Sep 18, 2015

Media Lies about the “Refugee” Crisis

via American Renaissance

Demonstrations and counter-demonstrations for both sides of the “refugee” question took place all over Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic on September 12. I spent my Saturday following two marches in Krakow, Poland–my home for almost 20 years. Having participated in many events involving public demonstrations and the clash between Left and Right here, I was not at all surprised by the media’s dishonest representation of what happened. It was an instructive reminder of the power they have to promote their agenda.

What I describe here is a textbook example of how the press makes sure the public gets the “correct” message about news events and comically exaggerates the support of minority–but fashionably liberal–opinions. You think all of Europe has lost its mind and is ready to embrace the hordes coming from Syria and elsewhere? It’s not true at all, but many of those who would love to see that day come are the ones who are paid to write about it.

Two marches
The Krakow authorities gave permission to both pro- and anti-migrant groups to organize marches on the same day but at different times for public safety reasons. The first march, for the pro-”refugee” crowd, was scheduled for 2:00 pm in Krakow’s main square. I got there about 15 minutes early to gauge the size of the crowd and evaluate the chances for fireworks.

At first glance, it was hard to see anything resembling the beginning of any kind of mass gathering. I knew I was in the right place because I could pick out 15 or 20 people from the crowd around me who would be marching in the counter-demonstration scheduled for 4:30 pm. They were there for the same reason I was: to see what the lefties were up to. This kind of scouting is standard practice when two sides march on the same day. It’s standard for us, anyway; the lefties don’t do it because they’re afraid to be around the other side without police protection.

As for the police, there were six or seven police vans parked along perimeter of the square. There were around 20 officers in pairs, dressed in full body armor and riot gear, with a few prominently displaying shotguns. Officers with dogs stayed in the shade of the vans. This might sound like a lot of police but it’s almost the minimum number for a public demonstration on any issue. For the annual Tolerance Parade–essentially a gay pride march–there are hundreds of police, a number that reflects both the size of the parade and the intensity of emotions on both sides.

After a few minutes, a small group of pro-refugee marchers slowly started to form at the designated spot at the foot of the statue of the poet Adam Mickiewicz in the center of the square. There’s always a large crowd of people at this location, especially on a beautiful Saturday in September, so they didn’t exactly stand out. If you didn’t know that this was the beginning of a “demonstration,” you would never have guessed.

Five minutes before the start time of the event, around 15 or 20 of them were huddled close together with their backs to the crowd. This, together with constant sideways glances to check how far away the nearest police officers were, told me they had stage fright. Meeting the public is different than talking about it on Facebook.

They passed around a few selfie sticks, posed for the news cameras, and gave interviews. A few more participants joined. After they had taken enough selfies and it was finally time to get started, there were no more than 35 or 40 of them. About two thirds were women, and nearly all fit one of a few familiar leftist caricatures: hippie Earth Mothers with dreadlocks, dour and permanently aggrieved feminists, etc. Many of the guys were skinny-jeans hipster types or the unfortunate partners of the hippie chicks. The whole group was rounded out with a few naive fellow-traveller types and a handful of people who appeared to have a Middle Eastern or North African background. I assume they were invited to give the whole thing an air of authenticity.

No liberal demonstration is complete without drums and congas and five or six latecomers rushed in at the last minute to provide a beat for the moral posturing.

The soundtrack arrives. Everyone behind the people holding signs is there only to see what is going on. This could be a free concert for all they know.

The soundtrack arrives. Everyone behind the people holding signs is there only to see what is going on. This could be a free concert for all they know.

With the rhythm section in place, the first speaker stepped up to proclaim solidarity with all refugees. It was hard to hear her garbled voice through the megaphone, but there was no mention of Syria or specifically Syrian refugees. In fact, there were several signs that read “Welcome Afghans!” There were the usual slogans like variations on “No human is illegal” and “I am a citizen of the world,” confusing messages like “No-fly zone in Syria,” along with new twists like “I want an Arab woman as a neighbor” (it rhymes in Polish –“Chcę Arabkę za sąsiadkę”).

Two guys climbed up on the statue to display a particularly large sign. After securing their footing, they held it aloft–upside down. Only a loud and enthusiastic round of sarcastic applause from the counter-demonstrators alerted them to the problem, and they quickly turned it right side up.

Speakers then took turns addressing the crowd although it’s doubtful that anyone not standing directly in front could understand anything they said. I took a leaflet called “Welcome dear refugees!” from a single volunteer they sent into the crowd to distribute their message. This is as much as I can bring myself to type:
All refugees are victims of political and governmental agendas–not excluding those of Poland. It is the most powerful countries that destabilize entire regions, starting from Africa to Donbass. It is the international ties of politics and capital that leech off the agony of entire nations.
You can probably guess the rest: It’s all our fault.

When the speeches were finally finished, the drums started up and, surrounded by police, the marchers went all the way around the square chanting many of the slogans on their signs: “We welcome you!”, “Don’t hate, accommodate!”

Hundreds of people, mostly tourists, were drawn to the drums, signs, and general spectacle. Remember that Krakow’s main square would have been jammed with people even without any demonstrations. It is a major tourist attraction and the warm weather brought thousands of locals out for what was likely one of the last nice weekends of the year. The overwhelming majority of the people who were taking pictures, rubbernecking, and getting closer to see what it was all about had no idea what they were looking at. If you were on vacation somewhere and a noisy parade of drums and whistles passed by with signs in the air, wouldn’t you move in for a closer look?

After about 15 minutes, they made it full circle back to the statue, dragging a long tail of curious onlookers and picture-taking tourists. After more drums and chants about wanting Arab neighbors, the crowd and protesters drifted away.

The other side
The counter-demonstration began about two hours later. The march started outside a church about a 15-minute walk from the main square, well away from the crowds. Although it consisted exclusively of people who were there to join the march instead of curious bystanders, there were about ten times as many participants.

There are more participants in one partial view of the “anti” march than in the entire “pro” march. This is about ten percent of the whole procession.

There are more participants in one partial view of the “anti” march than in the entire “pro” march. This is about ten percent of the whole procession.

The first march had sound but this one had color: flags, banners and standards related to love of country and patriotic allegiance (the earlier march didn’t have a single flag). Women and families made up a good portion of the marchers, and the procession was led by a smartly dressed woman carrying a large bouquet of flowers in the colors of Poland’s flag. People chanted in unison, “Come with us, with Poles” (this also rhymes in Polish: “Chodzcie z nami, Polakami”).

There were more police than at the earlier march, but that was simply a reflection of the much larger number of people, and did not indicate an elevated perceived risk. The police knew they had to arrange for more officers because this march would have a lot more people.

We marched on a circuitous route through the center of town and finished at the same spot where the earlier march had begun: the statue in the main square. By the time it reached its destination, the long column of marchers had added about half again as many people as it had started with. Also, at least 75 percent of the marchers were wearing something that identified them as active and willing participants: a T-shirt, a scarf, a flag. These weren’t people who just happened to be walking along the same street at the same time.

After another round of megaphone speeches with a very different message than before but delivered in the same barely audible manner, the demonstration ended without incident and the policemen could finally take off tons of black body armor that they’d been wearing all day in the hot sun. Here’s what the demonstration looked like when it finished.


The spin
A few hours later, I checked the online versions of several local and national newspapers. I knew what they had been hoping for because of their editorial positions. About two weeks before the marches, when everyone was focused on the mess in Budapest, Gazeta Wyborcza, Poland’s largest daily newspaper, disabled the comments on every article even tangentially related to refugees. The explanation they gave–placed where comments would normally be found–was that an “aggressive climate of hate” had been created, and they would no longer help people spread “racist vitriol.” They went so far as to warn anyone who wrote offensive comments about refugees that their IP address would be shared with the public prosecutor for possible charges of incitement to racial hatred.

This ban on comments had unintentionally hilarious consequences. Readers began to write their comments on articles about unrelated subjects. A piece on the financial performance of McDonald’s was flooded with comments such as, “OK, McDonald’s, whatever. Let’s talk about refugees, OK, Gazeta? Do I have your permission to talk or are you going have me arrested? You people make me sicker than McDonald’s does.” Hundreds of such comments can be found on every imaginable topic found on the website now. (If you can read Polish or want to run the pages through a translator, you can see for yourself at

Every mainstream publication in Poland has the same position as their counterparts in Western media: You are either sympathetic to the refugees or you are a horrible person. That’s why I was looking forward to seeing how the day’s events would be presented. Here’s the first headline I saw, from the biggest paper in Krakow: “I want an Arab woman for a neighbor”


The article went on to tell us all about the “demonstration in support of refugees” but didn’t include one word about the counter-march that was at least ten times bigger. Later that night, around midnight, a separate piece on the counter-demonstration appeared with a sneering tone and close-up pictures of the least photogenic marchers.

Gazeta Krakowska still allows comments on “refugee” stories, and the paper got a flood that must be a new record–with a good 90 percent against letting in foreigners. There are lots of variations of clever replies to the “I want an Arab neighbor” line, such as, “Fine, when are you leaving?”, etc.

At Gazeta Wyborcza, an article began with, “More than a thousand people gathered on Saturday at 2pm in Krakow’s main square to show their support for refugees.”
More than a thousand???

Strictly speaking, there were more than a thousand people there but that is like saying that a thousand people attended a demonstration that I and two friends put on at rush hour in Grand Central Station in New York. Wyborcza left the impression that around twenty times the actual number of people showed up to support the cause. No one without an agenda who was present at the “pro” march would put the real number of participants even in triple digits, much less “more than a thousand.” Since Wyborcza still does not allow comments on stories of this kind, readers could not make corrections.


Here’s Gazeta Wyborcza’s headline for the story, with another reference to the line about Arab neighbors and support from “thousands of Poles in the streets.”
Polish television coverage was essentially the same, with every story insisting that support for the “pro” side was strong everywhere or at least equal to that of the other side. This comes as a surprise to anyone who was actually there, and social media is full of Poles asking where these allegedly huge groups of “refugee” supporters were.

It’s a good question. They weren’t in Krakow, I can tell you that. But you’d never know if you weren’t there yourself.

The Al Capone Audit

via BUGS

They got Al Capone on tax evasion.

There is a million light years difference between an outfit that is “tax exempt” – every political party is exempt from paying taxes – and “tax deductible,” which means that you can deduct contributions to it from your income which is taxed.

These latter groups are therefore partly funded by taxpayers. They are, NOT JUST “tax exempt.”

Today almost every big money tax deductible organization, from Harvard to the National of Churches to the Ford Foundation, openly backs anti-White propaganda on a massive scale.

They BRAG about it.  The NEA openly engages in anti-White propaganda.

That’s point one.

Point Two is history:

They got Al Capone on tax evasion.

Somebody ignored all the drama, the extortion, the Valentine’s Day Massacre, and looked at his BOOKS.

BUGSERS certainly understand why it took so many years for the Feds to do that.

Like the Mantra, tax evasion had no sex appeal, no Headline News value.

Exactly like the Mantra, once it worked then everyone claimed they had come up with it.

But we all know what happened when it was first proposed:

“A MURDERER, a CRIME BOSS, and you are going after him on his TAXES!!!!!?????”


Like the Mantra, it WORKED.

Like the Mantra, EVERYBODY had been for it from the start.

From the National Education Association to the National Council of Churches to the universities and Foundations, these groups have been bragging for decades about how they openly violate the tax law in a way that would send you to prison.

It is time to look at their statements and at their BOOKS.

I could have done it in the Reagan Administration, but my staff was disbanded.

Treat those Holy Ones like just another tax-deductible outfit?


A nuclear weapon in our arsenal would be the serious demanding of Al Capone Audit Number Two.

How to Talk to Family and Friends about "Refugees"

via TradYouth

Talking to friends and family about Syrian war zone refugees is about the same as explaining to a small child why it’s bad to adopt every puppy in the window at the pet store.  In fact, it’s almost exactly the same as what’s happening right now.  The Culture Distorters are hard at work showing American and European countries images of Syrian refugees via television and social media 24-7 in hopes they will “adopt” or “buy” all of the Syrian refugees.

You will need to have a tough, sober and serious conversation with your family and friends about the realities of international war zone refugee adoption programs.  They will not like you for having explained this to them, and they will behave like children.  Talking to friends and family about war zone refugees is no easy task.

The last thing anyone want to do is expose their family to the harsh reality of refugees’ dissimilar lifestyle, markedly different ethics and values systems, diseases and emotional or physical abuse that are all contributing factors to refugee violence in host countries. To help your family understand why they can’t have “that Syrian refugee seen on TV,” we’ve put together some family friendly talking points for tough questions.

After you discuss this with your family members, urge them to sign our Pledge to Protect American Communities from Syrian Refugees. 

Where do war zone refugees come from?
Most refugees come from dangerous and politically unstable places called war zones that are direct products of our own foreign policy.  Because of the refugees’ selective over-exposure on television most people think that refugees are all good and innocent people who are victims of circumstance and they just need a helping hand.  You cannot help people in Syria by letting them into your own country.  The best help that we can give is to stop exercising poor American foreign policy in their country.

What is a war zone?
War zones are like big open-air jails for people who are unlucky enough to live in a country deemed worthy of our foreign policy’s attention.  This means that many refugees are trapped there for their entire lives and forced to fight our crippling economic sanctions just to get the basic necessities of life. Sadly, refugees are not happy. They don’t get to play outside or sleep in a comfy bed. A lot of times they get sick. And there’s usually no one to give them any love.  These conditions will not abate if we let our family members adopt a Syrian refugee; this problem is not solved one person at a time, it requires a fundamental change in American foreign policy.

What happens to war zone refugees?
War zone refugees abandon their families and flee to a train station, where they are “auctioned off” to Europeans who don’t know where the refugees really came from. The war zone creators don’t care about the refugees’ other family members who are left behind in the war zone after the refugees are sent to some unfortunate European country. The war zone creators, our elected officials and our foreign policy, only care about making money. That’s why we don’t like adopting refugees from war zones!

Why are people cruel to refugees?
War zone refugees bring more than just their suitcase when they come to a new country.  These people are bringing the entirety of their lived experiences and way of life.  Refugees also bring their way of crime, their way of treating women and also their own personal way of practicing religion.  War zone creators are thinking more about the money than the refugees. Organizations such as our own are working hard to make sure that every refugee is happy, safe and loved in their own country by helping stop war and educate Europeans about why they shouldn’t adopt a Syrian war zone refugee.

What happens to refugees if no one lets them in?
If a country doesn’t evacuate a refugee quickly, it’s news and media networks will work harder to make the refugees’ conditions look more and more dire.  This might involve broadcasting pictures of dead children on the beach for as many hours as necessary until someone adopts more refugees. The more often news and media networks have to do this is the less that Europeans will believe them. Next time, they won’t show as many refugees on international news networks.

So how CAN I get a refugee?
Good news! South Africa is full of White people looking for assistance right now. If your family is ready for a war zone refugee, you can start by contacting the TYN South Africa Chapter Leader Dean Dart through Front National and telling them that you’re willing to do something to stop White Genocide. Not only will you be saving a life, but also you’ll be sending a message to war zone creators that what they do is unacceptable! The fewer people who adopt Syrian war zone refugees, the fewer refugees our foreign policy and government officials will “make.”

What else can I do?
You can start by setting a good example for your friends and community. Ask Europeans and Americans to take our “No War Zone Refugees” pledge, do not accept any refugees from Syrian war zones and to spread the word about accepting South African refugees.  Please go to and sign our pledge now!


Does your government’s foreign policy create war zone refugees?

Is your government trying to offload Syrian refugees into your community?

If your government’s foreign policy creates war zone refugees, stop saying that you support what it is doing!

Most refugees come from American foreign policy-made humanitarian crises. Refusing to welcome a Syrian war zone refugee into your community is a crucial first step. But we’re also asking all readers not to support poor foreign policy through silence or refusal to speak against it. If you see an article on Facebook or Twitter that asks you to welcome a Syrian refugee into your home, do not like it, share it or post positive comments on it— post a simple rejection of the article’s proposal by saying,
“This is bad for American workers
and American communities.”
By welcoming Syrian war zone refugees into your community, you are unwittingly supporting bad American foreign policy that ultimately serves to destabilize Western Europe and destroy white working-class families in America.

Please take the pledge not support American policies that force Syrians into refugee status or attempt to place Syrian refugees in American communities, and please use the social media tools to spread the word to friends and family!
It’s time to put an end to the Syrian war zone refugee crisis.

Liberalism: A Self-Evaluation

via Gornahoor

The Liberal is a fanatic for independence; he extols it to the point of absurdity, in every domain. ~ Father Roussel
This post was motivated by some recent events. Yesterday, on the way to a BBQ, I listened to a prominent self-declared “conservative” ranting about freedom. Now in intellectual terms, he is a “sophist”, that is, one who earns money (and in his case a great deal of it) from expressing opinions. He concluded, with no irony, that he was defending the Enlightenment ideal of freedom.

At the BBQ, liberalism was also the norm, with an occasional anti-religious barb; I just focused on the Tequila.

I’ve also been watching the Hand of God on Amazon. There is a religious element, but of low intellectuality. The liberals, which includes most of the characters, are involved with rape, suicide, murder, venality, extortion, adultery, prostitution, drugs; I guess that is all they can do with their freedom.

So it behooves us to understand the intellectual roots of liberalism, not simply its popular manifestations. For this, I have adapted the discussion on liberalism by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre from They Have Uncrowned Him. The topic headings are his. I’ve interspersed his comments with mine, sometimes adapting them into a wider context.

NOTE: I would like to turn this into a gradable quiz so that people can see exactly how liberal they are; I’m sure they would like to score high. I understand such quizzes are quite popular on the Internet. So I am open to specific questions with point values for various answers. Also, a WordPress quiz plugin would be useful. 

Liberalism may manifest in one or more of the following nine liberations.

The True and the Good vs Being

This refers to the various philosophies of becoming rather than the metaphysics of being. Reason does not submit itself to its object. This liberation has two aspects: subjectivism and evolutionism.


Truth is the conformity of the intellect with the thing. Thus, a truth-seeker needs to renounce any factitious constructions of his own mind.

Subjectivism, on the other hand, claims that reason constructs the truth. Things are no longer what they are, but what I think. Historically, the main figures in the development of subjectivism were:
  • Luther (individual inspiration of Scripture)
  • Descartes (the cogito knows only itself)
  • Kant (things are unknowable in themselves)
  • Rousseau (truth is public opinion or general will)
This ends up in this:
The thought of the individual is going to be dissolved into the public opinion, that is to say, in what everyone or the majority thinks; and this opinion will be created by the techniques of group dynamics organized by the media, which are in the hands of the financiers, politicians, etc.
Subjectivism, by exalting freedom of thought, results then in the crushing of thought.


By rejecting the real, the Liberal rejects the immutable essences of things as well as stable human nature. Man, then, is in perpetual progressive evolution and the man of yesterday is not like the man of today. Evolutionism appears in several realms:
  • Biological (Darwin, Lamarck)
  • Intellectual (the myth of the indefinite progress of human reason)
  • Moral (emancipation from alleged taboos)
  • Political-religious (emancipation from the spiritual authority)


The Will vs Intellect

In the healthy minded, the will follows the intellect. Hence, this liberation is liberation from the intellect, so that the will is entirely arbitrary. An example is the character Mathieu in The Age of Reason by Jean-Paul Sartre. Mathieu stabs himself in the hand at a nightclub so that it is pinned to the table.

You don’t own me!

The Conscience vs the Law

Law is seen as limiting freedom and imposing constraints, which run counter to human dignity and freedom of conscience. This liberation is based on misunderstanding the difference between liberty and license.

Feeling vs Reason

This is the philosophy of romanticism which extols feelings above reason. The Romantic prefers slogans to thought: he condemns violence, superstitions, fanaticism, etc. These are intended to stimulate the imagination rather than the intellect
The Romantic claims to have a “good heart” and to be motivated by “love”. He makes himself the apostle of peace, liberty, tolerance, and pluralism.

The Body vs Soul

This liberation involves the independence of the body from the soul, or, the animal nature in regard to reason. The result is the radical overthrowing of human values.
This liberation exalts and sacralizes sexuality.

The Present vs the Past

In this view, the present must be liberated from the weight of the past. The past is a time of injustice, oppression, ignorance, superstition, and so on. The present time, therefore, discards all attachment to the past.

Curiosity and novelty are the keys to this liberation. I refer you to all those Internet ads that lure to you view sites like “12 child stars who became transvestites as adults”, and so on.

The Individual vs Society and Hierarchy

This is the reign of individualism; the basic unit of Liberalism is the individual. The individual is an “absolute subject of rights”, without countervailing duties binding him to his Creator, superiors, or fellow creatures. Ultimately, however, it leaves the individual alone, isolated, and without defense against the crowd which swallows him up. On the contrary,
the social doctrine affirms that society is not a shapeless mass of individuals, but an arranged organism of coordinated and hierarchically arranged social groups: the family, enterprises, professional corporations, and the state.
In this context, “corporation” refers to the older notion of association, including guilds. Business interests were cooperative to prevent fair prices. Trade secrets were protected. For example, were an apprentice at a Venetian glass blower factory to reveal a secret process, he would have been hunted down and killed. Now corporations are in the hands of a specific class who owe nothing to society or their workers. They freely move from country to country, exporting manufacturing processes with them. Nor are they beholden to a spiritual authority which would reign in unchecked cupidity.

Reason and Science vs Faith

This independence is called rationalism, which denies that some truths go beyond the capacity of reason. Dogmas, miracles, metaphysics, etc., are all denied in the name of science. Ultimately, the exaggerated claims of Reason are never verified, and rationalism becomes incoherent.

A prominent rationalist of last century, Brand Blanshard, after 1100 pages on the Nature of Thought concedes defeat. His concluding sentence reads:
The writer would like to think that the insistent and reiterated emphasis, maintained throughout this work, on the membership of minds in one intelligible order may serve, however minutely, to confirm the belief in a common reason, and the hope and faith that in the end it will prevail.
It would have been better for him if he had directed his hope and faith to the Logos, the supernatural reason, instead of his “common reason”. Blanshard mistakenly believes that Thought constitutes the philosophia perennis and that thinking reveals the world. However, true philosophy is reached only then Thought and Being coincide. Thought, by itself, deals with essences and cannot explain the mystery of Existence.

Man, Family, Professions, and State vs Spiritual Authority

This is the summa of the liberations. The individual, the family, business enterprises, and even the state, reject any deference to a transcendent spiritual authority. There are too many contemporary examples to bother with here. Unfortunately, the spiritual authority has not always acted consistently throughout history. This serves as the justification for this liberation, which takes three forms: naturalism, laicism or secularism, and latitudinarianism or indifferentism.


Naturalism asserts that man is limited to the sphere of nature and has no destiny to a supernatural state. Of course, the state of nature and rationalism are not bad in themselves, provided they admit the existence of a supernatural order. Nevertheless, natural virtues and goodness alone cannot lead to the eternal happiness of heaven.


Laicism is naturalism extended to the political sphere. It contends that society can subsist without taking the spiritual authority or God into account. It believes in the separation of the Church and State; the church, then, is only another association under the laws of the state.


Indifferentism asserts that the profession of one religion or another is a matter of indifference. Politically, the state then does not favor one religion over another.


Liberalism, therefore, is the “soul of all revolution”. Bishop Gaume has Revolution speak:
I am the hatred of all order which man has not established and in which he is not king and God all together. I am the proclamation of the rights of man without care for the rights of God. I am the foundation of the religious and social state upon the will of man instead of the will of God. I am God dethroned and man in His place.

Consuming Our Identity: Of Brand Loyalty and Tribalism

via Radix

Thousands of young, mostly White, men and women descended upon a hotel in Baltimore a few weeks ago. They went seeking an expression of who they are, and to unite in the real world, rather than remaining online, where many had met and started to organize. 

No, these young people were not identitarians; they were bronies.

Bronies, that oh so millennial phenomenon, of young men who watch and seem to find meaning in a young girl’s television show, My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. This is but the latest in the market-driven choose-your-own-adventure narrative many young Whites engage in. Bronies are a more extreme, or maybe just more eccentric, version of a widespread consumer behavior. From Dallas Cowboys fans to Apple fanboys to partisans of the Marvel comic-book movies, almost every American engages in some kind of tribal brand loyalty.

But for Whites, especially millennials, choices made in the market have come to define their very being in a way their immediate ancestors would have found perplexing. Take, for examples, the incessant debates of Star Wars vs. Star Trek, or the almost religious devotion to the Harry Potter series, and we begin to see a pattern.

For many of our youth, especially our young men, identity has nothing to do with family, friends, or even nation, but consumption. To the Marxists, this is a sign of “false consciousness,” which subdues and re-channels natural class loyalties, especially amongst the working class, towards frivolities that act as both opiates and profit-making schemes for an oligarchical ruling elite. A classical Marxist reading of our era in this sense would be half right, for the real “false consciousness” is how market mechanisms are used to sublimate the identities of young Whites away from their ethnicity and towards manufactured consumer identities.

Of course, the drive to see one’s identity reflected through consumption is part and parcel of the egalitarian ethic that rules our age. At least amongst Whites, from SWPLs to rednecks, we find a consumption-driven identity that is made possible by the near constant marketing of products as not just utilitarian in nature but as “lifestyle” choices. In this way, what we consume becomes bound to who we think we are, and the prevalence of social media only encourages this, with every man turning into his own marketer.

The leveling mechanisms of the market have been long known to the dissident right. Sam Francis, in a 1991 address “Equality As a Political Weapon,” noted this phenomenon amongst the corporate wing of the ruling elite:
But equality is no less useful for large corporations, which require a nationally homogenized market of consumers that can be manipulated into buying their products and which find abhorrent and dysfunctional the persistence of local variations in their markets caused by smaller, localized competitors or class, ethnic and regional diversities of taste and demand.
That being said, what we see marketed to young Whites in many ways is different than how our system markets to others. From popular entertainment to various products, young minorities are encouraged to “embrace themselves”—so long as that means being a good consumer. But even this de-fanged identity is more than that is allowed for us in the public space.

Becoming who we are will inevitably mean rejecting who the system tells us to be.

The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945, Part 10

via Carolyn Yeager

Carolyn reads chapters 17 -“Feodosia”, 18 -“Grischino” and 19 -“Soviet Crimes against Non-Germans.”

These chapters give further evidence of the Soviet policy of killing all Germans the Red Army was able to get it's hands on, plus adding sub-human mutilations such as cutting off body parts or killing with shovels and pickaxes. You will be shocked at some of the things you hear in this reading.

  • In Feodosia, 160 severely wounded German soldiers convalescing in hospitals were thrown out the windows and left to freeze to death by Red Army troops;
  • In Grischino, nearly 600 Germans and their allies were murdered, mostly by shooting, plus the women first raped, when the Red Army temporarily reoccupied the town;
  • Spanish, Italian and Crimean soldiers received worse treatment from the Soviets than did the Germans, and thousands of interned Ukrainian and Baltic civilians were shot before the Soviets abandoned the locations. 59min

"You just Have to Do It!": The Case of the Suicide Seducer

via Alternative Right

Michelle Carter and Conrad Roy
There is a very odd scene in the celebrated Rogers and Hammerstein musical Oklahoma, in which the play's hero, the jolly, upbeat Curly, attempts to talk his antagonist, the surly, sullen Jud, into committing suicide.

Jud is a creep, to be sure: a menacing stalker, who is later revealed to be a murderer. Still, the song's humor – and it is funny – brings great discomfort when the viewer considers the inherent cruelty of the circumstance. It is even a little heartbreaking how Jud comes around so readily to Curly's point of view on how his death would really be the happiest outcome for everyone, including himself:

Curly is clearly playing dirty here, and not just because the act of attempting to manipulate another man into ending his life is rather unseemly and appalling in itself. Curly is additionally culpable because he is a much more astute and mentally nimble man than Jud, so his effort to woo the other man into self-slaughter has something of the character of a grown man corrupting a child. (To head a certain type of ubiquitously anti-intellectual reader off at the pass; yes, I know it's "just a play," but my point is that it's a darker scene – and given the scene's significance in the story, a more disturbing play – than is commonly acknowledged.)

I cannot help but be reminded of the macabre comic exchange between crafty Curly and deadheaded Jud when I consider the tragic case of Conrad Roy, a sweet but dull-witted lad from Mattapoisett, Massachusetts, who was apparently talked into offing himself by his malevolently sadistic, Iago-esque online girlfriend Michelle Carter last summer.

Of course, when 18-year old Roy took himself out by ingesting a lethal amount of carbon monoxide in his pickup truck on July 12, 2014, Miss Carter first publicly behaved in what seemed an appropriate manner befitting a deeply bereaved girlfriend. The pleasant-countenanced, pixie-faced teen took to social media (but of course) to mourn the passing of "a beautiful soul gone too soon." Later she tweeted, "I'll always remember your bright light and smile. You'll forever be in my heart. I love you Conrad." She even organized a suicide prevention fundraiser in the name of her fallen virtual beau, cementing her seeming "cred" as a grieving loved one of the departed.

Yet when police investigated the boy's death, they came across his cellphone, and soon discovered the cache of texts that he had exchanged with Michelle in the days and hours leading up to his suicide. These text threads revealed, shockingly enough, that Carter had repeatedly insisted that Conrad get over his fearful reluctance and kill himself already. In fact, she had nagged him relentlessly about it, until he finally capitulated and – in the grand tradition of henpecked boyfriends – gave her exactly what she wanted.

In one representative sample (see the entire recorded exchange here), Michelle advises Conrad to obey the Nike and Shia Labeouf-endorsed injunction to "just do it": 

CARTER: You can't think about it. You just have to do it. You said you were gonna do it. Like I don't get why you aren't.
CONRAD: I don't get it either. I don't know.
CARTER: So I guess you aren't gonna do it then. All that for nothing. I'm just confused. Like you were so ready and determined.
CONRAD: I am gonna eventually. I really don't know what I'm waiting for but I have everything lined up.
CARTER: No, you're not, Conrad. Last night was it. You kept pushing it off and you say you'll do it, but you never do. It's always gonna be that way if you don't take action. You're just making it harder on yourself by pushing it off. You just have to do it. Do you want to do it now?
CONRAD: Is it too late? I don't know. It's already light outside. I'm gonna go back too sleep. Love you. I'll text you tomorrow.
CARTER: No. It's probably the best time now because everyone is sleeping. Just go somewhere in your truck and no one is really out there right now because it's an awkward time. If you don't do it now you're never gonna do it, and you can say you'll do it tomorrow, but you probably won't. Tonight? Love you.

Later, Michelle admonishes Conrad that he needs to stop "overthinking." Like a certain eternally conflicted Danish prince, this hapless lad must simply learn to stop dithering and take proper action: 

CARTER: Okay. So you gonna do it?
CONRAD: I guess.
CARTER: Well, I want you to be ready and sure. What does that mean?
CONRAD: I don't know. I'm freaking out again. I'm over thinking.
CARTER: I thought you wanted to do this. This time is right and you're ready. You just need to do it. You can't keep living this way. You just need to do it like you did the last time and not think about it and just do it, babe. You can't keep doing this every day.
CONRAD: I do want to but I'm like freaking for my family I guess. I don't know.
CARTER: Conrad, I told you I'll take care of them. Everyone will take care of them to make sure they won't be alone and people will help them get through it. We talked about this and they will be okay and accept it. People who commit suicide don't think this much. They just could do it.
CONRAD: I know. I know. LOL. Thinking just drives me more crazy.

According to court documents, Carter even instructed Conrad to get back in his truck and finish the job when it seemed he was tempted to chicken out at the decisive moment. Later, she confessed as much in a text to a friend: "I was the one on the phone with him (Carter wrote) and he got out of the car because... he got scared and I fucken told him to get back in because I knew he would do it all over again the next day and I couldn't have him living the way he was living anymore. I couldn't do it. I wouldn't let him."

That Michelle Carter mentally manipulated Conrad Roy into killing himself is a proposition beyond dispute; it is, in fact, supported by all of the available evidence. But though authorities have duly charged Carter with involuntary manslaughter, it isn't clear that she broke the law in any way. In fact, it seems unlikely that she will serve any significant jail time.

Still, her wretched and unconscionable behavior has infuriated people beyond measure. They are enraged, it would seem on a patently primal level, "triggered" by the fact that this seemingly innocent, well-meaning, cheerful smiley-faced girl in fact proved to be a spectacularly squalid specimen of pathologically narcissistic duplicity.

But their response isn't just about sociopathy-shaming. In fact, the widely-shared anger has deeper, patently premodern roots. Though feminism and unisex gender-neutrality are now officially-sanctioned mainstream ideologies, it has proven more difficult to rewire the built-in human tendency to expect nurturance from females, and to see the absence of such a proclivity as a uniquely horrifying, even monstrous betrayal of nature. Particularly galling, it seems, are women who appear to be sweetly sympathetic "earth mother" types, but in fact prove to be bloodthirsty Kali-like demonesses in disguise. (Take a look at the message board at the end of this article to get a good indication of the rage occasioned by the Carter-Roy case, and ask yourself if the extent of the collectively expressed disgust doesn't stem from a shared gut-level conviction of gross, viscerally inhuman perfidy, akin to how we feel when we run across egregious cases of cannibalism, incest, and the like.)

As with Shakespeare's consummate villain Iago, Michelle Carter's motive for her depredations remains murky. One can reasonably speculate, however, that she simply got off on the thrill of causing the destruction of another person, and afterwards reveled in the attention of being widely seen as a grief-stricken "widow" of a poor lost soul. Nor, in her thirst for "drama," is she particularly unique among her sex, though admittedly she took things to an unusual extreme to achieve the narcotic-like buzz that accompanies the attainment of acclaim. Yet from whence does this propensity arise, and what more can be said about it? I will say more on these matters shortly.

The "Movement's" Merkel Problem

via EGI Notes

The Chosen One Angie Merkel

You know, only 3 governments — Germany, Sweden, and Austria — of the 28 in the European Union are enthusiastic about Ms. Merkel’s unilateral putsch against Europe’s indigenous people. So Jean-Claude Juncker is calling for the great majority of European governments to surrender to the German state’s demographic blitzkrieg on the European people. Why does German (passive) aggression against what had been the European consensus somehow represent unity?

[Note: those three nations represent the top “movement” favorites – along with England of course]

In any future history of the White race (written from a pro-White perspective) scum like Merkel and Juncker will rate among the leading villains. Let’s consider Merkel – a grotesque harridan, a monstrous bag of excrement, not only promoting genocidal race replacement of her own people, but using German power and prestige to bully the rest of Europe to go along.

And this is nothing new. Despite having once declared multiculturalism a “failure” (to the applause of the heavy-breathing Teutonphillic “movement”) Merkel has steadfastly promoted such multiculturalism not only for Germany but for Europe as a whole. As a way to expunge their Nazi-era bloodguilt, Germans are engaging in a national ethnic cleansing of themselves that they wish to make “compulsory” for the entire European continent.

And yet, is there any significant “movement” criticism of Merkel?  No. Why not?  Let us be honest: it is because she is German.  That’s it. That is why, despite the Merkel-led German drive to turn Europe to an Afro-Asiatic colony, we get, instead of criticism, articles such as this.

To which I commented:

Merkel gets extra credit “movement points” for being ethnically German (Putin gets his for wrestling tigers with his shirt off). Forget about this financial crisis for a moment – Merkel advocates, supports, and celebrates the biological and cultural replacement of Germans by alien immigrants. Merkel denounces even the centrist moderates of PEGIDA. A real German moral rearmament would include voting Merkel out of office and then putting her on trial for treason 

In comparison, any time a story positively describing Golden Dawn appears on a “movement” site, there is the inevitable series of comments about “racial admixture in Greece” or “hey, that Golden Dawn leader looks like a Near Easterner” and such other tidbits of “movement” dogma, irrelevant to what the original story was about.

Fact is, whatever you may think about Greece and Greeks (and I gave a tongue-in-cheek but legitimate extreme criticism here), it’s not the Greeks or any Greek leader that is predominantly responsible for facilitating the demographic invasion of Europe. Put that on the head of Merkel, many of her countrymen, and those peoples in Europe foaming the mouth in favor of self-extinction. Of course, all Europeans are in part to blame - the Italians and Greeks rescuing migrants, the Hungarians with their phony blowhard leader Orban shipping off their migrant hordes to the north and west, the Poles willing to take more migrants as are the Spaniards, and the UK cowed by the picture of one dead Syrian child, never mind the poster-child of European multiculturalism, France. Still, though, it is Merkel and her Germans leading the charge to extinction.

The Germans are a superior people in most ways, perhaps the best of Europe. But no one is perfect, and the Germans have flaws. When they try to bully Europe and impose their will, they usually muck things up (see World Wars I and II), and, like the Jews, when their formidable abilities are applied in the wrong direction, they are very dangerous indeed. Maybe they need to step back and stop acting like the demented conscience of Europe.  Maybe they need to understand that their fanatical need to atone for the "sins" of Saint Adolf springs from the same monomaniacal ethnic tendencies that caused those alleged sins to begin with.  Killing Europe will not make “killing six million Jews” become any more morally acceptable.

German moral rearmament?  Yes, but it needs to include a bit of humility, and the recognition that they cannot bully the rest of Europe to go along with whatever it is they are currently indulging in, be it good or bad.

It’s said that one can properly judge the character of a person, a group, or a nation during a time of crisis. Well, it is crisis time in Europe and there is much to judge there.  There is much to judge about the “movement” as well, and its reticence to denounce real villains, who get a “free pass” – talk about a “chosen people” – the Jews are not the only ones it seems.
 It’s time for the “movement” to grow up a bit and “put those big boy pants on.”  Get over the Saint Adolf obsession, the ethnic fetishism, and recognize Queen Merkel as a prime enemy of the White race.

The Camp of the Migrants

via Counter-Currents

Viktor Orbán
Many on the Right these days are fascinated by Vladimir Putin, but if one wants to look for a politician who is actually doing something that benefits Europe in a tangible way, one need look no further than Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán. Orbán’s actions against illegal immigration in recent weeks have almost made me inclined – emphasis on almost – to forgive him for his banning of the conference that my company, Arktos, had planned to hold alongside the National Policy Institute nearly a year ago (something that he personally ordered).

It was quite a surprise for me when the “migrant crisis” in Hungary, a country which seldom gets any attention at all, became the focal point of the global media’s attention earlier this month. Naturally, however, the media was full of images and stories of the “heartbreaking” plight of immigrants, who, after all, are only trying to break the EU’s laws. I notice that it seems to have dropped off the American news sites. The American media, I’ve noticed, love to package stories that reach their climax and resolution over the course of a week, or two at most, and their coverage of Hungary followed their usual formula: the poor, helpless migrants got to Hungary (problem); the cruel Hungarians wouldn’t let them pass on to Germany, so we got to see images of the “brutality” of the Hungarian police who were handling them (climax);  but it’s ok, it had a happy ending, and when Orbán finally caved to the outcries of the rest of the world (in the media’s eyes) we were treated to Hallmark-style images of happy immigrants crossing the border to the cheers of the obviously much more enlightened Austrian locals (resolution and reassurance). It was nauseating. But once the story reached its prewritten conclusion, there was no more need to cover it, and Hungary has been again relegated to the back pages, if it is discussed at all.

The consequences of this have been tangible for me. For months I’ve been getting e-mails from friends in America and in other parts of Europe who ask me how things are going here, having apparently been led to believe by the media that Budapest, if not all of Hungary, had been plunged into  turmoil and chaos, and that the streets of the city were teeming with hordes of immigrants. As I’ve been living here for over a year now, I can safely say that Budapest was never at any point different than usual, unless one happened to pass through Keleti railway station, which is the main international train terminal of Budapest (the Budapest subway also has a stop there), and which is where most of the immigrants were gathered in the hope of getting trains to the rest of the EU. It was rare to spot people who appeared to be part of the flood in the rest of the city, however, apart from the area surrounding Keleti. None of them are looking to stay in Hungary, after all; unlike in Western Europe, there are no jobs or social services for them here. Hungary is simply a way station.

Many Americans seem unaware of how the EU’s Schengen zone works: in terms of residency, the EU functions as one big country now, and once one is in a Schengen country as a non-EU citizen, no further passport checks are required to travel between Schengen countries, which has now become as simple as travelling between states in the US. Only six EU countries have not signed on to Schengen as of yet: the United Kingdom, Ireland, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Romania, and Croatia. Four non-EU countries have also joined Schengen: Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Iceland.

Therefore the immigrants are looking to enter the EU at its weakest points, of which Hungary used to be one, since they know that once they do so, it’s a simple matter to pass on to Germany, Sweden, or such places where the pickings are much yummier than in entry points such as Hungary.

Most of the immigrants are coming through Greece, which is part of Schengen, and Greece has been refusing to make any attempt to register them or prevent them from crossing their border into Macedonia, which is not part of the EU or Schengen. Macedonia allows them to pass into Serbia, which is not part of the EU and Schengen either. And Serbia has likewise been making no attempt to prevent them from passing through, and in fact has been helping the immigrants to get to the Hungarian border, no doubt in order to get them out of their own territory as quickly as possible.

Once the immigrants get into Hungary, they are back in Schengen, and it is a simple matter to travel overland to wherever they want to go in Western Europe. They take domestic trains to Keleti from the Serbian border, and then from there they can book trains to go out of the country.

I passed through Keleti yesterday, and while there was still a well-stocked “Migrant Aid Center” open, it appeared to be empty, and I only saw one immigrant family camped out where there used to be hundreds. I did pass a group of bearded men in turbans and pajamas in the nearby street who glared at me – I assume they were probably part of the recent flood, but it seems that the vast majority of those who made it in before Hungary closed the border are already on their way.

The scene was very different only two weeks ago, when thousands of immigrants filled the entire lower part of the station, which had been turned into a makeshift camp. Keleti station is just down the street from where I live, and I often pass through it when I use the subway, so I had occasion to do so a number of times during the height of the crisis. The smell, I have to say, was quite unpleasant and overpowering, and I noticed with a bit of trepidation that the police were wearing masks – the rest of us weren’t so lucky, however. There was quite a large police presence and of course there were television crews camped out in various parts of the plaza. Otherwise the situation wasn’t very dramatic, although I was never there during one of the clashes with the police.

I won’t go over the details of what happened, as I assume most are already familiar with it. It made me feel glad to be in Hungary when I saw Orbán make his stand, however, as are the vast majority of Hungarians; with one exception, I haven’t encountered any Hungarians who had anything but praise for their government’s actions in response to the crisis. I’m aware that some on the international Right were disappointed that, ultimately, the immigrants were allowed to proceed on to Austria. This was indeed unfortunate, but unsurprising, as once the immigrants had made it into Hungary, continuing to hold them here would have presented the Hungarian authorities with an unprecedented refugee crisis and would have placed them in an extremely awkward situation, considering that Germany was practically begging to take them in.

I don’t think Orbán had any illusions that he could single-handedly solve the European immigration crisis, particularly given that the guardians of the EU in Western Europe were against him. He had many good reasons to do what he did regardless, however. First and foremost, I believe, is that he wanted to show those who are trying to infiltrate Europe that Hungary is going to be a problem for them, and that they ought to seek entrance elsewhere. Second, he was trying to point out the idiocy of the EU’s immigration policies, something he has frequently attacked in his public statements for being “stupid” and “insane” (his own words). Last, but not least, he was trying to bolster the popularity of his party, the Center-Right Fidesz, which he succeeded in doing.

Fidesz handily won a clear victory in last year’s national elections, but since then their support has been steadily dropping as a result of some unpopular decisions and general frustration with the lack of economic progress for the low-income segments of the country. Jobbik, even further to the Right than Fidesz, has been picking up the slack, increasing its own popular support and succeeded in ending Fidesz’s supermajority in the Hungarian parliament by defeating them in a local by-election in February. Making a stand over the immigration crisis has managed to put the ball back in Orbán’s court.

Although Hungary has now dropped from the headlines, developments since the end of the standoff two weeks ago have been much more interesting. On Monday, Hungary completed construction of the razor wire fence along its Serbian border and stationed 4,300 soldiers to support the police along its length, which was done to assist with the enforcement of Hungary’s new migration laws, which came into effect on Tuesday.

Under the new laws, when refugees apply for asylum in Hungary, if the application (which is in Hungarian) is rejected, the applicant will be sent back to Serbia, and will be banned from the Schengen zone for one year, which means that during this period the immigrant will be unable to reapply for entrance into any other Schengen country. And given that Serbia has been designated as a “safe” country by the Hungarian authorities, no applications for asylum for people coming from Serbia will be approved.

Those who break through the fence and come into Hungary illegally will be prosecuted with a prison term of up to three years; those who damage the fence will be imprisoned for up to five years. In both cases, violators will be slapped with a lifetime ban from the Schengen zone. This presents quite a predicament for immigrants who continue to try to come through Hungary, since Serbia has been deploying its own military to prevent the immigrants from returning, meaning that they basically have nowhere to go. Hungary is no longer an inviting prospect for them.

As many had anticipated, this new situation led to none of the immigrants being let through, and their frustration led to violence on September 16. Apparently, these immigrants feel that Europe should please help them – or else. Serbian police did nothing while crowds of them stormed and attempted to break through the border and attack the Hungarian police, many of whom were reportedly injured in the ensuing fighting. The Hungarian forces used tear gas and water cannons to defend the border, although the attackers still managed to temporarily breach the fence (they were driven back) and cause a great deal of damage.

While Hungary’s actions to preserve the ethnic and cultural integrity, not to mention security, of Europe are praiseworthy, we should not allow this situation to divert our attention from the actual causes of the crisis. While mass immigration from the Global South is nothing new in Europe, the numbers of them this year certainly are, and it is clear that this is to a large degree the consequence of the reprehensible American and NATO policies which have left large swathes of the Middle East and Africa in a shambles, and which led directly to the rise of ISIS. It has also not been lost on Hungarians that apparently many of these immigrants were given the money to get to Europe by American NGOs, as has been reported in the Hungarian media, and which many Hungarians believe is part of a deliberate and ongoing attempt by the United States to undermine Europe by encouraging mass immigration.

Therefore, the true blame for the crisis lies not with people of particular ethnic groups or with Islam, as many on the Right are wont to claim, but rather falls squarely on the shoulders of the United States and its cronies in Europe. This is not to mention the fact that the primary culprit of mass immigration is international capitalism, which I won’t go into here, as Alain de Benoist has already fully explicated this in his essay, “Immigration: The Reserve Army of Capital,” which was included in the recent Arktos publication, On the Brink of the Abyss.

That being said, it seems unlikely that all of these immigrants are actual refugees. While some undoubtedly are, it’s certain that many others from these regions are seeking to exploit the situation in order to find a way to Europe and the subsidized better lives they have been told they deserve by Western liberals. And the attitude of the immigrants has certainly been a curious one. I have heard that some of them have begun a hunger strike at the Serbian border, and even during the crisis at Keleti there were scenes of immigrants throwing food and water on the ground in some sort of bizarre protest. Apparently, even when help is offered, it is still insufficient if it doesn’t meet their expectations of the quality of life they envision enjoying in Europe. They can hardly be blamed for this, given that for years Western European politicians have been welcoming them with open arms, offering them all manner of social benefits and assuring them that they are only getting what is their essential right. It would be very curious for me to see what loving reception refugees from, say, the war-torn regions of Ukraine might get if they tried to take asylum in an Arab or African country.

Hungary is the only European country which is making a stand against the suicidal liberal policies of Europe as a whole. Unlike Jobbik, however, Fidesz is not opposed to Hungary’s membership in the EU. Nevertheless, under Orbán and Fidesz, Hungary has consistently tested the limits of how far to the Right it can go without being kicked out altogether. Here is not the place for a thorough overview of Fidesz’s achievements, but its opposition to EU immigration policy is only one aspect of its relevance.

When Orbán first came to power, he created the Media Council, which all Hungarian news agencies are required to register with. It legally requires all Hungarian media to present a “balanced” take on the news which has “relevance to the citizens of Hungary” and which “respects human dignity.” For those of us from the West, it’s clear that Orbán wanted to prevent the sort of monopoly that the extreme Left has held on our own mainstream media sources for quite some time.

Under Orbán, Hungary has also taken steps to limit and monitor the activities of foreign NGOs operating in Hungary, and in 2013, it paid off its debt to the IMF early in order to get out from under its thumb, taking such moves as levying special taxes on multinational corporations to protect domestic businesses.

For the first time since the fateful Treaty of Trianon of 1920, which deprived Hungary of nearly three quarters of its territory and has left generations of ethnic Hungarians stranded outside its borders, Fidesz has enabled Hungarians living in other countries to take Hungarian citizenship and to vote in the national elections (an idea originally put forward by Jobbik).

Fidesz cancelled the oversized pensions that the retired politicians of the former Communist Party of Hungary were receiving and distributed the money among ordinary pensioners (another Jobbik proposal).

Hungary has also legally defined marriage as being between one man and one woman.

And in a now-infamous speech he gave in Transylvania in July 2014, Orbán decried the failure of liberalism, as demonstrated by the 2008 financial crisis, and called for Hungary to style itself as an “illiberal democracy,” citing China, Turkey, and Russia as political models.

Of particular ire to the US and the EU has been Orbán’s closeness, both politically and personally, with Vladimir Putin. Many have speculated that Orbán sees Putin as his role model, and indeed, there is a great deal of similarity between their styles of politics. Hungary is friendlier with Russia at the present time than any other EU country – although this isn’t a matter of affection, since close relations with Russia make good economic sense for Hungary.

This closeness particularly agitated Washington last year, during the height of the Ukraine crisis, causing the US ambassador in November to encourage the protesters at the event which the media dubbed the “Hungarian Maidan” – allegedly a populist uprising against the “anti-democratic” policies of Orbán’s government, as was reported in the Western media at the time, but which was actually nothing more than a few hundred Communists making a lot of noise and waving banners near the parliament, as I saw for myself. It fizzled after a few weeks. And in December, John McCain denounced Orbán personally on the floor of the Senate, condemning him as a “neo-fascist dictator” and deploring Hungary for “getting in bed with Vladimir Putin.” Any leader of a small country who can get on the American political establishment’s nerves to this degree must be doing something right.

Orbán and his party deserve praise for these accomplishments, although at the same time it should be noted that Hungary as a nation is uniquely suited toward politics of this sort. As was demonstrated in last year’s elections, outside of Budapest, Leftist parties hold very little appeal for the Hungarian populace, as Fidesz and Jobbik combined took 65% of the national vote. Hungary is an inherently conservative country. The “long march through the institutions” by radical Leftists hasn’t yet taken place to establish their hegemony in Hungary, although it remains to be seen if the Hungarian government really has the strength or the will to do what it takes to counter this much more insidious threat, or if it is destined to eventually end up like Western Europe. Only time will tell.

I do not mean to overly glorify Orbán or Fidesz. Like Putin, Orbán and his party are liberal (in the broad sense) politicians, which means they are nothing more than pragmatists and populists – they are not ideologically committed to the ideals of the true Right or any other program, as was clearly demonstrated by their action against our conference last year. Their statements and their actions will vary according to whichever way the political winds are blowing, and I have no doubt that they would sell anyone down the river if it was to their advantage to do so. My hope remains that if Jobbik manages to continue the rising trend of its popularity and come to power eventually, assuming that they do not give in too much to the temptation to moderate and soften their message to the point of becoming just another mildly “conservative” party, they would prove themselves a more radical and serious force of the Right.

Nevertheless, for the moment at least, Orbán’s actions are very much in line with a genuinely pro-European strategy, and he has done this continent a great service, and for that he deserves our praise.

Europe Revolts

via traditionalRIGHT

The mudslide of Third World immigrants pouring over Europe would seem to mark that continent’s end. They will come by the millions and tens of millions, so long as Europe’s door remains open. Few will ever acculturate. Instead of becoming Europeans, they will turn Europe into a duplicate of the hellholes they are trying to escape.

Europe’s culturally Marxist elites are incapable of stemming the tide. Their ideology forbids them to do so. German chancellor Merkel, who appears to be as fervent a cultural Marxist as Walther Ulbricht was an economic Marxist, was quoted in the September 1 New York Times as saying, “If Europe fails on the question of refugees, if this close link with universal human rights is broken, then it won’t be the Europe we wished for.” If Frau Merkel’s “universal human rights”, which do not exist–rights belong only to a state’s own citizens–triumph, there won’t be a Europe at all.

Given the lock cultural Marxism has on all of Europe’s leadership, except perhaps Hungary’s, it would seem to be game over. Cultural Marxism will attain the goals it set in 1919, the destruction of Western culture and the Christian religion, at least in the West’s heartland.

But I don’t think that is what will happen. Instead, I think we are on the verge of a revolt against cultural Marxism and the elites by ordinary Europeans.

That revolt has been underway for some time in Britain, France, and Scandinavia. It has manifested itself in the growing electoral strength of real conservative parties, such as the UK Independence Party, Marine le Pen’s National Front, and the Sweden Democrats.

But what of Germany? German law makes it difficult for any German nationalist party to rise. The Bundesrepublik is effectively an anti-German Germany, and most expressions of volkish loyalty are forbidden. All Germans are supposed to do is apologize endlessly for the whole of German history, not just the thirteen years of the Third Reich. Arminius, it seems, was also a Nazi, as his rejection of Varus and his fellow Roman immigrants shows.

Lenin said that no revolution could begin at a railway station in Germany because the Germans would have to line up to buy tickets. It is true German culture is a culture of order. But it is precisely because of that i think this revolution, the revolution against millions of immigrants and the ideology that demands their entry, will really take off in Germany.

Immigrants from places like the Middle East and Africa bring disorder with them. They come from places where the German virtues–honesty, forthrightness, cooperation for the common good, civic-mindedness, even basic cleanliness–are unknown or regarded as something for simpletons. In those cultures, the only rule is, “Grab whatever you can for yourself.” Lying, cheating, stealing, all are perfectly fine, because you owe nothing to anyone who is not a family member. The world outside the family is Hobbesian. Push, punch, scream, and grab: that is the behavior these people have learned from birth. They will not forget it because they now live in an ordered, honest society.

A few years ago, in Stockholm, I needed some pipe cleaners. I stopped in a shop and bought a pack for 30 crowns. I thought that was expensive even for Sweden, so I checked the price in a different shop: 13 crowns. Then the light bulb went on. I realized the man who charged me 30 crowns wasn’t Swedish. He did not look Swedish, nor did he speak English with a Swedish accent. He was Middle Eastern. He had done what everyone does in his culture: cheat anyone he could. In Sweden it’s easy because people do not expect to be cheated.

This is now coming to Germany like a tsunami. The anti-German German government has told people to expect 800,000 refugees just this year. Again, so long as the door remains open, they will come in the millions and tens of millions, a tide of refuse covering Germany and the rest of Europe.

I don’t think the German people will stand for it. I predict a revolt. Already, Merkel is being booed and people are carrying signs saying “Volksverrater,” “traitor to the people.” How the German people will revolt, I cannot say; at the ballot box, perhaps, if given a Völkisch party to vote for. If that route is closed to them, they may take to the streets, tickets or no. They are not going to put up with Germany being turned into a place of dirt and disorder.

If you haven’t read Look Who’s Back, you may want to.

Merkel’s Betrayal: From the Ethno-National Principle to an Afro-Islamic Germany, Part 2

via The Occidental Observer

Part 1

Cultural-Marxist shabbas goy, Angela Merkel
-- guilty of treason?

Migration: Give an inch, take a mile

The German story shows how the immigration problem has a tendency to snowball. First a guest worker (who will likely never return to lower wages in his home country), then his family, then their family, then the second generation, the third, and so on, who in turn become left-wing voters and form ethnic activist organizations to undermine the native European majority.

The inevitable economic underperformance (poverty, unemployment) and higher criminality (requiring extra policing) of the new populations then in turn pull the heartstrings of ethno-masochist Whites who, believing the fraudulent blank-slate propaganda concocted by the likes of Franz Boas or Stephen J. Gould, blame their own people for the failures of minorities. Thus the native majority loses its moral self-confidence — highly-important given the European propensity towards idealism. Turkish organizations in Germany naturally allege that failure to integrate is largely a result of lack of European openness and generosity (the relative success of European or East Asian immigrants is left unexplained).

Thus the Muslims are given German passports, even when their home countries continue to adhere to an ethnic concept of citizenship under which, where possible, second- and third-generation immigrants to Europe automatically retain their nationality of origin. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan for example has urged Turks in Germany to not assimilate, calling it a “crime against humanity.” King Hassan II of Morocco once said on French television:
Hassan II: I would not like for [Moroccan immigrants] to be subject to an attempt [to integrate them] because they will never be integrated.
Anne Sinclair:[4] You believe that they don’t want to [integrate] or that the French reject them?
Hassan II: Will they ever say that they can’t [integrate]? [Integration] is possible between European peoples. The foundations are the same. [. . .] There is nothing you can do about it. They [Moroccans] will be bad Frenchmen. [. . .] I am discouraging you, concerning my people the Moroccans, from attempting any deformation of nationality, because they will never be 100 percent French. I can guarantee you this.
Yet, as the non-European population grows, so does the pressure on politicians like Kohl, Schröder, and Merkel to “make the best of it” by granting them citizenship, recognizing their culture as an “integral part” of the nation, and creating a multicultural dictatorship criminalizing all dissenters.

Merkel herself has certainly changed emphasis over the years. She was elected as an opponent, like Kohl, of Turkey’s joining the EU. As late as 2010, Merkel said multiculturalism had “utterly failed.” French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron shortly thereafter made similar statements but none followed up with systematic policies.

Why did German culture change?

Jürgen Habermas, a rare gentile member of the Frankfurt School.
Jürgen Habermas, a rare gentile member of the Frankfurt School.

Historians will long disentangle the various causes of the current migration crisis and the German government’s response. No doubt these developments are partly haphazard — the chaotic aftermath of war in Libya and Syria, the ease for corporate elites of “going with the flow” especially when this lowers wages, and the need for politicians to manage an emerging human fact of growing migrant and minority communities.

However, the background to this — the big picture — has been ongoing change in elite and mass Western culture, and in particular German culture, since World War II. As the leader of Germany’s Turkish community gloated on the revelations of Chancellor Kohl’s defunct remigration plan: “Today’s political class would never get away with that sort of thing. That’s progress.”

German elite culture has changed from one which assumed an ethno-national identity to one with no identity at all besides administrative: German nationality, far from implying any shared blood or heritage, means only ownership of a passport. Germany as a proposition nation. No doubt some German comrades will be able to tell us the details of how exactly this happened.

Indeed today across the West, anyone defending ethnic European interests or even the ethno-national principle in general is liable to slandered as a Nazi. But what is striking is that, even after 1945, German leaders like Schmidt and Kohl retained ethno-national reflexes. This is somewhat remarkable. Hitler’s defeat was accompanied by terror bombing, ethnic cleansing, mass rape, the indefinite partition of Germany, and abolition of German sovereignty. French historian Dominique Venner has argued that the atrocities against German civilians were “of an ideological nature. It was not simply a matter of demoralizing the German people, it was also a matter of punishing it and preparing through terror the re-education of the survivors.”

This effort was successful. In the face of the enormity of the disaster befalling their nation, postwar German leaders, precariously living under Soviet-American military occupation, understandably inverted their political culture towards an anti-Nazi national consensus, so that foreign powers would never again have reason to so destroy their country. In West Germany, once all National Socialists had been purged or “de-Nazified,” the occupied German leaders drafted a Basic Law (Grundgesetz) which simultaneously proclaimed the sanctity of freedom of conscience and of political opinion, and allowed for the systematic persecution of sincere National Socialists and indeed all those who express nationalist or revisionist thoughts.

Thus is the paradox of the Federal Republic: A remarkably democratic and lawful state in many respects (Rechtsstaat), as only the famously-rigorous Germans can build, and yet one where nationalist speech and activism, more than anywhere else in the West, is systematically persecuted. Indeed, German journalists officially believe (as I have heard their trade union boss say publicly) that their role is to suppress and propagandize against nationalist and right-wing ideas. So much for “liberal” Germany’s vaunted freedom of thought.

And yet, it is striking that despite the Federal Republic’s ostensibly anti-Nazi and anti-racist constitution, West Germany continued to long follow the ethno-national principle concerning immigration and citizenship, and that senior leaders such as Schmidt and Kohl could be so politically incorrect.

Germany’s shift towards a rootless, cultureless conception of nationality is no doubt generational. Those raised by the “anti-Nazis” — those taught to believe that their grandfathers were uniquely evil and that all the Allies’ crimes (including the burning alive of German civilians and the rape of German women) were fundamentally excusable — have gradually come of age. The apparent peace and prosperity of the Federal Republic makes the nationalism and racism of their grandfathers appear all the more incomprehensible.

There has also been, and I do not think this point can be overemphasized, a general Americanization of European and German elite and popular culture. As the German rock band Rammstein has pointed out: “We’re all living in Amerika.” To a very significant extent, elite culture throughout the West is international. For example, in the academic world:
[B]ecause of the vastly greater numbers of researchers and resources committed to research, American social science has had a leadership role throughout the world. Open any textbook in the social sciences, whether in America or elsewhere in the West, and you will find that the great majority of the research cited is by American professors, with British professors a distant second.
Attitudes at elite academic institutions in the U.S. therefore become the ideal for the social sciences throughout the West. Liberal academics from other countries are welcomed in academic societies. But if, for example, a Norwegian academic society began to promote research and teaching with strong overtones of ethnonationalism, it would be expelled from international academic societies and excluded from having a presence at academic societies in the U.S. The hierarchical structure and international scope of academic societies make them particularly valuable resources in  ethnic competition. Jews understood this and have made the most of it.
The result is that the university as a very prestigious, elite institution has become a central manifestation of the hostile elite that is now dominant in the U.S. and throughout the West. (“Liberal Bias in Academia“)
Thus, Germany is also subject to the cultural forces documented The Culture of Critique. In the case of Germany this link is actually direct. While the Jewish-German community is now almost non-existent, the most prominent official intellectual of the Federal Republic and the European Union is none other than Jürgen Habermas, a Marxoid member of the Frankfurt School.[5]

I am not in position to disentangle the contribution of the local post-1945 anti-Nazi establishment in Germany as against foreign, especially (Jewish-)American, cultural influence in Germany’s abandonment of ethno-national identity. No doubt both played a significant role and are massively intertwined. The extent to which Germans I have spoken with have adopted left-wing and American ideas, mostly because they are fashionable, is somewhat shocking.

A culture rewarding betrayal

This is the German cultural context, embedded in the wider Western one, which is pushing in the same direction. Elite media opinion in the West has been overwhelmingly in favor of immigration. This has included German business, an enormous coterie of Jewish commentators who also overwhelmingly support a racially-Jewish State of Israel and a Jews-only immigration policy (Gregor Gysi, Bernard-Henri Lévy, Jacques Attali, Jan Gross, the head Rabbi of France, the Union of French Jewish Students . . .), and various non-Jewish figures thoroughly embedded in globalist power structures (Joschka Fischer, Thomas Piketty, and legions of non-Jews taking advantage of the career opportunities available for those who espouse neoconservatism . . .).

In such a context, advocates of European displacement receive considerable cultural and reputational rewards. The Economist, the voice of deracinated liberal elites everywhere, has hailed “Merkel the bold” for “brave, decisive and right” action on refugees. And as the Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland has argued in an article entitled “Mama Merkel has consigned the ‘ugly German’ to history”:
If history can offer a more dramatic turnaround in the perception, and perhaps reality, of a nation, then it’s hard to think of it. Seventy years ago Germany was a byword for tyranny and murderous violence: the land of racial supremacism and unending cruelty. That association lingered and has never quite gone away. Hitler, the Nazis and the apparatus of the Holocaust remain lodged in the global folk memory.
“Global folk memory,” Freedland does not point out, is to a significant extent manufactured in Hollywood and in Anglo-American media. Put another way, there are serious, even existential reputational costs to offending the Jewish-American community. This is why German history is so demonized in the public eye — as opposed to Ottoman-Turkish history, Soviet-Jewish history, or indeed Israeli-Jewish history. More generally, the importance for a country of having a good image in the Western world and in particular the United States, cannot be overemphasized. Only very great nations, such as Russia, can risk going head on against Western imperial power.

Freedland — a Jew, a self-styled “liberal Zionist,” and the executive editor for the liberal British Guardian newspaper’s opinion section — incidentally also peddles the genocidal lie that Germany’s lack of children make the migrants economically attractive:
Germany has pragmatic motives for taking in refugees in vast numbers. The country has a serious demographic problem: it has the world’s lowest birthrate, failing to produce the workforce that might provide for an ageing society. By one estimate, Germany would need to bring in 533,000 immigrants a year just to hold steady. In this light, it makes self-interested sense that Germany would only too gladly welcome Syrian engineers, doctors and graduates — all with proven energy and resilience — who are bound to infuse the country with new vigour.
The obvious truth is the exact opposite: the Germans’ infertility and rapid aging makes it especially dangerous for to be importing so many military-age young men and fertile young women.

The French-Jewish writer Éric Zemmour — probably the most nationalist figure allowed in French mainstream media and, I would argue, in many respects a useful one[6] — has also eloquently spoken on Merkel’s reputational and cultural incentives:
Yes, Mama Merkel, the pride, the glory, the honor of Europe, the future Nobel Peace Prize-winner, the incarnation of a continent of mommies who cannot bear the photo of a dead child. The European press have crowned Angela the First as Empress. [. . .] The Germans are great, the Germans are good, the Germans are generous. It is no longer question of criticizing them for their accountant’s insensitivity towards the Greeks, still less of portraying them as SS men or wearing a spiked helmet. [. . .] The photo of a refugee child wearing a German policeman’s cap for protection has replaced in the collective consciousness the photo of another child in the Warsaw ghetto, terrified by the threat of the German Army. Before history, Merkel is playing for high stakes. Through a remarkable media Blitzkrieg she has erased Hitler, Wilhelm II, and even Bismarck. [. . .] Meanwhile German executives are seeing their dreams realized: massive cheap and malleable labor will replace in their factories the little blond boys that the native women did not produce. This economic cynicism and this rights-of-man romanticism join together, in a vision they think is humanistic, of an individual without roots, without attachments, without a past, nor  a culture, an interchangeable producer and consumer. In a few hours, Angela Merkel has taken on the historic responsibility of destroying a centuries-old Germany and of transforming it definitively into a multicultural country. The 800,000 refugees will have children. Thousands of men see Germany as America was seen in the nineteenth century. But who in the end will play role of the Indians?[7]

Conclusion: Training the New Elite

One lesson of all this, as ever, is that mere conservatism is not enough. Hitler famously said that a worldview can only be effectively opposed by another worldview and, whatever his faults, he was surely right in this respect. The misgivings of Schmidt, Kohl, and indeed 1980s German society as a whole concerning Turkish immigration might be deemed the healthy reflexes of old men. But they were not a worldview, not a forceful, articulated, and adhered-to vision of the world and how it should be.

Creating and disseminating a new, scientifically-grounded, and evolutionarily-adaptive worldview is our role in the nationalist and identitarian Right. We must prepare the ideas which will inhabit the future elites who will rule and redeem the West. In the Kulturkampf (culture war), we can salute and be encouraged by the work of Thilo Sarrazin, whose Germany Abolishes Itself sold over 2 million copies — in a country of 82 million. This means an astonishing 2.5 percent of the population may own this book, which lays out the cultural, genetic, and cognitive realities of Afro-Islamic immigration probably as explicitly as German law could allow. The public has a real hunger for long-suppressed truths.

And yet, as evidenced, by Merkel’s actions, Sarrazin’s direct influence on public policy (like that of The Bell Curve in America) has thus far apparently been close to nil. We have our work cut out for us. But this work is useful, as Pierre Sautarel, publisher of the French nationalist Fdesouche website, has remarked:
[T]he propaganda on the migrants is surpassing the intensity of Je Suis Charlie. [. . .] I have never seen anything like it. [. . .] The “fascisphere” [an ironic name for nationalist alternative media] is Asterix’s village in this ocean of lies. Without the Internet, [mainstream] propaganda would work because you would think you were the only clear-headed one and you would give up. . . . That is why we are useful.
And work we must. After World War II, President Charles de Gaulle told the youth of Germany they were “Kinder eines großen Volkes” (“children of a great people”). We can scarcely imagine Western civilization at all without the Germans, without the Franks saving Europe from the Moors, without Luther and Beethoven, Hegel and Nietzsche. Today still, Germany is the heart of Europe. In saving each nation, we save us all.


[4]A Jewish journalist, Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s former wife, who once said she would never marry a non-Jew.
[5]See in particular, MacDonald, Culture, Chapter 5: “The Frankfurt School of Social Research and the Pathologization of Gentile Group Allegiances,” 155-210.
[6]See Guillaume Durocher, “Éric Zemmour on the Suicide of France,” North American New Right, May 14, 2015. Éric Zemmour, “The Rise of the Shoah as the Official Religion of the French Republic,” The Occidental Observer, May 12, 2015.
[7]For English-language translations and coverage of French nationalist news, I highly recommend the blog GalliaWatch.