Sep 22, 2015

Ann Coulter Openly Confronts Jewish Supremacy in the West

via The Realist Report

Conservative pundit, author, and professional anti-illegal immigration activist Ann Coulter (follow her on Twitter) has done the unthinkable: she openly questioned why the vast majority of the GOP candidates for president shill so hard for Israel. Most of the GOP candidates openly put the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of their own country. How is this acceptable?

In a series of Tweets last night during the GOP presidential debate, the courageous author and political analyst took the mainstream #cuckservative GOP candidates to task.

The offending Tweet:

Needless to say, the organized Jewish community and various Jewish ethnic activists masquerading as objective political pundits, journalists, and analysts have viciously attacked Coulter as an “anti-Semite” who should be crucified for her “offensive” remarks. The Jewish Telegraph Agency, The Jewish Daily Forward, and The Times of Israel all published articles on Coulter’s heresy. The Times of Israel reports:
Conservative columnist Ann Coulter set off a firestorm of controversy Wednesday night when she used the F-word in connection with Jews. She was expressing apparent frustration with the abundance of pledges to support Israel during the Republican presidential debate.
“How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?” Coulter said on Twitter during the final minutes of the three-hour debate, when four of 11 candidates mentioned their support for Israel in their closing remarks. (The answer is: about 6 million.) The four candidates were former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who also said he would move the US embassy to Jerusalem as one of his first acts as president. Coulter has declared her support for candidate Donald Trump, and has appeared alongside him in rallies. Her tweet came as part of a barrage of comments accusing candidates of focusing too much on Israel and too little on answering the questions they were asked.

“Fascists” and “Antifascists”: The Standard Memes Ignore the Real Costs of Immigration and Multiculturalism

via The Occidental Observer

Author's Note: Below is my response to “A New Chapter in the Fascist Internationale” by Alexander Reid Ross, in Counterpunch, September 16, 2015.

Dear Mr. Ross:

I read with great interest your article, “A New Chapter in the Fascist Internationale,” published in Counterpunch and must commend you on your polished syntax and a good, albeit somewhat hasty summary of what is awkwardly termed the “World National-Conservative Movement.”  As a long time reader and admirer of some Counterpunch authors who dispel the myth of progress and who tackle the liberal mystique of permanent economic growth,  it’s quite possible that we have more in common than what may appear in my critical remarks. Having ties with many so-called “White nationalists” in all parts of the world, and being also a Director of the American Freedom Party, let me try to put things into a short conceptual and linguistic perspective first.

The words ‘Fascism’ and ‘Nazism’ are constantly used as weapons to vilify people who identify as White and have a sense of White interests, to the point that these words  have now become meaningless. Both have been so much subject to semantic distortions over the last 70 years, to the point that there is no longer any meaningful relationship between current movements labeled with those terms and the cultural-political movements in the Europe of the early twentieth century.  (I am sure Noam Chomsky would partly agree with that).  Instead, the term ‘Fascism’ is tossed around today as a generic locution in order to criminalize and pathologize any non-conformist White person or any group of White people by implying that they are nothing more than xenophobic haters.

Hence, if we look at Fascism or National Socialism through such demonological glasses, we run the risk of landing in the realms of the ancient Greek underworld, more worthy of the Hesiod’s and Homer’s prose  and certainly not into a dispassionate Elysian field of objective historical narrative. I am probably acutely (and sadly) aware of the “antifascist meta-language,” having grown up in what was known as communist Yugoslavia. Back then “Fascist beasts,”  “Croat Fascist monsters,” “Nazi terrorists,”  were a central part of the Communist  Party  vernacular, and any non-conformist thinker was routinely and permanently consigned to this home-grown  bestiary.   Alas, what I am witnessing now in the USA and EU media, as well as in higher education, is a recapitulation of these paleo-communist memes, albeit dressed up in more attractive attire and blessed with the legitimacy that only the elite media can confer.

I hope you have read some of the authors mentioned in your article. Otherwise, again, one runs the risk of entangling oneself in the dialogue of the deaf.  Apart from books by “mainstream” scholars such as Zeev Sternhell  and Ernst Nolte, it is very difficult to find any other contemporary authors  who more or less objectively document the intellectual origins of Fascism or Nationalism Socialism. Rather than describing the very real problems confronting these societies or attempting an honest appraisal of the popular appeal and economic achievements of these cultures, we see little more than gratuitous moralizing while at the same time the monstrous police states and mass murder perpetrated by the Left during the same period are ignored.  Without wishing to sound pretentious with my own intellectual  baggage, there is no way one can fully grasp the birth of the “conservative revolution,” or  Fascism, or  National Socialism without being fully proficient in the German and the French languages and knowing very well the cultural heritage of Europe prior to 1922 and 1933.

The fears and concerns motivating the current increase in what you would call fascist parties stem from the tidal waves of non-European immigration that are affecting almost all European countries. These fears and concerns are quite different than those that gave rise to fascism in the 1920s and 1930s, and they are quite legitimate. The attitude of the left is that people are essentially interchangeable, so that it makes no difference who immigrates to the US or Europe, and the native Whites of those areas have no legitimate interests in preserving their political, demographic and cultural dominance. This is simply not the case.

The immigration issue is critical. The US is projected to be majority non-White in just a few years, and even European countries like the UK that have had relatively homogeneous populations deriving from what is a relatively homogeneous European gene pool for thousands of years are projected to be majority non-White within the century. The ongoing crisis centered most glaringly in Germany promises to speed the day when native Germans, whose ancestors have dominated dominated Central Europe for well over 1000 years will become a minority. 

The view that immigrants are interchangeable ignores the costs of multiculturalism in terms of increased conflict, lack of willingness to contribute to public goods like health care, and social cohesion. Thus it’s one thing for the US to have immigrants from various parts of Europe; they have assimilated very well. It’s quite another thing to have immigrants from the Middle East and Africa with very different cultures and very different psychological traits (including IQ levels), and strong tendencies not to assimilate.
This view also ignores the long history of ethnic conflict in multi-ethnic, multicultural societies. The idea that societies where Whites become a minority will live in peace and harmony is Utopian to say the least, especially given the fact that Whites are now being blamed for all the problems of non-White groups, including the educational failures of Blacks and other immigrant groups (an argument that ignores the success of East Asians in Western societies). The hostility toward Whites with their history of colonialism and expansion will not end when Whites become a minority. There is a very real fear among a great many Whites that these changes are absolutely not in their long-term interests. This is quite reasonable and makes the appeal of populist politicians like Donald Trump in the US understandable.

On the personal level, yes, I must admit, I feel more at ease talking to working class Americans when visiting a village in the Ozarks, or being a guest of honor at a simple farmer’s house in the German Harz. One finds that the common sense and political judgment of these people often surpass those of many modern scholars focused solely on demonizing movements they do not understand and promoting utopian projects that ignore human nature in favor of creating multicultural societies that are not only prone to ethnic conflict, but violate the legitimate interests of Whites who have dominated these areas for hundreds or, in the case Europe, thousands of years.

Regardless of our possible disagreements and despite the fact that you will likely dismiss me by simply classifying me as a “White supremacist” or “White nationalist” or whatever, I must point out the following: The ongoing balkanization of the USA (where voting patterns increasingly reflect racial divides) bears remarkable similarity with what occurred in the former Yugoslavia shortly before it broke down in 1991. The current EU and the floods of non-European immigrants in Europe — and yes, at this very moment there is a quasi-state of emergency resulting from the migrants/invaders swamping  my native Croatia — do not bode well for a starry-eyed project of multiracial and ecumenical conviviality. When the proverbial push comes to shove, one no longer needs to study diverse Levantine or African haplotypes or immerse oneself in the books of cultural pessimists.  One must then be ready to weather the storm either by voting for Donald Trump or the American Freedom Party’s Bob Whitaker, or whoever is willing to salvage my heritage.  I am sure in a case of emergency you will also figure out which side of the fence it is better to sit on.

Best wishes,

Tom Sunic, PhD

Volk Consciousness: Manifestation of Wotan

Knowledge of oneself is the beginning of knowing the Infinite Essence which some call “God”. Everything has its origin and being in spirit, ‘the seed of all seeds’. Everything in the world is a manifestation of spirit. There is nothing in the world which is not infinite, everlasting spirit. Hence, it can be observed that this spirit, this infinite essence, also, manifests itself in the collective body and consciousness of our race. The living man who finds spirit within himself and his people finds truth.

The fool will claim that he can describe ‘God’, the great infinite essence of the universe. Still there remains the need to put this all high concept in the perspective of human thought. We do this through the comprehensive archetypes of our folk gods, each representative of the forces of nature, man and the universe. The ancestral gods and legendary folk heroes of our race are prototypes and examples which provide us direction and purpose.

Our noble, heroic deeds, valor, strength, passion, wisdom, both independent and collective, are expressions of our biological determinance.

All of these elements are necessary ingredients for our racial survival and ongoing quest in the upright path of higher being of Aryan man. Ignorance of this is the root of our suffering and, ultimately, death to our folk.

Whoever remains ignorant is a creature of oblivion and cannot experience fulfillment. Such people will ever dwell in deficiency. Like living dead, they will go through life with eyes that cannot see, incapable of understanding it. The higher Wotan consciousness we possess inside will always be our greatest strength. Ignore it and we will be destroyed by our own weakness.

Hear some wisdom: The mind is the guide, but reason is the teacher. Live according to the mind, acquiring strength, for the mind is strong. Enlighten yourself, thus igniting the lamp of wisdom within yourself. Open the door for yourself, that you may know what exists beyond.

Walk with a full awareness of your own biological being and purpose as you would a straight road. If you walk only on that road, it is impossible to go astray. All who gain knowledge in this manner know who they are and where they come from; they know the Allfather, W.O.T.A.N., Will Of The Aryan Nation.

Original, creative invention is the mark of one who is spiritually alive. Those people among us are the discoverers, inventors and motivators. They are the declaration of folkish evolution and growth. They are like spiritual torchbearers; their rays of folkish growth shine on our entire people.

There are those who profess to know the secrets of God. Although they do not understand the great mystery, they proclaim that the mystery of truth belongs to them alone. It is wise to ignore such individuals. They are the enemies of folkish unity, striving through lies and deceit to obtain control over us. This is truth: NO ONE PERSON POSSESSES THE SECRETS OF THE ALLFATHER. THE TRUTH IS MANIFESTED TO AND IS IN ALL, OR IT IS NOT A TRUTH.

It is wise not to be sheep, followers of whoever comes along saying, “I am the Shepherd.” Such people are led unknowingly to their death, shorn of all their dignity. Instead, be as the wolves, for they know unity and neither need nor follow a shepherd.
Countless Gods are awaiting to become men.
Countless Gods have already been men.
Man is partaker of the essence of the Gods;
He comes from the Gods and goes to God.
~ C.G Jung, From the 4th Sermon to the Dead
It is said that the road to Hel is paved with good intentions. Yet, these same good intentions move many to entrust their destiny to those who are in positions of power. History has proven, time and again, that our trust is quite often dangerously misplaced.

One thing has not changed since our Folk permitted alien culture to reside and rule amongst us: NOT ONCE HAVE OUR GUESTS NOT TRIED TO MANIPULATE US INTO SUBMISSIVE POSITIONS. The methods of such manipulations are unlimited in modern times. No aspect of life escapes harm; economy, religion, social morality, media, science, arts and medicine, political and social activities are all affected.

In nature we shall never find the weak creatures ruling over the strong. We shall never observe the rabbit lording over the wolf. We shall never see the lion bow to the mouse. We shall never see the day when the snake serves the fish. Although they reside in the same world, they live by the Highest Law of Nature: THE PRESERVATION OF ONE’S OWN KIND. MIGHT IS RIGHT is the order of the universe.

For our folk, the Highest Law of Nature comes down to one thing, our leaders and chieftains should be permitted to rule for only one reason, that they have proven to be great by way of ability and great deeds. When they prove unworthy of ruling a Noble Volk, it is vital that they be replaced.

A Volk unwilling and/or unable to defend itself against its enemies — internal and external — is unworthy of being called a “Noble Nation”. They deserve the destiny which befalls them. This is true for the individual as well as the whole.

Needless to say, keeping all this in mind, we, as individuals and as Wotansvolk, should never allow our destiny to be determined by an alien culture. This is because our welfare can only be determined by the Wotan Consciousness within us.
Some fight because they have to, and some fight because they want to, but all of us fight because it is the right and natural thing to do when threatened. ~ Mikhail Kusnick

Franco’s Failure

via Counter-Currents

Arturo Reque Meruvia “Kemer”: Alegoría
de Franco y la Cruzada (1948-1949)
Translator’s Note: This article is drawn from Dominique Venner’s history of the twentieth century, Le Siècle de 1914 (Paris: Pygmalion, 2006), 281–83, under the heading “Le retournement de l’Église.” The title is editorial. 

The passing of the Falange chief [José Antonio Primo de Rivera] and of its other leaders left the field open to General [Francisco] Franco, who maneuvered to exploit the movement to his benefit. In 1937, he imposed its fusion with all Right-wing parties (monarchists, Carlists, republican conservatives), in order to neutralize its revolutionary potential. Because of his refusal to submit, Manuel Hedilla, one of the rare survivors of the original leadership, was sentenced to death. A sentence which was later commuted after a long imprisonment. Simultaneously, with a perfect cynicism, the Franquist authorities would take advantage of the cult of José Antonio. He would be all the more celebrated so as to better bury him.

After having repudiated all the ideologies which had participated in the Frente popular, the Franquist regime sought its own ideology. Officially, this would be the program of the Falange. But a program is not an ideology. The latter would be provided by the Church and the Catholic action groups in which Franco entrusted his entire confidence, and whose means had considerably increased in the crusading atmosphere of the national zone. No attention was given to the fact that, alongside Calvo Sotelo’s old conservative party (CEDA) and the Catholic hierarchy, subsisted left-wing groups saved by their Catholicism.[1]

The anti-clerical generals died, like [Emilio] Mola, or were marginalized like [Miguel] Cabanellas and [Gonzalo] Queipo de Llano. The others aligned themselves with the Caudillo who flaunted his intransigent Catholicism. He went to mass every morning, which did not, however, lead him to evangelical softness. In fact only trusting the Catholic Church on intellectual matters, a guarantee of stability in his eyes, he entrusted to it the control of education, from kindergarten up to the universities. As for the Falange, despite professing its unfailing attachment to Catholicism, it was held in suspicion. Its proximity to fascism, though denied, suggested a worrying scent of paganism. There was then no question of leaving to it any influence over education. A rigid ecclesiastical censorship was applied to all books and all cultural activities, which were confined to a strict clerical orthodoxy.

The Franquist alliance of the sword and the altar would be suddenly broken following the council of Vatican II (1962–1965). From one day to the next, besides resistance on the margins, the Church of Spain, like elsewhere, would reverse course and turn in favor of the ideology of human rights already prepared by the teams of the Opus Dei and already very influential since 1957. Finished were the “crusade” against communism and the celebration of the fatherland, order, and authority. In its stead came a humanitarian phraseology in harmony with the Christian redemption of the poor and the déclassés. All that would remain of the old reactionary arsenal would be the rejection of the contraception, a meager legacy, one must concede, for maintaining the national cause.

In a revealing choice, Spanish publishing, always subjected to ecclesiastical censorship, would be authorized to publish the Marxist classics or the main Left-wing writers, such as Marcuse or Reich, while Nietzsche, Spengler, or Heidegger would remain strictly forbidden.

Under the incredulous and powerless watch of the old generals, what was once celebrated would be held in contempt and rejected by the clergy. Having failed to read (and understand) Nietzsche and his Genealogy of Morals, the naïve soldiers who had bet everything on the alliance with the Church, giving it the monopoly on culture, would discover too late that they had allowed a virus into their flock. In reality, this phenomenon was too beyond their understanding for them to foresee it. In their simple brains, they would believe only various conspiracies would need to be broken for all to become as before.

The result would be commented upon by Cantarero del Castillo, who was an expert. He was indeed a former Falangist who had become a social democrat (a common evolution). From the late sixties onwards, he says, “the most sensitive portion of the university youth debate in a chimerical and alienating sea of perfectly unlivable revolutionary projects, no longer Falangist, but communist or Guevarist.”[2] The end of the Franquist era would illustrate Gramsci’s well-known thesis: “Once it is converted to values which are not its own, society shakes upon its foundations and the situation then need only be exploited in the political field.”[3] This would be done after Franco’s death.

1. On this question, see the thesis of Arnaud Imatz, José Antonio et la Phalange (Paris: Albatros, 1981), the chapter on “La vie intellectuelle, culturelle et morale,” 532. See also Andrée Bachoud, Franco (Paris: Fayard, 1997), 195-200, 453-454.
2. Quoted in Imatz, José Antonio et la Phalange, 540.
3. Translated from the French, unfortunately. – G.D.

The Fapocalypse

via Radix

“Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these, 'It might have been.” 

The true enemies of anyone seeking to better himself are not external foes, but the banalities of distraction that infest the modern world. Offhand, I can count three: social media, smartphones, and Internet pornography. Nothing is as damning to productivity as a visit from Rosie Palms and her five lovely sisters.

This is not a new revelation. Most religions have precepts and teachings against masturbation, and the dangers associated with it. There is incredible value in this traditional, religious knowledge. It is especially important in this era we find ourselves, completely unmoored, adrift without folk knowledge and custom to guide us.

Given this, it came as a pleasant surprise to learn that there is a group of men (and smidgen of women) who have devoted themselves to an ascetic life free from both porn and “self care.” They call themselves Fapstronaughts, and are part of a growing NoFap community. For the uninitiated, fapping is an onomatopoeia for the sound of male mastubation. Hence, Fapstronaughts are people who do not fap.

The group was founded by Alexander Rhodes on June 20th, 2011, on Reddit. However, Rhodes has run with the idea and created a website (motto: “Get a New Grip on Life) dedicated to helping people overcome their addiction to porn.

Their reasons for giving up on this very private habit vary, but they almost all share a quite interesting view—that Internet porn is to our generation what tobacco was in the 1940s.

Sex is a tremendous event, and releases massive amounts of dopamine (the chemical that makes us feel pleasure) into the brain. When dopamine is chronically released via mastubation, it creates an insensitivity to the chemical, creating the need for larger and larger amounts of dopamine in order to achieve the same result. This creates a numbness that affects life’s other pleasures (such as eating or music) that also release dopamine, but on a much smaller scale.

In other words, ordinary activities become less enjoyable, and we become docile, mildly-depressed slugs.

Fapstraonaughts also argue that porn addiction is an epidemic. Because it is such a private activity, few of us realize how much time is spent in front of a computer, beholden to pixelated cleavage. Making matters worse, we are encouraged to be “sex positive” by the existing, feminist establishment. That fact alone should be enough to give one pause.

However, there are other compelling reasons to give up Internet pornography. Successful fapstronaughts report tremendous benefits after quitting, including increased confidence and productivity.

Given the success of NoFap, and the fact that is has helped so many men, it should come as no surprise that the establishment has come out against it.

Psychology Today caught news of the NoFap movement, and wrote an article on it. The author, Doctor David Ley, cited a scientific study and made several other rational appeals against the very possibility that porn is addictive. If you decide to read the article, keep in mind some important background information: The author, Dr. Ley, has written two books, The Myth of Sex Addiction, and, perhaps more damningly, Insatiable Wives: Women Who Stray and the Men Who Love Them. The latter investigates the relationships and lives of gelded husbands and their hypergamous wives as a form of “evolving marriage.”

Here’s a review from Contemporary Sexuality,
Insatiable Wives is an intimate, erudite exploration of the "hotwives" or "cuckold" phenomenon.... The book is well-written and well-researched.... "
Another from Carole Lieberman, M.D., M.P.H,
What is most compelling is not the sexual titillation, found aplenty in this book, but being taken along on Dr. Ley's clinical journey, exploring controversial aspects of sexuality.
In other words, the book reads as a defense of cuckoldry. This, in addition to Dr. Ley’s rather echoing endorsements and suspicious facial physiognomy, should be enough to discredit anything he says and bolster the validity of NoFap as an important aspect of self improvement.

Ecotogenesis Provokes Hilarious Response from Feminists

via Occident Invicta

The idea of Ectogenesis (artificial womb technology) has been with us since the 1920s. Its implications have been discussed in Brave New World and even the Matrix. The purpose of this article isn’t to predict the viability of this technology but to highlight the feminist response. The evolution of this technology began to gain momentum about twenty years ago and the feminist response has been quite amusing. Some feminists like Shulamith Firestone believed that anything which would free women from reproduction ought to be welcomed. Soraya Chemaly writes:
In her seminal work, The Dialectic of Sex, written in 1970, Shulamith Firestone argued that inequality between genders, and women’s virtual imprisonment in the home, was the direct result of biological reproductive differences and women’s correlating investments in mothering.  For her, ectogenesis, accompanied by revolutionary social changes, was the way to free women from the tyranny of their own biology put in the employ of patriarchal structures, including the traditional family.  She noted that, so far, these technical and social changes have been impeded by medicine’s domination by men, who have no vested interest in upsetting the traditional status quo. (Emphasis mine)
It is remarkable that feminists who wage war against their own female biology should have the temerity to brand others “misogynists”, but that is the subject for another post. Nevertheless, we must give Firestone credit for remaining faithful to the tenets of her ideology, demented as it may very well be. Other feminists have responded with great alarm that this technology (when fully developed) would result in the obsolescence of women.

From the same article:
Prominent feminists and activists, including Andrea Dworkin and Janice Raymond, have concluded that not only will women be further marginalized and oppressed by this eventuality, but they will become obsolete.
Fertility, and the ability to be the species’ reproductive engine, are virtually the only resources that women collectively control, they argue. And, although women do have other “value” in a patriarchal society–child rearing, for example–gestation remains, worldwide, the most important.  Even in the most female-denigrating cultures women are prized, if only, for their childbearing. If you take that away, then what? This technology becomes another form of violence.
The irony here is delicious. The same feminists that have been broadcasting that “women need men like fish need bicycles” have reduced the worth of women to their reproductive function. You would think that feminists would have greater faith in their sisters’ ability to compete with men on equal footing, but clearly this isn’t the case. Perhaps feminists aren’t as disconnected from reality as we may previously have thought. Dworkin in her own words:
Women already have the power to eliminate men and in their collective wisdom have decided to keep them. The real question now is, will men, once the artificial womb is perfected, want to keep women around?
Australian sociologist Robyn Rowland has argued that the creation of artificial wombs would spell the end of women’s innate power.
“We may find ourselves without a product of any kind with which to bargain,” she writes. “We have to ask, if that last power is taken and controlled by men, what role is envisaged for women in the new world? Will women become obsolete?”
I have my doubts regarding the authenticity of the Dworkin quote, but if she indeed did utter those words a few comments are in order. Perhaps women in their “Collective Wisdom” realize that “keeping men around” entail certain advantages such as lifetime alimony, child support, and a host of other welfare handouts exclusively targeted to women courtesy of the male taxpayer. It would also mean that men would continue doing the heavy lifting that allows women the comfort and security to denounce men as oppressors.

I suspect the real threat that ectogenesis poses is that it threatens to unravel women’s parasitic relationship with men in modern society. HL Mencken famously predicted that gender equality would cause women to lose “their old power to obtain special privileges by sentimental appeals. Men, facing them squarely, will consider them anew, not as romantic political and social invalids, to be coddled and caressed, but as free competitors in a harsh world. When that reconsideration gets under way there will be a general overhauling of the relations between the sexes, and some of the fair ones, I suspect, will begin to wonder why they didn’t let well enough alone. “

We know that this prophecy has not come to pass as women have selectively dismantled those areas of patriarchy that regulate their behaviour and hypergamy, whereas choosing to keep those aspects that coddle and protect their interests. I haven’t heard a single feminist complain about the gender inequality in criminal sentencing. Women demand the benefits of socio/political autonomy while rejecting any responsibility that ought to go with it.

Women’s reproductive function has historically earned them the special privilege of becoming the “protected sex” whereas men have always been the “disposable sex”. Ectogenesis threatens to take us one step closer towards realizing Mencken’s prediction and several steps closer towards rendering women the “disposable sex” for the first time in the history of our species. It is this latter prospect that terrifies the handful of women that have thought the issue through. Outside of reproduction, women serve no real net benefit to our species. We don’t need them to build bridges or lay down underwater cables in the ocean. We don’t need them to design technology nor write the programs that govern that technology’s behaviour.

Feminists are correct in assuming that Ectogenesis (if it ever does become viable)will allow men to divorce women on a species wide level, but only this time, women aren’t getting the kids.

The Elephant's Trunk: A Feminist Parable

via Alternative Right

To understand and evaluate Feminism properly, it is necessary ignore all the balderdash about "empowerment" and "woman's rights," and instead to strike to the essence of what women are as well as how feminism impacts on this. This involves viewing women in the same reductionist way that we tend to view animals, namely as creatures defined by a salient characteristic.

For example, the camel is defined by its hump (and occasionally its toe), the elephant by its trunk, and the giraffe by its extremely long neck. In the same way, Woman – viewed as exotic creature – is defined by her womb (womb > womb-man > woman, geddit?). This is the large and unmistakable physical characteristic that makes her what she truly is – and is also the reason why "chicks with dicks" or even "chicks without dicks" (like 'Caitlyn' Jenner) are simply sick.

Now that we are veering into Aesopian territory, let me make my point with a simple parable. Imagine if you will the trickiest animal in the natural world appearing – a wily fox or cunning snake perhaps. It approaches the elephant as it is going about its business, flapping its ears or walking to the watering hole.
"Why do you allow humans to objectify you?” it hisses sympathetically in the great animal’s ear, pausing between sentences because it is concerned that its target might be a little slow. "They just define you by your trunk... But you are so much more than simply a trunk-using animal... Be equal to them... Empower yourself by not using your trunk."
The elephant can't help thinking there is something in the sly critter's words, and decides to give it a try. Next, the shit-stirrer of the animal kingdom approaches the giraffe.
"Look at you playing right into their hands by stretching your neck to reach the high leaves," it says. "You are just reinforcing the stereotype... That’s all you are to them – a ridiculous long neck... But who can blame them for thinking that about you... All you do is pop food down that long tube of yours... Try to show them how much better you are by not using your neck all the time... In fact, try not to use it at all..."
It is the same story with the camel. Its evil interlocutor persuades it to give up using its humps for water retention, and instead to carry a small bottle of mineral water hung around its neck in a fashionable pouch.

Now imagine if you will that these animals listen to their poisonous persuader with the same gullibility and competitive social signalling that Western women have listened to the siren call of feminism. What do you suppose will happen in a week or two? Yes, that’s right, the camel would have probably died of thirst out on there on the desert plains; the giraffe would no longer have the strength to reach the succulent tree tops, even if it decided that being a "walking neck" wasn’t so bad after all; and the elephant would be nearing its end as it struggled to feed and water itself without the use of its defining prehensile proboscis.

In exactly the same way, Feminism – in cahoots with a culture of sexual liberation – has persuaded women in the West to shun the very attribute that has always defined them and which given them real trans-generational power in return for a deadly mirage of fake "empowerment."

Thousands of Golden Dawners Prepare for Elections in Athens

via Golden Dawn, NY

Golden Dawn Leader Nikolaos Michaloliakos
Editor's Note: Greece's election happened this past Sunday (September 20, 2015).

This Sunday, Greece will go through elections yet again, another traitorous party “SYRIZA” has now shown the “left” that their idols and heroes are also nothing but a joke, just as it was for the “New Democracy” conservatives the previous year. Elections in Greece normally are supposed to happen every 4 years, but the span at which parties stay in power becomes shorter and shorter. 9 months since the SYRIZA government took power, Greece’s island populations have been invaded with illegal immigrants and every single tax imaginable has increased and will begin to take effect in December as yet another memorandum takes effect.

This time these early elections are not by accident, the “Radical Leftist” Government known as SYRIZA deliberately wanted elections to happen as soon as possible, before all of it’s insane tax increases and new memorandum measures begin. This was done in order to create the illusion that people still believe in the “Radical Left”.  What really has happened is that all the SYRIZA voters are stubbornly refusing to admit that they were wrong, because right now, SYRIZA’s Leader  Alexis Tsipras has only betrayed them in theory, but it wont be a theory when the greek tax office comes knocking on their doors.

Beneath this illusion, today in the center of Athens, virtually every immigrant, communist, conservative and anarchist runs inside the house and locks their door, because thousands of Golden Dawners roam the streets!

The state media has now been forced to admit that Golden Dawn support is rising, and that is making the system nervous.  They are responding by literally not speaking about Golden Dawn at all, as opposed to the previous strategy of trying to say “These people are scary Nazi’s” failing. They hope that if they just pretend Golden Dawn does not exist, that it will just go away on it’s own. However, it is not going away, despite murder, imprisonment, and media persecution, the peoples association of Golden Dawn continues to gain momentum.

The terror for the conservatives:

The Guardian just published an article interviewing a New Democracy MP where it states:

“I am afraid. For the first time we have no idea what this election will bring,” said the former conservative MP Fotini Pipili. “What we do know, however, is that Golden Dawn is going to do well, and for the serious minded that is a very worrying thing.”

The New Democracy “Cuckservatives” have reason to worry, their conspiracy to jail Golden Dawn on false charges the previous year has begun to fall apart, and they could all be facing prison sentences themselves in the future, not only that but they are also worried because their “cuckservative pressure valve party” called “Independent Greeks” designed to keep the more “right wing” among them taking Golden Dawn votes has started to implode as well.

What happens next?:

The elections on the 20th of September will likely result in a forced coalition between the “radical left” the “conservatives” and everyone else against Golden Dawn,  this is the only possible scenario to form a government and thus will expose the political parties in Greece as merely illusions that all support the memorandum and immigration. The elections will mark not just the beginning of an increase of support for Golden Dawn, but the beginning of the the end for the fallacy of “Greek Democracy” in the eyes of the people.

How Ahmed’s Clock Became a False, Convenient Tale of Racism

via The New York Post

When is America going to get serious about the problem of white kids getting suspended from school for nothing?

By now you’ve heard the story of Ahmed Mohamed, crowned by the Daily Beast “The Muslim Hero America Has Been Waiting For” after the 14-year-old brought to school a beeping, strange-looking homemade concealed device that turned out to be a clock.

School officials, thinking, as 95 percent of Americans would, that it kinda looked like a bomb, hauled him out of class. Police put him in handcuffs and, even after the confusion passed, the boy was suspended from school.


The police overreacted. Yet the device did look like something Ethan Hunt would lob out of a helicopter at the last minute in “Mission: Impossible.” As National Review’s Charles Cooke pointed out on Twitter, the scary-looking tangle of wires “looks a lot more like a bomb than a pop tart looks like a gun.”

Josh Welch, a white Maryland kid with ADHD who was 7 years old when he was kicked out of school for chewing a Pop-Tart into the shape of a pistol and pretending to shoot other students with it, must be puzzled.

Where’s his White House invitation? Where’s his chance to start networking at Facebook? His parents were forced to hire a lawyer and spent a year and a half just trying to get the suspension erased from the kid’s record. They were repeatedly refused.

“I stand with Ahmed, too. But I also stand with Alex Stone,” noted Reason writer Robby Soave. Alex Stone, a 16-year-old white kid from Summerville, SC, wrote a short story in which he imagined using a gun to kill a dinosaur. For this, his locker was searched and he was arrested, handcuffed, charged with “disorderly conduct” and suspended from school for three days.


Are white kids being punished en masse for dopey quasi-infractions because of their race? Of course not. That’s ridiculous.

But it’s equally absurd to suggest that you have to be Muslim, or brown-skinned, or live in Texas, to be subjected to overenthusiastic use of school discipline and police force.

“It never would have happened to a white kid”? It happens to white kids all. The. Time.


Suicide by Refugee: Europe’s Refugee Crisis

via Nationalist Alternative

Germany is embarking on a program of misplaced compassion, exacerbating Europe’s refugee crisis, which will result in future chaos and trouble for the continent in the future. The Syrian refugee crisis is giving people in the West a prime opportunity to showcase bleeding heart morality and prove that no price is too high a price to pay to outdo each other in public demonstrations of virtue.
A top German official said his country could take half a million refugees a year “for several years,” even as some critics questioned Tuesday whether generous asylum policies serve to entice more migrants to make the dangerous trek to Western Europe.
Compassion is a virtue, if tempered with cool headed logic and emotional detachment from decision making. Rather than taking a step back, and discussion the ramification and feasibility of a refugee program, the media has been pushing a highly emotional angle, trying to get people to act based on their hearts rather than their minds. The apex of this emotional manipulation was the publishing of photos of a drowned 3 year old Syrian boy, Aylan Kurdi, who despite peoples assumption, wasn’t fleeing immediate danger. The family was living in Turkey for some years prior to the fateful trip.
Ms. Kurdi, speaking Thursday in a Vancouver suburb, said that their father, still in Syria, had suggested Abdullah go to Europe to get his damaged teeth fixed and find a way to help his family leave Turkey. She said she began wiring her brother money three weeks ago, in €1,000 ($1,100) amounts, to help pay for the trip.
It was not that the boy died, which is the take home message the presstitutes are pushing, it is that they were going to Europe. We can be sure, that if this family weren’t leaving Turkey to go to Greece, but were leaving Turkey to go to Saudi Arabia, this wouldn’t be news. How many children have died in Syria, in Iraq, in Afghanistan as a direct, and indirect result of our wars and meddling in the region? How many killed in the Gaza strip by our “ally” Israel (who of course aren’t as open to taking the refugees)? We don’t see these, nor does our media care, as they don’t have the political mileage that a family seeing refuge in Europe does. Greece is one of the major gateways into Europe, and struggling with refugees as it is, and the message here is that White nations must open up.

In Greece, the coast guard said Tuesday its patrol vessels picked up nearly 500 migrants in 11 search and rescue missions over the past 24 hours in the eastern Aegean Sea.

The goal is to open up Europe to the third world, and the current crisis provides a good opportunity for the anti-white brigade to ramp up the program to demographically bust Europe and undermine homogeniety.
Mr Sutherland, who is non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International and a former chairman of oil giant BP, heads the Global Forum on Migration and Development , which brings together representatives of 160 nations to share policy ideas.
He told the House of Lords committee migration was a “crucial dynamic for economic growth” in some EU nations “however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states”.
Though Mr Sutherlands call was back in 2012, Goldman Sachs is pushing again to wage war on Europeans.
Sutherland told RTÉ radio 240,000 immigrants flooding into Europe each year is not an economic burden on countries such as Germany and the United Kingdom.
On the contrary, he said, a quarter million or more immigrants a year represents an economic and social benefit for Europe, Britain and Ireland.
“Governments have to lead by giving the positive news that migrants are good for a community, economically and every other way rather than constantly expressing them as a burden because they are not really a burden,” Sutherland said. “Within a very short period of time they contribute positively to the community in which they live.”
Sutherland cited studies he said demonstrate the economic benefits of mass migration into Europe from Africa and elsewhere.
As a result, Europe is being asked to permanently demographically transform itself. Nations can recover from bombings, from plagues, but demographic transformation through mass immigration and assimilation is forever.

The dangers of unchecked intake of refugees

Columnist Andrew Bolt asks, where are the women? 71% of the refugees are men, and estimates are that up to half aren’t from Syria. Are many of these people perhaps not refugees, but migrants seeking to pass themselves off as Syrians, to gain entry to Europe? Are some of the Jihadi’s, ISIS fighters smuggled in?
The Syrian operative claimed more than 4,000 covert ISIS gunmen had been smuggled into western nations – hidden amongst innocent refugees.
The ISIS smuggler, who is in his thirties and is described as having a trimmed jet-black beard, revealed the ongoing clandestine operation is a complete success.
“Just wait,” he smiled.
Why wouldn’t ISIS, who has declared war on the West, take advantage of Europeans naivety and blindness, and exploit their compassion to bring the war to European soil?

Why the West can’t help

Western intervention in foreign conflicts has been disaster after disaster since Vietnam, since, coincidently the counter culture revolution. Putin has made mention of the West’s inability to impose its standards because of a failure to deal with the cultural and national characteristics of the region. This is likely revealing a greater truth.

The West has adopted a moral and cultural viewpoint which is now vastly different to the rest of the world. Liberalism, Political Correctness and self-hatred have led to a Western world which no longer values its own culture, not longer believes in looking after ones own race or ethnicity, and places mercanitlism over the nation, over the people. We have a Western world which values self destruction. How can we, who reject religion as backwards, who reject traditional values, who reject ethnic loyalty and favouritism possibly hope to understand, let alone help beleaguered nations in the Middle East? While we may be willing to shout down as ‘racist’, any Australian who might dare suggest that our homes should be for our own people and not foreign investors, much of the world doesn’t share the view that sacrificing your own for abstract idealism is desirable. They don’t place the same value on “free markets” or on “democracy”, and we are constantly surprised when they choose to be run by their own, than a puppet “democratic” government.

So the Europeans opening the wallets and homes of the working class to house refugees, don’t understand what the Syrians (and Pakistanis, and Afghani’s, and Iraqi’s, and Kurd’) who are entering want in a society. By sacrificing the future of their nation for a temporary game of virtue one-upmanship, they are demonstrating the very ideal, the very thinking which is leading to these failed foreign interventions in the first place.

A people who consider self destruction a virtue, cannot be expected to help a people who are fighting self destruction.

The war with Syria

The migrant crisis isn’t just used for culture busting, it is also being used to promote war.
Warmongers in government and the media are perversely but predictably trying to conscript Aylan’s corpse into their march to escalation. They are contending that Aylan died because the West has not intervened against Syria’s dictator Bashar al-Assad, and that it must do so now to spare other children the same fate.
Um, no, Aylan’s family were Kurdish refugees from Kobani who had to flee that city when it was besieged, not by Assad, but by Assad’s enemy: ISIS.
The USA has been wanting to depose Assad for years, having failed at previous attempts due to Russian intervention and protests back home. The Syrian refugee crisis as coincided with increased media discussion of the evils of the Assad regime, and the need to topple him.

Robert Lindsey writes;
It’s hard to imagine a more depraved, wicked and vile foreign policy than US foreign policy in Syria. The bottom line is that the US, along with Jordan, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Canada, is supporting Al Qaeda and ISIS against the Syrian government.
Our policy in Syria is also completely insane. We are bombing ISIS, although the bombing does not hurt them very much. But at the same time, the US and its allies have waged all out war on the two main groups that have fought the hardest against Al Qaeda and ISIS – the Kurdish militias and the Syrian state. The greatest successes against ISIS have been by the Syrian government and the Kurdish militias.
Bottom line is the US is supporting Al Qaeda in Syria and we have been from Day One. It’s hard to think of a scummy and filthy foreign policy that supporting Al Qaeda, but that’s exactly what we are doing. It is absolutely disgusting.
Turkey, on the other hand, appears to be directly supplying and harboring ISIS. Every day, scores of trucks containing ISIS forces, supplies and weapons head across the Turkish border heading straight for ISIS territory. The Turks simply wave them on through. Furthermore, Turkey serves as a huge rear base for ISIS where they have training camps, de facto bases, rest and recreation areas, medical facilities and supply depots for supplies and weapons. Turkey has done absolutely nothing whatsoever to shut down ISIS’ rear base areas inside Turkey. Bottom line is Turkey is ISIS’ biggest supporter. The US knows this and does nothing whatsoever about it.
Turkey is not just supporting ISIS, but taking an active role in the demographic war against Europe by smuggling refugees into Europe.

With Russia involved militarily in Syria, defending the Assad regime, and with the West, including Australia seeking to use military power against the same regime, how long before an ‘incident’ occurs which could spark a war with Russia?

The handling of the refugee crisis, the multiple failures in trying to raise the standard of living of those in the Middle East and Africa which has resulted in ISIS taking root, Libya used as a conduit for thousands of immigrants seeking to swarm Europe, instability and civil violence, the political manoeuvring moving us closer to war with Russia are all symptoms of a leadership which has lost the plot.

The French Family Drama: Keep the #NRORevolt Political, not Personal

via TradYouth

David (right) and Nancy French
We’re winning the battle with National Review. The comments have generally been favorable toward identitarian and Neoreactionary positions. Trump’s civic nationalist revolution against the Beltway status quo is bedeviling the neocon wonks and weasels, and Ann Coulter said what was on everyone’s mind (philo-semite and anti-semite alike) about the CNN Debate; “Cool it with the pro-Israel pandering!”

Ann Coulter, who’s exceedingly Jew-friendly, said exactly what Jason Zengerle said last week in New York Magazine, that the Sheldon Adelson Primary was getting out of control. It’s not even “good for the Jews” at this point. As Ann Coulter noted, the candidates were obnoxiously pandering for Israel wildly out of context, off-topic, and over-the-top for the entirety of the exhaustive debate. Those who deem Coulter’s tweet to be anti-semitic are implying that noticing Jewish political power being expressed is anti-semitic, regardless of context or motive.

We’re pivoting National Review into precisely the position we want them, which is where they bundle identitarianism in with Trump (who is not an identitarian), confirm their anti-White political bias, and expose their treasonous pandering to the Israel Lobby. They’re attempting to delegitimize Trump’s candidacy by falsely associating himself with our positions, which offers us a unique opportunity to deliver our critiques of neo-conservatism as if they’re coming from Donald Trump himself.

To stop us from winning, to stop us from having and exploiting this incredible platform, National Review and the rest of the cuckservative crowd would have to admit that Donald Trump is neither racialist nor anti-immigrant, and they hate Trump too hard and are too afraid of his civic nationalist position to treat him honestly. They’re throwing everything at Trump that they think will stick because they’re in an existential battle for their wonky survival, and there are currently more of our tweets and quotes posted at National Review than at our own websites.

The men who instigated #NRORevolt–like the unstoppable @Jimmy_Vaughn99–have been roasting National Review with hard facts and clever attacks, making the most of this temporary glitch in the matrix of mainstream political discourse. There’s no centralized coordination of these sorts of things, and nobody answers to anybody else, so it’s only natural that the least appealing angles coming from our camp will be propped up and presented as representative of our views and there’s nothing we could or should do about the situation.

At this stage in the game, chaos is our best hope.

When I refer to least appealing angles, I’m referring in particular to the handful of folks who’ve jumped on National Review columnist David French’s family life, namely his having adopted an Ethiopian orphan. Technically, biologically, any adoption is categorically “cuckoldry,” and as a White Identitarian, I agree with the Leftists who believe that the fad of interracial adoption is deeply problematic. It’s problematic for the community the children are being taken from, for the children who are placed in communities dissonant with their heritage and identity, and for the communities they’re placed in.

But it’s not our problem, it’s not our fight, and it’s a fight which threaten the success of the “cuckservative” label. While David and Nancy are indeed both White, they’re what I refer to as WIBOs: White In Biology Only. They never claimed an allegiance to their ethno-racial kinsmen. They’re global cosmopolitan citizens of the world who are loyal to a handful of vague political abstractions and paperwork peccadillos regarding who is and is not a fellow “American.” America is a multi-racial empire that’s hostile to all of the organic traditional identities within its borders except for the privileged Jewish one, with a particular hostility toward our own.

Black conservatives generally catch flack from their racial kinsmen for being traitors to their identity, and their kinsmen are right. A Black who’s promoting universalist classical liberal ideals is only biologically Black, and his chosen identity and future is a deracinated melting pot of global consumerist paperwork patriots. It’s impossible to know exactly how many White folks with White spouses and White children have a degree of vestigial or hidden loyalty to their identity. But at this point, it’s safe to say that a huge subset–probably the majority–of White American families are only technically White at this point, not politically so.

White identitarians in America must abandon the obsolete notion that White skin implies a White identity. At one point in the living memory of some of our older advocates, this was pretty much the case. But it’s not the case, it hasn’t been for a while, and it’s unlikely to be the case again in the immediate future. The only appeal that’s going to work is an appeal for folks of our persuasion to be allowed to exist without being destroyed by the virulent anti-Whites. And not all who opt out of Whiteness are anti-White. I’ve met several folks over the years who are married to non-Whites or even are mixed race themselves who are indifferent toward or even supportive of my choice to remain White.

Plenty of deracinated Whites can tolerate or even respect Whites who wish to opt out of the multicultural social experiment. Practically none of them will tolerate the implied premise of the attacks on the French family, that their choice to be in interracial relationships and participate in a multicultural society is challenged. Both husband and wife have leapt onto their respective blogging platforms to complain about the abuse they’re receiving, and I agree with them that they should not be receiving the abuse.

A lot of Whites in America, perhaps most, are already gone. Don’t let their pale skin and light hair fool you. They have close family members who are non-White, close friends who are non-White, and decades of indoctrination against White identity which guarantee that they’ll choose a Brazilian-style future over one which preserves the heritage and qualities that they’ve been trained to feel at best ambivalent about and typically downright guilty about. That’s their choice. We don’t have the power to stop them, and I wouldn’t stop them even if I had the power.

My attitude is “Farewell! Best of luck!” At some undetermined point in the future, they may well regret the decision and demand entry into our formal or informal enclaves of Whiteness. It’s at that point that their personal choices would become relevant. At that point, perhaps they’ll gnash their teeth and regret having discarded tens of thousands of years of adaptation to a precious and rich social and cultural disposition in return for some vacuous abstractions. Or perhaps they’ll get along just fine in the multicultural “American” nation of immigrants they’ve selected.

It’s not my family. They’re not part of my community. Their choices aren’t my concern, and my choice to remain White and preserve a White living space shouldn’t be their concern. When we make the moral mistake of challenging their choices, we’re implying a commonality of identity and sovereignty which we should be moving away from. You go do your thing, and allow us to do ours. While the virulent anti-Whites will attack and hate us and push White Genocide regardless of what we say or do, there are persuadables for whom a coherent and consistent moral argument matters.

I don’t care about their family, because caring is a finite resource which I choose to reserve for those who share my tribe and tradition. I favor some degree of charity for the aliens and foreigners, particularly for disaster and emergency relief. But the globalization of caring results in what we’ve come to today, a society where we couldn’t care less if our neighbors choke while we eagerly await our Kony 2012 packets and passionately cheer about this or that media-driven humanitarian “concern” for a week or so before moving on to the next one. The French family doesn’t share my identity, and I don’t care what multicultural globalist Americans do with their lives.

What I do care about is winning the hearts and minds of the rapidly shrinking subset of Whites who are still persuadable, still capable of deciding, “You know what? I am White. I have a rich heritage. The kinds of societies my ancestors built are the kinds of societies I wish for my grandchildren to enjoy. And I would rather they look and act like me.” If we forfeit the moral argument in our eagerness to overextend the apt political analogy of the cuckold into the personal realm of a loving family’s beloved child, then they’ll tune out our compelling arguments from history, science, and personal experience for White Identity.

It’s not about moderation, but about direction. We should not bother being politically correct. People have had it with political correctness. We should not hold back in naming and blaming Jewish Power. We should not sweep the problem of Black-on-White crime under the rug. We should be bold and direct, and always on the offensive. But to actively attack a blended family, making a young child the target of political vitriol, …that’s just offensive.

Author's Note: I wasn’t aware of the extent to which the French family have egregiously and repeatedly relied on their adoptive daughter as a political prop for their anti-White agenda. I was under a false (and gullible) assumption that they were responsible parents who weren’t shamelessly exploiting the young girl. Why do I keep giving anti-White scum the benefit of the doubt? My position is that private family situations should be approached with caution and delicacy and I maintain that position. However, in light of their having made the daughter’s race a public and political issue to repeatedly attack White Identity, the matter is certainly fair game. Play ball!

Hungary’s Defiance

via Social Matter

Hungarian PM, Viktor Orban
Our answer is clear: we would like Europe to remain the continent of Europeans. . . . We can say we want it, because it depends only on us: we want to preserve Hungary as a Hungarian country. – Viktor Orban
If one has noticed the migrant crisis, or third world invasion of Europe, Budapest is a flashpoint for the problem. Hungary has implemented what the Western media calls emergency anti-immigration laws, but the Hungarian leader would call protective measures.

The man in charge of Hungary, criticized for a hard stance on "migrants," is the man quoted above: Viktor Orban. He has many more quotes on the crisis of Europe, which is not just of immigration but of multiculturalism, history, existence, and will (Orban's full speech is wonderfully recapped and discussed here). Orban is the only immigration hardliner in charge of an EU nation, and he is feeling the heat for not complying with the elite's agenda. Orban is a rebel in more ways than just immigration, and it is best to look at what he has done in Hungary to explain why he can speak publicly as he does on the invasion.

Viktor Orban was your standard politician. As a young man, he received a scholarship from the Soros Foundation, studied at Oxford, and founded a political party like a good, little post-communist reform-minded young man. Orban worked in his career towards centralization, and shook hands with the proper US/EU leaders. Something changed dramatically, though, after the 2010 elections. This is when we can say that democracy and elections are bad, and the GOP is false opposition, but not all right wing parties are the same.

Orban's Fidesz party decided to make sweeping changes to Hungarian politics.

Fidesz took control of parliament with a supemajority, and with that supermajority decided to rewrite the constitution. Seats in parliament were reduced, taxes and pensions were altered a bit, with an important change being that supermajorities were to make future changes, where they were formerly strictly done by the current government getting a majority. Bigger changes were elsewhere. The retirement age was lowered for judges and prosecutors, pushing out hundreds. Judicial review was scaled back on certain matters. It was an attack on a power node that Fidesz did not control, freeing Orban and company up to shape the ruling apparatus to their needs. They did not stop there.

Orban and Fidesz passed laws with regards to the media that caused Western media to shriek. It was not just what the media could do, but who could watch the media. They could not reform the institution, so they created a separate institution with power over it, and they also replaced individuals. One can feel the anguish of the Western writer in these words:
Soon after Orban's Fidesz party came to power in 2010, the Fidesz-dominated parliament adopted new media legislation. Changes included a requirement that all media register with the state and that their output should be "balanced", of "relevance to the citizens of Hungary" and "respect human dignity". It also weakened protection of journalists' sources. Penalties for breaking the rules included fines, suspension, or being shut down.
Enforcing these new rules was a new watchdog, the Media Council. Its composition is decided by parliament. Because Orban's Fidesz party has a two-thirds majority in parliament, the council is made up exclusively of Fidesz appointees.
In another change, all state media and news production was bundled together in one organization – MTVA – whose leader is the leader of the Media Council. According to critics of the legislation, including the European Parliament and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the cumulative effect of these changes was to jeopardize media freedom.
No one ever asks: is media "freedom" a good thing? The declared good thing? The freedom of soft censorship, that is, of what news is reported and a bias of how it is reported. Media freedom in America allows for local crime stories like the Martin-Zimmerman altercation to be twisted beyond belief and become national conversations and foment wider problems. Imagine Martin-Zimmerman portrayed in a balanced manner. Does it even make trial?

Orban and his lieutenants did not stop there. Reform is impossible, so the solution is to create systems and replace. While they could watch and control the message, there is always the problem of not having your guys deliver the message.
As Hungary's media laws changed after Orban became prime minister in 2010, there was also a clear-out of staff in state media. Many senior executives and hundreds of staffers were removed, union representatives said.
This is framed as unfair firing for political reasons. As an observer of Western media and academic practices, this is hypocritical to bemoan. This is supposedly unfair, but how many lecturers, tenure candidates and other academics, even at the foundational, "prospective protege to groom" level, have been filtered out by the Left for political reasons? It is fair when the Left does it, but not when it is done to the Left. The Left hates this, and can fake impartiality and defending freedom to attack anyone doing to them what they did first. Controlling chokepoints allows for filtering and changing the flow. As one reporter put it, "One party controls the system now," and in Hungary, this is not a pro-globalization, USG puppet party.

While Orban's old moves in his early days were about centralization, now Orban's government moves towards seeking and restoring sovereignty. Orban has also taken aim at foreign NGOs and paid off the IMF loan early that Hungary accepted prior to his recent premiership. Expelling NGOs is a new approach Russia started and that others, like Hungary and India, are following. Orban's government is aware of the undermining influence that NGOs supply a host nation.

The new approach to debt is not just about the IMF loan, which was an easy money supplement to aid them in the economic crunch of the post-2008 crisis. Hungary has actually reduced their debt to GDP levels since Orban's ascension. We live in an interconnected world, but removing NGOs and eliminating the IMF loan and controlling debt destroy avenues for foreign infiltration. Governments around the globe are re-learning lessons prior generations (Argentina being one) learned, namely that first debt becomes a tool for foreign influence, and then second a means to extract wealth from an impoverished nation.

Back to Orban's quote at the top of the essay. It is as if Orban is trying to make the government and nation represent the Hungarian people. Orban's government did not stop with hard mechanisms of government but attacked softer issues. Hungary supposedly curbed women's rights (life starts at conception + requiring prescriptions for emergency contraception), restricted the vote from those "mentally limited" and HORROR said marriage is between a man and woman, while allowing gay couples to register unions. Western press is pushing it as attacking democracy and flirting with human rights violations, but it can also be framed as asserting sovereignty and aligning modern government functions with traditional values. A government aligned to its people. How refreshing to hear! How horrible for globalists!

This is where we find Orban as a key figure in the current migrant crisis. Orban is saying no. He is enacting policies, building walls, and speaking out against the West's self destructive elite that is welcoming migrants by the thousands. Eyes are on him as Western media outlets lash out at his immigration stance, fronting as though he is a horrid man. Like all Western propaganda, they use a Hungarian writer, so that you're lead to believe it reflects that nation's sentiment and is not a Western attack. Unfortunately, looking at these authors like Peter Kreko, we can see he is a Western-friendly prog with connections to George Soros and the USG cathedral. These outlets are pure cathedral organs that seem to have an unusual focus on Orban's changes.

Orban is also giving the people something beyond bread and circus. Pointing out the problem as externally driven from below (migrant waves) and above (Western elite), Orban gives Hungarians bad guys to channel negative energy towards. In the preamble to the new constitution, there are dramatic changes that would sound alien to Western, secular ears.
The new constitution's preamble is laden with references to God, Christianity, the fatherland, the "Holy Crown of Hungary," and traditional family values…
Fidesz is trying to publicly affirm old beliefs. Similar to Putin's attempts to re-invigorate the Russian people with historical references, Orthodox imagery, and natalist policies, Orban is connecting this regime and the country it represents to a deep past that current Hungarians should identify with and remember. The new constitution even mentioned the old Crown of St. Stephen. It is a cultural rallying cry reinforced in the very constitution with Orban placed at the front in a defender role. Saying no to waves of illegal immigrants reinforces that image and plays into the "Hungary for Hungarians" nation-state molding Orban is attempting. It is a role defending on different fronts, preventing framing that is merely us vs a specific them.

While originally a product of it, Orban now stands as a rejection of the globalist mission. Speaking out publicly against this wretched policy and weakness of Western elites is important not just in fact, but in symbolism and source. The defiance comes not from a fringe party labeled a quasi-hate group officially, but evil, racist xenophobes unofficially, like Marine LePen's National Front or Nigel Farage and UKIP. This is a head of state pointing out the bankruptcy of the West. Hajnal line history may come into play, as Orban echoes similar sentiments spoken by Vladimir Putin in recent years. Hungary, like Russia, is new to Western democracy, with less than a century under its belt, due to an interruption of communism. Orban and Putin both know the core fact that no Western leaders voice.

The West is committing national suicide, but it does not have to be this way. It is not inevitable. There is a choice. What is required is will.

Orban, and Putin before him, can make these bold statements that so many in the West would love to hear their leaders speak. Look at their control of their national systems. Western "leaders" have no such control, nor could they assume such control. American readers can hear the hypothetical cries that would come from all of the media, "How could we have a watchdog?!? Our nation was founded on a free press!" Free to be bought. Free to be corrupted by any conspiracy of zealots. Look at the steps Orban and Putin have taken to completely change the framework of how their nation operates.

This frees Orban to speak as he does. Greece could hold the line and use their naval resources to deal with migrants on boats, considering their special position on the continent and Mediterranean, but they traded national sovereignty for bailouts. Not all is perfect, Orban has his faults and populist democracy is still subject to the threats of democracy. Orban and his party are still subject to the people, which is a danger, but they have taken steps to control how the people see them and what the people hear. This is why Orban can position himself against the immigration invasion fostered by the West.