Sep 25, 2015

Jews Are Not White

via TradYouth

Rabbi Gil Steinlauf is leading an important development in American race relations, the steady drift of Jews away from publicly identifying as “White.” The history of Judaism and Whiteness in America is a complicated one, and Steinlauf’s hackneyed historiography is far from the full story. In the Old South, the (largely Southern European and Western European) Jews were firmly on the White side of the racial binary, and Southern Jews even played a generally supportive role in the Civil War.

As Ashkenazi Jews trickled, dribbled, then flooded into the Mid-Atlantic cities from Eastern Europe, the relationship between Whiteness and Jewishness that exists today began to take shape, one in which they publicly identify with the host population when it suits them (and when it suits their attacks on the host population), while privately identifying as “other.” For historical reasons, White Americans struggle to distinguish between racial and ethnic identity. The overwhelming majority of racially White immigrants and settlers assimilated, making it so that one’s color was generally synonymous with one’s ethnic identity and loyalty.

For well over a century, Jews have enjoyed a unique double-standard relationship where we consider them within our circle of civic altruism and yet they don’t merely exclude us from their own circle of altruism, they consider us enemies to be vanquished. The small, isolated, and historically curious pockets of settler-stock Jewish Americans who were limited exception to this trend were handily defeated by the wealthy and powerful New York Jews during the Leo Frank affair, the historical moment when Jews decided in an organized manner that they would not assimilate, would not integrate, and would not view White Americans as allies, partners, or brothers.

The Anti-Defamation League was founded to guarantee that the Jews “never again” fall prey to the “Silent Holocaust” of being loyal to the American identity. Jewish Privilege means clearly and explicitly stating that you’re more loyal to Israel and your Jewish identity than you are to your host country and its host identity, then denying a platform to any White Americans who would dare to echo the very same statement.
The value of claiming Whiteness has dropped so rapidly and its value is projected to drop even further still that Jews are, in an organized manner, dumping their stock in Whiteness. Rabbi Gil Steinlauf’s article in the Washington Post proclaims that, “Jews in America struggled for decades to become white. Now we must give up whiteness to fight racism.” It’s time to move on from Tim Wise’s obsolete “White Like Me” shtick, take off the masks, and give White America that final demographic, economic, political, and social push into ethnic oblivion.

His article begins with a Jewish leftist woman who went to him for advice about her anguish over her White Guilt.
“As a white woman,” she said, “as the product of so much white privilege, it makes me all the more angry to see how other white people so blindly and carelessly feed into the racial climate of our society.” “So the fact that you are white makes this issue all the more painful, all the more personal for you?” I asked. “Yes,” she said.
I certainly identified with her angst. I find the reality of American racism unbearable: the legacy of slavery; the institutional discrimination that is so pervasive; the scourge of mass incarceration of black Americans, with its collateral damage on families; the ongoing blight of housing segregation; the role of law enforcement in furthering racist systems and hierarchies; all this, and so much more. My answer to her, and my answer for all American Jews during these Days of Awe, is that finding our true Jewish identity can begin by questioning our whiteness.
Jews financed and dominated the slave trade. Jews owned proportionately more slaves than Whites in the antebellum South. Judah Benjamin helped the Confederacy hang on for several months longer than it would have without his assistance. Jews dominate the urban real estate market where housing segregation allegedly occurs, and are dominate the privatized prison industry which is a critical lobby encouraging America’s politicians to imprison more people per capita than any other comparable nation.

If the Jews and Whites are getting divorced, it’s only fair that they take their share of the “Guilt” with them. Though, of course, that’s not what the Rabbi has in mind. Historical accountability doesn’t apply to Jews like it applies to Whites. The most wealthy, privileged, and militaristic people in the world, the small sect which played a tremendous role in propelling colonialism and all of its real and imagined crimes, now see fit to flee like the rats they are from the sinking ship of Whiteness as the rising tide of color from the Global South threatens to sink it.
We must cease to consider ourselves to be part of the social construct of whiteness, despite all the white privilege that America affords us, privilege that eluded many of our parents and grandparents. Starting in this new year of 5776, we must teach our children that we are, in fact, not white, but simply Jewish.
And we must teach our children that Jews are not White, not Western, not fellow citizens, not something in the middle; but simply Jewish. Other. And not a neutral other like the Japanese or Argentines, but an openly hostile other.
[T]he main reason why anti-Semitism is no longer mainstream in our society is because sometime in the last half century, we convinced America that we, too, are white.
Yup. You sure did pull one over on us, pretending to be earnestly assimilating into American society. Well played. Now we can get back to being anti-semitic?
Our own children and grandchildren, raised as white American children of privilege, have completely forgotten who built their place in society, or why their well-meaning ancestors so passionately endeavored to build it. Many no longer value their essential Jewishness in their worldviews or life plans.
A White guy catches grief even on the racialist right for asserting that perhaps Jewish identity is integrally incompatible with co-existing, and that they must be separated from us in order to ensure our survival. A rabbi is, however, able to state this truth casually and uncontroversially, as a matter of course. The Jewish community’s very existence depends on hostility to the goyim. Without it, they peacefully assimilate and cease to be Jewish. Judaism is hostility to the goyim. Jewish folk mythology, folk historiography, and survival strategy is hostility to the Pharaoh, Philistine, and Fuhrer.
Without a czar to kill, the Jewish identity atrophies and evaporates.
Yes, most of us and our children are a part of white America now. But we know plenty of young Jewish Americans who are very proudly Jewish. Many are devoted to Israel, devoted to good causes; they fight racism and other injustices. But if we are going to take our American-ness and our Jewishness seriously, we must own all the ways that we have benefited from and continue to benefit from the worst elements of American racist culture.
The first thing somebody committed to fighting racism and other injustices might wish to do is become critical to and hostile toward Israel, the most racialist and national socialist state on the planet. American Jews despise me for wishing to build a wall, for wishing to have an ethnic homeland defined by race, ethnicity, and religious creed. These are all things they celebrate for themselves in their own country. The cognitive dissonance remains perennially unaddressed, unresolved, and outside the bounds of tolerated public discourse.

And because I’ve been around long enough to anticipate the philo-semitic boilerplate, I don’t begrudge Israelis having a homeland, being loyal to their ethnic identity, or genetically testing would-be immigrants to Israel. I begrudge them for cuckolding my government, my economy, and my social order, an obvious matter that the Rabbi proudly acknowledges as a matter of course. They’ve made their beliefs, behavior, and plans clear and I would be suicidal to wish for anything other than their (humane, peaceful, blah blah blah…) removal from my homeland.

The Jewish double-standard of identity and sovereignty for their people and White Genocide for my own people is an intolerable arrangement which will either end with the destruction of my race or the expulsion of theirs.
Even in times when we participated fully in non-Jewish societies, we always knew that we stood with one foot in the mainstream, and one foot outside.
Despite our only good intentions, we are — all of us — full participants and beneficiaries of the American evil known as racism.
This is what Jews actually believe, that they’re a chosen people who’ve had only good intentions throughout all of history, perpetual victims of host populations who are always all bad.
The idea that Jews are white is not only ridiculous, it’s offensive to who we really are! Yes, societies like America come along sometimes and give us privileges and powerful labels like “white.” In America’s racist social construct, Jews are very much white people, but we must never again think of ourselves that way — it’s time for us to opt out of that racist paradigm, because we are Jews.
Just in time to dodge the decline and fall of Whiteness? What splendid timing!
Indeed, so many progressive leaders in this country have been Jews (including some Jewish founders of the NAACP), motivated exactly by this vision.
Jews infiltrated and redirected Black Power projects early on to cuckold Black Americans away from authentic ethnic nationalist empowerment. It was Jewish influence which guaranteed that Black Americans ignored Marcus Garvey, Malcolm X, and Louis Farrakhan in favor of the controlled opposition dedicated to remaking Blacks in their own image; as parasitical victims demanding more and more wealth redistribution from the White host population.

I’m supposedly a radical anti-semite, but why would anybody in his right mind wish to share a political order with such an openly subversive, vindictive, and powerful tribe? I’m supposedly an evil racist, but I’m actually asking for and hoping for less than the stridently supremacist state that Israel and its loyal citizens in Diaspora take for granted. I hope to achieve my goal without any of the displacement, bloodshed, and even outright terrorism that Israel celebrates having committed in establishing its ethnic, racial, and religious regime.

Orban vs. Merkel

via EGI Notes

Readers of this blog know that I've been very critical of Orban, and I will continue to be so. However, compared to Merkel the anti-Hitler, Orban is some sort of nationalist demigod.
I've been urging Hungarians to stand up to German bullying, and if no one else will do it, then Saint Viktor will have to do. The days of Horthy sons being kidnapped and other thuggish intimidation (these days with economics and moral posturing) are over.
But it's not only the Germans to blame. At the other end of Europe, dumb swarthoids in Greece and Italy are unable to police their border and are facilitating the invasion and channeling it north. It seems that only Central Europeans are relatively healthy these days, with the Northerners beset with pathological altruism and Nazi blood guilt, the Southerners too lazy and stupid (and in the case of the Greeks, too spiteful) to protect Europe, and Easterners like Trad Vlad pushing Eurasianism and a Yellow-Brown Russia.
Are Central Europeans the new master race, the "golden mean" of Europe?

Hungarian PM Orban Rejects Merkel’s “Moral Imperialism” in Refugee Crisis

via The Occidental Observer

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s most recent comments on the invasion are beautifully stated in terms of the “moral imperialism” of countries like Germany that are imposing their sense of morality on other EU member states. A theme at TOO is that the anti-White revolution that is displacing Whites from areas they have dominated for hundreds or thousands of years has been rationalized intellectually as a moral imperative. The most important moral imperative in the West today is the evil of any sense of ethnocentrism among Whites. A strong sense of racial identification and pride was common and even dominant in the early twentieth century, but became a victim of the rise of the left and the disaster of World War II. All of the Jewish intellectual movements discussed The Culture of Critique resulted in moral critiques of the West, particularly centered around the absolute evil and even psychopathology of identifying as Whites and having a sense of White interests. This ideology has occupied all the moral and intellectual high ground in the West for at least the last 50 years and is constantly disseminated throughout the media and educational system.

The anti-White revolution has appealed to deep trends within Western culture toward moral universalism, but these tendencies have been weaponized by our hostile elites with extraordinary success. For millions of White people, conforming to these moral imperatives is a very important aspect of their self-image, giving them a sense of moral rectitude but also confirming that they are an intelligent, educated person whose opinions mesh with the opinions of the elite media and academia.

And if there is a universal moral imperative to take in refugees, it is entirely reasonable that recalcitrant Europeans be forced to do the morally right thing. Within this world view, Angela Merkel’s moral imperialism is therefore completely justified. The suicide of the West as a moral imperative.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban on Wednesday rejected what he called German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s “moral imperialism” in Europe’s migrant crisis. …

Orban accused Merkel of trying to impose her vision of an open EU on the rest of the bloc.

“The most important thing is that there should be no moral imperialism,” he said during a visit to the southern German state of Bavaria.
Orban, speaking ahead of an EU summit in Brussels later Wednesday, said his country had a “democratic right” to a different approach.
The summit takes place amid a growing east-west split within the bloc after ministers forced through a controversial deal Tuesday to share out 120,000 refugees.
“I don’t doubt Germany’s right to define its moral obligations for itself. They can decide if they accept every refugee or not… (but) that should only be compulsory for them,” Orban said.
“We are Hungarians however, we cannot think with German minds. Hungary should have the right to control the impact of a mass migration,” he said.
“The Hungarian people don’t want this, we ask that the wishes of Hungarians be respected.”
Orban revived recent proposals in what he called a six-point plan to resolve the crisis.
They included persuading Greece, one of the EU countries on the front lines of the migrant influx, to hand over control of its borders to EU countries willing to help police them, as well as separating asylum-seekers from “economic migrants” before they reach the passport-free Schengen zone.
Orban said he would also press fellow EU leaders to agree on a common list of safe countries of origin to which migrants can be returned, and to pitch in one percent of their EU income and their EU contributions to an emergency fund.
He urged the bloc to work closely with key non-EU countries playing a key role in the crisis such as Russia and Turkey, and the creation of a global system of migrant “contingents” for countries to take in.
Despite Orban’s plea that each EU country be able to establish its own policy, the EU interior ministers approved mandatory quotas for each EU country, but Orban is not backing down. The vote was opposed by Hungary, Romania, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. (See Guillaume Durocher’s three-part series “Can the Ossis save the West?” on the very large cultural differences between East and West Europe; in the East, “a casual and open ethnocentrism is remarkably common.”)
Overriding opposition from eastern European states, including Hungary, interior ministers approved plans Tuesday that require all to take their share of the hundreds of thousands of migrants who have overwhelmed states such as Greece and Italy.
The deal was widely seen as a victory for Berlin in the German media, just as Germany expects up to one million asylum-seekers this year and has been clamouring for “fair” distribution of migrants throughout the bloc.
In response to the influx, Hungary has closed its border with Serbia and introduced draconian laws to punish those crossing into the country illegally.
Orban said Wednesday that he would only consider voluntary measures to accept asylum-seekers.
“Quotas and contingents are two different things. We reject the former, but are ready to discuss the latter,” he said.
Orban was invited to Germany by one of the most vocal critics of Merkel’s migrant policies within her conservative bloc, Bavarian premier Horst Seehofer. (“Hungary PM rejects Merkel’s ‘moral imperialism’ in refugee crisis.“)
We’ll see how this plays out. Hungary and the other Eastern European countries opposing this moral imperialism may well realize that remaining in the EU is suicidal for them in the long run and that re-aligning themselves with Russia would be a far better alternative despite the brutal history of the Soviet era. It’s a different world now.

The German Conservative Revolution

via Gornahoor

In this useful collection of essays, From the German Conservative Revolution to the New Right, Lucian Tudor introduces us to several German political thinkers, loosely grouped under the rubric “conservative revolution”. In the second part of the book, Mr Tudor tries to link these authors to a more contemporary movement called the “New Right”. For this review, we will focus on the German authors, perhaps to deal with the second part at a later date. Readers are advised to skip past the Foreward.

In my notes to the book, I have extracted several extended quotations (marked off with a blue bar). Therefore, I will leave the commentary to a minimum and reproduce those here. The intent is to encourage the reader to consult the book itself and even the German authors themselves, many of whom have never been translated into English. But first some preliminaries.

The book was published by a Chilean identitarian group, Círculo de Investigaciones Pancriollistas. I don’t know what attraction German writers or the New Right have for them, since there is sufficient material in Spanish and other Romance languages that, in my opinion, is of equal of greater value. Moreover, we can recall Charles Maurras’ ideal of an alliance of Romance language speaking nations, which would have included Romania (Lucian Tudor is Romanian). That ideal is based on the undeniable cultural, historical, linguistic, and spiritual identity of those nations, if “Identity” is truly the goal.

Unlike historical Europe, the Americas are much more ethnically diverse. This can perhaps be seen as the fourth “hyperborean migration”, i.e., the habitation of the Americas, Australia, and so on. It brings up the question of how exactly does such a group establish a separate identity within such a diverse country like Chile? The German writers all assume that the nation and geography more or less coincide.

Nevertheless, as Mr Tudor shows us, these German thinkers often reaffirm the same ideas as the French and the Spaniards. There are actually many valid principles that can be applied to any claimants to be heirs of this line of thought. Mr Tudor lets Edgar Julius Jung’s definition set the tone for the first part of the book.
By conservative revolution? we mean the return to respect for all of those elementary laws and values without which the individual is alienated from nature and God and left incapable of establishing any true order.
  • In the place of equality comes the inner value of the individual;
  • in the place of socialist convictions, the just integration of people into their place in a society of rank;
  • in place of mechanical selection, the organic growth of leadership;
  • in place of bureaucratic compulsion, the inner responsibility of genuine self-governance;
  • in place of mass happiness, the rights of the personality formed by the nation
At this point, we need to mention an inconvenient fact: the liberal societies of the West have had great material success and enjoy popular support. People flock to liberal states and no one tries to leave. Hence, it will never be a question of who has the “best” argument, since the psychological trumps the logical except in rare men. After all, who is willing to assume his “rank” in society? Mr Tudor deliberately left out any detailed analysis of Julius Evola, so there is no discussion of the degeneration of castes; that is the real explanation for the state of things. But getting back, Mr Tudor extracts some common features:
  • the belief in the values of Volk (people, nation, or ethnos)
  • the recognition of the value of differences between individuals and between peoples
  • the importance of authority
  • the value of holism and supra-individual community-feeling
  • the importance of religious belief
  • the supremacy of vital and spiritual forces over material and artificial forces in human life
  • the call to overcome modern nihilism
  • a revolutionary view of tradition (radical cultural conservatism)
Moeller van den Bruck distinguishes between the “reactionary” who wants to restore lost forms from the “conservative”. Quoting him, Mr Tudor adds his own conclusion:
“Conservatism seeks to preserve a nation‘s values, both by conserving traditional values, as far as these still possess the power of growth, and by assimilating all new values which increase a nation‘s vitality. He [the conservative] distinguishes the transitory from the eternal.” In other words, there are values and principles which are timeless and eternally valid, but the particular forms (institutions, laws, social orders, cultural forms, etc.) in which they are manifested are temporal, and vary and transform by time and place. This conception of Conservatism makes it possible to resist undesirable modern developments without unrealistically rejecting everything in the modern world and to revolutionize contemporary society by regenerating what was valuable in the past, conserving what is valuable in the present, and accepting positive new ideas for the future.

Conservative Socialism

Mr Tudor identifies 7 themes addressed by the conservatives: Conservative socialism, folkish integralism, Christian radical traditionalism, cultural pessimism, Biocentrism, political philosophy, and philosophy of war. What he calls “socialism” is actually more like a “third way”, more medieval than modern. These are its features:
  • an anti-individualist value of organic community and social solidarity
  • the reconciliation of social justice with a respect for the inequality of character and hierarchy in society
  • a corporative organization of the economy
  • the view that ethics (work ethic, altruism, devotion to service and the whole) are just as important as economics in defining socialism,
  • a greater emphasis on national unity rather than class warfare


This includes:
  • Social wholeness (holism)
  • Cultural particularism
  • The collective meaning of the Folk
Combined, individualism and total openness harmed the integrity of peoples (Folk) and created uncertainty and alienation in social and cultural life. The Revolutionary Conservatives advocated the overturning of liberal society and the creation of integrated, more closed, ethnically particularist, and holistic (anti-individualist, community-oriented) states which would restore the profound sense of collective meaning in life.

Christian Traditionalism

Mr Tudor mentions Othmar Spann and Edgar Jung as the most prominent representatives of this line of thought.
The Christian radical traditionalists advocated the creation of a monarchical state which would also be led by a hierarchically organized, authoritarian elite that would be open to accepting new members based on their quality, thus creating a spiritually aristocratic leadership. As Jung described it, the state as the highest order of organic community must be an aristocracy; in the last and highest sense: the rule of the best.
Christian radical traditionalists also asserted that their vision of the ideal state was the True State, meaning a socio-political structure which varies between cultures but which reappears across history, and is thus based upon an eternally valid model.
Obviously, this line of thought is more appealing than the others to Traditionalists.

Cultural Pessimism

The pessimist rejects the idea of human progress and recognizes that cultures go through cycles of growth and decline. Unlike what a Spengler may write, however, there can be no “law” behind that.


Biocentrism posited an essential distinction between Seele (Soul) and Geist (Spirit), which conflict each other in human life. The Geist is the nous, the pneuma, or the logos … what we would call in ordinary speech the intellect, the reason, the spirit, the mind…. The Seele corresponds to the Greek psyche. It is the living principle, the vital spark … and one with the body, soma. Biocentrism is a romanticist and anti-rationalist philosophy which poses the Soul as positive and the Spirit as negative. According to Biocentric theory, human beings had originally in primordial, ancient times lived ecstatically in accordance to the principle of Leben.
Biocentric philosophy also attacked Judeo-Christianity as a Logocentric religion opposed to Life and upheld ancient Paganism (which has a Dionysian character centered around vitalistic, feminine values) as the Biocentric religion of Life. 33
Biocentrism is the exact opposite of a principle. It extols brute animal life above proper human life. The admission that biocentrism is explicitly “feminine” says it all. It is the philosophical ideal of the neo-pagan.

Political Theory

Carl Schmitt‘s philosophy began with the concept of the political,? which was differentiated from politics? in the normal sense and was based on the distinction between friend and enemy. The political exists wherever there exists an enemy, a group which is different and holds different interests, and with whom there is a possibility of conflict.
Sovereignty is the power to decide the state of exception, and thus, sovereign is he who decides on the exception.
Another notable argument made by Schmitt was that true democracy is not liberal democracy, in which a plurality of groups are treated equally under a single state, but a unified, homogenous state in which leaders‘ decisions express the will of the unified people.
Democracy requires, therefore, first homogeneity and second, if the need arises, the elimination or eradication of heterogeneity.
Ultimately, the party system displaces the friend-enemy into the bosom society itself: each party sees the other as the enemy. That inhibits rational political discourse within democracies and makes the quest for the common good more difficult.

Philosophy of War

The conservatives viewed universal peace as unrealistic and accepted the inevitableness of war.
[Spengler] warned that if Europeans adopted the pacifist ideal, non-Europeans would wage war and rule the world: Strong and unspent races are not pacifistic. To adopt such a position is to abandon the future, for the pacifist ideal is a static, terminal condition that is contrary to the basic facts of existence
Schmitt also critiqued the notion among liberals and Marxists of the claim to fight for universal humanity, for such a notion dehumanizes one‘s enemy, essentially declaring him to be an outlaw of humanity; and a war can thereby be driven to the most extreme inhumanity. Schmitt especially held in high regard the system of limited and civilized warfare developed by Europeans since the Middle Ages, which allowed the avoidance of excesses.
Werner Sombart wrote of the difference between nations whose dominant character is marked by the Trader type (exemplified by the English) and the Hero type (exemplified by the Germans). The former is marked by utilitarianism, materialism, individualism, and commercialism, while the latter is marked by altruism, the willingness to sacrifice, orientation towards duty, anti-individualism, and contempt for materialism

Arthur Moeller van den Bruck

In the next part of the book, Mr Tudor provided us with some interesting ideas from the Conservatives themselves. What follows is a small selection of those ideas.
Young peoples, which included Germany, Russia, and America, possessed a high amount of vitality, hard work, will-to-power, strength, and energy. Old peoples, which included Italy, England, and France, were saturated, highly developed, valued happiness over work, and generally had a lower amount of energy and vitality.
Moeller van den Bruck actually proposed an alliance between Germany, Russia, and America. Obviously, that never happened.
He had a peculiar idea of race which presented a dichotomy between Rasse des Blutes (Race of the Blood), which refers to the common biological concept of race, and Rasse des Geistes (Race of the Spirit), which refers to psychological or spiritual character which is not hereditarily determined.
We have no idea why Mr Tudor considers that view “peculiar”.
Secondly, the nations which Spengler claimed constituted the West had powerful differences between each other, especially in terms of being young and old, which affected whether they would rise or decline, as well as cultural differences. Moeller wrote that due to these significant differences there was clearly no homogeneous Occident and for that reason alone there can be no homogeneous decline … the English and French nations were old? but shrewd and politically experienced, while Germany was young? and vigorous but had behaved in an inexperienced and impetuous manner.
Comment: losing has consequences
Revolutions cannot transform a nation because the past customs, traditions, and values of a nation cannot ever simply be totally brushed aside … Materialism and rationalism “embraces everything except what is vital” … Higher spiritual forces and ideas guided his actions”.
Comment: How to recognize them?
the proletarian is a proletarian by his own desire.” Thus the proletariat in the Marxian sense was not a product of his position in capitalist society, but merely of ?the proletarian consciousness.?
Along with the idea of the spirit of the race, this recognition of the role of caste aligns Moeller van den Bruck with some of Evola’s ideas.

Othmar Spann

Spann is one of the more Traditional thinkers. Besides his concern with the social whole over the individual, he looked to the Nordic-Roman Tradition of the Middle Ages as the model of a healthy social order.
Spann essentially taught the value of nationality, of the social whole over the individual, of religious (specifically Catholic) values over materialistic values, and advocated the model of a non-democratic, hierarchical, and corporatist state as the only truly valid political constitution
It is the fundamental truth of all social science … that not individuals are the truly real, but the whole, and that the individuals have reality and existence only so far as they are members of the whole.? This concept, which is at the core of Spann‘s sociology, is not a denial of the existence of the individual person, but a complete rejection of individualism; individualism being that ideology which denies the existence and importance of supra-individual realities.
Because he also believed that the German nation was intellectually superior to all other nations, Spann also believed that Germans had a special duty to lead Europe out of the crisis of liberal modernity and to a healthier order similar to that which had existed in the Middle Ages
Spann attempted to formulate a conception of race which was in accordance with the Christian conception of the human being, which took into account not only his biology but also his psychological and spiritual being. This is why Spann rejected the common conception of race as a biological entity, for he did not believe that racial types were derived from biological inheritance, just as he did not believe an individual person‘s character was set into place by heredity… The material or physical substance and appearance is shaped by the immaterial, pre-material, or super-material substance … Race is not determined by biological inheritance but by the spirit, which holds a social and historical dimension, and thus is formed by the spiritual community.
Of course not. That is not just the “Christian conception” of the human being, but the actual human being apart from any conceptions. A human being is a physical, psychological, and spiritual composite; that must be part of any intelligent thought. If biological race is primary, then there would be no cultural decay or decline. Nations decline spiritually before they decline materially.
The principles of the True State, on the other hand, were metahistorical and eternally valid, because they were derived not from material reality, but from the supra-sensual and transcendent reality, from the Divine order. Spann regarded the Holy Roman Empire as the best historical reference for the True State.
Spann expected the “subordination of the intellectually inferior under their intellectual betters”. With universal education, however, the belief arises that one man’s opinion is as good as another’s.
The state would be led by a powerful elite whose members would be selected from the upper levels of the hierarchy based on their merit; it was essentially a meritocratic aristocracy…Another defining characteristic of the elite of the True State was its spiritual character. The leadership received its legitimacy not only from its intellectual superiority and its power, but from its possession of valid spiritual content…Furthermore, the leadership must be guided by their devotion to Divine laws and animated by Christian spirituality, which inherently rejects rationalistic and materialistic thought, asserting the primacy of the metaphysical, transcendent reality
Such views made Spann unpopular both with the Nazis and with the liberals. Edgar Jung also took up the theme:
The phenomenal forms that mature in time are always new, but the great principles of order (mechanical or organic) always remain the same. Therefore if we look to the Middle Ages for guidance, finding there the great form, we are not only not mistaking the present time but apprehending it more concretely as an age that is itself incapable of seeing behind the scenes…neither Fascism nor National Socialism were precursors to the reestablishment of the True State but rather simply another manifestation of the liberal, individualistic, and secular tradition that had emerged from the French Revolution.? Fascism and National Socialism were not guided by a reference to a Divine power and were still infected with individualism, which he believed showed itself in the fact that their leaders were guided by their own ambitions and not a duty to God or a power higher than themselves.

Hans Freyer

Tönnies‘s work established a fundamental distinction between Gemeinschaft (Community) and Gesellschaft (Society), a distinction which Freyer and many other German intellectuals would agree with. According to this concept, Gemeinschaft consists of the organic relations and a sense of connection and belonging which arise as a result of natural will, while Gesellschaft consists of mechanical or instrumental relations which are consciously established and thus the result of rational will…The community (Gemeinschaft) thus designates a social entity which is based upon solidarity, bonding, a sense of connectedness and interdependence; it means belonging to a supra-individual whole on a deep spiritual level.
Hans Freyer‘s cultural philosophy began with the theory of the Volk (people or ethnicity) as the primary cultural entity, and the reality and importance of cultural particularism. Drawing from the German philosophical tradition, Freyer argued that the Volk was the collective entity from which particular cultures emerged, which bore the imprint of a particular Volksgeist (folk spirit) or collective spirit of the people.
It is here [at the Volkstum] that all the talk of race originates and has its truth. When one objects that this is pure biology, that after all spiritual matters cannot be derived from their natural basis, or when one objects that there are no pure races, these objections fail to grasp the concept of race that is a component of the new worldview. Race is understood not in the sense of mere biology but rather as the organic involvement of contemporary man in the concrete reality of his Volk, people in modern times held an awareness of the existence of the multiplicity of human cultures and their historical foundations. This awareness caused many modern people to feel an uncertainty about the full validity of their own culture, something which served as a factor in the loss of a sense of meaning in their own traditions and therefore a loss of a sense of personal meaning in their culture. That is, a loss of that sense of guidance and value in one‘s own traditions which was more common in ancient and Medieval societies, where human beings tended to recognize only their own culture as valid.
His new conservatism also held Christian religiosity at its center, emphasizing the direct experience of the faith in Christ, rather than the institutional body of the church.

Oswald Spengler

Since Spengler is much better known than the others, I will just provide this quote:
In his critique, Evola pointed out that one of the major flaws in Spengler‘s thought was that he lacked any understanding of metaphysics and transcendence, which embody the essence of each genuine Kultur.?Spengler could analyze the nature of Zivilisation very well, but his irreligious views caused him to have little understanding of the higher spiritual forces which deeply affected human life and the nature of cultures, without which one cannot clearly grasp the defining characteristic of Kultur.


As Virgil noted in the Aeneid, it took a lot to form the Roman people. What this means is the Identity is not given a priori, but rather it must be created. There is an essence, or possibility of manifestation, and the manifestation itself which occurs in time and space. Since the mass of people are passive consumers of “culture”, the true creators and bearers of culture are necessarily few.

Invasion by Immigration

via traditionalRIGHT

Were Russian tank divisions now pouring into Germany, it is safe to say Germany would be fighting back. As it happens, Germany and Europe are now suffering an invasion more dangerous than that would be. Yet all Frau Merkel can do is stand by the side of the road handing posies to the invaders.

As I have pointed out for many years, in a world of Fourth Generation war, invasion by immigration is more dangerous–not less dangerous–than invasion by a foreign army. Why? Because unless the invaders are a Roman army, the enemy army usually goes home. He may permanently occupy a province–Silesia, Elsass-Lothringen–but an enemy state seldom swallows the whole thing and changes it into a place unrecognizable in both its people and its culture to those who lived there before. At least until Stalin did it to eastern Poland and Germany east of the Oder-Neisse line.

But vast numbers of immigrants do exactly that. The reason Gaul, Spain, Britain, and Italy in the year 800 bore no resemblance to those places in the year 300 was mass immigration. The current invasion of Europe by Moslems from the south is actually worse, because while most of the barbarians moving in wanted to become Romans–their numbers were too great for that–Islamics have no desire to assimilate. They plan to Islamicize Europe.

The September 18 New York Times quoted Marine le Pen of France’s National Front as saying, “Unless the French people take action, the invasion of the migrants will be every bit the same as that of the fourth century, and could have the same consequences.” Regrettably, the invasion of France has already succeeded, leaving that country occupied by millions of Islamic Arabs bitterly hostile to French culture.
But the suicide of Germany and the rest of Europe that is welcoming the invaders must continue so long as Globalists remain in power. The notion that all peoples, religions, and cultures are wonderful and peaceful (except Western culture, the White  race, and the Christian religion, which are evil and oppressive) is central to Brave New World’s ideology. That ideology is, of course, the cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt School. Its goal, from its initial conception in 1919 (independently) by Gramsci in Italy and Lukacs in Hungary, has been the destruction of the Christian West.

In all the West, as of now only one country, little Hungary, is acting to halt the invasion. This role is not new to Hungarians, who fought the Turks for centuries. Not only has Hungary forcefully closed its southern border, it has rightly called for a joint European force to defend the borders of Greece. The best place to stop the invaders is on the beaches. If the Greek islands are easy for the migrants to reach, they are also easy places from which to send them back.

Europe’s and especially Germany’s welcome to hostile invaders has its roots, as does so much evil, in World War I. As we commemmorate that awful tragedy, we should continually remind ourselves how deeply it still warps our societies, to the point where they commit suicide. The West’s lost belief in itself and its willingness to become a doormat for other cultures and religions comes straight from the Somme, Ypres, and Verdun. The absence of any Western country beyond Hungary to stand up to the invaders is part of the price for the fall of the Houses of Hapsburg and Hohenzollern. It is not hard to envision Kaiser Wilhelm’s orders to his troops in the face of today’s invaders, nor his reaction to the fact of Germany being led by a Hausfrau.

As I wrote recently, Germany’s reaction to invasion is so detached from reality, so much a product of Wolkenkukusheim, that is may end up for the good. Frau Merkel and the rest of the anti-German Germany notwithstanding, the German people are starting to resist. The empty thrones in Berlin and Vienna await their Christian monarchs.

The Church with No Salvation

via Radix

A brilliant summation of the current political theology at The Right Stuff:
Every successful religion offers its adherents a path of salvation that seems attainable to them. Some combination of virtue, participation in sacred rites, and spiritual enlightenment will lead you to eternal bliss, an upgrade in the next round of life, or whatever the religion posits about your destiny.
In the latter half of the 20th century, our civic religion was egalitarianism. If you got accused of the sin of racism, you could atone. And as long as he hired a few token women, paid off the Rainbow/PUSH coalition, engaged in ritual recitation of of "I Have a Dream," or voted Democrat, a heterosexual white male could atone for the original sin of his birth.
The problem is that in the last ten years, the Cathedral has undergone a doctrinal reformation. The old creed, "Race is only skin deep," has been replaced with a new one, "To be white is to be racist." The means of salvation have been taken away, and it is now taught that there is literally no way for a straight, white male to find salvation, to get right with the god of the age, to be restored to respectability.
Why follow a religion that offers no redemption? Why listen to its priests or care about its rites? The cult of equality is losing its grip on white males, because more and more of us are realizing it offers nothing to us whatsoever. Its condemnations mean nothing now. A church with no salvation is a church with no adherents.

We British Would Like to Live in a Country that Honours Our Way of Life

via BNP News

We don’t want any refugees. What part of that statement do these idiot lefties not understand?

Just because a few shallow self serving politicians like Farron waved the refugee welcome signs weeks ago, along with the has been ‘clebs’ they underestimate how furious the silent majority watching this fiasco play out everyday are livid and cannot wait to get in that voting booth.

Farron is a fool, uttering platitudes and promoting strategy he will never be called upon to put into effect.

Typical LibDems, a prime example of do-gooders without responsibility, parading their bleeding hearts for effect but without accountability!

The Home Office does not know how many EU citizens move to Britain and claim welfare benefits, according to a leaked document.

Are you going to feed, clothe and house them? They need, something called money to live on as well.

We, at the bottom end of the scale are already struggling with what we given to live on.

How many more do we have to take and let in to Britain before we are wall to wall, standing room only and reliant on Europe for food and still the elite wont care as they are all right in their ivory towers.

This man is completely divorced from reality. Local councils are struggling as it is to find houses for people and to provide care for the elderly.

If he has any doubt about that he should watch the documentary “How to get a council house in Portsmouth" The situation there is desperate.

The incredible thing is that they actually believe that they’ll be able to get back from the brink of oblivion.

It is no accident that these bunch of village idiots have only 8 MP’s.

The media are not reporting sufficiently what the “experts” are telling us about this “refugee” situation.

The fact is than only 1 in 5 are Syrians, in spite of the BBC hunting for film footage of crying babies the vast majority of these people are fit, able bodied young men. They all have phones and enough money apparently to pay thousands of euros to people smugglers.

In addition, failing to achieve their purpose they have turned nasty with aggressive and violent demonstrations against those attempting to get them to register in an orderly manner.

We all know this. Why are some politicians trying to spin it differently?

We British would like to live in a country that still has the British way of life, British culture, British food etc. They just want to take over the world and are doing so without lifting a finger or firing a bullet.

I always knew, the politicians, don’t live in the real world.

Is Putin Reading "Alternative Right"?

via Alternative Right

Boots on the ground
Back in December 2014, Alternative Right published The Failure of Putin, an article that criticized the polices of Putin's Russia from a strategic point of view. The main criticism was that Putin, by concentrating on slivers of the Ukrainian border and neglecting the opportunities offered by America's essentially fragile Middle Eastern position was playing a poor game of judo, effectively pushing the twin pillars of a naturally divergent post-Cold-War West together, and thus ensuring Russia's continued inferiority. As I wrote at the time:

"As a judo aficionado, Putin should realize that if you push directly at a larger opponent, you are more likely to help him keep his balance than throw him off it. In effect, this is what Putin has been doing with the West."
In concrete terms, the article suggested that rather than dabbling in Donetsk, Russia, if it wanted to weaken the hegemony of the US-led West, should meddle in the Middle East, using the moral excuse offered by ISIS:
"ISIS could easily be crushed by sending a few thousand crack Russian troops to spearhead the Syrians, Iraqi Shiites, Kurds, and Iranians who are already fighting them. The Russian lives that are being wasted in the Donbas could achieve a massive geopolitical victory if deployed further south, against the feeble and unwarlike Middle Easterners."
Now, it appears that Putin, perhaps piqued by the picture we used of him as a slap-headed evil genius, has taken a page out of the Alt-Right geopolitical playbook. He has allowed things to die down in the Ukraine whilst making a considerable military investment in Syria with what looks like the construction of a major air base, according to news reports:
Russia's recent movements near Syria's city of Latakia suggest that Moscow plans to establish a "forward air operating base" there, the US has said. Pentagon spokesman Jeff Davis said there had been a steady flow of people and equipment in the coastal area. Russia says military equipment is being sent to Syria to help the government combat the so-called Islamic State. Moscow has been a key ally of President Assad during Syria's bloody civil war, which began in 2011.

"We have seen indications in recent days that Russia has moved people and things into the area around Latakia and the air base there that suggests that it intends to establish some sort of a forward air operating base," Mr Davis said on Monday.
This kind of air base would be essential to offensive operations, and there have also been reports of Russia sending in troops and armoured units.

If this really is a build-up for a big move, the timing is textbook Kremlin, taking advantage of the American election cycle and the end of a two-term presidency (a double lame duck) to ensure the paralysis of any Western response.

In strict military terms, significant Russian forces in combination with the battle-weary army of President Assad and the Shiite forces in Iraq, including elements from Iran, would be powerful enough to overwhelm ISIS militarily in the same way that the US and its allies were powerful enough to overwhelm Saddam Hussein back in 2003.

But Putin should be warned: this will not be enough to ensure Russian victory and the embarrassment of the West. In the Middle East winning is easy, but staying is hard. One of the reasons for this is that the area is routinely misunderstood. For example, most analysts, including those in the Kremlin, see ISIS as mainly a religiously-driven Salafist phenomenon, rather than a tortured up-swelling of genuine Sunni Arab nationalism.

But what if the pawns come back to life?
If Putin is seeking to eradicate ISIS rather than just ensure the survival of a sympathetic Syrian pocket in the Alawite-dominated area of the country, then his over-reliance on Shiite allies (Hezbollah, Assad's Alawites, and Iraqi Shiites) threatens to backfire by stoking up Sunni Arab opposition, as well as angering the Turks.

If he really wants to undermine the West in the Middle East, he has to offset the Shiite bias of his alliance system and present himself much more as an honest broker between Sunnis and Shiites, and as a friend of the Muslim world in general. This includes being sympathetic to the legitimate interests of Sunni Arabs whose only realistic option in both Iraq and Syria at the moment is ISIS.

If he can do this, he can start to undermine Western power in the Middle East, which is built on a fragile foundation of corrupt oil sheikdoms, the state of Israel, and reluctant European and Sunni Arab support for this ugly status quo.

The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945, Part 11

via Carolyn Yeager

Listen Now

Carolyn reads Chapter 20, “Lvov.” 

The situation found in the prisons of Lvov/Lviv, Ukraine when the Wehrmacht first entered the city on June 30, 1941 was shocking, to say the least. The prisons were filled with thousands of brutally murdered Ukrainians and some Poles - the work of the NKVD, Stalins secret police. In this program:

  • Eyewitness accounts of finding 4,000 decomposing corpses in the prisons of Lvov, and thousands more in Zolochov, Rivne, Dubno and Lutsk;
  • How German air crews were among those murdered in the hospitals and prisons;
  • Why the local populations killed up to 7,000 Jewish residents in reprisal after the Soviets left;
  • How Soviet propaganda tried to blame the killings on the Germans at the Nuremberg Tribunals, and through disinformation campaigns even up until today;
  • Otto Ohlendorf testimony (and here);
  • Two German newsreels are on this page: 2nd and 4th on the top row. 59min

Aria Going Home!

via Western Spring

In a case that exposes the ineffectiveness and ineptitude of Britain’s supposed immigration controls, it was reported yesterday in the Daily telegraph that an Iranian migrant had recently walked into a police station in the Greater Manchester area and demanded to be deported – because he’d ‘had enough’ of Manchester.

It appears that Arash Aria, 25, complained of his loneliness and disillusionment in the city and of the rudeness and “violence” he had experienced from the people of Manchester. He was described as “agitated and angry” as he told officers he wanted to leave after living illegally in the city for a decade.

However when officers from Manchester’s city centre police station contacted the Home Office to check Mr Aria’s status, they found that while he had entered the UK illegally, he had been granted indefinite leave to remain as he had been here so long.

Having arrested Mr Aria on suspicion of unlawfully entering Britain the police had no option but to release him and send him on his way.

Mr Aria told The Telegraph he had been left frustrated and disappointed by local people’s rudeness and his failure to find work.

“The people of Manchester have not been welcoming,” he said.

“It’s words, violence, many things. I try to ignore people but I’m fed up now.

“I don’t get the respect I should here.

“People are not friendly here in Manchester. When they are rude to me, I don’t like it.

“Particularly in the last year it’s got really bad,” said Mr Aria.

“I try to be friendly and polite. But they just laugh at me because I am foreign and look at me strangely.”

He added: “I am not working right now. I used to work as a waiter and a barman but now people won’t give me shifts – for no reason.

“It’s affecting my head, my dreams and the way I think.

“I am on benefits but I don’t want that. I am in full health, I want to work.

“Everyone wants to work, to have a dream but I can’t achieve my dreams here.

“I want to try and do something with my life. I want to get a good job, save money and do something big – be somebody. “

Mr Aria said he was in limbo after sending documents to the Home Office, while his Iranian passport had expired.

“I want to go back to my city Shiraz, in south-west Iran. My aunt and my family will look after me there because my mother will stay here in England,” he said.

“I am just waiting for my passport to come through and then I will book my flights and start my life out there.”

Detective Sergeant David Henshall, who was on duty at the time of the incident and publicised the incident on Twitter, said Mr Aria began “shouting and screaming” at the police front desk.

“I got a call from the staff downstairs at the front desk who said he was being aggressive and throwing his bike around so I went down to help.

“He was very angry and just kept saying how much he hated Manchester.

“He didn’t look drunk – I didn’t smell any alcohol on him – he just seemed very angry.

“We tried to ask him what the catalyst was but he just kept saying he had been here 10 years and he hated it.

“Maybe he just wanted a free flight home, I’m just not sure.

“He didn’t look like he was sleeping rough. He was wearing nice clothes and came in with this expensive mountain bike which he kept throwing on the floor.”


The sergeant added: “He was arrested for immigration offences because he did enter the country illegally but they backtracked and said there was nothing that could be done because he had been in the country so long.” Apparently, the police found this incident so strangely amusing, they decided to release details of the matter in a series of ‘Tweets’ on their official Twitter account!

Furthermore, a spokesman for the Iranian Embassy in London said Mr Aria would be offered consular assistance to return to Iran if he got in touch, and stated that he may even be able to secure financial help with transport costs.
So, what does all this tell us?

It would appear that approximately ten years ago, Mr Aria and his mother, and possibly other undisclosed members of his immediate family, entered the UK illegally, and having managed to stay in this country as long as they have, they have been granted indefinite leave to remain.

Shiraz 2

Clearly however, Mr Aria and his family were not fleeing persecution, or war, or poverty and yet when their illegal presence here in this country was discovered, they were simply allowed to stay, even though they have relatives back in Iran that could support them upon their return to that country.

We must therefore ask if it is the accepted procedure for immigration officers to automatically grant indefinite leave to remain without first investigating the possibility of returning illegal immigrants to their country of origin, and if so, we must ask why that is?

Furthermore, and in the event that this is not the accepted procedure, we must ask if there will be an enquiry into why the immigration officers involved in this case acted without authority and made no attempt to secure the return of the Arai family to Iran before granting them leave to remain?

Shiraz 3

The next issue concerns the illegal employment of Mr Aria and other family members during the period between their illegal entry into the UK and the date upon which they were granted leave to remain. During this period they will presumably not have been registered with the authorities, they will have had no National Insurance numbers and will not have been paying income tax. Were Her Majesties Revenue & Customs notified at the point that the Aria family were granted leave to remain so that any back taxes and fines for late payment could be collected? If not, why not?

What our authorities, including the police need to recognise is that when someone enters this country illegally, they are not simply trespassing, because if they stay illegally and attempt to make a life for themselves here, they are in effect stealing the benefits of British citizenship. An area of land can only support so many people and when a country is full to capacity, anyone additional who intrudes onto that land is in effect denying the benefits of life in that land to someone to whom it legitimately belongs.

Shiraz 4

If there was no unemployment in Britain and yet still a substantial number of unfilled employment vacancies, it could be argued that Britain is not yet full to capacity and that an illegal immigrant is fulfilling a useful function in coming to our country, but that is not the case. Figures from the Office of National Statistics show that in the Greater Manchester area, there are currently some 98,300 people unemployed.

If there was no homelessness in Britain and yet still a substantial number of homes laying empty, it could be argued that Britain is not yet full to capacity and that there is room to accommodate migrants, but that is not the case. Housing charities report that there are on the waiting list for social housing in the Greater Manchester area over 120,000 people, and there are over 100 people sleeping rough in the city centre every night.

Shiraz 5

Furthermore, if there was substantial overcapacity with regard to healthcare services, social services and education services, again, it could be argued migrants can be accommodated without loss to the indigenous people, but there is massive under-capacity, long waiting lists and long waiting times. Clearly therefore, illegal immigrants entering this country are denying the rights of access to the necessities of life for the indigenous British and this iniquity must stop!

It is all very well for immigration officers, social services and the police to dole out largesse at taxpayer’s expense and regard this matter as rather amusing, ‘Ho, ho, ho, I thought this was funny, so I put it on Twitter!’, but I don’t think the people sleeping rough in Manchester city centre will find it so amusing that the likes of Arash Aria are occupying city centre flats at public expense while they are shivering in the frost and snow this winter.

Arash Aria has complained that we British are ‘rude’ and don’t show him the ‘respect’ he feels he deserves, but what has he done to earn our respect?

So yes, you go back to Iran, Mr Aria, life there doesn’t look so bad, and hopefully, many more of your compatriots will follow you!

Petroglyphs Left in Canada by Scandinavians 3,000 Years Ago?

via Epoch Times

Hundreds of petroglyphs are etched on a slab of crystalline limestone about 180-by-100 feet (a third the size of a football field) in Peterborough, Canada. They may have been left by Algonquin Native Americans about a thousand years ago, or by Scandinavian traders a few thousand years ago. The latter claim flouts the common understanding of history, which places Europeans in the New . . . Read more

The Migratory Invasion, Part 2: The Suicidal Surrender of Europe

via Counter-Currents

Part 1

Migration onslaught: the “refugee” is added, like a tidal wave, to the ongoing flood of the past several decades. While the majority of indigenous peoples of Europe don’t want it, the Left and Right, in France and elsewhere in Europe, like most media and religious institutions, as well as the unelected European Commission, accustomed to the excesses of permanent power, are dictatorially forcing populations to “welcome” hundreds of thousands of new immigrants. Without any referendum. It is a “moral duty” which is both a perversion of morality and suicide. It is also an example of contempt for democracy and the irreparable divorce between the people and the pseudo-elites. Prelude to an explosion.

Poor Germany’s Dangerous Game

This is a stupid, mindless, destructive game. The first “refugees” of the new invasive wave (13,000) arrived in Germany on September 6, greeted by banners reading “Welcome to Germany” and thousands of cheering, laughing people. Thousands more are expected in September. 150,000 emergency accommodation places are open. Pitiful scenes of naive humanitarianism in which part of a people rejoice at their own invasion and demise, ultimately destroyed by this mass migration. This kind of high profile image is a strong incentive to new influxes of “refugees.” Germany, with its ultra-low birth rate and considerable migration flows, may experience a change in population, populated at the end of the century by a majority of Muslims who don’t even speak German. This “new country,” now Middle Eastern rather than Germanic, blissfully invaded like its neighbors, will not know peace or prosperity but, ultimately, disorder and decline. This German political stupidity is unfathomable. A self-forgetfulness.

To get the world to forgive and forget Nazism (which continues to obsess the guilt-ridden German collective psyche) and to give the world the image of an exemplary Germany, its heart on its sleeve, the German government wants to be open to all immigration. Thilo Sarrazin caused a scandal by writing Germany Abolishes Itself, the bestseller against immigration and Islamization published in 2010. Forty percent of Germans are opposed to welcoming new immigrants, but they are a minority.

One has the impression that the German soul, which is deep yet incapable of balance, goes from one extreme to another without caring about the golden mean (the Aristotelian mesotes), a romanticism devoid of reason: from ruthless racist brutality to an even more delirious anti-racism. Two parallel stupidities: this is German extremism. This romanticism, interesting in art (once, but not today . . .) is stupid in politics. Germany and politics: absolute incompatibility, as Nietzsche had seen.

As a catharsis (“purification”), to be forgiven past catastrophic excesses (from 1870–1945), the German leaders and some of their people now argue for Europe to impose a total opening of borders to the migratory flood, under the pretext of “morality.”

Pascal Bruckner noted this hypocrisy, “we find in the Germans the usual arguments of immigration advocates: a humanitarian tone, a bit bleating, reinforced with economic calculation which is less so. German bosses explicitly say we need manpower. For them, such an influx is a bargain. Collusion between no borders Leftists and ultra-big business” (Le Figaro, 04/09/2015). German elites are selfish in the short term but suicidal in the long term.

Questions about German Politics

Germany and the Brussels Commission–through Jean-Claude Junker, a creature of Mrs. Merkel–authoritatively set a quota of “refugees” for European countries to host, which is a violation of sovereignty—a violation that, moreover, is not provided for in the treaties: Hungary, Poland, Spain, Britain, the Czech Republic are trying to resist–until when? France under Hollande surrendered.

On  September 8, Sigmar Gabriel, Vice-Chancellor and Minister of Economy, did not hesitate to release this enormity, speaking of the “refugees”: “we can certainly handle a figure of the order of half a million each year,” a purely economic calculation in low unemployment countries where population decline leads to a growing shortage of workers. The German economy, therefore, needs a workforce imported cheaply. This combination of pious Christian sentiment and financial calculation, together with a proactive policy of assimilation to German culture, leads to a stupid outcome, profitable in the short term but impractical and suicidal in the medium term. For three reasons: 1) with the endless military chaos of the Middle East and Africa (all related to Islam), the masses of “refugees” will not stop growing, exploding all the “quotas.” 2) The German policy of assimilation of increasingly alien populations, 80% Muslim and prolific, will inevitably fail and lead to the importation of chaos; and the de-Germanization of the country. 3) Rather than revive its birthrates (as Putin’s Russia is attempting) or refusing all immigration and gambling on robotics (like Japan, which has an ethnic and national consciousness), a delirious Germany chose the worst solution; which, paradoxically, will ruin economic prosperity by creating ethnic chaos. Once again, and for different reasons, from the late nineteenth century, German politics is harmful to Europe. Equally, if not more, than American politics. And France?

French Naiveté and Dereliction

And France, which renounces its sovereignty, forgetting all “Gaullist” principles which are evoked with a ridiculous hypocrisy, follows, especially the Socialist government, the orders from Brussels, Berlin, and Washington. François Hollande, the weathercock, who in May 2015 advocated admitting only genuine refugees, refusing mandatory quotas for each European country, has just caved to the injunctions of Chancellor Merkel and accepted these quotas. As a result, 24,000 “refugees” attributed to France (of 160,000 to be distributed) will come in September, in addition to the 6,800 allowed to come in July, in a country with five million unemployed in real numbers and a national debt equal to 100% of GDP. According to Yves Thréard (Le Figaro, 08/09/2015), there is a “ratchet”: “Refugees, how many will they be tomorrow? No doubt millions fleeing Islamist terror. The future will show, this demonstration of generosity will prove an irreversible mistake. How many so-called economic migrants will continue to step into the breach? How to repatriate those who are not eligible for asylum?” Indeed, 350,000 “refugees” have already entered Europe in January, a figure that will triple in December! And 4,000,000 are waiting in camps in the Middle East.

And these new migrants are Muslims, while 62% of French people believe that there are already too many Muslims in France and that Islam is dangerous. According to the Court of Auditors, only 1% of rejected asylum seekers leave the territory. To successfully enter is to stay.

The Socialist Party, whose ideology manufactures both mass unemployment and mass immigration, proposed in the “Inclusive Cities Network” that each municipality receives a quota of “migrant refugees” (and therefore illegal) at taxpayer expense. The Center-Right Republicans (the former Union for a Popular Movement) has the exact same ideological position: the “I welcome” initiative launched by the Republican mayor of Saint-Étienne seeks to force even small municipalities to receive their quota of illegal migrant “refugees.” The Minister of Interior, Mr. Cazeneuve, agrees and will coordinate this Right-Left immigrationist initiative. Accept and organize the invasion in the name of charity.

The words of Alain Denis, the president of rural mayors of Maine-et-Loire, full of popular common sense, horrified the Parisian political and media oligarchy: “We must be consistent: if today 10,000 refugees are hosted, tomorrow 100,000 will arrive, and one million the day after tomorrow! The emergency measure is to fight against the crazy war and global warming, so that people can stay at home! Our policies only shift the problems. When we have paved over France for subdivisions, and there is no more farmland, how will we eat? And when chaos destroys our country, who will host the French?”

Only the National Front represents the views of the majority of the French. At the National Front Summer University in Marseille, on September 6, Marine Le Pen dared to state the obvious: “Immigration is not an opportunity, it is a burden,” without going as far as to say it is a disaster. “Our country has neither the means nor the inclination nor the energy to be more generous with the poor of the world.” She rightly denounced the “heavy responsibility of Germany,” which is committed to welcoming 800,000 immigrants, which will be a huge pull factor for future invasive waves. (It would seem also that Marine Le Pen, under pressure from the urgency of the migration crisis and to ease her serious conflict with her father, has returned to the fundamentals of National Front.)


Nicolas Sarkozy, the fake tough guy, the calculating politician, commented in demagogic and superficial terms about Marine Le Pen’s “inhumanity” and “lack of compassion”: “I was ashamed of Ms. Le Pen, of her brutality! What and absence of all feeling! We really did not feel like part of the Le Pen family! We are human beings, we have Christian roots. Who has not been shocked by these images?”

Ending Humanitarianism and Emotional Blackmail

What pictures? One more reason why we are no longer capable of politics is iconophilia or the cult of emotional media images. These gimmicks of global media manipulation, marketing and commercial in nature, showing a Syrian Kurdish child drowned on a Turkish beach. The perverse subliminal message: we are the culprits! A cast, two year campaign of disgusting emotional guilt-mongering–photos, reports ad nauseam—about people drowned in the Mediterranean or “refugees” found dead in trucks or elsewhere. All multiplied by Internet social networks. This moral blackmail deters the Europeans from defending against the invasion; it is true mental manipulation, soft brainwashing.

In the name of misunderstood Christian charity, the Catholic Church preaches and calls us to welcome all migrants, just like the pseudo-environmentalist but actually Trotskyist Green Party (EELV, Europe Écologie—Les Verts). Pope Francis, in line with his guilt-mongering about Lampedusa, demands that we open all borders. And he demanded every parish in Europe accommodate “refugees” (without giving Eastern Christians priority) everyone, without distinction. Pure madness, in the tradition of Franciscan and Jesuit “Christian charity” that loses reason and forgets the Aristotelian and Thomist foundations of common sense. They ignored or never heard the solemn warning to Europeans of the bishops of Syria and Iraq whose followers are persecuted: what happens to us, they say, will happen to you if you continue through misguided charity to let settle hundreds of thousands of immigrants, mostly Muslims, in your homes. This sense is not heard by the insane.

Of course, the immigrationist “elites” refuse to receive the “refugees” in their homes: it is the “people” in the villages and small towns who must perform this duty. The Republicans try to combine the reception of “genuine refugees” with the rejection of economic illegals. Not credible: when they were in power, they allowed profligate immigration, like the Left. Words, words.

Victor Orbán, Prime Minister of Hungary, has shocked the European political and media oligarchy by erecting a barbed wire wall between his country and Serbia and declaring: “Today we are talking about hundreds of thousands, next year we will discuss millions and, in a stroke, we will find ourselves in the minority on our own continent. “

The antidemocratic Fabius denounced the “scandalous” attitude of Hungary, which is trying to defend itself. Australia and Israel are the same, much stronger, but the great moralist Fabius does not condemn them. Diplomacy? The Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Poland are aligned with Hungary to oppose the migratory invasion. The Slovak Prime Minister (on the Left), Robert Fico, has scandalized the frightened virgins of the European Union stating, in total agreement with public opinion: “I do not want to see my country wake up one morning with 100,000 people from the Arab world.” 

Liars and Frauds

For now, it is more than 30,000 “refugees” that France must immediately welcome (feed, maintain, pay, house) by October if the quotas imposed by Brussels and Germany are endorsed. In addition to all the others. France? And why not the wealthy Gulf countries that would welcome and their co-religionists—except Christians, obviously?

Intellectuals and the inevitable “artists” or pseudo-artists, a well-protected population, are not Leftists out of false generosity. As always, whether in France or the USA, the immigrationist and bourgeois Leftist world of show business has commercial reasons to play the tearful humanitarian card.

Fifty court “artists,” including Line Renaud, Daft Punk, Dany Boon, Nicolas Canteloup, etc. signed a bogus appeal entitled “A Helping Hand” to require Europe to “assume the duty of asylum today.” They obey the dominant ideology that maintains them. None of these hypocrites and overpaid entertainers would agree to host home any “refugees.” Their generosity is a simulacrum that has its limits.

Mr. Raffarin, the representative of “the humanist wing” of the Republicans favors a policy of quotas for refugees and believes that “fear” of the people (a derogatory term used by a protected and fattened grand bourgeois) facing the massive influx of immigrants “is that immigration policy is not controlled.” Who was he mocking? It was the Prime Minister at the helm of the state. Like he controlled it? The same message from the schoolmarm politicians Sarkozy and Juppé. Sarkozy, however, launched a delirious and totally unworkable proposition: he proposed creating “holding centers in North Africa” ​​for illegal migrants from Africa. One is amazed at this level of idiocy and unrealism. It is Sarkozy who is partly the cause of the chaos due to his intervention in Libya . . .

For now, they are tranquil in their beautiful neighborhoods–the politicians, journalists, and “artists” in favor of mass immigration at the expense of the people. While flood does not come to their homes. But be patient. It will come. And then, with their usual cowardice, they will turn their coats But it will be too late.

Dump the Guilty Conscience

Neither France nor Europe have no “asylum duty,” with all due respect to the political and media oligarchy and the cold sermons of Catholic prelates. Enough simpering and fake tears. Why are millions of true and false refugees worldwide pouring into Europe? A universal duty to welcome them, based on what right? Because we have to pay for the “crimes” of colonialism? One has the impression that Europe is obliged to become the dumping ground of the world. The oligarchy blames the people; the tearful media propaganda and obligation of unlimited hospitality really mean: forced invasion and colonization.

We do not have to feel guilty for those who drown in the Mediterranean who we bring over rather than push back. No, we do not have to let ourselves be impressed by the crocodile tears of TV presenters and politicians. And the other countries of the world, what do they do?

We must not be paralyzed by pity for the others, but, like any other nation in the world, concerned about our own survival. Each in his home, each responsible. We do not need to conform to the orders of a self-contradictory Germany manipulating European institutions while forgetting what it is to be truly “European” in one’s soul, and which is engaged in a suicidal selfishness to buy a good conscience and moral virginity.

Are the Indians, the Chinese, the Japanese, Arab monarchies welcoming “refugees”? The United States, in four years, has received only 1,500 Syrian refugees! Yet it is largely because of their destabilizing military interventions in the Middle East, with their British auxiliaries, that we are in this mess. It is for Europeans to pay their piper.