a lovesick teenager studying Justin Bieber videos. And I’ve never seen Trump look angry.

(Goldwag continued) ” … that immigrants and other losers are destroying the country while the cultural elites that look down on him stand by and do nothing resonates strongly with the less-educated, lower-income whites who appear to be his base.”
Yes, Trump’s base are “less-educated.” This is as opposed to Democratic voters, who couldn’t figure out how to fill in a Florida ballot in 2000.

True, writing like this will expose your own gigantic paranoia at being excluded from historic WASP America. If you start obsessing over the Augusta National Golf Club (as the Times did for one solid decade), people will naturally begin to suspect that you’re resentful toward traditional American culture.

But I am not giving lessons in self-esteem here. I’m trying to help you dash off an op-ed in record time. Psychoanalysis has been liberals’ go-to move forever.

Following the 1964 presidential election, the American Psychiatric Association was forced to issue “the Goldwater rule,” prohibiting shrinks from psychoanalyzing people they’d never met, after a few thousand of them had issued their professional opinion that Barry Goldwater was nuts. (A “frightened person,” “paranoid,” “grossly psychotic” and a “megalomaniac.”)

Some Times writer probably produced an op-ed calling Calvin Coolidge “paranoid.”
It’s not very interesting, but, again, the sole purpose of your op-ed is to assure the status-anxious that they are better than other people.
(2) The perfect hack phrase is to say conservatives are “frightened of the country changing around them.”
  • “The Tea Party, to be most benign about it, is primarily white, it is witnessing a country changing around it. It feels angry, feels—the diversity.”—Katrina Vanden Heuvel, MSNBC, May 24, 2012
(You want angry? Go to an Al Sharpton rally.)
  • “Old white guys (are) caught in a demographic vice, right? (They) are frankly a little nervous, right? The country is changing around them. … The country is becoming more brown, and more—younger. And the values are changing. Gay rights, women are working. I mean all of these things are happening and they are not quite sure what to do.”—Jamal Simmons, MSNBC, June 15, 2013
  • “I don’t think these are organized hate groups. These are, by and large, more or less everyday citizens who are very fearful of the way the world is changing around them.”—Mark Potok, (spokesman for the country’s leading hate group, the Southern Poverty Law Center) in “Changing World Draws Racist Backlash,” The Philadelphia Tribune, June 28, 2010
I thought it was a nice gesture that Mark admitted that conservatives are not “organized hate groups.” We owe you one, Mark! You’re a super guy.
(3) Call conservatives “aggrieved” as often as possible.
Yes, this from the party of reparations, #BlackLivesMatter, comparable worth, “Lean In,” the DREAM Act and so on. If the Democratic Party were a reality TV show, it would be called “America’s Got Grievances!”

  • “‘We don’t have victories anymore,’ Mr. Trump told those deeply aggrieved Americans in June.”—Arthur Goldwag, op-ed: “Putting Donald Trump on the Couch,” The New York Times, Sept. 1, 2015
  • “Mr. Bush has to win over a fair chunk of the aggrieved, frightened Trump voters.”—New York Times editorial, Aug. 26, 2015
  • “You have this aggrieved conservative industry that makes their money by being aggrieved.”—John Feehery, Republican spokesman for former Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, quoted in New York Times, 15, 2015
You’re doing this not just for the $75 you’ll make for writing a Times op-ed. Dreadful hacks meet a need.

A lot of people are followers by nature. They just want to be told: Here are the politicians you admire, and here are the ones you disdain; here are the people you worship, and here are the ones you disparage; here are the TV shows you like, and here are the ones you despise.

Times writers are like personal shoppers for people too lazy to form their own opinions. Just don’t imagine that this is good writing, comedy or art. But it’s not bad for something you can dash off in about 45 minutes!

The American Flag Is Not a Phallic Symbol

via Jack Donovan

Wake-Up Whitey, Your
Country Hates You
Who waves the flag in America?

Everyone waves them at political rallies, but transblack lesbian Democrats don’t put flags in their front yards. They don’t wear “these colors don’t run” t-shirts and they don’t fly mini-flags on the antennae of their trucks.

The guys, and they are mostly guys, who adopt the flag as part of their identities are white men who are often also veterans, gun enthusiasts and first responders. Veterans and first responders who fly the flag may not always be white and you can try to convince yourself that it’s not a race thing, but everyone else sees it as a race thing, because the vast majority of people engaged in some sort of flag worship are white.

White guys make up most of my readership, and many are vets, gun enthusiasts and first responders. I see their Facebook feeds and I follow the same stuff they follow on Instagram.

Occasionally, the flag is used in reverence for fallen comrades. Fair enough. That’s far too gooey a subject to take apart here.

But more than that, the flag is used as a symbol of defiant collective identity. My question is whether it is the right symbol for that identity.

If you’re sporting a “Don’t Tread On Me” flag or a Betsy Ross flag, I’m picking up what you’re laying down. You’re making a political statement, showing sympathy for revolutionaries and the ideals of the Founding Fathers. You’re making it clear that you understand that their America is not this America, and you’d prefer some updated version of their America.

However, the flag with fifty stars and thirteen stripes is the symbol of the current government of the United States of America.


It’s not a phallic symbol. It doesn’t mean “I’m a badass,” or “I like blonde women in bikinis with big tits.” It doesn’t mean, “I’m gonna kill this CrossFit WOD.” It doesn’t mean “traditional values,” or “I like country music” or “guns are awesome.”

It definitely does not mean, “white guys rule.”

The flag of the United States of America is the symbol of Barack Obama’s government, and soon it will probably be the symbol of Hillary Clinton’s government. Or maybe there will be just one more old white guy. Like Joe Biden or Jeb Bush. It really doesn’t matter. Those people are just figureheads.

The elites who actually run America — whatever party they support on a given day — have long made it clear that the America they want is exactly the opposite of what flag-waving white guys want. Billionaires from Bill Gates to Michael Bloomberg have agreed that the Second Amendment rights you associate with the flag will be severely curtailed. The only thing stopping them is a bunch of crusty white baby boomers who haven’t died yet. As the population shifts between now and 2044, when whites are scheduled to become a minority, anti-gun forces will only gain power and influence.

The United States isn’t governed from the heartland. It’s governed from the cities. Oregon and Washington, for instance, are both basically red states if you pull out Portland and Seattle. The people in the cities have all of the power and set all of the agendas, but it’s the people in the country who keep waving the flag around. There’s some major cognitive dissonance there, some kind of Stockholm syndrome where people who have no power cheer and wave the flag of the people who use power against them.

The United States Government doesn’t care about freedom. It’s the FBI, the CIA, the NSA and the TSA. Every year it makes more laws and its citizens have fewer meaningful rights. For the United States Government, the Bill of Rights is an obstacle to work around. Civil rights are an inconvenience, unless they expand protections for women or gays or blacks or the transgendered. The civil rights of white guys are not a priority. You know that.

And speaking of freedom, isn’t the current flag basically the flag of the same government that has already proved it will go to war with any state that wants to secede? If freedom means anything, it is self-determination, and if you can’t leave, you ain’t free.

The United States Government doesn’t care about its borders, and it is eager to replace the flag-waving white guys with desperate brown guys from anywhere. Politicians go through the motions of opposing immigration or the outsourcing of American jobs, but they always fold to other interests and barely slow the processes already underway.

The United States Government wants women in the military at every possible level. It believes in hiring quotas, mandatory diversity powerpoint presentations and draconian penalties for anything deemed “sexual harassment.” It is definitely not about blondes in bikinis with big tits.

And veterans, you know as well as I do that the United States Government thinks you’re a terrorist threat. It’s not on your side. If your experience has been anything like the experience of any recent vet I’ve ever talked to, you know that the United States Government will cheat you, fuck you over and throw you under the bus if it can get away with it.

So what’s up, white guys? What’s with all of the flag-waving? Don’t you get it? “Your country” HATES you and everything you stand for. Your country is not a country of white guys like you, it is a country full of blacks and Mexicans who think you’re a racist piece of shit. It’s full of white women who don’t respect you and read Huffington post every day and think your ideas about masculinity and family and guns are “outdated.”

The flag does not mean what you think it means. It means, in many cases, exactly the opposite.

Maybe it’s time to find a new symbol for “FREEDOM, FIREPOWER AND FUCK YEAH!!!!”

Not One of the 45 Homicides in July 2015 in Baltimore Was Committed by a White Person

via Stuff Black People Don't Like

Recently, I found myself reading a copy of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. A line struck me as simply astonishing in its breathtaking in its sheer... simplicity: 

When a race of plants is once pretty well established, the seed-raisers do not pick out the best plants, but merely go over their seed-beds, and pull up the “rogues,” as they call the plants that deviate from the proper standard. With animals this kind of selection is, in fact, likewise followed; for hardly any one is so careless as to breed from his worst animals.

What does happen when one, to paraphrase Darwin, is so careless as to breed from his worst animals with the redistributed tax dollars from its best animals?

We call it Baltimore 2015. [45 murders in 31 days: Looking back at Baltimore's deadliest month, Baltimore Sun, August 29, 2015]:
Taylor Street and Delvin Trusty began dating in high school after he sent her a message on social media. 
They attended prom together, and three years later were expecting their first child. When she gave birth this month, she was surrounded with support, including Trusty's parents and brother, and her mother, sister and cousin — but not Trusty. 
Their daughter, a 9-pound, 11-ounce girl named Avah, was born one month to the day that Trusty was gunned down in Northeast Baltimore. "I text his phone still," Street said. "I send pictures of the baby." 
Trusty was among 45 people killed in Baltimore in July, a toll that matched the deadliest month in the city's modern history and came amid a surge in violent crime surge that followed Freddie Gray's death. 
The last time 45 people were killed in one month was in August 1972, when the city had about 275,000 more residents. The deaths occurred across the city, overwhelmingly in historically impoverished neighborhoods. 
All but one of the victims were male, all but two of them black. Many had serious criminal records. The victims also included a 5-month-old boy and a 53-year-old grandmother, a teen stabbed to death in a dispute over a cell phone and a carryout deliveryman killed in a robbery. 
They left behind scores of grieving relatives, including dozens of children and stepchildren who will grow up without fathers — a city's deadly legacy.
Of the 45 homicides, all but two were black: only one involves a non-black suspect, and it's a case of Asian infanticide (the other homicide was an Indian deliveryman being gunned down by a black dude). 

The "historically impoverished neighborhoods" didn't manifest out of the ground: at one point a need arose for houses to be built and an economy to flourish, which quickly dissipated as the racial character of the neighborhood went from white to black. 

Let's take a quick look a few of the 43 black homicide victims from July of 2015 in Baltimore and see if we can't judge by the content of their character... [45 murders in 31 days : The victims of July violence, Baltimore Sun, August 29, 2015]:
  • Nathaniel Wheeler 31-year-old, African-American, male. Killed by shooting, 7/2/15 1:41 PM, 2700 Auchentoroly Terrace. Nathaniel Wheeler was shot multiple times while working on a construction site in West Baltimore on July 2, the day after his birthday. Tavon Wheeler said his brother’s death makes him one of just a few men in his family who are not incarcerated or dead. “I’ve lost a lot to these streets,” he said. “I’ve been shot on these streets; my brother’s been shot on these streets; my father’s died on the street, hit by a car when he was 28; my brother got hit by a car, died when he was 9; my grandfather died in the street to overdose.
  • Lamont Randall 39-year-old, African-American, male. Killed by shooting, 7/7/15 10:37 PM, 900 W Fayette. Nicole Jones-Randall, 37, said her husband was a devoted family man. They shared seven sons and four grandchildren, whom he frequently posted about on Facebook. His Facebook photos include those of his family and of his tattoos, one of which read “Death before dishonor” across his chest. Jones-Randall said that Randall, who would have turned 40 on Aug. 18 “wasn’t an angel.” Court records show several convictions resulting in prison time. But Jones-Randall said that he used his experiences to impart wisdom on his children. 
  • Shyteak Lawrence 25-year-old, African-American, male. Killed by shooting, 7/19/15 9:30 PM, 1100 N Longwood St. Shyteak Lawrence Jr. was a friend of Freddie Gray, and was “really hurt” by his death in April, he told a news service affiliated with the Nation of Islam. “I’m terrified to walk out here, not because of the men on the corner,” he told The Final Call newspaper. “It’s because of the officers.” Less than three months later, Lawrence himself was shot dead. His alleged killer was his girlfriend’s former boyfriend, according to court records. The killing came after an argument turned physical, records state, In a recent interview, Lawrence’s mother said she knows little about the case. 
  •  Clerow Myers III 23-year-old, African-American, male. Killed by stabbing, 7/23/15 9:22 PM, 4000 Glengyle Ave. Clerow Myers III’s family takes umbrage at the suggestion from police that he died over a $3 dispute. They say the deadly encounter began when Myers and another man argued over money for a hotel room, but escalated when the man threatened Myers’ girlfriend and his 15-year-old brother with a knife. When Myers found out, he fought the man, who later returned and killed him, relatives said. Police said at the time the dispute was over $3 in change left over from the hotel room rental. Clerow Myers Jr. said he taught his children to stick up for one another, but that didn’t make his son’s death any less heartbreaking. “I’m hurt that he’s gone, but I’m also proud because he did exactly what I taught him to do.” Witnesses identified Ta-von Marrell Harris, 35, as the suspect, and police have charged him in the slaying.
  • Donte Dixon Jr. 29-year-old, African-American, male. Killed by shooting, 7/31/15 12:00 AM, 4500 Edmondson Ave. Donte Dixon Jr., was a popular Baltimore-area rapper, whose lyrics often depicted the troubles of growing up in a violent city. “You don’t grind, you don’t shine, that’s the motto where I’m from. … Make my local police salary in less than a month, that’s the reason they harassing me to put me in those cuffs,” he rapped in one song. Dixon, who went by the name G-Rock, fell in love with rap music at an early age, relatives said. He was part of a rap group called Teflon Dons. “He was an outgoing person, fun,” said James Jones, a friend. “A lot of people loved him. He was a good guy. He didn’t start no trouble. He tried to stay away from stuff like that.”
By my count, at least four aspiring rappers were among the 43 black homicide victims in Baltimore during the month of July in 2015; few of the homicides have a connection to gang activity, with most occurring over something as seemingly insignificant as a $3 debt. 

These 43 black homicide victims' (all murdered by other black people, with none involving a police officer as a suspect) - as well as the Indian immigrant gunned down by the black suspect - lives represent exactly why these neighborhoods are "impoverished." 

The life each of them led directly correlates to the blight, ruin, and complete collapse of the morality and social capital once keeping the community together (and enabling it to be built) when white people called these parts of Baltimore home. 

We have been so careless as to allow the worst of our population to breed. The end result of this disastrous decision does not come without consequence: we call it Baltimore in 2015.

Marxism: The Religion of Immoralism

via The End of Zion

Max Eastman
The End of Zion Editor's Note: The following essay is from the book Reflections on the Failure of Socialism by Max Eastman

Since Stalin’s death it has become necessary to find a new focus for our hostility to the unscrupulous and inhuman behavior of the Communists. I wish it might be focused on the real cause of the trouble: Marxism. Much force of argument is wasted among Western intellectuals through a wish to exempt Marx from responsibility for this re-tum to barbarism. Realpolitik in the evil sense was certainly not born with Marx. But the peculiar thing we are up against, the casting aside of moral standards by people specializing in the quest of ideal human relations, was born with Marx. He is the fountain source of the mores as well as the economics of the Russian Bolsheviks, and is the godfather of the delinquent liberals in all lands.

marx-bioThe notion of Marx as a benign and noble brooder over man’s hopes and sorrows, who would be “horrified” at the’ tricks and duplicities of present-day Communists, is as false as it is widespread. Marx had a bad character. His best eulogists can hardly think up a virtue to ascribe to him-except, indeed, tenacity and moral courage. If he ever performed a generous act, it is not to be found in the record. He was a totally undisciplined, vain, slovenly, and egotistical spoiled child. He was ready at the drop of a hat with spiteful hate. He could be devious, disloyal, snobbish, antidemocratic, anti-Semitic, anti-Negro. He was by habit a sponge, an intriguer, a tyrannical bigot who would rather wreck his party than see it succeed under another leader. All these traits are clear in the records of his life, and above all in his private correspondence with his alter ego and inexhaustible sugar-daddy, Friedrich Engels. There are bits in this correspondence so revolting to a person of democratic sensibility that they had to be suppressed to keep the myth of the great-hearted Karl Marx, champion of the downtrodden and of human brotherhood, alive at all. To give one example: Ferdinand Lassalle, who was eclipsing Marx as leader of a genuine working class movement in Germany, they discovered to be not only a Jew whom they called “Baron Izzy,” “oi-oi, the great Lassalle,” “the little Jew,” ”’the little kike,” “Jew Braun,” “Izzy the bounder,” etc., but also “a Jewish nigger.” “It is perfectly obvious,” Marx wrote, “from the shape of his head and the way his hair grows that he is descended from the Negroes who joined Moses on the journey out of Egypt, unless perhaps his mother or his grandmother had relations with a nigger.” Only the Russian Bolsheviks, who went in for the religion of immoralism with a barbaric candor impossible to an urbane European, had the hardihood to publish these letters unexpurgated.

I use the word religion in a precise sense. Although he dismissed God as a hoax and the heavenly paradise as a decoy, Marx was not by nature skeptical or experimental. His habits of thought demanded a belief both in paradise and in a power that would surely lead us to it. He located his paradise on earth, calling it by such beatific names as the “Kingdom of Freedom,” the “Society of the Free and Equal,’~ the “Classless Society” etc. Everything would be blissful and harmonious there to a degree surpassing even the dreams of the utopian socialists. Not only would all “causes for contest” disappear, all caste and class divisions, but all divisions between city and country, between brain and manual worker. Men would not even be divided into different professions as they are at this low stage of the climb toward paradise.

“Socialism will abolish both architecture and barrow-pushing as professions,” Engels assured the believers, “and the man who has given half an hour to architecture will also push the cart a little until his work as an architect is again in demand. It would be a pretty sort of socialism which perpetuated the business of barrow-pushing.”

It would seem that only a benign deity could guarantee such a future to mankind, and only by teaching a higher morality could He lead us to it. But Marx hated deity, and regarded high moral aspirations as an obstacle. The power on which he rested his faith in the coming paradise was the harsh, fierce, bloody evolution of a “material,” and yet mysteriously “upward-going,” world. And he convinced himself that, in order to get in step with such a world, we must set aside moral principles and go in for fratricidal war. Although buried under a mountain of economic rationalizations pretending to be science, that mystical and antimoral faith is the one wholly original contribution of Karl Marx to man’s heritage of ideas.

It is common among those who condemn the lowering of moral standards by Marxists to blame their materialism” for it, but that is a crass mistake. Throughout history, from Democritus to Santayana, men who believed genuinely that the substance of the world is matter have been among the noblest teachers of morality. Marx’s materialism was not genuine. It was the disguise of a mystical faith. The world he called “material” was mental enough to be forever ascending “from the lower to the higher” with a determinism that is hardly distinguishable from determination. Engels, who did the work and took the risk of actually expounding this naive philosophy-for Marx played it safe as well as lazy by only jotting down a few notes-even tells us that “the celestial bodies like the formation of the organisms . . . arise and perish and the courses that they run . . . take on eternally more magnificent dimensions.” Remembering that on this particular planet human society is also rising through successive stages to the “more magnificent” goal of the socialist society, you see what a godlike kind of “matter” it was that Marx believed in. It differed from Hegel’s Divine Spirit only in agreeing with Marx about what is sublime, and in mapping out a course of procedure toward it that gave free exercise to Marx’s rebellious and contumaceous disposition. The universe of dialectic materialism-to put it briefly-is a pantheistic God masquerading as matter, and permitting Himself under that disguise forms of conduct that no God honestly named and identified could get away with in a civilized world.

9781621572961_p0_v3_s192x300Whittaker Chambers is very profoundly wrong when he says in his book, Witness, that the issue between Soviet Communism and the free world is between religion and irreligion, or between belief in man and belief in God. The Communists believe in man not as an independent power, but as a constituent part of the superhumanly ordained movement of the universe. That dialectic movement is their God, and it is that God who exempts them from the laws of morality. The difference between Christianity and Communism-the difference, I mean, that is vital in this connection is between a religion which teaches personal salvation through sympathy and loving-kindness and a religion which teaches social salvation through bringing the morals of war into the peacetime relations of men.

Marx was so sure that the world was going to be redeemed by its own dialectic evolution that he would not permit his disciples to invoke the guidance of moral ideals. He really meant it when he said the workers have “no ideal to realize,” they have only to participate in the contemporary struggle. He expelled people from his ‘Communist party for mentioning programmatically such things as “love,” “justice,” “humanity,” even “morality” itself. “Soulful ravings,” “sloppy sentimentality,” he called such expressions, and purged the astonished authors as though they had committed the most dastardly crimes.

Later in life, when Marx founded the First International, he felt compelled for the sake of a big membership to softpedal his highbrow insight into the purposes of the universe. He wrote privately to Engels: “I was obliged to insert in the preamble two phrases about ‘duty and right,’ ditto ‘truth, morality, and justice.'” But these lamentable phrases-he assured his friend-”are placed in such a way that they can do no harm.”

This mystic faith in evolution set Marx’s mind free, and, alas, his natural disposition, to replace the honest campaign of public persuasion by which other gospels have been propagated, with schemes for deceiving the public and tricking his way into positions of power. It was Marx, not Lenin, who invented the technique of the “front organization,” the device of pretending to be a democrat in order to destroy democracy, the ruthless purging of dissident party members, the employment of false personal slander in this task.

It was Marx and Engels who adopted “scorn and contempt” as the major key in which to attack the opponents of socialism, introducing a literature of vituperation that has few parallels in history. Even the political masterstroke of giving the land to the peasants “initially” in order to take it away from them when the power is secure came from the same source. The introduction of such unprincipled behavior into a movement toward the highest ends of man was entirely the work of Marx and Engels. Lenin added nothing to it but skill, and Stalin nothing but total instinctive indifference to the ends.

So strong a force was set going after his death to sanctify Marx, and benevolize him, so to speak, that these practices were largely forgotten among Western Socialists. His religion of immoralism was smoothed over. But in Lenin’s mind this religion found a perfect home, for Lenin had grown up under the influence of the terrorist wing of the Russian revolutionary movement. Lenin was an ardent admirer of Nechayev, a rabid zealot of the 1870’s who drew up a famous document called “Catechism of a Revolutionist“:
The revolutionist is a doomed man. . . . He has severed every link with the social order and with the entire civilized world. . . . He hates and despises the social morality of his time…. Everything which promotes the success of the revolution is moral, everything which hinders it is immoral.
lenin_1921-07_beim_3_kongress_der_kominternNechayev was denounced even by his sufficiently violent colleague, the anarchist Bakunin, as a dangerous fanatic who “when it is necessary to render some service to what he calls ‘the cause’ . . . stops at nothing-deceit, robbery, even murder.” But Lenin. startled his early friends by defending this madman and honoring his memory. Thus before he became a Marxist, Lenin had arrived by an emotional road at that rejection of moral standards which Marx deduced from a pretended science of history. The confluence of these two streams of thought is one of the greatest disasters that ever befell mankind.

Lenin was even more credulous and more specific than Marx and Engels in describing the beauties of life in the paradise toward which this dialectic world was traveling. In his socialism every “barrow-pusher” and every kitchen maid was to take part in the function of government. He was also more specific in describing the kinds of vile conduct which must be employed to help it along. “We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding and concealing truth,” he exclaimed. “We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, scorn, and the like, toward those who disagree with us.”

Acting upon such principles, Lenin made use of slanderous lies and character-assassinations; he encouraged bank robberies and armed holdups as a means of replenishing the funds for the millennium. His disciples have carried the faith forward, not stopping at any crime, from bodily assassination to state-planned famine and wholesale military massacre. A chief organizer of those bank robberies and holdups was the Georgian Djugashvili, who took the party name of Stalin. The Marx-Leninist belief that such crimes are methods of progress toward a millennium was instilled in this youth from the day of his revolt against Christian theology. He had no other education, touched no other conception of the world. He was once described by Archbishop Curley as “the greatest murderer of men in history,” and the record when it is calmly written may bear this out. But he took no step beyond the logical implications of a devout belief in brutal and dishonorable conduct. He merely followed through on the doctrine invented by Karl Marx, that in order to enter the “Kingdom of Freedom,” we must set aside moral standards. We must place “duty and right … truth, morality, and justice,” where “they can do no harm.” Or, in Lenin’s words (spoken to an all-Russian Congress of Youth): “For us morality is subordinated completely to the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat.”

We have not entered, alas, the Kingdom of Freedom, and the Classless Society has failed to appear. Everything under the Communists moves in the opposite direction. But this religion of immoralism flourishes. The notion of an earthly paradise in which men shall dwell together in millennial brotherhood is used to justify crimes and depravities surpassing anything the modem world has seen. And this is true not only in Russia, but wherever the power of the Communist conspiracy extends. In countries beyond the reach of Moscow the taint is carried by Communist parties to their fringe of accomplices, dupes, and fellow travelers; even the once-honest liberals are not immune to it. More and more throughout the world those dedicated to an extreme social ideal, instead of being trained in virtue, are trained to condone crimes against the elementary principles of social conduct. Such a disaster never happened to humanity before. No such religion ever existed. That is why our statesmen have been bewildered and outwitted by it. Even after thirty years of being assiduously swindled by the Kremlin, they find it hard to believe that any human animal can be, on principle and with devout and selfless fervor, a liar, a murderer, and a cheat.

They are now looking for some. recrudescence of the old simple decencies in Malenkov and his associates. But they will look in vain. These men have been brought up in the same school. They are fanatics of the same antimoral and antiscientific religion. Only the disproof and dislodgment of Marxism will ever cure the world of its present desperate sickness.

A Modest Proposal for Gun-Shunners

via Alternative Right

Alternative Right Editor's Note: The following article was originally composed in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Connecticut in December 2012, and was published on the "old" Alt-Right site on January 2, 2013. With a fevered push for "gun control" once again afoot among the usual suspects following last week's spectacularly horrific on-air massacre of a Roanoke reporter and cameraman, the 'piece'pun intendedhas duly been summoned out of retirement.
In his article “Police State Progressives,” Jack Donovan echoes so many of my own thoughts on the post-Newtown American Zeitgeist that I am tempted to quip that he stole my gunfire on the subject. Liberals, he finds, don’t really care for the notion of power being granted to “the people”—they have learned to stop worrying and love the state. Of course, were the face of Big Brother still revealed in the smirking frat-boy features of George W. Bush instead of the shining, godlike countenance of mulatto rainbow wonderboy Barack Obama, chances are the libs would have a far harder time carrying on their love affair. (Even though the policies of the two men aren’t markedly different, image is indeed everything when it comes to today’s facile state-smitten progressives.)

Pointing out the smelly hypocrisy of liberal-left rhetoric, of course, is a full-time job, and I am already gainfully employed, so I won’t delve too deeply into the bogus and tiresome invitations to take part in a “national conversation” on guns. Suffice to say that I respectfully decline the offer to join this so-called “dialogue,” because I know specious, disingenuous blather when I hear it. When media and academic elites wish to conduct town hall meetings in some quaint invocation of populist democracy, it’s easy enough to catch a whiff of the ubiquitous, proverbial rat. Liberals don’t want a “dialogue” on guns any more than they have ever really wanted to engage in a “dialogue” on race. Rather, they want to lecture us benighted ones (be we gun owners or race realists) on the error of our ways, and help us to see the light that they so graciously carry for our benefit.

In short, were the standard liberal more prone to enter into this “dialogue” with an open mind—i.e., with the idea that maybe, just maybe, he might learn something from the non-liberal, rather than merely entering the fray with the aim of being a “consciousness-raiser,” a conduit through which his enemy, whom he loathes and smugly regards as a stupid gun-toting racist redneck—finally gets enlightened, then the prospect of engaging in a dialogue with said liberal would seem slightly more enticing. Until such time, I’d just as soon engage in “dialogue” with one of my gun range targets.

It is in the psychology of the self-righteous to be prone to rhetorical overreach. The Newtown massacre has brought out the human tendency towards scapegoating and witch-hunting which gets freely and hyperbolically indulged after a horrifying and traumatic event takes place. In a way, such reactions are understandable, and as a parent myself, I am willing to cut fellow raisers of children some slack on this front. No one wants to feel helpless, and everyone wants to “do something,” to “demand a plan,” particularly when we fear for the safety of the most vulnerable among us. Thus, when a upstate New York newspaper recently published the names and addresses of state-registered gun-owning residents in the area, it probably seemed like a good idea at the time. Why not shame these law-abiding people for being part of America’s “gun culture,” and thus complicit in the mass murder of 20 children by a deranged psychopath at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut? We have to “do something,” after all!

It probably surprised the originators of this idea when they discerned the massive backlash they’d provoked, and the likely harm they did to their cause, by treating gun owners as if they were vile people to be shunned and ostracized, something like child molesters. Reports on the story afterwards from other news outlets were a display in damage control: perhaps it was an error in judgment to run the report “outing” area gun owners, we were told, but after all, the news outlet meant well, so please forgive them!

We see a case-in-point here of hysterical sanctimony run amok, but of course as usual the controversy generates more heat than light. Much as this news station attempted to shame and vilify its “targets,” they probably did these people a service.

After all, for all of the tired talk of American “gun culture” being to blame for the random violent acts of lunatics, chances are that in a society experiencing upheaval, tumult, and chaos, having a gun handy in fact enhances one’s security a good deal. And I strongly suspect that, deep down, even the most vociferous gun-control advocates know that bad men, be they disreputable outlaws or tyrannical agents of the state, are far more likely to victimize and oppress the unarmed than those with a means of protecting themselves and their families from attack. Thus, in outing the dastardly possessors of firearms and attempting to tar them with an aura of ignominy, the overzealous New York newsmen inadvertently gave word to the criminal element: if you’re a ruthless, amoral creep with a yen to break into someone’s house to rob, rape, or otherwise wreak havoc, then for heaven’s sake don’t visit any of these addresses. You might, after all, get shot before you can carry out your depredations!

But perhaps I am wrong on this score. Maybe, in fact, those most zealous to disarm and render vulnerable their fellow citizens truly believe that being defenseless makes them safer. If this is so, I’d like to issue an open invitation to all gun-control enthusiasts.

Stand up and be counted, oh annointed ones! Lead by example! If you wish to bring about universal disarmament, then in the comment section below, please let the world know who you are, where you live, and a full list of the valuables you store in your home. Please make it absolutely clear that you have no guns whatsoever anywhere on your person or your property... Surely you have nothing to fear in speaking up thusly, if, as you constantly tell us, the presence of guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens only makes the world more unsafe, and the absence of guns discourages the commission of violent crime! 

Review of "For My Legionaries"

via Western Destiny

Corneliu Codreanu
I’d like to make some comments on Codreanu’s For My Legionaries, now available in a new edition, with added background information and new photos. This book has already been reviewed in detail several times, so, rather than writing an overall review here, I will simply comment on specific aspects of the book and of Codreanu’s movement.

Observers of the modern scene observe that the typical White man, soft and weak, smiles ingratiatingly to friend and foe alike, and is not taken seriously by anyone. There is truth to that; thus, it is refreshing to see in this book photos of stern-faced and serious hard-Right men, ready for battle, with no quarter (and no smiles!) given the enemy.  Also interesting is the comparison between the Romanian phenotypes and that of a group of Jews also shown in the book, the contrast, reflecting different racial types, is very clear.

The interesting thing is how similar Codreanu’s complaints about the Jews were, not only compared to Hitlerism, but to what today's WNs assert.  Jewish “experts” would tell us this is due to the “common pathologies of anti-Semitic myths.” Another, more economical, explanation is that these are all common reactions to actual Jewish behavior, real-life behavior consistent over time and place.  For example, Codreanu noted that when (in the few years after the end of WWI) the major threat to the Romanian state came from Jewish-led communists, then the major Jewish newspapers and organizations in Romania were hostile to the state and its authority.  Later, as the state became increasingly pro-Jewish, and as the major threat to the state’s authority came from Codreanu and the far-Right, suddenly Romania’s Jews became easy “patriots” supporting the state and its authority from the "terroristic fascist hooligans."  If that all sounds familiar, consider the American situation. During the 1960s counter-culture, the Jewish-led radical left mounted a full scale sociopolitical assault against traditional America, against the “fascist pigs” of the Establishment, against all forms of authority, dissolving and mocking the ties of patriotism that held the nation together.  Fast forward to the America of more recent decades, where Jews are now a leading force in the Establishment, the driving force of the anti-White multicultural morass, now they are “neoconservatives,” wrapping themselves in the flag as they berate “unpatriotic isolationists,” “far-right subversives,” “White supremacist terrorists,” “anti-government militias” and the like.  In the past, Jewish radicals opposed the “fascist FBI," today, Jewish “watchdog groups” consult with the FBI and train local police forces. Oy vey, the hypocrisy!

It is also enlightening how similar “our” elites are from one era to the next, and from one nation to the next. That the Romanian elites of Codreanu’s time sided with Jews and other aliens against their own people mirrors what occurs throughout the White World today, and is yet another indication that these elites need to be replaced (more on “elites” below), and that “working within the system” is a long-term impossibility.

In the “movement” division between “Vanguardists” and “Mainstreamers,” Codreanu’s elite and radical Legion were obviously and definitely Vanguardists.  However, since these two approaches are not entirely orthogonal, Codreanu did attempt to reach out to the masses.  There is nothing about the “Vanguard” approach that says that the masses need to be eschewed; the difference is how it is done, for what purpose, and with what attitude.  While Mainstreamers allow the masses to exert leadership, in that Mainstreamer strategy is to follow the lead of the masses and tailor the ideology to fit current tastes and trends, in order to “win elections” and “have a mass appeal,” in contrast, the Vanguardists insist on being the leaders and teachers, with the masses being in the position of followers and students.  Thus, in the Vanguard approach, the masses never set the tone and never dictate ideology; it are the masses who must adjust and compromise toward the Movement, not the other way around.

Another major philosophical, political, worldview split in the “movement” (besides the usual infighting between pan-Europeanists and Nordicists, atheists vs. Christians vs. pagans) is that between conservatives and radicals.  The conservative school is exemplified by the HBD faction, by race-mixers who preach “working within the system” and who label those even slightly to their right as “latrine flies,” Judeophilic conservatives who brag about all the “sweet” business deals they’ve consummated, and, of course, Jews like Michael Hart.  Indeed, Hart’s vision is the archetype of the conservative “race-realist” worldview: a multiracial (!) “White separatist (sic!) state,” which would include Jews and Asians, with a ruling meme of HBD “race-realism”) (i.e., Jew/Asian IQ worship), excluding Negroes (but not much else), with a “laisses-faire” economic system (i.e., ethnocentric Jews and Asians using predatory capitalism to exploit Whites).  Thus, the conservative “racialist” future is much like modern America, albeit with no Negroes, no social safety net, and a ruthless ruling elite of plutocratic Jeurasians.

The radicals on the other hand, fascists in the broad sense of the word, want a complete re-ordering of society, much greater racial homogeneity, and a rejection of the sort of plutocratic and aristocratic elites who’ve caused the race problem with their selfishness and utter stupidity. This group includes radical national socialists who take the “socialist” part of that political identity seriously, as well as the Codreanu school of thought, which made remaking men a pre-requisite to remaking society. The radicals do not want a superficial “quick fix,” but rather a more permanent rebirth of values and structures that will ensure that the same mistakes are not made over and over again. As is clear, Codreanu’s movement and its emphasis on the New Man, squarely sits among the radicals, and it must be note that, while rejecting communism, the Legion also rejected predatory capitalism and plutocracy, and fought for social justice and a “fair shake” for Romanian workers. Such terms as “social justice” and “rights for workers” would no doubt cast a chill on the conservatives and their “sweet deals,” and this helps to clarify some of the differences between the two groups.

On pages 254-259 of this edition are two sub-chapters by Codreanu entitled Dangers That Threaten a Political Movement and The Critique of the Leader – these pages alone are worth the cost of the entire book.  Somehow, by writing about Romanian nationalism of the post-WWI period, Codreanu also envisioned and predicted the pathetic failures – and some of the reasons for those failures - of the American “movement” of the period 1945-Present.  It’s all there – the inability to recognize and weed out infiltrators, agent provocateurs, incompetents, freaks, and defectives; the desperation for followers that means that anyone who meets the minimum criteria for membership and who professes any superficial allegiance is accepted into the very heart of the group, no questions asked; the inability to cut out/remove “gangrenous” elements before they infect the entire group; defects in character of leadership, leaders who are uninspiring, who do not know how to lead, who procrastinate and waste endless opportunities (how many Professor Cuzas have we had in the “movement”?) – the list goes on.  Read those pages and you’ll recognize the American “movement” in all its tragicomic pitifulness. You’ll also recognize a number of “movement” blogs/websites that have been destroyed because of their inexplicable inability to recognize outright (in some cases, virtually self-declared) frauds and trolls, sites whose “accept one and all” attitude have led to the sorts of rampant infections Codreanu warned about in this book.

Also, starting on page 289 are two sub-chapters entitled The Beginnings of Legionary Life and Our Program, which are also of great value and are must reading. Of particular interest is that the Legionary Movement, as opposed to the “movement,” did not recruit. They simply established their way of living, performed their activities, and those attracted to that lifestyle, those drawn to the Legionary life, came to them. And, if of good character, they were accepted, and only of they performed up to standards and only of the Legionary life was acceptable to them, they were retained. And once accepted, once a part of the Legionary “nest,” the Legionary found himself in a comradely collectivist environment of like-minded persons following this way of living, not a rigid “Fuhrer principle” “movement” garbage dump of freakishness, procrastination, and incompetence. Note I use the phrase “way of living” to describe the Legionary “program” because that is precisely what it was: not an “official program” of detailed policies and memes, no “movement” stupidities with their invented sci-fi/fantasy “racial histories,” calipers, “admixture ratios,” dumb mantras, defective memes, ideological frameworks as flimsy as a house of cards. The Legionary “program” was to create a new type of Romanian, a New Man, to act, to become, to exert leadership within the national community - not to collect a bunch of bozos calling themselves “Superhitler1488aryanbloodssmanlonewolfultranaziswastika88148814,” and/or folks with a documented history of mental illness, and/or obvious trolls with a documented history of blog-wrecking, or any other flotsam and jetsam of “movement” detritus, and then give these people “the keys to the kingdom” and then watch your blog flounder, your group files end up in the hands of “watchdog” groups, a quarter-century of “activism” yielding zero results, or any other typical “movement” outcome. Also, reading the Legion’s history, one notes for the record that many of their enemies and traitors ended up dead. Now, that last comment is NOT meant as any sort of advocacy to violence or any sort of thing, far from it – it is simply a statement of historical fact. Legionaries would sacrifice themselves – often on their own initiative – for the cause, and NOT by some moronic stupidity of shooting up a church or movie house, but by the specific targeting of their very public enemies. Again, that’s simply a statement of fact and not advocacy or promotion of anything. I also note that the more the “movement” talks about “eschewing defectives,” the more defectives of the types noted above are handed those keys and are welcomed with open arms. The “movement” is a joke; the Legionary Movement was of deadly seriousness.

I also note that the devoutly Christian Codreanu was forced to admit that mist Romanian priests were openly hostile to the vehemently pro-Christian Legionary Movement. The great love that Traditionalists have for Christianity is an unrequited love, indeed.

Toward the end of the book Codreanu wrote a critique of democracy that ranks with Yockey’s own fine analysis of that subject.  Codreanu dissects the unsuitability of democracy to solve national problems and provide national leadership.  He asserts that an elite, which rises based on ability and personal qualities, is required.  How exactly is the elite chosen?  If a national elite already exists, it must choose its successor, and do so by confirming for leadership those who have proven themselves worthy. What if there is no pre-existing nationalist elite?  How does the process begin?  Codreanu writes…the real elite is born out of war with the degenerate elite. In other words, the founding elite of the national state is formed by those who have waged war against the degenerate elites of the anti-nationalists. Codreanu not only rejects democratically elected elites but, also (and interestingly from a movement that was so pro-monarchy) hereditary elites; indeed, Codreanu cogently observes that the replacement of an original elite of merit by elites of heredity (i.e., the original nobility earn their status through war and politics and then degenerates into a hereditary caste) is what caused the democratic revolutions to begin with. Analogous to my own statement that superiority must be earned and is not a birthright of any individual, group, or ethny, Codreanu proposes an elite of merit and ability, one that is rejuvenated by fresh blood each generation.  Such analyses demonstrate that Codreanu the man of action was also a solid practical political theorist.  
Codreanu also asserted that the movement must move on three levels: the individual, the national collective, and the nation throughout the ages, and each preceding level must accept the preeminence of the next highest level, with the nation over time (what we today would focus on as ethny or race) being of the highest level of importance.

Although I have come out in favor of so-called “democratic multiculturalism” and I also agree with calls to use the judicial system against the System, reading Codreanu’s book reminds us that, ultimately, power prevails.  Time and time again the Legionaries were in the right, sometimes doing nothing but building a home or growing vegetables in a garden, or holding a meeting for which they obtained official approval, and they were attacked, arrested, and beaten by the police and military authorities, and their perfectly legal meetings shut down (Tudor's summary of the Legion's history notes some examples, as does Codreanu's letter to Prime Minister Vaiva-Voevod, the latter found in pages 428-432).  In America (but not Europe), there is “freedom of speech” and “freedom of assembly,” but with anti-nationalist NGOs (often with government approval or even cooperation) repressing activism (how many conferences have been cancelled due to NGO pressures and threats?) and with social pricing, are we really any better off than Codreanu’s group?  I can argue that we are worse off, since at least the Legionary Movement had the advantage of a sympathetic judiciary.  Indeed, there were cases in which Codreanu and Mota actually shot people – Codreanu himself shot and killed a government official – and they were acquitted!  Contrast that to, say, the legal persecution of an innocent and non-violent Matt Hale and we can indeed wonder if, even with all the persecutions of the Legion, we are in fact worse off than they were.

I would like to end by also saying that the additional explanations and histories given by Bolton and Tudor were useful contributions to this volume (in particular, Tudor's summary, The Doctrine of the Legion, in pages 452-459), and, finally, that I was impressed by Codreanu himself, a man of action who was able to express practical political truths in a understandable manner, in the midst of his busy schedule of real-world on-the-ground activism.
There is, among all those in various parts of the world who serve their people, a kinship of sympathy, as there is a kinship among those who labor for the destruction of peoples. - Corneliu Codreanu

Something for Nothing

via Radix

James Howard Kunstler’s latest article on the Trump phenomenon is entitled “Worse Than Hitler.” It’s hard to read that headline and not conclude that Kunstler has become a parody of the uptight, shrill, self-righteous, delusional liberal intellectual . . . or alternatively, a conservative.

But, in fact, the title is a head-fake. Kunstler (who’s neither Left nor Right) is one of the few who actually gets immigration.
Immigration is a practical problem, with visible effects on-the-ground, easy to understand. I’m enjoying the Trump-provoked debate mostly because it is a pushback against the disgusting dishonesty of political correctness that has bogged down the educated classes in a swamp of sentimentality. For instance, Times Sunday Magazine staffer Emily Bazelon wrote a polemic last week inveighing against the use of the word “illegal” applied to people who cross the border without permission on the grounds that it “justifies their mistreatment.” One infers she means that sending them back where they came from equals mistreatment.
It’s refreshing that Trump is able to cut through this kind of tendentious crap. If that were his only role, it would be a good one, because political correctness is an intellectual disease that is making it impossible for even educated people to think — especially people who affect to be political leaders. Trump’s fellow Republicans are entertainingly trapped in their own cowardliness and it’s fun to watch them squirm.
From there, Kunstler goes on to the “magical thinking” of the Trump phenomenon.
But for me, everything else about Trump is frankly sickening, from his sneering manner of speech, to the worldview he reveals day by day, to the incoherence of his rhetoric, to the wolverine that lives on top of his head. The thought of Trump actually getting elected makes me wonder where Arthur Bremer is when we really need him.
Did any of you actually catch Trump’s performance last week at the so-called “town meeting” event in New Hampshire (really just a trumped-up pep rally)? I don’t think I miscounted that Trump told the audience he was “very smart” 23 times in the course of his remarks. If he really was smart, he would know that such tedious assertions only suggest he is deeply insecure about his own intelligence. After all, this is a man whose lifework has been putting up giant buildings that resemble bowling trophies, some of them in the service of one of the worst activities of our time, legalized gambling, which is based on the socially pernicious idea that it’s possible to get something for nothing.
I daresay that legalized gambling has had a possibly worse effect on American life the past three decades than illegal immigration. Gambling is a marginal activity for marginal people that belongs on the margins — the back rooms and back alleys. It was consigned there for decades because it was understood that it’s not healthy for the public to believe that it’s possible to get something for nothing, that it undermines perhaps the most fundamental principle of human life.
In July, Jeb Bush said that, in order to reach his arbitrary GDP growth goals, Americans would have to “work longer hours.” His statement was so rhetorically stupid that I almost appreciated his honesty.

Trump, on the other hand, promises “new management.” With Trump, along with the “amazing” “superstars” he’ll hire, Americans will get better “deals” with Mexico and China. In other words, something (in this case, national greatness) for nothing.

Rhetorically, it’s brilliant. That said, the usual GOP bullshit about “opportunity” and America being a place where “anyone can do anything” has a built in fail-safe. If your life doesn’t turn out as planned in a Republican utopia, you weren’t working hard enough or you didn’t dream big enough. Trump promises that your life will be better because Trump will make it better.

I agree that many more things are politically possible than politicians imagine. (Jeb Bush believes that building a wall on the Mexican border is “impossible,” yet converting Muslims to liberal democracy by means of aerial bombing is sound public policy.) That said, America’s late-stage Caesarism seems destined to disappoint its supporters, least of all those on the alternative Right.