Nov 3, 2015

Orbán: Europeans Should "throw away political correctness" and Shut Down Migrant Invasion

via The Occidental Observer

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is, by far, the most effective political leader in office today in defending the interests of the indigenous peoples of Europe. His creation of a border fence has all but shut down the migrant invasion of his country. Zsolt Bayer, a co-founder of Orbán’s Fidesz party, has even explicitly discussed White interests in the context the migrant crisis: “This [immigration] is the weapon that they, the invisible hands, have employed against Europe and against the White race.”

Thus a ruling political party in Europe, in a mainstream conservative group, is discussing and to some extent governing according to our legitimate interests. This is good food for the soul of every White Advocate, more used to demonization and ostracism since the ethnically-motivated pseudoscience of Franz Boas, Theodor Adorno, and Stephen J. Gould has become culturally hegemonic.

But Orbán is not merely content to save his own nation. Indeed, he has endlessly lectured his fellow European leaders to take mass immigration seriously as the existential threat that it is. In particular, the Prime Minister recently chose to dedicate an entire speech at the European People’s Party (EPP) annual congress exclusively to the subject of immigration. The EPP is the European umbrella grouping of mainstream conservative and Christian-Democratic groups, which includes both Orbán’s Fidesz and German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats. Congress attendees included Merkel, Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker (who gave, in contrast, an unbelievably feckless speech), and many other European political bigwigs.

Orbán recalled some basic principles (such as the fact there is no right to immigrate to Europe) and appealed to the political interest of his conservative colleagues, to democratic principles, and to the fate of Europe:

Today I would like to speak about the migration crisis. This issue will determine the future of our political family. We are in a deep trouble. The migration crisis is able to destabilize governments, countries and the whole European continent. . . .
The danger we have been facing demands open and honest speech. First of all, dear Friends, what we have been facing is not a refugee crisis. This is a migratory movement composed of economic migrants, refugees and also foreign fighters. This is an uncontrolled and unregulated process. I would like to remind you that free choice of a host country is not included in the international law. I also want to underline that there is an unlimited source of supply of people, after Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Africa is now also on the move. The dimension and the volume of the danger is well above our expectations. . . .

But considering them [migrants as] victims must not turn ourselves into being victims. Just because we do not consider them enemies we must not act against ourselves. Our moral responsibility is to give back these people their homes and their countries. [. . .] But neither the German, Austrian nor the Hungarian way of life is a basic right of all people on the Earth. It is only a right of those ones who have contributed to it. Europe is not able to accept everyone who wants a better life. We have to help them to get back their own lives with dignity and we have to send them back to their own countries . . .

Let me draw your kind attention to the fact that European Christian democratic approach doesn’t tolerate any anti-Muslim policy. Muslim faith which we honor and respect is not responsible for the root causes of this mass migratory movement. . . .

Orbán makes the elementary point that European elites’ management of the migrant crisis does not follow basic democratic principles: The liberal media misrepresent the crisis to pull on our heartstrings, while the governments ignore public opinion’s opposition to immigration:

We cannot avoid speaking about the quality of our democracies. Does it comply with the freedom of information and speech that medias usually show women and children while seventy percent of the migrants are young men and they look like an army? How could it happen that our peoples feel that their opinion is not being put into consideration? And we have to address the question whether our people want what has been happening. Did we get authorization from them to allow millions of migrants to enter our continent? Did we get authorization not to comply with the Schengen regulations for months? No, distinguished Delegates, we did not. And it is not a convincing argument any more that what we have been doing is because of emergency. I believe we have to gather all our courage, we have to throw away PC-ness and we should launch a big debate. We have to discuss our own intentions regarding our own continent without hypocrisy and pharisaism. What do we think about our civilization heritage? Can the change of cultural pattern be forced externally? Do we accept parallel societies? Or we defend our tolerant and rule-of-law-based way of life we have lived so far?

The mention of “pharisaism” refers to the Pharisees, who founded Rabbinic Judaism and were condemned by Jesus Christ, may be considered an innocuous conservative Christian and/or anti-Semitic reference.

Orbán urges Europeans to be self-reliant and to not depend on the Turks for our security:

Europe is currently rich and weak. This is the … most dangerous mixture [possible]. We seem not to be able to overcome our challenges on our own. Turkey is an important strategic partner. But if based on the lack of our own power we [must] expect [that] the solution from them … will make us exposed. This is the current situation of Europe. If we do not want that we have to protect our borders. If we are unable to do so at Greece which is the Eastern gate of the Balkans and the first line of defence than we have to do it at the Western gate of the Balkans at Hungary and Slovenia.

Orbán condemns the Left for importing voters through immigration, which you would think would resonate with his audience of conservative politicians (minorities overwhelmingly vote for the Left), and as part of a broader anti-national and anti-European political project:

We cannot hide the fact that the European left has a clear agenda. They are supportive to migration. They actually import future leftist voters to Europe hiding behind humanism. It is an old trick but I do not understand why we have to accept it. They consider registration and protection of borders [as] bureaucratic, nationalist and against human rights. They have a dream about the politically constructed world society without religious traditions, without borders, without nations. They attack core values of our European identity: family, nation, subsidiarity and responsibility.

Orbán concludes:

We are the European People’s Party — Parti Populaire, Volkspartei, Partido Popular, Party of the People — our responsibility is towards the people. Listen to the people. Let’s be determined, let’s defend Europe. Do not let the leftist mess up and reconstruct Europe! And do not let them oust the soul of Europe! Do not let liberals and socialists take away Europe from the people!


Recollections of Hitler's Secretary, Traudl Junge

via Britannia

Traudl Junge at the Berghof.
  She became Hitler's secretary in December, 1942
The most famous of Hitler's secretaries is the one with the shortest service record, only two and a half years. There are several reasons for this state of affairs. Being younger than the other secretaries Traudl Junge has been in the position to live past the post-war era when it was impossible to talk about Hitler in any other way than negatively.

Secondly, her book and two filmed interviews in which she recalls her experiences working with the Führer, have made her known even to the general public. Thirdly, Junge was the secretary who typed Hitler's last private and political will and testament in the Führerbunker a day and a half before Hitler's suicide.

When Junge's trial period as Hitler's secretary was about to end she was summoned in front of Hitler for the confirmation of her new job. She was expecting a loyalty oath, countless background checks, and to be forced to join the Nazi Party. Instead Hitler only wanted one promise from her. Since she would be a young girl working among a lot of male military personnel, she would have to promise to report to Hitler any harassment by them.

In June 1943, Gertraud "Traudl" Humps, as she was known then, married Hitler's SS aide Hans Junge - just three months after she had stated that she "had no interest in men". 

Traudl Junge with her Husband, SS-Obersturmführer Hans Junge

The fact that they both worked close to Hitler enabled Hans Junge to - finally, after several pleas - get away from Hitler's entourage for a frontline duty in the ranks of the Waffen SS. He died in combat in Normandy in August 1944.


Traudl Junge - "I asked Hitler why he only ever went to hear Die Meistersinger or other Wagnerian operas."

Hitler answered - "It is just my luck that I can never say I like something without finding that I'm stuck listening exclusively to one piece of music or hearing one particular opera. I once said that Meistersinger is really one of Richard Wagner's finest operas, so since then it is supposed to be my favourite opera and I do not get to hear anything else. The same thing happened with the Badenweiler March. And I was once invited to visit Frau Ley. She had a Scotch terrier bitch with seven puppies and was very proud of them. Just to be polite I said: Those are really delightful little creatures - although I think they're horrible, like rats. Next day she sent me one as a present." 
Traudl Junge - "Once the King of Bulgaria was asked to the Berghof. As I was wandering around the kitchen I happened to see the King drive up to the main entrance. Planning to reach my room unseen, I quickly ran across the yard behind the house so as to use the back door. I burst right into the ceremonial procession in which the Führer was leading the King through the living room to the Great Hall. I was holding an apple I'd just bitten into in my right hand, and two ping-pong bats in my other hand. My mouth was full too, so there was nothing I could say or do. Hitler and his guest looked at me in some surprise. When the Führer greeted me before dinner that evening, I apologized and he said, in very friendly tones, 'do not worry, child, kings are only human too.'"

Traudl Junge - "The waiting time before lunch passed in easy conversation [in the Berghof]. Hitler talked to Eva Braun, teased her about her dogs, which he said were nothing but a couple of dusting brushes, whereupon she replied that Blondi wasn't a dog at all but a calf. I was surprised to find that the man who had just come from a military briefing had left all his serious, official thoughts behind the heavy curtain that separated the Great Hall from the living room."

Eva Braun owned two Scottish terriers, Negus and Katuschka who Hitler referred to as a couple of dusting brushes

Traudl Junge - "After Hitler left his headquarters for a trip, it was strange the way peace and quiet suddenly fell over the whole camp. As if the engine of the entire power plant had suddenly been switched off. I realized for the first time ... how Hitler's personality was the driving force behind all these people. The puppet-master who held the string of the marionettes in his hands had suddenly let them drop."

Traudl Junge - "Hitler said, I do not know why you women have to keep changing your clothes. When I think a dress is particularly pretty then I would like to see its owner wearing it all the time. She ought to have all her dresses made of the same material and to the same pattern. But no sooner have I got used to something pretty, and I'm feeling I haven't seen enough of it yet, than along comes something new." 

Traudl Junge - "Once I asked: 'My Führer, why haven't you married?' His answer was rather surprising:" 

Hitler said - "I would not make a good father, and I think it would be irresponsible to start a family when I cannot devote enough time to my wife. And anyway I do not want children of my own. I think the offspring of men of genius usually have a very hard time of it. People expect them to be just like their famous progenitor, and won't forgive them for being only average. And in fact most of them are feeble-minded."

Traudl Junge - "Then came that grey, rainy day when Fraulein Wolf, eyes red with weeping, met me on the way to the Führer bunker. 'Stalingrad has fallen. Our whole army has been annihilated. They are dead!' She was almost sobbing. And we both thought of all that blood, and the dead men and the dreadful despair." (Fraulein Johanna Wolf was another one of Hitler's secretaries)

Note that Johanna Wolf was so loyal to Hitler that she wanted to die with him in the Führerbunker, but Hitler urged her to leave the Reich Chancellery for the sake of her 80 year old mother.

Filmed interviews featuring Traudl Junge: 

"Blind Spot: Hitler's Secretary" is a 90-minute 2002 documentary film consisting only of "talking heads" -style interviews with Traudl Junge in German. 

"Secretary to Hitler" is a 23-minute extra episode of the documentary series "The World at War" which was made in the 1970s. Compared to the "Blind Spot," this production is at least in English (although not fluently) and features some photographs to interrupt the talking heads footage.

Junge's memoirs - "Until the Final Hour : Hitler's Last Secretary" - offers an interesting window into the life around Hitler.

Woodrow Wilson: Good or Bad for Whites?

via American Renaissance

There is a general consensus on the reputations of many presidents, but there is disagreement about Woodrow Wilson. For students of foreign policy, his name is synonymous with center-left arguments for a militarized foreign policy and “humanitarian” intervention abroad–particularly for wanting to make the world “safe for democracy.” In international relations, a great deal has been written about his famous “Fourteen Points” and his ill-fated attempt to create an international body to tame the world’s ills.

Republicans, especially lately, have come to see him as one of the earliest Democratic villains–a technocratic and elitist patriarch who set the stage for FDR, LBJ, and of course, Barack Obama. Democrats, on the other hand, think he was an effective politician who brought the party out of William Jennings Bryan’s populism into a more serious and international mindset. They still name journals and think tanks after him. Libertarians loathe him for taking America into the First World War, creating the Federal Reserve system, and establishing the first permanent income tax.

How was Wilson on race? In his personal beliefs, and in many of his official policies, Wilson was very sensible, but his larger legacy was not good for white America.
Born in Staunton, Virginia, in 1856, Wilson was raised by parents who supported the Confederacy. His mother nursed wounded Southern soldiers at a local hospital, and his father, a minister, helped organize the Presbyterian Church of the Confederate States of America. The young Wilson even watched Union soldiers escort Robert E. Lee through town after the surrender at Appomattox.

Growing up during the war and coming of age under Reconstruction clearly marked his racial views. While still a student at Princeton, Wilson supported Samuel J. Tilden in the presidential election of 1876, writing in his diary, “I most sincerely hope that it [America] will be sensible enough to elect Tilden as I think the salvation of the country from frauds and the reviving of trade depends upon his election.”

Tilden, a Democrat who had been critical of Abraham Lincoln and opposed the Radical Republicans, represented a chance for Southerners to break the hated Republican stranglehold on the executive branch and finally end Reconstruction. His opponent, Rutherford B. Hayes, had fought for the Union and would be the natural heir to the corrupt presidency of Ulysses S. Grant.

Samuel Tilden
Samuel Tilden
Tilden narrowly lost, but Wilson continued as a defender of the Lost Cause. After Princeton, he began a career in political science, and much of his writing shows a strong sense of pride in his race and in the Confederacy. In his multi-volume, A History of the American People (1902), he wrote of Reconstruction:
The white men of the South were aroused by the mere instinct of self-preservation to rid themselves, by fair means or foul, of the intolerable burden of governments sustained by the votes of ignorant negroes and conducted in the interest of adventurers: governments whose incredible debts were incurred that thieves might be enriched, whose increasing loans and taxes went to no public use but into the pockets of party managers and corrupt contractors. There was no place of open action or of constitutional agitation, under the terms of reconstruction, for the men who were the real leaders of the Southern communities.
Even more boldly, he described the Ku Klux Klan and similar groups as noble vigilantes who fought tyranny in the occupied South:
It became the chief object of the night-riding comrades to silence or drive from the country the principal mischief-makers of the reconstruction regime, whether white or black. The negroes were generally easy enough to deal with: a thorough fright usually disposed them to make utter submission, resign their parts in affairs, leave the country–do anything their ghostly visitors demanded. But white men were less tractable: and here and there even a negro ignored or defied them. The regulators would not always threaten and never execute their threats. They backed their commands, when need arose, with violence. Houses were surrounded in the night and burned, and the inmates shot as they fled, as in the dreadful days of border warfare. Men were dragged from their houses and tarred and feathered. Some who defied the vigilant visitors came mysteriously to some sudden death.
Wilson’s unapologetic views did not change when he won the 1912 election. As the first Southern president since a decade before the Civil War, his inauguration filled the capital with “rebel yells and the strains of ‘Dixie’.” For many Southerners, it seemed that “home rule” was at hand again.

In some ways, this was true. The epic film Birth of a Nation, which portrays the Confederacy and the KKK sympathetically, was released during his tenure. He arranged for a special White House showing, and remarked that the movie was “like writing history with lightning.” He was the first president to lay a wreath at the Confederate Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery. Every succeeding president, even Mr. Obama, has at least sent a wreath to the memorial even if not all have laid it themselves. On the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg, President Wilson delivered a speech at the battlefield to an audience that included Confederate and Union veterans, praising them all as “gallant men in blue and gray.”

Woodrow Wilson quoted in Birth of a Nation
Woodrow Wilson quoted in Birth of a Nation.
After he took office, Wilson began implementing measures on race almost immediately. He segregated the Navy and large swathes of the civil service, and made it a requirement to attach a photo to applications for federal jobs to make it easier to screen out blacks. He supported legislation to make interracial marriage in Washington, D.C., a felony.
Wilson appointed very few blacks to office. His predecessor, William Howard Taft, appointed 31 blacks, but Wilson appointed only nine, all but one of whom were carryovers from Taft’s administration. Wilson also had the Washington, D.C., police and fire departments stop hiring blacks entirely.

In 1914, a delegation from a black advocacy group called the National Independent Political League went to the White House to protest his policies, but Wilson would not bend. To Monroe Trotter, the group’s leader, he explained, “Segregation is not humiliating, but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen.” When Trotter, a Harvard graduate, disagreed, Wilson replied, “If this organization is ever to have another hearing before me it must have another spokesman. Your manner offends me.”

Wilson probably received more black votes than any president before him but did not let that sway him. “If the colored people made a mistake in voting for me, they ought to correct it and vote against me,” he said. This is in stark contrast with Teddy Roosevelt, who invited Booker T. Washington to dinner at the White House in 1901.

Even in international affairs, on which Wilson’s liberal reputation largely rests, he kept race in mind. During the peace talks after the First World War, Japan was emboldened by the acquisition of German islands in the Pacific, and proposed that a “racial equality clause” be included in the Covenant of the League of Nations. A majority of the delegates voted for the clause, but Wilson, who chaired the meeting, made an unprecedented ruling, insisting on unanimity. The Japanese were furious.

With Russia weakened by civil war between the Whites and the Reds, Japan had designs on Siberia. Wilson had Secretary of State Robert Lansing send a strong message to the Japanese that meddling would not be tolerated. Wilson also refused to meet representatives from Vietnam who wanted to end French colonial rule.

There was a KKK resurgence during Wilson’s presidency. As his historical writings suggest, Wilson saw no problem with this, and let the Klan grow without harassment from the federal government. By the 1920s, the Klan was a serious political force, which supported the national-quotas immigration legislation of 1924.

Wilson also surrounded himself with like-minded men. His secretary of the treasury and son-in-law, William Gibbs McAdoo, was a staunch segregationist whose aid and endorsement from the KKK in 1924 very nearly made him that year’s Democratic nominee. The man who got the nomination was John W. Davis, who had been Wilson’s first solicitor general, and then his ambassador to the UK. Decades later, he defended segregation in Brown vs. Board of Education.

Wilson’s attorney general, A. Mitchell Palmer, made a name for himself dealing harshly with the Communist-fueled race riots in the summer of 1919. To this day, leftists bemoan the now infamous “Palmer Raids.” The postmaster general (a very important position at that time) for both of Wilson’s terms was Albert S. Burleson, the son of a Confederate officer and grandson of a soldier for the Republic of Texas, who insisted that the post office be segregated.

Wilson never made any excuse for his policies. Never much of a constitutionalist, he thought government should recognize the newly discovered sciences of the time, and proposed to “interpret the Constitution according to Darwinian principle.” Although he never took national steps towards eugenic policies, as governor of New Jersey he proudly signed a law requiring sterilization of criminals and the mentally retarded.

Woodrow Wilson
Woodrow Wilson
For Wilson, the solution for the world’s ills, racial and otherwise, was state power. During his academic career he was deeply influenced by G.W.F. Hegel, who famously wrote, “The march of God in the world, that is what the state is. The basis of the state is the power of reason actualizing itself as will.” Wilson thought little of the Constitution’s “checks and balances” and believed that “men are as clay in the hand of the consummate leader” and that “the President is at liberty, both in law and in conscience, to be as big a man as he can.”

Wilson used his executive power to enforce segregation but his presidency unwittingly brought integration in the North. With the industrial buildup and eventual entry into First World War, the North’s factories needed cheap labor. Blacks who wanted something better than agricultural toil went north in what is called “the Great Migration.”

Between 1914 and 1920, around half a million Southern blacks moved north–at a time when the American population was one third its current size. The black populations of Chicago, Buffalo, and New York more than doubled between 1910 and 1920. Those of Detroit and Cleveland more than tripled, and the black populations of Cincinnati, Columbus, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Milwaukee all rose between a third and a half. Northern cities that had been 1 percent black at the turn of the century were 7, 8, and even 10 percent black by 1930. This started the decline of many northern cities, for which Detroit is the symbol. If the country had steered clear of war in Europe and industrialized more slowly, it is possible to imagine an Ohio as white as Oregon, and an Illinois as white as Idaho.

This is the great irony of Wilson’s presidency. Historians debate whether he had been secretly waiting for an opportunity to go to war or had a change of heart. He campaigned for re-election in 1916 as the peace candidate, but he also approved the National Defense Act of 1916 that authorized a military industrial build-up and provided for greater government control of manufacturing.

Once America was at war Wilson went all the way. There was a national draft, and the Espionage Act limited press, freedom of speech, and the right to assembly. Wilson’s War Industries Board imposed greater state control on the arms industry. Whether he planned it from 1914 onwards or begrudgingly accepted it in 1917, Wilson conducted war as he did everything else: with massive government involvement. He also certainly saw it as part of his desire for a more democratic world, a task fit for large and powerful states.

The integration Wilson caused by America’s entry into the war was an example of what the French economist Frédéric Bastiat meant when he wrote of the unseen: “. . . a law produces not only one effect, but a series of effects. Of these effects, the first alone is immediate; it appears simultaneously with its cause; it is seen. The other effects emerge only subsequently; they are not seen.”

The Great Migration might have happened without Wilson’s war. The industrialization of the North may have been inevitable. But without the war the Great Migration might not have been so “great,” and Wilson’s policies certainly did nothing to slow it. Blacks remaining in the South would have been no gift to Southerners, but at least it was the status quo.

Even a sound politician can cause accidental damage, and Wilson’s record shows that an intrusive state is always a potential threat. In our time, attempts to keep America safe from terrorism prompted military interventions that have contributed to refugee crises and a mass migration to Europe. Before Muammar Gaddafi was driven out of office, his son Seif warned, “Libya may become the Somalia of North Africa, of the Mediterranean. You will see the pirates in Sicily, in Crete, in Lampedusa. You will see millions of illegal immigrants. The terror will be next door.” Sweden today is almost 2 percent Iraqi, and Iraqis started coming there only in 2002.

This is not to say that all government action should be eschewed, or even feared, but it should always be carefully considered. It was not so long ago that many white advocates supported Ron Paul, but with the increasingly obvious uselessness of Rand Paul and the Tea Party, that anti-state inclination has faded. Today there is much more interest in non-ideological figures such as Donald Trump and in foreign pro-state parties such as the French National Front, the Danish Peoples Party, and Fidesz in Hungary.

On the other hand, to the extent that non-interventionist parties such as UKIP and the Austrian Freedom Party take strong positions on immigration, they deserve our support. Fighting dispossession is our number-one goal, and we must set aside whatever political differences we may have in order to achieve that goal.

Under virtually any conception of the state, government has the power to control borders, and that is the first line of defense against dispossession. What happens internally is a different matter, but as Wilson’s record shows, even a combination of executive power and good intentions is not always enough.

Get Out

via Kakistocracy

When the post mortem of the 21st century’s great Western Migrant Wars is finally penned, they will be viewed with the same horror and astonishment as preceding European fratricides. So much tears and blood that straggling foreigners had to breast-stroke through brackish gullies. And all so evilly avoidable. There was nothing other than to control ancient borders. A chore that had come within the easy mastery of even field peasant half-wits. But not enlightened Western man, whose children’s misery was nothing to his own morality.

Of course a man can’t give away a country that isn’t his exclusively to give–no matter how exquisite the shivers. And so others in rightful possession rose up. I’ve written before on the notion that diversity counterintuitively generates more venom within groups than between. That post was one of the most popular we’ve written, though not so much that it was likely recalled 48 hours later. So to reiterate, diversity + proximity = war. Intra-group war foremost.

This principle is on poignant display in the video below. The archives of this ongoing treason expand daily, and I’m sure this one isn’t the most wrenching. But it is a writ-small prelude to the great state vs. nation conflicts to come. In it a group of local German townspeople attempt to halt a convoy of colonists under police escort. Their desperation and fury are palpable.

Get away from here!
Come on.
Fuck off!
(Police) I will mace you!
Oh God.
You’re fighting your own people!
Why aren’t you shooting? Come on, Shoot us!
Go ahead, shoot your own people!
We don’t want them here. They’re destroying our country!
We’re the ones paying your paycheck!
You’re destroying our future…our children’s future!
All you do is destroy!
If you have any honor left in you, shoot us. Go ahead!
Shoot us, go ahead, shoot us!
(Police) Clear the street.
You’re fighting your own people!
Come on, draw your batons…traitors!
(Police) Draw your batons if there’s no other way.
Get out! Get out! Get out!

It is likely their invitations to open fire will eventually be well received. And that will be civil war. The men fighting it on behalf of the state do so in opposition to their own fathers and sons. Perhaps some will reflect on the fact that the “just following orders” defense has a poor track record in culminating tribunals.

Though obviously not everyone views the situation with such trepidation. Predictable outlets offered a note of lie back and enjoy it triumphalism.
“I don’t think this wave can stop,” said Sonja Licht of the International Center for Democratic Transition. “It can maybe from time to time be somewhat less intensive, we simply have to prepare. The global north must be prepared that the global south is on the move, the entire global south. This is not just a problem for Europe but for the whole world.”
That’s demonstrably false. The global south being “on the move” is only and exclusively a problem for those countries whose machine guns and electrified fences aren’t functional. But of course such sentiments are barbaric. Anyone who wants a better life is entitled to another man’s inheritance to get it. Besides, these migrants from Africa and Afghanistan are fleeing war in Syria.
Ibrahim Isahaq, 18, from Ghana, was among those migrants who came through Serbia in October, attracted by news of how easy passage had become. He was simply fleeing a family feud over a disputed inheritance.
War refugees.

Climate refugees.

And now probate refugees.

But look, we have to keep these numbers in perspective. Europe can absorb this influx–even if it’s not under an iota of moral obligation to do so. How many are we talking?
There are more displaced people and refugees now than at any other time in recorded history — 60 million in all— and they are on the march in numbers not seen since World War II. They are coming not just from Syria, but from an array of countries and regions, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Gaza, even Haiti, as well as any of a dozen or so nations in sub-Saharan and North Africa. They are unofficial ambassadors of failed states, unending wars, intractable conflicts.
Nor is it only the Middle East and North Africa that European leaders need to consider. The Gallup Poll, based on data compiled from more than 450,000 interviews in 151 nations from 2009 to 2011, found that in Nigeria, which already has double the population of Germany, 40 percent of people would emigrate to the West if they could. And the lesson of 2015 — for them and much of the world — is that they can.
Oh, only 40 percent of some seven billion. That’s going to make for some very early German retirements, indeed. Though the thing about stealing another man’s country is that you can right up until you can’t. And when that change comes just remember, Europeans are only trying to make a better life for themselves.

Ta-Nehisi Coates and the Left’s Weaponization of American Exceptionalism

via Occident Invicta

On account of my stepfamily forming a book club, I have been reading a wide range of literature. Some of the selections have been entertaining and edifying; others, not so much. Due to the latest selection, Between the World and Me, I had to suffer through Ta-Nehisi Coates’s soporific and criminally repetitive prose. Not wanting my efforts to be in vain, I’m going to turn those three hours of my life that I wasted trekking through this “book” into something productive. More than anything else, I intend to demonstrate that American exceptionalist ideas bear a large amount of responsibility for lending credence to the kinds of views espoused by Coates.

But I would be remiss if I didn’t discuss some of the book’s general context first. Ostensibly a letter to his teenage son, the book is part memoir and part soapbox. Simply reading it from start to finish was an arduous task; if you were to read this book while playing a drinking game with some friends – where one chugs a pint for every time Coates uses the word “bodies” or “body” – you’d be wasted by time you finished a couple of paragraphs. Of course, he’s hardly alone in this regard, as “bodies” has increasingly become a popular term for SJW types. I’m guessing that gratuitous use of the word “bodies” is their way of trying to sound deep and soulful as a means of concealing their utter vapidity. But “bodies” is just the tip of Coates’s rhetorical iceberg.

Similar to leftists who use “diversity” as a euphemism for “less white,” Coates employs several cute euphemisms when bashing white people. In fact, a few exceptions notwithstanding, he seems to have a downright aversion to calling white people white. Instead, whites are “the people who believe themselves to be white.” In so many words, he’s regurgitating the standard critical race theory trope that whiteness is a mere social construct. Funny how it’s only white peoples’ “socially constructed” identities that are deemed illegitimate. But it gets even better. Another term Coates has a penchant for is “Dreamers,” which describes white people who subscribe to patriotic pretty lies and the whole myth of whiteness. What’s ironic is that Coates himself is a major proponent of American exceptionalism (emphasis mine):
“Perhaps there has been, at some point in history, some great power whose elevation was exempt from the violent exploitation of other human bodies. If there has been, I have yet to discover it. But this banality of violence can never excuse America, because America makes no claim to the banal.
America believes itself exceptional, the greatest and noblest nation ever to exist, a lone champion standing between the white city of democracy and the terrorists, despots, barbarians, and other enemies of civilization. One cannot, at once, claim to be superhuman and then plead mortal error. I propose to take our countrymen’s claims of American exceptionalism seriously, which is to say I propose subjecting our country to an exceptional moral standard.”
This is exactly what I meant when I previously argued that leftists employ the language of American exceptionalism in order to lend moral legitimacy to their radical ideals. While I am in no way a fan of Coates and strongly disagree with his worldview, I cannot help but concede his point regarding superhuman claims.

For years, I’ve always wondered why white Americans – easily among the most tolerant and accommodating people in the world – are constantly castigated for being wicked racists. After reading Coates’s book, I think I’ve stumbled upon at least one explanation. Whites are criticized because by espousing such high and mighty American exceptionalist ideals, they set themselves up for criticism over peccadilloes; nothing short of perfected egalitarianism will satisfy the likes of Coates.

However, we expect Coates and his ilk to criticize white people. What’s more problematic is that so many white elites and pundits are heaping accolades upon James Baldwin’s heir. While it may be easy to dismiss such adulation as the media simply being comprised of venal prostitutes, I contend that many white elites on some level accept Coates’s scathing vituperation because they too hold white Americans up to ridiculously high moral standards – and like Coates find them wanting. Likewise, a large chunk of regular white people accept certain anti-racist tenets to varying degrees. Sure, very few whites are like Tim Wise, but most nevertheless choose Americanism over white identity and interests.

Some readers may wonder why American exceptionalism has become a recent hobby horse of mine. Put simply, I think that the quixotic ideals spawned by the American experiment account for many – if not most – of white America’s pathologies often bemoaned by alt righters and white nationalists. Whether it’s galvanizing whites into supporting wasteful wars in the Middle East, promoting cannibalistic Libertarian economics, demonizing white identity, or exhorting whites to accept open borders, American exceptionalist beliefs are always employed in order to sabotage the collective interests of whites. Although pusillanimous or treacherous white elites bear much of the blame for America’s current weakness, they would never have been able to inflict so much damage without this ideological ammunition.

And if you think I’m wrong, allow me to propose a hypothesis. Imagine that native elites in Asia have been replaced by white American elites, and that these white outsiders have so far managed to fit in. Let’s also imagine that these white elites suddenly promulgate radical beliefs such as multiculturalism, open borders, and the idea of a “proposition nation.” Do you think for a second that the Asian masses would countenance such bizarre platforms? Of course not, because their cultures are more nationalistic, tribal, and collectivist. Such lofty rhetoric would not have the same impact on them.

Ultimately, until the whites who believe themselves to be American begin to embrace a healthy nationalism and collectivism, they will continue to be weakened in the name of ideals – sensible during a time when whites were the vast majority of the country – pioneered by their ancestors. If current trends continue unabated, then the future America will be anything but exceptional.

#OpKKK Strikes Matt Parrott

via TradYouth

My phone started ringing about once per hour yesterday. It’s still ringing about once per hour. I have anonymous (no pun intended) calls blocked, so I’m probably just catching the tip of the prank phone call iceberg. It turns out that the antifa decided to masquerade as “Anonymous” and declare that they’ve “hacked” the “klan” and are going to “dox” all sorts of famous and important people.

In lieu of famous or important people affiliated with any klans, they’ve evidently settled on doxing me, Matt Parrott. I’m not sure if it counts as doxing when the correct information is my public phone number and the private information about my address and family is incorrect. I haven’t lived at Golfview Drive in Carmel for nearly five years, but somebody ordered $333 worth of Papa John’s pizza to the address yesterday evening. Ironically, the rank strangers living at that address, the owner of that pizza parlor, the pizza parlor employees, and the hapless delivery driver, are all non-White, so Anonymous managed to harass and harm more minorities in one single night than I’ve done in my life.

My entry has a rather mean-spirited inclusion of my alleged mother, Sandra. Sandra is some random lady in North Carolina who is emphatically not my mother, and most likely not a right-wing political dissident. For that matter, my actual mother isn’t a political dissident, either. You can’t pick your family, after all. Aside from buying me my first computer and subscribing to dial-up Internet, she played no role whatsoever in my political awakening and wishes I would find a hobby that doesn’t involve being habitually harassed by Internet heroes.

And my entry is, surprisingly enough, one of the more accurate ones in their clusterfucked attempt to recapture the initiative from an identitarian movement which is rapidly growing while their own subculture’s been deeply demoralized and disoriented. While I am not in and have never been in a klan, I am actually a pro-White activist, which is more than can be said of the majority of the entries.

Many of the names are identifiably non-racialist and even openly anti-racist. Connie Chastain, for instance, has been an object of scorn within our circles for years because she believes Southern heritage is compatible with multiculturalism. And that’s not the only friendly fire incident. Hal Turner is a confirmed federal informant whose radio show existed as a honey pot set up in partnership with the FBI to entrap right-wingers with incendiary rhetoric.

Willis Carto and Gordon Baum are deceased.

There’s some confusion about which list is definitive, or whether the “real” list has even been released, yet. That’s the double-edged sword of anonymous vigilantism. With no identifiable or accountable command structure, a horde of self-styled revolutionaries and an impressive number of mainstream news outlets are harassing random people right and left. I had one caller try a stalkerish shtick of claiming he was outside my house. I had one threaten to attack Sandra (poor, sweet, random Sandra). Most just insulted me then hung up.

Unlike Anita Sarkeesian, I won’t be invited to speak to the United Nations about the harassment I receive for my own controversial political views. The last time I had any dealings with law enforcement, when the antifa threw a brick through a restaurant we hosted meetings at several years ago, the cops were more curious about me than they were about the people attacking me. The bottom line for me, one which Sarkeesian and pals would do well to consider, is that these shenanigans are the “new normal” for anybody who engages controversial issues.

Suck it up, or sit down. Even if they threaten to, ummm…presented without further comment…

Being the target of such a campaign isn’t exactly fun, but it’s an unavoidable side effect of Internet freedom and anonymity, both of which are valuable enough to offset the inconvenience of being pranked. While the Left is exploiting the Internet to indulge in this sort of pointless and destructive faggotry, we’re leveraging those same tools to network, organize, and reach new audiences with our positive message of faith, family, and folk.

Besides, it wasn’t all negative. We got some love from our Latino and Latin American comrades. ¡Viva Cristo Rey!

Israel Restores Nationalism

via Amerika

Bibi magic: Watch as he turns Angela into Adolf
As mentioned on this site four years ago, and eight years before that on the predecessor to this site, Israel will lead the way in restoring Nationalism, which is a world order where boundaries are defined by simultaneous shared ethnicity, culture and values of a population.

Now to the dismay of liberals everywhere, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has formalized that statement. In a brilliant act of statecraft that flew over the heads of mainstream media, Netanyahu both re-legalized the defense of an indigenous ethnic majority by a state, and announced his plans for Palestine:
Mr. Netanyahu said in a speech to the Zionist Congress on Tuesday night that “Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jews.” The prime minister said that the mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini, had protested to Hitler that “they’ll all come here,” referring to Palestine.
“ ‘So what should I do with them?’ ” Mr. Netanyahu quoted Hitler as asking Mr. Husseini. “He said, ‘Burn them.’ ”
While Holocaust historians and revisionists — neither of whom have a good record of getting the truth right the first time — will debate this into the ground, Netanyahu’s statement was subtle and profound. He looked carefully at the camera as he spoke the words clearly and strongly, aware that he was making history — even if the rest of the media and pundits have not caught on. Here are the implications of what he said:
(1) If you merely want to expel a foreign population, that is not really a bad thing, if you are doing it to defend your own people.

(2) Nationalism is necessary. It was necessary for Germany, and now it is necessary for Israel. It is the only way to preserve a native population.

(3) Palestine has been the darling of Europe both in the 1930s and in the present day, and both times have led to disastrous results.

The American media missed all of these implications in their desire to fight the last world war over again, mainly because it allows them to dog whistle the civil rights conformity signal to their audience, which unites them in a buzzing hive-mind.

Germany, wise to the ways of democracy which is essentially a popularity contest, tried to take away the narrative lead by immediately embarking on a guilt-drenched retrospective. Europeans have long known that there is no such thing as bad publicity and so a public self-flagellation gains power more than a denial. In democracy, it’s important to stay in the spotlight by any means necessary.

But look what else the article mentions, as if the synapses have almost sparked a circuit closed:
The controversy came amid weeks of spiraling violence in which Mr. Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders have repeatedly accused Palestinian leaders, including President Mahmoud Abbas, of lying, principally about Israel’s actions at a contested holy site in the Old City.
Netanyahu realizes that Europe today, Israel today, Germany in the 1930s and Israel in Biblical times share a problem: being small, higher-IQ and thus wealthier societies beset by vast hordes of angry low-IQ and impoverished third world people. The Palestinians, who are essentially the Mexican indios of the Middle East, consistently outbreed Jews and are using the womb as a strategy for conquest of Israel through the power of democracy. No sane politician — no, leader — would allow that to happen to his people.

Israel needs the right to do what it was formed to do, which was protect the Jewish people against not just the Nazi-inspired murders — most of which happened in advance of the Nazis arriving — but the numerous pogroms that saw the Jewish people ejected from every country in Europe and the middle east as well as some in Asia. This requires Nationalism, which is the exact same political system which was demonized in the wake of WWII.

If we view Western history as a series of political statements resolved by war, we see the French Revolution as the domination of democracy; the Napoleonic Wars as the incompatibility of democracy and aristocracy; World War I as the war to unify Europe under democracy, and World War II as the war against resistance to democracy. Democratization brings class warfare and its logical extension, multiculturalism or mixed-race societies, as part of its need to achieve total equality.

With the end of WWII, it was assumed — at least in the West — that Nationalism was dead because it was incompatible with the class warfare and multicultural narratives of democracy, which favors the Left. However, now that we’ve had 70 years of glorious multiculturalism, it is showing its age with remarkably similar symptoms everywhere it is tried: displacement of first-world populations with third-world ones, lowering of national IQ and raising of crime rate, epidemics of rape and other subjugation violence against the native population, and massive expenditures to try to keep the third-world population succeeding alongside the more intelligent and capable first-world natives.

Diversity does not work simply because it destroys culture by destroying standards. When you have two or more groups, standards differ, and thus an “official” Government standard must be created that includes both, which prevents each group from establishing its own cultural mores and values. This creates a Balkanization effect where each group withdraws, which prompts liberal democratic Government to try to force them to merge, resulting in genocide by outbreeding of both.

But diversity doubly fails when it is third-world integration into the first world. It takes a population which is genetically predisposed to certain behaviors, and introduces a new population which is genetically hardwired for the exact opposite. This forces the first-world natives to become caretakers for the newcomers, exhausting themselves and turning their society into a battleground for the symbolic victory of diversity.

Netanyahu has had extensive experience with the Palestinians, who as a mixed-race (Caucasian, Asian, and some North African) population of third-world status have its typical traits: low IQ in the low 90s, tendencies toward lack of long-term planning ability, r-strategic reproduction, unruly social behavior requiring rule by warlords, and a tendency to blame first-world populations for the third-world population’s endemic poverty, disorder, crime, corruption, poor hygiene and impulsivity. With Palestinians within its borders, Israel can never properly exist, and it cannot protect the Jewish people who share a culture, languages, heritage/ethnicity and religion.

With his statements, which were as much symbolic as historical, Netanyahu has signaled the future for Israel: as a Nationalist state dedicated to the Jewish people and excluding all others. This means the Palestinians must go, and immigrant surges like the Mexican indios in the United States and “Syrian” Arab “refugees” in Europe cannot be tolerated. He has given Europe the go-ahead to quit multiculturalism and eject its non-indigenous people while rejecting all immigration, if European leaders are able to stop emulating the political successes of the past, look toward the future and accept Netanyahu’s nod.

WWII will go down in history as a war of confusion. The Nazis and Japanese fought it to preserve their own people against both immigration and incursions by mixed-race Communists, while the Russians, Americans and English fought it to achieve economic dominance. Broad conclusions which were convenient for the post-1930s liberal parties in the US and UK were drawn, but they are not supported by actual historical events. Netanyahu is now correcting those misperceptions so he can ensure the survival of his people, and all us other first-world populations should follow his example.

Small German Village of 102 Souls Braces for Tsunami of 750 Non-White Invaders

via Transudationism

Christian Fabel, the mayor of Sumte, Germany,
stands in front of a facility to house asylum
seekers from Africa and the Middle East.
SUMTE, Germany — This bucolic, one-street settlement of handsome redbrick farmhouses may for the moment have many more cows than people, but next week it will become one of the fastest growing places in Europe. Not that anyone in Sumte is very excited about it.
In early October, the district government informed Sumte’s mayor, Christian Fabel, by email that his village of 102 people just over the border in what was once Communist East Germany would take in 1,000 asylum seekers.
His wife, the mayor said, assured him it must be a hoax. “It certainly can’t be true” that such a small, isolated place would be asked to accommodate nearly 10 times as many migrants as it had residents, she told him. “She thought it was a joke,” he said.
But it was not. Sumte has become a showcase of the extreme pressures bearing down on Germany as it scrambles to find shelter for what, by the end of the year, could be well over a million people seeking refuge from poverty or wars in Africa, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
In a small concession to the villagers, Alexander Götz, a regional official from Lower Saxony, told them this week that the initial number of refugees, who start arriving on Monday and will be housed in empty office buildings, would be kept to 500, and limited to 750 in all.
Nevertheless, the influx is testing the limits of tolerance and hospitality in Sumte, and across Germany. It is also straining German politics broadly, creating deep divisions in the conservative camp of Chancellor Angela Merkel and energizing a constellation of extremist groups that feel their time has come.

Dirk Hammer of Sumte at a public meeting on German genocide.
One of the few people, in fact, who seem enthusiastic about the plan for Sumte is Holger Niemann, 32, an admirer of Hitler and the lone neo-Nazi on the elected district council. He rejoices at the opportunities the migrant crisis has offered. 
“It is bad for the people, but politically it is good for me,” Mr. Niemann said of the plan, which would leave the German villagers outnumbered by migrants by more than seven to one.
Germans face “the destruction of our genetic heritage” and risk becoming “a gray mishmash,” Mr. Niemann added, predicting that public anxiety over Ms. Merkel’s open-armed welcome to refugees would help demolish a postwar political consensus in Germany built on moderation and compromise.
Unlike those in other European countries, far-right parties in Germany have had little success in national elections, and remain firmly rejected by the overwhelming majority of Germans.
Reinhold Schlemmer, a former Communist who served as the mayor here before and immediately after the collapse of East Germany, said people like Mr. Niemann would “have been put in prison right away” during the Communist era. 
“Now they can stand up and preach,” he said. “People say this is democracy, but I don’t think it is democracy to let Nazis say what they want.” 
Dirk Hammer, a Sumte resident, said that he felt sympathy for the refugees, but that he feared the sheer number of people dumped with little warning in places like this could offer “an ideal platform for the far right.”
“I get stomachaches from fear of what is going to happen — not just here but in the whole of Germany,” he said.
At least for the moment, the tolerant values of people like Mr. Hammer have proved resilient, even as Mr. Niemann and like-minded neo-Nazis deride such views as alien imports imposed by the United States and other World War II victors. 
“People are just tired and think that so long as we have enough food in the fridge we are all fine,” Mr. Niemann said in an interview, frustrated that his efforts to stir resistance to the refugee relocation had gained little traction in Sumte.
Other extremists in the area have resorted to blunter methods to get their message across. Shortly after the news first broke of the plans to move 1,000 refugees to Sumte, unidentified arsonists attacked a smaller refugee center in the nearby town of Boizenburg, setting fires and smashing windows.
Mr. Niemann said he rejected violence, but a far-right coalition he represents on the district council includes two of Germany’s most belligerent groups, the National Democratic Party, better known by its German acronym N.P.D., and Die Rechte, which was last week linked by authorities in Bavaria to a cache of weapons assembled in an alleged plot to attack refugees. 
“There are individuals who cannot be controlled at all times,” said Mr. Niemann, a car washer.
Asked whether he considered himself a neo-Nazi, he said, No, I am National Socialist — in other words, a real Nazi. “We are not extremists, but people have become so soft that we seem extreme,” he added.
Mr. Fabel, the mayor, insisted that Sumte, despite its unease, was open-minded and hospitable, and was now focused on making the refugee holding camp work. 
“Many families here suffered during the war, so they will think twice about joining extremists,” he said.
He said he realized that there was no point in trying to block the plan when, at the initial meeting, he asked Mr. Götz, the regional official in charge of finding places for migrants, whether Sumte had any choice. “You have two options,” he said he was told. “Yes, or yes.” Mr. Götz declined to be interviewed.
The asylum seekers will stay in Sumte only as long as it takes to process their applications for refugee status. But those who move on will eventually be replaced by new arrivals, as the vast stream of refugees and migrants shows no signs of slowing. 
“Life here is going to change,” the mayor said.

Tracking American Patriots Like Terrorists

via The Realist Report

  • Justice Department, Southern Poverty Law Center team up to target activists, anarchists.
As a direct result of a heavy-handed and very public lobbying campaign carried out by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), easily one of the most un-American organizations operating on United States soil today, the Justice Department (DoJ) has announced the creation of the Domestic Terrorism Counsel, which is specifically tasked with identifying, analyzing, and combating domestic terrorism and homegrown extremism.

The obvious concern for advocates of free speech and thought in the U.S. is that anyone voicing any sort of criticism toward the federal government, its policies or the various lobbying organizations shaping and influencing its agenda could now be considered a “domestic terrorist” who must be dealt with.

The Domestic Terrorism Counsel, a position designed to track and coordinate federal investigations into domestic terrorism, will work with and serve as a liaison between a variety of federal agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and various departments within the DoJ, along with private intelligence and lobbying organizations, such as the SPLC.

J. Richard Cohen, who serves as the president of the SPLC, lauded the DoJ’s move, which came about as a direct result of his organization’s pressure, arguing that the decision reflected “a renewed and long-overdue focus on violent homegrown extremism.”

Mark Potok, who serves as a leading spokesman for the SPLC, also praised the DoJ’s decision, noting his organization’s long-running campaign advocating the creation of such an office along with a direction of federal resources towards combating so-called domestic terrorism and homegrown extremism.

“We’ve been pushing for something like this for quite a few years,” Potok told The Kansas City Star. “We feel like it’s very much a step forward, although we’ll have to see how it plays out.”

Assistant Attorney General John P. Carlin, speaking in Washington, D.C. at an event co-sponsored by the SPLC and the Center for Cyber and Homeland Security’s brand new Program on Extremism, which is affiliated with George Washington University, proudly announced the creation of the new office. Carlin stated that, although the U.S. continues to address the “evolving international threat of violent extremists, we have not lost sight of the domestic terrorism threat posed by other violent extremists.”

Carlin went on to ominously warn: “Terror and extremism do not always originate elsewhere or take place outside our borders. Homegrown violent extremists can be motivated by any viewpoint on the full spectrum of hate. Anti-government views, racism, bigotry, anarchy and other despicable beliefs. When it comes to hate and intolerance, no single ideology governs.”

In the wake of the reported shooting in Charleston, S.C., allegedly carried out by Dylann Storm Roof, a young white man said to have “white supremacist” leanings, the SPLC and other anti-white hate organizations have been hysterically calling for an open war on so-called white supremacists and anyone questioning the government and mass media’s depiction of reality.

Immediately following the alleged Charleston shooting, Morris Seligman Dees, the founder of the SPLC, and Cohen co-authored an op-ed in The New York Times essentially arguing that “white supremacists” must be targeted in the next phase of the engineered “Global War on Terror.”

Dees and Cohen advance the notion that “racists,” “white supremacists,” “conspiracy theorists” and other anti-government extremists are using the Internet to organize globally in a manner similar to ISIS and other radical Islamic groups. This, they argue, is leading to “lone wolf terrorists” committing violence and murder across America—a threat the U.S. federal government must immediately confront.

Unsurprisingly, DoJ has willingly succumbed to the SPLC’s demands.

Why “White” Nationalism?

via Counter-Currents

Edward Wadsworth, Dazzle-ships
in Drydock at Liverpool, 1919
Why do I call myself a White Nationalist? As an American of European descent, my primary concern is the survival of my race, both on this continent and around the globe. In every white homeland, more whites are dying than being born, and our people are being replaced by highly fertile non-whites. If these trends are not reversed, our race will become extinct. As I have argued, the best way to save our race is to create homogeneously white homelands, with pro-natal, pro-eugenic policies. And this means that race must be the basis for defining who belongs to our nation and who does not. Hence White Nationalism.

Now consider the alternatives: civic nationalism, which defines the nation legally; creedal nationalism, which defines the nation in terms of a common belief system; linguistic or cultural nationalism, which defines the nation in terms of a shared language and culture; and ethnonationalism, which defines nationality in terms of both common descent and a common culture. White survival requires the political separation of whites from other races. But civic, creedal, and cultural-linguistic forms of nationalism cannot discriminate between white and non-white, for different races can share legal citizenship, a creed, or a language and culture. Therefore, these forms of nationalism are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

But what about ethnonationalism? How is this an inadequate vehicle for white survival? I think that ethnonationalism usually is a good vehicle, but it has certain important limitations. Therefore, I also call myself an ethnonationalist, with certain qualifications.

First, in the United States and other European colonial societies, old world ethnic identities are increasingly irrelevant as different European stocks blend into a generic white identity. Generally, when an American identifies himself as Irish American or Italian American, it is simply because he has an Irish or Italian surname. But I know many Italian Americans who are more Irish than Italian, and vice-versa. And even two Americans who have unmixed Irish or Italian ancestry still have more in common with one another in terms of language, culture, and even diet than either of them do with Irishmen or Italians in the old world. Thus it makes sense to talk simply about a generic white or European American identity.

Second, colonial societies from the start involved racial distinctions between European colonists and indigenous non-whites. In some cases, African slaves and South and East-Asian coolies were added to the mix. In such an environment, it is natural for whites not to see different nations and tribes (Aztec, Mayan), but simply different racial groupings (Indians, blacks, etc.), and it is equally natural for non-whites to see Europeans of different national origins simply as whites. Indeed, in the context of racial polarization and struggle, when whites must present a unified front, the remnants of old-world ethnic differences are actually harmful to white interests.

Third, within Europe itself, simple ethnic nationalism is not always sufficient to ensure either narrow national or broader racial interests. It is perfectly natural, normal, and right for individuals and nations to take care of their own people first. And when multiethnic empires or multinational bodies like the European Union work against the ethnic interests of specific peoples, then the “petty” nationalism of Scotland or Hungary or Poland is entirely legitimate. However, when petty ethnic nationalism or imperialism lead to wars between European nations, or prevent coordinated European responses to common threats, then a broader sense of pan-European racial solidarity becomes necessary to secure racial survival and flourishing.

Fourth, now that Europe is being colonized by non-whites, the colonial process of racial polarization is taking place there as well. Blacks, Arabs, and South Asians in Europe do not see Frenchmen, Englishmen, and Germans. They simply see white men. And we simply see blacks and browns. Our differences do not matter to them, and their differences do not matter to us. As racial tensions increase in Europe, our people will realize that they are not being attacked as Frenchmen or Germans, but simply as white men. And when Europeans resist ethnic displacement, they will increasingly regard their race as their nation and their skin as their uniform. The sooner we see ourselves as white people, united by common enemies and challenges, sharing a common origin and a common destiny, the sooner we will be equal to the tasks facing us.

Fifth, even though being French or Spanish is about more than simple generic whiteness, being white is still a necessary condition of belonging to any European ethnic group, and simply adding that requirement to the naturalization procedures of all European states would have revolutionary positive implications.

But just as I am an ethnonationalist on the condition that it is qualified by a broader white racial solidarity, I am also a White Nationalist on the condition that this preserves rather than undermines distinct white ethnic groups. A broad sense of pan-European solidarity should never become an excuse for the political unification and the cultural and ethnic homogenization of Europe. Thus I fully support the desire of different European peoples to preserve their cultural and biological distinctness. The best vehicle for this is the creation of homogeneous sovereign homelands for all European ethnic groups. The best vehicle for securing pan-European interests is an alliance or federation of sovereign states.

Within colonial societies like the United States, does the emergence of a generic white humanity imply a single white state? Not necessarily. The ethnic unity of white Americans would certainly not stand in the way of such a state. It is perfectly conceivable that the United States might become a homogeneously white society while maintaining its present borders simply by removing its non-white populations.

But White Nationalists should have no prior commitment to maintaining something so arbitrary as the present borders of the United States and Canada. Our only absolute goal is white racial preservation. By what means? By any means necessary. Thus if the opportunity arises for states or regions to split off from the United States, perhaps made possible by a collapse of the Federal government or the national economy, White Nationalists should seize upon it.

This is why I have long recommended Harold Covington’s Northwest Novels as a stimulus and guide to thinking about how a white homeland might emerge. I don’t necessarily think that Covington’s particular scenario will play out. Our ability to predict and control events is very limited. Thus, instead of investing a great deal of imagination elaborating a single grand design that probably will never happen, we should explore a whole range of possible scenarios, so that no matter what fate sends our way, we can always turn it to our advantage. Our metapolitical task is not just to make White Nationalism desirable, but to make white homelands conceivable outcomes in a whole array of different circumstances. The only fixed goal is is the creation of white homelands. On all other matters, we should be ruthlessly pragmatic.