Oct 6, 2015

The Great Replacement

via American Renaissance

Washington-area think tanks are marking the 50th anniversary of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 that ended national quotas and opened the United States to immigrants from all countries. On October 1, the Center for Immigration Studies hosted a panel at the National Press Club, and the next day the libertarian Cato Institute held a series of lectures and panels. No one defended the 1924 act that the ’65 act replaced. National quotas designed to maintain a northern European majority were reviled as “racist,” “eugenicist,” “bigoted,” etc., and there was some astonishment when AR staff expressed dissent from the floor.

The Cato panels, with a strong representation of Hispanics, were very much a celebration of post-1965 immigration, with repeated calls for “comprehensive immigration reform.” Congressman Reuben Gallego of Arizona evoked his immigrant parents and grandparents, and waxed almost spiritual: “When I meet other immigrants and hear their stories of entrepreneurial spirit, I see how they have the capacity to truly change this country.” He denounced Arizona’s SB 1070, passed in 2010, as “a gross violation of the civil rights of individual human beings,” but did not explain why it is wrong to make a federal misdemeanor crime also a state misdemeanor. He also complained that any proposal that would give illegals permanent status but bar them from citizenship “feels extremely un-American.”

For the congressman, immigration is a “civil right,” implying that anyone who sneaks in from Mexico has a right to citizenship. Without immigration, he concluded, America would have a declining population and a shrinking economy. He was the first of many to criticize Donald Trump, who he says stirs up “xenophobia.”

Mark Hugo Lopez, Director of Hispanic Research at the Pew Research Center, presented findings from a recent Pew report about the demographic consequences the 1965 act. He argued that even without post-1965 immigration, there would have been a decline in the percentage of whites because of differential fertility, but instead of dropping from 85 percent to 62 percent by 2015, it would have dropped to 75 percent. By 2065, he predicted that whites will be only 46 percent of the population, with Hispanics at 24 percent, Asians 14 percent, and blacks 13 percent. These projections assume that immigration will be increasingly Asian rather than Hispanic, and that there will be a steady stream of white immigrants.


Erika Lee, who teaches the history of immigration at the University of Minnesota, began by telling the audience that she is the grandchild of Chinese immigrants. Her talk was mostly about the “racial injustice” of laws that excluded Asians. She denounced the unfairness of the 1924 national origins quotas, which gave just three countries–Ireland, Germany, and Great Britain–70 percent of the immigration slots and none to Asians.

Erika Lee denounces Asian exclusion.
Erika Lee denounces Asian exclusion.

Prof. Lee was pleased to note that there are now 20 million Asian Americans, and that they are the fastest growing group–though she warned that this could again lead to anti-Asian sentiment. Interestingly, she also pointed out that the people who passed the 1965 act appear to have had no idea of what the actual consequences of the law would be. She hoped that any future legislation will be based on better analysis and projections.

Former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore made a campaign stop in his hopeless run for the Republican nomination for president. Although he is polling at about 1 percent, he must have said “when I’m president” at least half a dozen times. As for immigration, he said that the problem with illegals has been left to fester for so long that it has become virtually unsolvable. He would secure the borders and let illegals apply for legal status, but bar them from citizenship.

Mr. Gilmore denounced Mr. Obama’s executive amnesties, and said that the president’s “open borders policies” have encouraged a surge of illegals. He opposes Mr. Trump’s plans to deport them, saying it would “turn America into a police state.” He strongly opposed ending birthright citizenship, and seemed to equate it with stripping people of citizenship. “Who would be deprived of citizenship next?” he asked. He said that questioning birthright citizenship is the same as “attacking Latinos and saying they are unworthy of citizenship, and makes it impossible to win in 2016.”

Jim Gilmore thinks he has a chance.
Jim Gilmore thinks he has a chance.

Mr. Gilmore said he once met a group of Hispanics. He told them of his love for the constitution and freedom of speech and American values, and said it was important to assimilate. A young Hispanic woman then asked him “Why do Republicans hate us?” He got applause when he said: “What Latinos often hear is that we hate them. We are sending that message loud and clear, and it must be rejected in the strongest possible terms.”

In reply to a question about Syrian refugees, Mr. Gilmore said we should not admit any–but only because the economy is faltering. If the economy perks up he would let them in.

Immigration lawyer Matthew Kolken said he specialized in “deportation defense,” which is his way of combining humanitarian and professional interests. He did not say much, but he was unconstrained by fact. He said that every “path to citizenship” ever proposed has been so onerous, it should be called “a Bataan death march to citizenship.” He said that unaccompanied minor illegals are held in “internment camps” and that President Obama “has slandered the immigrant community.” He said Mr. Obama pretends to sympathize with illegals, but has kicked out more than two million, many of whom were guilty of nothing more than “driving while brown.” Mr. Obama, he explained “has a false narrative that fuels all the anti-immigrant hate.”

Maria Gabriela Pacheco, who goes by the name “Gabby,” is herself an illegal immigrant from Ecuador who has made a career out of fighting for Hispanics. She has pushed for in-state tuition for illegals, and is program director for TheDream.US, which gives scholarships to formerly illegal “dreamers.” Although she was an advertized speaker at the Cato event and calls herself “the first undocumented Latina to testify in front of Congress,” she spoke about the importance of legalization so that illegals “can come out of the shadows.”

In answer to a question from AR staff as to why it is fine for Hispanics to celebrate their increasing numbers but it is “hate” if whites resist dispossession, she said many whites seem to think that their race is being “wiped out and not moving forward.” If whites are declining in numbers, she said, “You need to start having more sex.” She conceded that “our cultures are different” but that there was little chance of Spanish prevailing over English. “I don’t really see a difference between myself and a white person,” she said, claiming that it is consciousness of differences of that kind that starts wars.

The keynote speaker was former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, who considers himself Hispanic. He noted that he is a citizen only because his mother came to the United States as a birth tourist. He denounced the 1924 national quotas as “an embarrassment” and made the strange claim that ending the “racial bias” in immigration policy greatly stimulated the economy.

Mr. Richardson wants many more H-1B visas, claiming that tech companies are desperate to hire engineers. He also admires illegals who, he says, do work Americans won’t. He called them “hard-working, ideal Americans.” Of all the Republican presidential candidates, he likes Jeb Bush best because “he has a Mexican wife, and his kids have a Latino heritage.” He said the Syrian refugees were a “European problem” but says he would be happy to take in 100,000 or so.

Mr. Richardson complained that Donald Trump “has had a hideous effect on the immigration issue: Instead of talking about comprehensive reform now we’re talking about deportation.” Fortunately, he said, Mr. Trump represents only 20 percent of Republican voters, and can never win the 40 percent of Hispanics he says Republicans need to win the White House. Mr. Richard railed against “the rhetorical idiocies of Trump, but the media love it.” “A wall is idiotic,” he said; “deportation is idiotic.”

Bill Richardson attacks Donald Trump.
Bill Richardson attacks Donald Trump.

The Cato Institute wants open borders and doesn’t pretend otherwise.

The panel sponsored by the Center for Immigration studies was much more sensible, but the 1924 act still came in for a beating. Jerry Kammer, who is a researcher at the center, denounced its “unjust restrictions based on racist and bigoted criteria,” but also pointed out that many people who voted for the bill also wanted to keep out Bolsheviks. Mr. Kammer highlighted Brooklyn Congressman Emanuel Celler’s role in pushing the ’65 act. Celler had voted against the 1924 act, which he thought was anti-Semitic, and worked tirelessly for the next 40 years to repeal it. The new law became known as the Hart-Celler Act.

Mr. Kammer noted that like other supporters of the ’65 act, Celler either did not know what the eventual consequences of passage would be or was less than honest about them. Along with Lyndon Johnson and the Kennedy brothers, he insisted that there would not be a significant rise in immigration–then running at about 300,000 a year–and that the ethnic balance of the country would not change. The supporters of the new law appear to have been mainly driven by a desire to “correct a historical wrong,” and were willing to say whatever it took to win support.

Mr. Kammer warned that although no one talks about it, immigration policy is population policy. An endless supply of people want to come to the United States, but no one seems to wonder whether adding another hundred million people by 2060 is a good idea.

AR staff wanted to know what was wrong with national origins quotas. Mexico’s immigration law forbids any change to “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” and Israel uses immigration policy to stay Jewish. African and Asian countries would never let their populations be replaced. Mr. Kammer replied that he believed the “equilibrium” portion of the Mexican immigration law has been repealed, precisely because it was so hypocritical. As for the US, he said that “non-discrimination on the basis of national origin has become part of our civic life–discrimination contradicts something about our national character.”

Mr. Kammer did note that the ethnic question is an emotional one, and that emotion certainly drove Emanuel Celler. He mentioned that Lyndon Johnson’s secretary of state Dean Rusk did not want to testify in favor of the ’65 act, saying, “After all we are an Anglo-Saxon country.” However, he followed Johnson’s orders and testified eloquently for passage.

Peggy Orchowski, Washington Bureau Chief for Hispanic Outlook, explained why immigration is handled by the House Judiciary Committee rather than the Labor Committee which had been its home. In 1947, Congress passed the Congressional Committee Reorganization Act, and Emanuel Celler succeeded in having immigration transferred to Judiciary–where he was chairman. This made immigration reform–incorrectly in Miss Orchowski’s view–a matter of social justice rather than workforce development. She added that the 1960s were a very susceptible time for repealing national origins quotas because the country felt guilty about black civil rights and about having refused to take in Jews fleeing the Nazis.

Miss Orchowski noted that John Kennedy called immigration a “civil right” but she says he was wrong. The United Nations says every person has the right to leave his own country, but there is no reciprocal right to be admitted wherever you would like to go. All nations, she said, have the right to turn people away, and warned that the term “immigrant rights” is always a smokescreen for rights for illegals, because any immigrant who is admitted legally has all the rights he needs.

Philip Martin, a labor economist at UC Davis, corrected some illusions about the bracero program, under which Mexican workers were brought in for temporary agricultural work. Some 4.5 million Mexicans entered as braceros (manual laborers) from 1942 until the program ended in 1964. It is commonly assumed that that’s when illegal immigration began because legal access for farm workers had ended. Prof. Martin says no: The program was winding down in the 1960s, and illegal immigration did not start in earnest until the mid-1970s. In the 10 or so intervening years–not coincidentally–farm wages rose rapidly.

Prof. Martin noted that no country has such a generous family reunification policy as the United States. In most countries, legal immigrants cannot sponsor parents or adult siblings. Many countries are also wary of letting immigrants sponsor minor children over a certain age, because they have been educated in a foreign system that may not have prepared them for their new country.

Prof. Martin said that immigration law always seems to have unintended consequences: “There is nothing so permanent as a temporary visa.” He also pointed out that the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) was supposed to solve the problem of illegal immigrants but now we have 11 or 12 million of them. The best way to predict the consequences of legislation, he concluded, is to read its purpose and then assume the opposite will happen.

Any public discussion of immigration assumes that the 1924 act was immoral, and any suggestion to the contrary provokes astonishment. At the CIS panel, a television crew from Venezuela’s Telesur interviewed AR staff to learn why at least some American whites want their country to stay European. At the Cato meeting, a white audience member approached AR staff to state his amazement and disapproval–though another later expressed his appreciation. It never hurts to plant the idea that whites have legitimate rights, too.

Building White Self-Esteem: Love Yourself and Love Your People

via Western Spring

Many Whites, and especially those who are easily suggestible, have become racially and socially impotent and are drawing negative self-images and low self-esteem from  the anti-White society that surrounds us today. This is breaking their spirits.  They are internalizing self-hate and group-hate.  They will defend non-Whites and attack their fellow Whites and they’ll feel as though they have done the right thing and have the moral high ground.  Such Whites have lost their sense of identity as Whites and have accepted some other artificial identity that has them think of themselves as part of some clique or group that is not based on what is genetically real and essential but is based on some sort of belief, be it religious, political or social that they have let transcend and override their natural and authentic racial identity.
This is sad and pathetic but we see it all around us in society today as Whites seek to be non-White in conscious and unconscious ways. I sometimes call these sad White  folks, Shufflers, as, at least in my mind, they shuffle their feet as they look at the ground in front of them, as though they are human versions of beaten down and dispirited dogs, instead of boldly living as Whites.

However, proper intervention can prevent many Whites from falling into the self-hate trap. And, this is based on sound psychological principles and studies.  What Whites should be encouraged to do is take physical, calorie burning, rational and purposeful action along with others if possible, but alone at first if there is no other way, by physically demonstrating for a just cause–White survival and White rights.  Even just holding or waving a sign will help with this internal process of overcoming self-hate.

Of course, the actions should be legal (so long as the laws involved are just) and they should be peaceful. I’m mostly talking about holding signs or standing up for White rights if and when such rights are impinged upon in some way. And, in this regard, this may often be an individual action.  If you are discriminated against because you are White, don’t just try to be nice and not raise a stink.  Do raise a stink. Do take legal action. Do go to the press. Do burn some calories and do not just sit in front of the computer or do nothing. The idea here is to actually take the field and get involved, to work up a little sweat and to come out of the closet as a fully functioning White person with every right to be as you were born to be and not be ashamed of who and what you are and also to not be ashamed of your people!

WC 4c

Of course, White haters know that taking action does work to keep Whites mentally strong and does build self-esteem and can bring many others to the cause and that’s why they will often mount counter demonstrations or threaten Whites who stand up for White interests.  What the haters of Whites want to do is convince Whites who demonstrate for White interests  that they are isolated and alone and that they are evil and that most other Whites don’t like them or their positions.  These haters try to do this as quickly as possible because they know that if Whites persist and don’t give up but show strength in their pro-White activities that other Whites will join them and then more and more.  So the haters try to stigmatize the early active Whites and either scare them into submission or scare away other Whites who may join them.

However, when a White who persists in what is a just and noble cause–White survival and White interests– starts to feel that he or she has some power and that their destiny is under their own control, they begin to feel pride in themselves and their people. Their self and group esteem grows and strengthens.  Meanwhile,  many  Whites who do not participate may feel their destinies are under the grips of forces over which they have no control, but it is their own inaction that helps make it so. To repeat: It is the control of one’s destiny by physical action that is important to send the right messages to both our sub-conscious minds and our conscious minds as well as to other Whites and non-Whites. It says, we are White, and we are proud and strong and those who don’t like us can stuff it, because we don’t care what they think.

By deliberately and self-consciously taking part in the process, this new pride and self-esteem are generated in the participants as they demonstrate to themselves as much as to others that they can exert control over their own environments and destiny and that they are standing up for a just cause. And what could be more just than our personal and racial survival and rights as White people?

The principle here is that attitudes follow actions. Do the physical and the attitude will follow.

This is similar to the way that Blacks evolved in their activism back in the ’60’s.  Before  particular anti-segregation actions were taken, and were still in the talking stages, many Blacks were opposed to such actions and many Blacks felt the actions would hurt their cause.  The actions were taken anyway and the actions then started to become looked on as favorable. When Black Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a White on a bus, many Blacks snickered at her much as many weak Whites today snicker at Whites who are standing up for White rights.  But, her action started changing attitudes.

Surveys were repeatedly done back then  that showed that many if not most Blacks felt demonstrations hurt the cause. But, what  actually happened  was that attitudes shifted in favor of the demonstrators.

National Action 1

Something else needs to be noted here. It used to be said, starting in the  late 19th century, that “stateways cannot change folkways,” which means that government can’t change deeply rooted attitudes and behavior through state mandated coercive legislative, judicial or executive means.  And, there is truth to this in the sense that if the state stops its coercion, people will often revert to their prior folkways. However, so long as the government keeps up the coercion, the stateways will prevail.  We see this in attitudes about race and homosexuality today where the cowed population just accepts what the state is imposing in this regard.  The state knows that it is the coercion–the fear of the law–that is keeping  the population following what the state wants in regards to race or homosexuality ( or any other things the state wants to force on the population).
Leave aside homosexuality now but consider what  the state is doing to keep Whites from reverting to our previous attitudes about race.  It is  filling all previously White nations and areas with millions of non-Whites. This makes no sense unless the state wants to blend the races together and especially to blend away Whites through bedroom genocide–miscegenation. Remember, many non-Whites (and even sick self-hating Whites) in the world consider us Whites as though we are a virus harming non-White mankind. Those behind this genocide probably believe that when there are few pure Whites left, and instead many are mixed race, that there will be no more racial strife as there will be few pure Whites left to revert to the old attitudes about racial purity even if the state coercion stops.

And, as always, there is more than one track to this genocide. On another track but going the same way, the state is trying to convince opinion leaders (aka opinion molders) in all communities that conformity to what the state wants is good.  Then, these opinion leaders  work for free (because it’s part of their personality) and all on their own with their great natural drive to convince the population.  World views are maintained  primarily by simple conformity to  prevailing social norms and the opinion leaders help shape those world views. You may know many of these opinion leaders. They may be your neighbors.  These are the people who talk up everything that interests them.  If they get a new car, they’ll tell everyone how great it is. If they fine a new restaurant that they like, they’ll let everyone know about it.  It is just the way they are.

Throw in social rewards and punishments and reference groups and you see that society has the ability to inculcate an entire non-conscious ideology and world view into its citizens to actually create the underlying  premises and basic values which generate their interpretations of the world. Stray from the norms of your social group and you risk isolation and social disapproval; in other words,  such groups regulate beliefs attitudes and behaviors through the use of social reward and punishment.

In this day of social media, we are seeing opinions being molded by unseen others who are doing on the Internet what they used to do by personal contact.  We are, in effect, seeing anonymous Internet reference groups and opinion leaders who are shaping world views while hidden from view.  And, the state has a heavy but often hidden hand in this.


It is up to awakened and conscious Whites to be the opinion leaders and to become members of the reference groups that shape White attitudes back toward a healthy respect for who and what we are and away from being Shufflers who feel like helpless leaves in the breeze with no control over their destinies and with broken spirits. Speak softly and speak with true love for yourself and our kind as you bring as many of our kind back to a healthy and loving self and group esteem.

Jews in America Demand Washington Admit More Syrian “Refugees”

via The Realist Report

In what is becoming a re-occurring theme here on this website, the organized Jewish community in America is once again openly and self-righteously demanding the United States accept as “refugees” even more unskilled, uneducated, backwards people who have no ties to or affinity towards this country and its traditions.

As noted here recently, the organized international Jewish community, countless Jewish charities and “resettlement” agencies, and various Israeli NGOs are literally facilitating and financially benefiting from the invasion of Europe and America by millions of non-White, Third World people opportunistically fleeing their home countries.

Again, all of this is openly admitted and reported on, especially by Jewish news outlets such as The Times of Israel, The Jewish Daily Forward, and the Jewish Telegraph Agency.

We have even more documentation of these facts today from the Forward. The headline says it all:
At the end of her Rosh Hashanah sermon, Rabbi Elyse Frishman turned to congregants and asked them to take out their cell phones and start dialing. An unusual scene at the sanctuary, and even more so during a High Holiday service, but Frishman explained that on this day, the cell phone would serve as a shofar and direct the community’s pleadings — not to God but to the White House.
The calls conducted by hundreds of members of the Barnert Temple in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey, carried a clear request to President Obama: Take immediate steps to help Syrian refugees fleeing their war-torn country.
“People came up to me and told me how their families were refugees, too, and how they wouldn’t have been here today had America not let their parents or grandparents in,” Frishman said. “That was so deeply powerful.”
It is yet another sign that the Jewish community is waking up to the Syrian refugee crisis.
Like many around the world, it took a horrifying image of a dead toddler washed to the shore and throngs of migrants reaching Europe’s doorstep to draw attention to the Syrian civil war, which has driven 4 million Syrians out of their homeland.
“Until recently, not enough has been done by the Jewish community,” said Georgette Bennett, founder of the Multifaith Alliance for Syrian Refugees, a coalition that includes many Jewish organizations. “But I believe now we will see a much greater response, because that photograph really galvanized the world.”
For the Jewish community, this sudden shift is being articulated in calls on the administration and Congress to open America’s doors to more Syrian refugees and to prioritize resolution of the Syrian conflict. There are now urgent campaigns to raise funds for humanitarian relief programs carried out on the ground in Syrian refugee concentrations.
“There has been a tremendous sea change in the Jewish community,” said Rabbi Jennie Rosenn, vice president for community engagement at HIAS.
HIAS, the Jewish community’s largest refugee resettlement organization, has been reaching out to communal leaders for months in an attempt to pique their interest in the Syrian refugees’ plight, Rosenn explained. But she says that now the dynamic has changed: “The Jewish community is reaching out to us and looking for ways to get involved.” […]
The entire article, which is quite lengthy, provides even more details of the tremendous lobbying campaign being waged by the organized Jewish community to encourage the Obama administration and Congress to “open America’s doors to more Syrian refugees,” as the article notes.

Additionally, Jewish charities and non-profits, such as HIAS, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society whose official motto is “Welcome the stranger. Protect the refugee.”, are lobbying for more government funding for their “resettlement” operations. The organized Jewish community is advancing its financial and, even more importantly, ethnic interests with this “refugee crisis” and the general chaos in the Middle East, which is a direct result of Western meddling and intervention in the region at the behest of the Jewish state of Israel and the organized Jewish community in the West following 9/11.

Of course, Israel and a wider international network of Jewish criminals were behind the events of 9/11, using it as the “catalyzing event” required to justify Western military intervention in the Middle East, a fact that has been conclusively demonstrated at this point.

There are two other points worth making here, which I have elaborated on in previous articles as well as on the various radio programs I have been on recently.

First of all, the hypocrisy on display from the organized Jewish community and the #cuckservative, anti-White traitors dominating the federal government of the United States could not be more obvious.

The Jews and their sycophantic puppets in control of the White House and Congress, not to mention the mass media, are the leading proponents of “diversity”, “multiculturalism”, and massive Third World immigration (including the push for amnesty for illegal aliens currently in the U.S.) into the West. They argue that America, and now the various countries comprising the European Union, are merely “proposition nations” based on “civic nationalism”.

Essentially, they are saying that anyone from anywhere in the world can come to the U.S. or Europe and magically become an “American” or a “German” or a “Frenchman” etc. Furthermore, the Jews and their lackeys argue that the West has a moral obligation to help and resettle “refugees” and immigrants from the Third World. These same individuals, however, argue that Israel has the right, indeed the obligation, to maintain its Jewish ethnic nature.

Which brings us to the second and final point that needs to be repeated: while the Jews in the West are demanding the U.S. and Europe accept millions of “refugees” and other non-White, Third World immigrants, the Jewish state of Israel is literally arresting, imprisoning, and deporting illegal aliens and other non-Jewish migrants. Moreover, Israeli political leaders are explicitly stating that Israel will not accept any “refugees,” and will in fact commit more resources and manpower to policing and protecting the Jewish state’s borders.

I don’t know how much clearer – how much more obvious – all of this could be, especially when Jewish news outlets themselves are openly reporting all of these basic facts. When will America and the wider Western world recognize the ugly reality that #WithJewsWeLose?

Jews and Gun Control: A Reprise

via The Occidental Observer

TOO Editor’s Note: The immediate reaction by the left, including Pres. Obama, to the shootings in Roseburg, Oregon was to demand greater gun control. This has now become a ritual after every multiple shooting. This article by Andrew Joyce originally appeared on August 2, 2014, but is re-posted because it discusses the role of Jews as a critical component of the coalition in favor of gutting the Second Amendment and places the Jewish role in historical context.

The thorny issue of Jewish support for gun control has reared its head once more, this time in Washington State. The Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle has called for the resignation of Brian Judy, a National Rifle Association lobbyist who reportedly linked gun control to that untouchable icon of Jewish victimhood, the Holocaust. At a news conference at the Federation’s Seattle headquarters, President Keith Dvorchik said Judy should resign for connecting an anti-gun ballot initiative to policies pursued by Nazi Germany. Dvorchik further demanded the national office of the NRA “make clear that it rejects his ignorant and unproductive dialogue.”

Judy’s remarks first surfaced on the liberal blog Horsesass.org. An audio clip plays over a still image of a gathering and features Judy talking about Jews who support gun control. The remarks were made at a gathering in Silverdale opposing I-594, a measure on the ballot this fall that would further expand background checks for gun purchases. In the recording, Judy references Nick Hanauer, a Seattle Jew who has contributed more than $300,000 to an independent-expenditure group supporting I-594, in addition to an earlier $1 million pledge. Other significant funds have come from Jewish billionaire and former Microsoft CEO, Steve Ballmer who, along with his wife Connie, is a major contributor to the Hanauer-founded organization, Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility. Hanauer wrote recently in Politico about how his family fled Nazi Germany. The speaker on the recording references Hanauer’s piece: “Now [Hanauer is] funding, he’s put half a million dollars, toward this policy, the same policy that led to his family getting run out of Germany by the Nazis. You know, it’s staggering to me, it’s just, you can’t make this stuff up. That these people, it’s like any Jewish people I meet who are anti-gun, I think, ‘Are you serious? Do you not remember what happened?’ And why did that happen? Because they registered guns and then they took them. Why did you have to flee to this country in the first place? Hello! Is anybody home here?”

Dvorchik, in calling for Judy’s resignation, failed to mention broader Jewish interests in achieving the disarming of the civilian populace (which I will discuss below), claiming instead that the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle has an interest in the issue because of a shooting that occurred eight years ago. Naveed Haq, an apparently deranged Muslim, forced his way into the federation’s offices with a handgun, killing one employee and wounding five others. Dvorchik has demanded that the national office of the NRA disavow Judy’s remarks and the “idiotic, simplistic and simply wrong” idea that the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany has anything to do with a ballot measure that calls for background checks for gun purchases. He added that to question whether the Jews don’t “understand history is the most vile rhetorical question that has ever been asked.” Dvorchik has been joined by anti-gun Jewish state politicians Reuven Carlyle and David Frockt, who have said Judy’s statements “carry dark, ugly and subtle undertones of anti-Semitism.” Additionally, Hanauer’s Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility reports on its website that the following Jewish organizations now support I-594 as a matter of policy: The Anti-Defamation League, Bet Alef, Congregation Beth Shalom, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Jewish Family Service, Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, Kavana Cooperative, Kol HaNeshamah, National Council of Jewish Women, Stroum Jewish Community Center, Temple Beth Am, Temple Beth Hatfiloh, Temple Beth Or, Temple B’Nai Torah, Temple De Hirsch Sinai, Tikvah Chadashah, Herzl Ner Tamid, Temple Beth El and the Washington State Holocaust Education Resource Center.

High-profile Jews have a nasty habit of finding themselves at odds with the NRA. The Judy case is almost a carbon copy of 2013’s fiasco involving Jewish mayor of Jersey City, Steve Fulop. In November Fulop announced that he would he would use the buying power of his police force’s weapon purchases to essentially blackmail gun vendors into making it much more difficult for regular customers to purchase arms. Shortly after Fulop made his intentions public, Scott L. Bach, an NRA board member and executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, reportedly told an audience: “His (Fulop’s) grandparents were Holocaust survivors according to Wikipedia. So you’ve got to wonder why he is not getting it.” ADL Chief witch hunter Abe Foxman responded in turn, condemning Bach’s remarks not only for invoking of the Holocaust to score political points (presumably only Jews are afforded that privilege), but also adding that Bach’s summoning of Fulop’s family’s personal history “makes it all the more offensive.”

Scratch the surface even lightly in almost any state and you will find influential Jews leading the movement to restrict the right to bear arms. The strongest supporter of gun control measures in Connecticut is Jewish Senator Richard Blumenthal. The biggest gun control group in Pennsylvania is CeaseFirePA. The board of CeaseFirePA is dominated by Jews and includes such figures as Nancy Gordon, a member of the Jewish Social Policy Action Group, and Shira Goodman, Che Saitta-Zelterman and Fred Kaplan-Mayer. In New York Michael Bloomberg has formed and financed Everytown, a new gun control organization, and has already pledged $50 million to the cause of making it harder for citizens to purchase arms and ammunition. The Huffington Post reports that in California Dianne Feinstein has “long been one of the Senate’s strongest advocates for gun control.” In Michigan, Jewish Senator Carl Levin has been at the forefront of gun control efforts, earning him an “F” score from Gun Owners of America. I could go on.

Of course, the reason why influential Jews keeping clashing with the NRA is the simple fact that Jews lead the gun control campaign. Kevin MacDonald noted in January 2013 that:
The gun culture of traditional America, especially rural America has been particularly loathed by Jewish intellectuals. There is also a deep fear of Christian culture that is most vibrant in rural America.  For example, Israeli patriot Elliott Abrams acknowledges that the mainstream Jewish community in America “clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.” According to Abrams, because of this vision, Jews have taken the lead in secularizing America.  In fact, the key role of Jewish organizations in shaping the Constitutional law on Church/State relations is well known. And it’s not much of a mystery who’s behind the war on Christmas. And by successfully changing immigration policy, Jews have reduced the political power of the rural White subculture of America to the point that even though roughly 7 in 10 White males voted Republican (and ~60% of White females), Obama and the Democrats won the recent election. Even if the current push for gun control fails, we can expect that Jewish organizations will continue the push to disarm White males. Jewish organizations are not at all against guns when they are in the hands of the police and other authorities. The ADL (see the ADL’s Law Enforcement Agency Resource Network) and the SPLC (Law Enforcement Training and Law Enforcement Resources) have made strong alliances with law enforcement in America.
Right, but while officials in the NRA are obviously aware of the prominence of Jews in the “control” campaign, their understanding of Jewish motivations is severely lacking.

I happen to think that linking the issue of gun ownership to the deaths of Jews during World War II is inappropriate, though for somewhat different reasons to Abe Foxman and the ADL. The fundamental problem I have with current NRA reasoning is that it betrays a lack of knowledge of Jewish history. NRA evocations of Jewish civilian casualties during World War II irritate me primarily because I think the group has so many more sophisticated and legitimate arguments to make on behalf of its cause; and bringing up the Holocaust in any argument has always struck me as intellectual cheap-shot.

On a deeper level however, the assumption underlying the current NRA approach is that governments historically have been the biggest threat to Jews. With the single exception of Nazi Germany, while some elites have had ambiguous relations with their Jewish populations (which on occasion led to expulsions) the overwhelming trend throughout Jewish history has been that Jews have been willing agents and partners of the ruling elite. Whether as Medieval tax farmers, early modern ‘Court Jew’ financiers, or the intellectual shock-troops of Bolshevism, Jews have only very rarely found themselves threatened by government or monarch.

Nowhere is this made more evident than in the simple fact that in Orthodox Judaism the prayer Hanotayn  Teshu-ah is not said for the nation or the people of the country in which the Jews have settled, but rather for the monarch or government. Gordon Freeman explains that “In fact, a prayer for the government is a feature of every type of prayer book of every land of the Jewish diaspora irrespective of the specific religious movement of the community.”[1] This stance is ancient. The rabbinic commentary, Pirke Avot, tells Jews to “pray for the welfare of the government, because were it not for the fear it inspires, every man would swallow his neighbor alive.”

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to extrapolate that what is really intended and understood by this injunction is that were it not for the fear inspired by the government, the goyim would swallow their Jewish neighbors alive. The favored Jewish position is thus to support a strong, feared, government which is capable of harnessing the resentments, real or imagined, of the gentile masses.

History is replete with examples of Jews benefiting from powerful, feared, governments, though they have been at pains to [literally] re-write this particular aspect of their history. In my analysis of medieval English Jewry I noted that, due to the strength of the Jew-government alliance, retaliatory actions were only capable of being carried out during the very brief period between the end of one reign and the beginning of another. I wrote that:
If we were to have before us today a thirteenth-century English peasant, he would find much to dispute in [Anthony] Julius’ claim that it was the Jew who stood at the bottom of the social and economic ladder. In fact it has been well established that Jews occupied the position of a privileged elite, under royal protection. B. Lionel Abrahams, upon examining centuries of royal charters concluded that “from their first arrival in the country, they had enjoyed a kind of informal Royal protection.”[18] Later, Henry II “gave and secured to the Jews special privileges so great as to arouse the envy of their neighbors,” granted them the use of their own courts, and “placed them under the special protection of the royal officers in each district.” In charging high rates of interest and preying upon the indebtedness of the lesser barons and the freeholders, Jews were successful in acquiring vast numbers of estates, which the king then gradually acquired by accepting them in lieu of tallages. The Jews had a free rein to carry on their regular, and highly profitable, money-lending activities as long as they continued in a mutually beneficial partnership designed to facilitate “the transfer of land from the small landowners to the upper stratum.” Unsurprisingly, Jews thus came to be seen as a hostile elite. They were viewed as such not just by the peasantry but by the barons, who chafed under their interest rates and at their inability to strike at those under royal protection. Irven Resnick writes in a 2007 article for the respected journal Church History that Jews were the “agents of hated royal fiscal policies,” as well as the usurers of the masses. The Crown was aware of this and took measures to increase security for Jews. A lot has been made about Jews first having to wear a badge identifying them at this time. What is far less often publicized is that these badges were first introduced by the English Crown, according to an article in the Jewish Quarterly Review, to better “facilitate their recognition by their protectors.”
Medieval Jews thus benefited from the powerful and feared status of the English Crown. Had it been possible, one can imagine that the prospect of the Crown seizing the arms of the barons would have been especially welcome in Jewish homes, since it would have represented the permanent neutralization of that particular threat to Jewish interests. Unfortunately for the Jews of Medieval England, the barons maintained and increased their arms, and were thus able to use the threat of force to influence the weakened Edward I to expel every Jew from the nation’s soil.

Possessing such knowledge makes it very frustrating to watch NRA spokesmen fumble with clumsy arguments when confronted with the increasingly apparent Jewish role in the gun control movement. Indeed, it would be much better for the NRA, and America, if the NRA confined itself to simply pointing out the preponderance of Jews acting against it. Reaching for ill-understood, and barely applicable, metaphors hasn’t helped its cause at all. The NRA is a lynchpin of Middle America, not cosmopolitan America. The organization should cease assuming that Jews are in any way “just like them,” in the sense that they are for the rights of the individual and against strong government. Looked at through the prism of historical precedent, the NRA and organized Jewry are fated to be natural enemies, with strikingly different priorities and objectives. NRA members may well fear “Big Government.” But one of the biggest Jewish anxieties is “weak government,” because in this scenario, so the reasoning goes, there is nothing to restrain the “lecherous rabble,” “the beasts of the field,” from violent retribution.

Returning to Washington, some of my relatives living just outside Vancouver have told me they’re having a hard time getting ammunition because of bulk-buying by nervous gun owners. As the amount of Jewish money pouring into the gun “control” movement increases daily, their anxieties can’t be dismissed as entirely unfounded. Kevin MacDonald ended his last TOO piece on the subject in a fashion I can’t improve upon, and his remarks bear repetition here:
It has often been observed that Jewish organizations have historically favored a strong central government rather than states’ rights. For example, Jacques Berlinerblau, writing in The Chronicle of Higher Education, notes that “Jewish voters …  prefer cities and federal governments to backwaters and volatile statehouses. … All things equal, Jews like strong central governments, not a pastiche of local decision makers catering to majorities.” Although Jewish organizations would not phrase it this way, the net result is that the thrust of Jewish activism has been to favor a strong central government with a monopoly on lethal force. Given Jewish hostility to the traditional people and culture of White America, this is a very foreboding combination as we head into the era of a non-White majority America.
[1] C. Buck, Religious Myths and Visions of America: How Minority Faiths Redefined America’s World Role, (Praeger, 2009), p.67.

The Black Pill

via Radix

Traditionally there are two pills—the Red Pill and the Blue one. The Blue one means you stay in the “matrix” of conventional opinion and delusion, you stay comfortable and warm, and you no longer concern yourself with the bigger picture or the long-term future. That has all been taken care of for you. The Blue Pill represents a kind of infantilism.

The Red Pill represents a rejection of all that, and an awakening to the underlying realities. It is the pill people take just before they become race realists, neo-reactionaries, anti-democrats, alt-righters, identitarians, etc. Far from being sugar-coated, it is laced with the bitter taste of total cynicism about all the myths that have been pimped at us 24/7. But ultimately, it is not a negative pill but a positive and even progressive one.

But there is a third pill, the Black Pill, the pill of pure egoism, nihilism, and destruction. It is a pill that leads to suicide, death, and decontextualized violence, and it is increasingly a popular resort in the present age, whether taken by the cannon fodder of ISIS, currently being bombed by the Russian air force, or the likes of Chris Harper Mercer, the latest spree shooter at the college in Umpqua Oregon, who, we are learning may well have been “influenced” by Islam.


All three pills, and those who take them, implicitly represent inferior states conjoined with an aspiration of superiority. In this sense, they have a dialectical aspect.

As the most passive, the Blue Piller is the most inferior, but then the very delusions that pacify and manipulate him also allow him to think well of himself, even to have a sense of superiority. He may well be an upstanding member of society and believe that the world is run in his best interests. He may even believe that his type is hegemonic, even as his ears are being filled with the music of the slaughterhouse to which history is leading him and his ilk. The epitome of the Blue Piller is the “cuckservative,” although liberals, too, are popping much of the same.

Unlike the Blue Piller, the Red Piller knows that he is not in charge. He knows the dice are loaded, the cards stacked against him, etc. He knows the world is controlled by others with interests disparate from his own. This is his inferiority, but it is an inferiority he recognizes in order to overcome and achieve superiority. He looks the negative aspects of reality squarely in the eye and fights back. The Red Piller is ultimately a positivist and an optimist. Even if he fails in his ultimate goals, he knows that he will, at least, earn himself an honorable death. On the individual level, there is nothing greater to be hoped for. It is only on the collective level that victory counts.

The Blue and Red Pills have a kind of complementary nature: the trajectory of the Blue Pill is from illusory superiority to actual inferiority, that of the Red Pill from false inferiority to true superiority.

The Black Pill is the least dialectical of the three. It leads from actual inferiority back to actual inferiority. It is nihilism, but nihilism made flesh calls forth absolute egoism, a sense of the self detached from wider contexts and responsibilities—it is this that makes it evil and murderous.

The inferior person can either accept context and therefore inferiority, or fight it. The Blue Piller rejects his future inferiority by retreating backwards into illusion. The Red Piller rejects his present lack of superiority by marching forward through positive consciousness and action to redress the situation. The Black Piller, however, chooses neither the palliatives of illusion nor the challenge of positive action. He stares into the abyss—passively because his actions will never be capable of changing it—and, as Nietzsche so pertinently observed, the abyss stares back.


Earlier societies may have lacked the knowledge and data of the present age, but they were, nevertheless, much wiser than our own, especially in dealing with the problems now manifested in the Black Pill.

With our three pills, what we are essentially dealing with are three types of people—true alphas, false alphas, and betas, the most numerous category. These types have always existed and for various reasons. The first performs creative action (true civilization), the second illusion (false civilization = decadence), and the third negativity, either as passivity (obedience) or nihilism (“ultra violence”).

These types, as they derive from human biology, have obvious sexual aspects. Past European societies recognized the violent and revolutionary potential of the betas, and successful societies found ways to mitigate this, the most important being monogamous societies, in which the females were distributed fairly equally, though never completely so. Christian and other monogamous societies, like those of the Orient, were thus able to fix the negativity inherent in the beta male. Islam was much less successful, thus accounting for its rapid decline after its fluke rise in the seventh century.

Modern Western societies have broken this healthy pattern of the past with disastrous results, and the results would be even more disastrous if we did not now possess palliatives like drugs, TV, computer games, and porn. This is why recently there has been so much concern over slow Internet for Europe’s recent influx of betas.

Without a society, like the traditional Christian one that finds a way to balance the deficiencies of the beta male with the “sexual welfarism” of the patriarchal society, the truly inferior person has only three choices: passivity, illusion, or evil. As he is truly inferior, any struggle can only result in nihilism instead of victory. But in the muddled modern West, and the disrupted and overcrowded Middle East, this is increasingly what is happening. Nihilism is spreading, both in the guise of the American spree killer and the pawns of organizations like ISIS.


The spree killer rejects the Blue Pill of illusion. He knows that no matter how many POV videos he watches on the porn channel, it is really someone else’s dick, and that by watching it, he is practically sucking on it. He also knows that whatever efforts he makes, he cannot escape his beta essence. There is no more eloquent exposition of this than the video made by “Egg Man,” one of the early rumoured suspects in the Umpqua College shooting.

He may console himself with the thought that he might meet the right girl . . . one with conveniently low horizons to match his own. It is still possible, even in a society like ours, which is increasingly dedicated to blowing smoke up the collective female arse and raising their expectations for male to unrealizable levels. But he also knows that he might instead become just another beta cuck, a facilitator of feminine frustration, manifested in hatred and bile, divorce and alimony—a polite term for semi-slavery imposed exclusively on the male. 

The nihilistic beta, shorn of his illusions, alienated by society, becomes, once again, the essence of ancient barbarism.

This is an act we see played out, again and again, with every spree killer case. The media screeches about the evil of guns, the evil of madness, or the evil of evil itself. Drugs or computer games might get a mention . . . but there are commercial interests to consider. If some nefarious ideologies are uncovered on the killer’s bookshelf or hard drive, whether it be the White Nationalism of Dylan Roof, the manosphere affectations of Elliot Rodgers, or even—possibly—the Islamism of Mercer, then these might enter the narrative. But all these ideologies are bunkum compared to the central fact of the free-floating radical beta expressing his ultimate nihilism.

Just as almost all spree killers are essentially socially alienated beta males, so on the greater stage of the Middle East, ISIS is a kind of beta collective. On an individual level, there will inevitably be alpha males amongst its ranks, but man is never just an individual but a creature that lives through his Männerbund, tribe or race.

The core group of ISIS, the Sunni Arabs of Iraq and Syria, are the downtrodden betas of the Middle East. In Iraq, they were once alphas, in Syria they were, for a while, simply passive. But, in a world flushed with the lie of democracy—the be-all-you-can-be illusion of self-help books writ large on the historical landscape—they are no longer willing or able to accept this path. They have been damned by the Arab Spring.

As a group, they appear to lack the ability to take the Red Pill of positive nationalism, and their situation is not comfortable enough for the Blue Pilling so common in the West. That particular Pill requires an arduous and sometime expensive trip through the Balkans to Northern Europe. Their only choice therefore is to take the Black Pill, the pill of nihilistic egoism, pointless struggle, suicide and death. And while individual spree killers, like Chris Mercer, come and go, the same cannot be said for populations.

Viktor Orban Represents: How to Win by Refusing to Say Sorry

via Occident Invicta

Viktor Orban (right) vs. Angela Merkel
Despite the best efforts of Western elites to morally browbeat Hungary into accepting Syrian refugees, the obstinate Eastern European nation refuses to budge. Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban – with the enthusiastic support of his people – has steadfastly refused to bow down to Germany’s “moral imperialism” and accept Angela Merkel’s refugee quotas. Insisting that Hungary lacks the resources and cultural infrastructure to accommodate thousands of outsiders, Orban’s spokesman then cited the failure of Western multiculturalism as reason to seal Hungary’s borders.

Good for them! For starters, I’m glad that Germany is being called out for its shameless behavior; the same nation that has no problem condemning Greece to 3rd world penury has the audacity to pressure poorer Eastern European and Balkans countries into opening their hearts to thousands of alien newcomers. But more importantly, Hungary’s fight against the pro-immigration crowd has generated angry reactions from the left, which are quite telling.

The hostility leftists display towards Hungary’s obdurate anti-immigration stance should at last expose many of the tired arguments that they employ in favor of open borders. Last time I checked, Hungary never colonized large swathes of non-white land, enslaved black people, or plundered the 3rd world via unfair neoliberal economic arrangements. Unlike the US or Britain, Hungary cannot be tarred with the white man’s original sin. And yet the left still adamantly denounces Hungary for its refusal to burden itself with refugees that they played no role in displacing. As far as the left is concerned, white people have no right to any nation of their own; they must keep their borders open for any and all newcomers – not just refugees.

More importantly, however, Hungary’s recalcitrance is edifying because it demonstrates the perfect strategy for beating the left: telling them to piss off. Seriously, that’s all you need to do. Don’t apologize or obsequiously seek absolution for perceived “offensive” conduct; don’t debate the morality of immigration; don’t insist that whites are victims of “reverse racism” or anything of the sort; don’t even defensively deny having “white privilege.”

Don’t indulge them at all. The second you hear them exhort white people to open up their borders or yield power and resources to other groups, tune them out. Convey in no uncertain terms that you will not countenance their arguments, and that you refuse to let them dictate the terms of conversation. Unapologetically embrace the kind of nationalistic, self-interested stance adopted by Viktor Orban. Or if Hungary isn’t inspiring enough for you, learn from China’s defiant reaction in response to Hilary Clinton criticizing their record on women’s rights.

Unfortunately, I highly doubt that most white people will adopt Orban’s unapologetic demeanor any time soon. Nevertheless, he provides a good model for how to fight back against leftist psyops. Too bad it takes former Communist countries like Hungary (and China) to remind the white West that nationalism still exists.

This Is Dildoween

via Alternative Right

Halloween is a fitting metaphor for a society rank with the stench of its own decay. Youtube sensation Uncuck the Right accordingly presents all your favorite alt-right anti-Cultural-Marxist memes in one convenient song and video for the "season of spooks." Enjoy but don't hand out any more free candy.

In This War, White Lives Matter Most

via Renegade Tribune

We need to discriminate between and among the causes we are fighting for. Discriminate was a valued word and not particularly related to racial matters back in the Forties and Fifties. In the Sixties, commentators attached a silent “racial” in front of “discrimination” and thenceforward any use of “discriminate” was deemed to be racist.

In the more recent past, the same thing was done to “diversity,” a perfectly intelligible word. Commentators attached a silent “racial” in front of “diversity” and thenceforward any use of diversity was deemed to mean “racial diversity” with no allowance for the ethnic, religious, national origins, and ideological diversity of white Americans. The descendants of indigenous Europeans are probably the most diverse of all demographic groups as has been pointed out beautifully on this site a few days ago.


One reader may focus all his or her energy on denouncing the Jews as a single collective, not for specific events but all Jewish crimes. We have the right to do that based on a continuous drumbeat of Jewish spokespeople denouncing the white American peoples as a single collective (all privileged, all politically powerful, all working to maintain a hegemony) and no one seems to correct them as bigots and supremacists for smothering the ethnic, religious, and philosophical diversity of the descendants of the European indigenous people.

Here’s a quote from the late Jewish writer Susan Sontag, if you ever forget the bigotry and hatred directed toward all the white American peoples:
The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone—its ideologies and inventions—which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself. [Partisan Review 1957–1958.]
It wouldn’t hurt to carry that quote in your wallet or purse in the event someone reproaches you for saying something negative about an individual Jew or all Jews and claims they are nice people. The racism and neo-supremacy in that quote pretty well crushes the “wonderfulness” claim. And you can ask when any Jew has denounced that hate sentence.

Another reader may focus all his or her energy on denouncing all African Americans as a single collective. Many African Americans denounce us every day and in many ways, no need to have a quotation on that question.

Another reader may do the same with all Latinos, Muslims, Arabs; the list of preferred targets as collectives is endless. But is focusing on another demographic collective wise and effective?


As satisfying as it may be to throw collective insults at all the members of other collective groups, it may be more important to center our activities on white American issues. The easiest way to get started down that road is to begin every sentence you use with a spoken or silent, “As a white American…” or “As a descendant of indigenous Europeans…” or “As a parent of a white American student…” or something similar. It will help to focus your mind on the health, safety, education, and nurturing of white American youngsters who are under mental, physical, and emotional attack in classrooms, school buses, playing fields, sidewalks, and hallways.

Regarding public discourse, it is enormously valuable and effective (a) to identify yourself as a member of the white Americans (or whatever label you prefer) as we re-tribalize, (b) to make general collective comments about white Americans, and (c) to make personal attacks on individuals or institutions, not attacking entire ethnic groups.

There seems to be an assumption that we are all right, and it is only those others who need reform. In fact, we are not all right because most of us have a “Little Jew” riding our shoulders night and day whispering to us how to think, how to talk, and whom to worship beginning way back with Sunday School programming and proceeding through reading years’ worth of the New York Times.

That is what is funny about “white guilt,” we don’t have white guilt, we have an alien superego riding us night and day telling us we are guilty.


Nevertheless, it is a task we should all undertake to root out the unnatural parts of our hearts and minds that were planted by individual Jewish spokespeople. If you were to do this seriously, you will be amazed at how much of you has been controlled in your lifetime.

Your author well remembers waking up one morning two decades ago, asking himself whether every single value, viewpoint, and word that he knew as fact might be untrue. (That was upon discovering that all the principals in the 1977 March on Skokie were Jews, including the “white supremacist” leader.) After you strip out your overgrown Little Jew, you may feel the same, and it is a little frightening to think that everything that you believe to be true could be false. But it’ll work out…it’ll hurt only a little time.

Some day we may have our own co-dependency treatment facilities or our own twelve-step programs to scientifically extract the Little Jew, but until then it is a job for each of us to undertake individually.

From Moses and Mount Sinai to Soros, Albright, and Madoff… be gone!

The De-Judaization of France

via Counter-Currents

The draft Statute on Jews of
October 3, 1940, apparently
toughened by the hand of
Marshal Pétain.
Translator's Note: The following extracts are translated from Dominique Venner’s Histoire de la Collaboration (Paris: Gérard Watelet/Pygmalion, 2000), 118-22. The title is editorial.

Before creating something new, to ensure that the old regime is genuinely laid low, one begins by driving out those who represent a potential counter-revolution, the risk of a lapse backwards. A law of August 13, 1940 thus ordered the dissolution of secret societies. It applied to interest groups (Comité des forges[1]) but especially targeted Freemasonry. [. . .]

The case of the Jews is infinitely more serious and painful because of what would be the Nazi policy after 1942. It has been the subject of a large historiography, motivated by the suffering and rancor of the victims, of their families, and of the community as a whole united in misfortune. All has been written on the sources of modern anti-Semitism, born in the Left in the nineteenth century, to which contributed Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Karl Marx, Auguste Blanqui, Gustave Tridon, Auguste Chirac, Alphonse Toussenel, then moving to the Right under the influence of the Christian anti-capitalism of Édouard Drumont and of the Dreyfus affair. Political anti-Semitism would significantly rise in the 1930s following the immigration of many Jews from Central Europe and Germany, and was stoked “by the feeling that France was governed by Jews.”[2] The Left did not escape this phobia. The control of the SFIO socialist party by Léon Blum and his friends, André Blumel, Georges Boris, Jules Moche, awakened a strong undercurrent of anti-Semitism among the socialists themselves. A sentiment which also affected the [centrist] radicals and the communists.[3] It increased further after the defeat, a part of public opinion accusing the Jews, through a Georges Mandel,[4] of having dragged France into the war, and therefore to disaster.

Public Opinion’s Support for the First Emergency Laws

In measuring public opinion after the armistice [with Germany], we have fairly good instruments from autumn 1940 onwards. These are the bimonthly and then weekly summaries drafted in the southern zone by the postal and telephony monitoring services. They were complemented with the reports from the general intelligence services at departmental level.[5] At the end of 1940, even though the concerns of the population were above all down-to-earth, “the reports seem to note a fairly widespread anti-parliamentarism and a pronounced anti-Semitism as much in the southern zone as the northern zone; the first Statute on Jews seems to be strongly supported.” As for the rest, the strongest feeling is that of a “limitless admiration for the Marshal.”[6]

In fact, until the first arrests of Jews in 1942, the French in the two zones did not lend much attention to the anti-Jewish laws enacted by Vichy. The Jewish problem was also not the first concern of the government and would never be so except in times of crisis, when answers to German demands were required. This question was also not a priority for the Resistance. We only rarely find objections against the anti-Jewish legislation in the underground press of the major movements, Combat, Franc-Tireur, Libération, OCM, etc. The subject was also not broached in the memoirs published immediately after the war by the fighters of the Resistance or of Free France.[7]

I have already mentioned the terms of [future resister] Henri Frenay’s Manifesto [excluding Jews from his organization unless they had served France in a war] at the end of 1940. But signs of mistrust towards certain Jewish influences are still discernible in the writings of the Resistance in 1942 and beyond. Thus in June 1942, in the first clandestine Journal of the Civil and Military Organization (OCM), the most important Resistance movement in the occupied zone, one can read at length on the theme: “Why have Jews not been assimilated in France?” This text, which aspired to be a program for the future of liberated France, concludes: “How to Frenchify the Jews? Two principle measures are to be taken: To stop Jewish immigration and, as with other minorities, to disperse the Jews to prevent the persistence of the minority group . . .”[8]

In early 1943, even though they had made the choice of the Resistance, the organizers of the elite school of Uriage, Dunoyer de Ségonzac and Beuve-Méry, in order to ensure the permanence of their action, founded what they called the Order: “It must be made up of members of absolutely certain and real value, giving unequivocal guarantees . . . principally in the spiritual and moral field.” There are then details on the precautions to be taken to preserve the Order’s purity: “To rigorously protect oneself against Freemasons while avoiding at present a hostile attitude towards them. [. . .] In the same way Israelites are not to be admitted as members of the Order, nor as neophytes. If we are resolutely hostile to anti-Semitism, especially as practiced since the armistice, we cannot underestimate the danger of a Jewish revanche or be unaware of the existence of a Jewish international whose interests are opposed to those of France.”[9] [. . .]

Joseph Barthélémy, Minister of Justice between January 1941 and March 1943, [wrote in his Memoirs]: “When the war broke out, the Jews held in France an exaggerated place. One found them so numerous in leading positions that they looked like a ruling race established among a native and inferior population.”[10] This excuses nothing but explains the state of mind of the time.

The Statute on Jews of October 1940


The law of October 3, 1940 instituting the Statute on Jews was prepared by the cabinet of Raphaël Alibet, Minister of Justice.[11] At his own trial, Xavier Vallat, the first Commissioner-General for Jewish Questions, would explain at length and without restraints on the reasoning of a law meant, in his words, to “defend the French organism against a microbe which would condemn it to a fatal anemia.” He would place the law in the state tradition going back to Saint Louis.[12] He assured that this legislation made a clear distinction between old assimilated Jewish families, as well as veterans of the two wars, and the immigrants who had arrived from Central Europe after 1914. A few days before the promulgation of the Statute on Jews, the French government, through a memo by Paul Baudouin, protested against the German order of September 27 decreeing a whole series of measures against the Jews of the occupied zone. “This memo is very revealing of the initial attitude of the French government on the Jewish question: It deems a statute on Jews to be necessary, but does not want to leave to the Germans the initiative in this area.”[13]

As François-Georges Dreyfus has noted, the law of October 3, 1940 was however inspired by the German order of September 27 in the occupied zone, giving a both racial and religious definition of the Jew: “Are Jewish those persons belonging to the Jewish religion or having more than two Jewish grandparents.” Due to the principle of laïcité, the text of the French law removed the religious reference, keeping only the racial definition: “Is Jewish he who has three Jewish grandparents.”[14] The law banned Jews thus defined from the high civil service, teaching, the press, radio, and cinema, in order to “de-Judaize,” they think, the French spirit.[15] The law of June 2, 1941 would go further. [. . .]

The first law, which was not widely publicized, provoked only one official protest, that of pastor Boegner, president of the Protestant Federation of France. The Catholic episcopate remained silent and did not seem to disapprove. The prefectoral corps also did not seem to show reservations. Jean Moulin, still the prefect of Eure-et-Loir at the time, did not raise an objection. As for the Parisan press, by the pen of Lucien Rebatet and a few others, it was indignant before measures deemed much too modest, accusing Vichy of being a den of hidden Jews . . .

The jurists of the time were no more troubled than the bishops. [. . .] Maurice Duverger [later a Socialist politician], then very young, expressed few reservations on this legislation in 1941 in the Revue de Droit public: “The laws of October 3, 1940 and of June 2, 1941 do not have the character of reprisals, but of measures of public interest.”[16]

But the policy of segregation went up against its own limits. The government would work for example to protect Jewish veterans of 1940. Citing the Geneva Conventions, Ambassador Scapini [responsible for French prisoners of war in Germany] would successfully require that French prisoners of war of Jewish origin would not be separated from their comrades and placed in special camps, as the German authorities had decided.

1. The influential ironworks industry lobby. – GD
2. François-Georges Dreyfus, Histoire de Vichy (Paris: De Fallois, 1998), 76. In addition to this sentiment, there is the idea that a predisposition made Jews “born” opponents of a national revolution, like the Jacobins of 1793 believed that being born an aristocrat predisposed one to fight the Revolution.
3. Revealing of the Communist Party’s anti-Semitism is the fate that its clandestine authorities would reserve during the Resistance to members of the MOI (Foreign Labor), a small but very active Jewish fighting organization, which would be sacrificed by the party. See Stéphane Courtois, Denis Peschanski, and Adam Rayski, Le sang de l’étranger (Paris: Fayard, 1989).
4. Georges Mandel, born Louis Georges Rothschild (apparently unrelated to the banking family), was Minister of the Interior during the early wartime government, arrested Right-wing intellectuals favoring peace and cooperation with Germany, and was opposed to the armistice after the defeat. – GD
5. From département, that is, county level. – GD
6. Denis Peschanski, “Le régime de Vichy a bien existé,” Archives de guerre d’Angelo Tasca (Paris: Éditions du CNRS, 1986), 44.
7. While of course condemning the anti-Jewish persecutions, the fighters generally had little consideration for civilian victims. An attitude which causes a scandal today in a society dominated by the sacralization of the victim. This became apparent during the Papon trial by the reactions to the statements of former Prime Minister Pierre Messmer, hero of Bir Hakeim, testifying before the court of Bordeaux on October 16, 1997: “I would like to also say, whatever the respect that we owe to the victims of the war; and particularly to the innocent victims, these women, these children, these elderly, that I respect even more those who died standing and with arms in hand, because it is to them that we owe our liberation.”
8. Quoted by Henri Noguères. Later deemed anti-Semitic, this text had been drafted by a resister who was himself Jewish, Maxime Blocq-Mascart.
9. Quoted by Antoine Delestre, Uriage: Une école et une communauté dans la tourmente (Nancy University Press, 1989), 201. The Council of the Order, under the leadership of Captain Dunoyer de Ségonzac, was made up of Hubert Beuve-Méry (future founder of the newspaper Le Monde), Gilles Ferry, and Joffre Dumazedier.
10. Joseph Barthélémy, Ministre de la Justice 1941-1943: Mémoires (Gérard Watelet/Pygmalion, 1989), 395. Joseph Barthélémy began writing his memoirs from his leaving the government. He died in detention on May 14, 1945.
11. [. . .] Marshal Pétain himself was alien to the anti-Semitic tradition. At the time of the Dreyfus affair, he had criticized the captain’s sentencing, not believing in his guilt. André Maurois, for whom Pétain had voted during his candidacy to the Académie française in 1938, has testified to his lack of prejudice. André Maurois, Mémoires (Paris: Flammarion, 1970), 309.
12. King Louis IX of France, who had sought to convert the Jews and forced them to wear the rouelle, a yellow circle. – GD
13. Dreyfus, Histoire, 290-91, cites this French memo in full.
14. Persons who both had two Jewish grandparents and were married to a Jew were also defined as Jewish. – GD
15. The October 1940 Statute also stipulated that Jews would be banned from all government offices unless they were veterans, that access to liberal professions (e.g. lawyers) would be limited by quotas to be determined, and that exceptions could generally be made for “Jews who, in the literary, scientific, or artistic fields, have rendered exceptional services to the French State.” – GD
16. Revue du Droit public et de la Science politique (October 1941), 317. In 1988, Maurice Duverger successfully sued the monthly Actuel for defamation for “having suggested that [Duverger] had accepted a political system prescribing emergency measures against Jews and had, ultimately, approved these measures.”