Nov 4, 2015

Jewish Billionaire Financial Speculator Admits to Funding the Non-White Invasion

via American Renaissance

Jewish Billionaire, George Soros
Billionaire investor George Soros has confirmed he wants to bring down Europe’s borders, following the accusation made last week by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

Last week, Mr Orban accused Mr Soros–who was born in Hungary–of deliberately encouraging the migrant crisis.

“This invasion is driven, on the one hand, by people smugglers, and on the other by those (human rights) activists who support everything that weakens the nation-state,” Mr Orban said.

“This Western mindset and this activist network is perhaps best represented by George Soros.”

Mr Soros has now issued an email statement to Bloomberg Business, claiming his foundations help “uphold European values”, while Mr Oban’s actions in strengthening the Hungarian border and stopping a huge migrant influx “undermine those values.”
“His plan treats the protection of national borders as the objective and the refugees as an obstacle,” Mr Soros added. “Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.”


George Soros is a firm backer of transnational bodies such as the European Union, and his Open Society Foundation (OSF) provides assistance for pro-migration activists. . . .

Orbán vs. Merkel: Can Europe’s Conservative Populists End the Migrant Crisis?

via The Occidental Observer

One of the great lies — endlessly repeated — of the world’s liberal-plutocratic media is that nation-states are “too small” or “powerless” to manage any major problems on their own in the age of globalization. This assertion is meant fundamentally to justify national authorities’ abdication of responsibility and legitimize the transfer of power to transnational authorities (such as the European Union, the United Nations, the World Trade Organization . . .) which are less democratic and thus less susceptible to being controlled by “populists” representing, after all, the people.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has now exposed these globalist lies concerning immigration: The building of a fence and the policing of borders have effectively halted the invasion of illegal migrants to his country. Hungarian police report that daily border crossings have collapsed from a peak of 9,380 to just 277. Hungary, a nation of just under 10 million people, has thus solved the “migrant crisis.”

Numbers of migrants crossing into Hungary
Numbers of migrants crossing into Hungary, August 18-September 16

And Orbán has not been content to merely save his own nation, but has constantly lectured his fellow European leaders to do the same, despite the fact that this encourages Western liberal-plutocratic media to ostracize him for “xenophobia.” The Hungarian Prime Minister spoke at length on the migrant crisis at a meeting of the European People’s Party (EPP)  [1] (the center-right umbrella organization of leading conservative and Christian-Democratic parties, including Orbán’s Fidesz and Germany’s ruling Christian Democrats). He urged his colleagues to reject immigration on grounds of party-political interests, of respecting the popular will, and of European interests:
I believe we have to gather all our courage, we have to throw away PC-ness and we should launch a big debate. [. . .] They [the Left] have a dream about the politically constructed world society without religious traditions, without borders, without nations.
Zsolt Bayer, a co-founder of Fidesz and reputedly a close friend of Orbán’s, 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.”[2]

Of course, Orbán himself has been demonized by Western media for years. But now even his critics concede he is winning the debate on the migrant crisis. As even The Economist, no friend of nationalists, conceded last month:
And yet, painful as it may be to admit, he has a point. Hungary’s border fences, Mr Orban pleads, are no more than what European Union law demands: the control of external frontiers. And yet Hungary is vilified while Greece merrily nods hundreds of thousands of refugees up to Europe without so much as a by-your-leave. Plenty of European officials quietly concur. Bafflement at Germany’s vacillations is hardly confined to Budapest.[3]
Orbán’s opposite number is the European Union’s de facto leader, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose policies, such as they are, have been a mixture of dithering, brainless moral signaling, and desperate improvisation as the migrant wave she invited into Germany actually, on the ground, has proved unmanageable for German cities and is rejected by the right-wing of her political coalition. Thus she tore up EU migration rules (the so-called Dublin Agreement) to invite 800,000 refugees to her country, then she suspended the Schengen Area of free movement, then she imposed through an EU vote a scheme to redistribute 120,000 Afro-Islamic settlers throughout the continent including against unwilling and innocent Central European nations, and now finally she flirts with putting Turkey back on track for eventual EU membership in exchange for cooperation against the migrant invasion. Turkish membership of the EU, of course, would mean granting the unlimited right to settle Europe to a rapidly growing, relatively inbred population of 78 million Muslim Turks. Talk about jumping out of the frying pan into the fire . . .

Amidst this chaos of incompetence and improvisation there is only one long-term prospect: The destruction of Germany as a homogeneous and cohesive nation, to become a Balkanized Afro-Islamic hodgepodge in which the native Germans would be a vulnerable minority. As the Bundeskanzlerin, a true agent of disintegration, has said on her apparently incoherent policy: “What we are experiencing now is something that will occupy and change our country in coming years.”[4]

The immediate impact of the migrant crisis should not be overstated. The numbers flowing into Europe remain a very small percentage of the continent’s population and, for now, the average European is neither impacted nor particularly concerned by the problem. Life goes on. However, this real-life Camp of Saints scenario has proven symbolically powerful: The immediate problems are too real, the images of a flood of alien humanity is simply too disturbing, and most of all the incoming wave is evidently endless and indefinite. Thus, the crisis is forcing even the most milquetoast Europeans to actually think about what the replacement of native Europeans with low IQ Afro-Muslims will mean for our societies.

Public opinion — despite the pervasive brainwashing and endless emotional appeals of the liberal media (with the now-notorious exploitation of the photo of the child Aylan[5]) — remains basically hostile to immigration. In France, 53 percent of people are opposed the welcoming the illegal migrants[6] and 51 percent declared outright support for the Front National’s (FN) hard line,[7]  while in Germany, 51 percent said their country could not cope with the current influx.[8]

More significantly, there has been a marked shift in mainstream elite political opinion since August, the height of the pro-migration media blitz, away from Merkel’s position toward Orbán’s. This is evident in the tone and tenor of the EU’s most mainstream conservative leaders. At the recent EPP congress, the speeches were taking a decidedly tougher line. Donald Tusk, former Polish Prime Minister and current President of the European Council (basically chairman of summits of EU leaders), declared: “Today, no task is more important for the moderate center-right than the re-establishment of Europe’s external borders.”[9]

What has motivated the change of mood? There are essentially two sets of factors: Firstly, the economic costs and practical unmanageability of the migrant invasion itself; secondly, the revolt of a portion of European conservative parties and of public opinion against immigration.

Migrants Overwhelm Mayors, Frontline States, and Social Services

Merkel may in principle be willing to admit that, of course, even if Germany came to be occupied by a majority of jabbering Somalis (with their well-known social and cultural achievements), the country would still be “German.” (To claim otherwise would of course be “racist.”) But, in practice, the migrants are simply proving unmanageable on a practical level for the local politicians who have to deal with them.

City mayors, the politicians closest to the day-to-day problems of citizens, are under the most pressure from the migrant invasion. This is evident in numerous places. At Calais, the so-called “Jungle” of migrants hoping to sneak into Britain via the Channel Tunnel or a ferry ship is proving a hotbed of violence and health problems. The French mayors’ association has said that hosting a migrant costs their municipalities at least 5,000 euros yearly, no small sum.[10] In Germany, the mayors of 215 towns and cities in North-Rhine Westphalia, the largest German Land (state), have written to Merkel saying they do not have the capacity to host any more refugees. As one senior Christian-Democratic official put it: “Every mayor likes to be a good German, as long as the refugees are not put into his gym.”[11] This is an interesting choice of words: To be “a good German” today means to be willing to suffer foreign settlement. Yes, that will be the first thing to change after the Revolution.

The little Alpine nation of Slovenia as a whole appears to be overwhelmed with the entry of almost 40,000 migrants in less than ten days, with a few ungrateful guests even burning down one of their own camps.[12] Commenting on the situation, the Interior Minister of neighoring Austria, Johanna Mikl-Leitner, a conservative, is now threatening to also build a border fence for her country and has called for “the construction of a Fortress Europe.”[13] Slovenian Prime Minister Miror Cerar had a tone of desperation before a recent summit of EU leaders on immigration: “If we do not deliver some immediate and concrete actions on the ground in the next few days and weeks, I do believe that the European Union and Europe as a whole will start to fall apart.”[14]

Finally, these migrants are already emerging as a serious economic burden for Europe’s bloated welfare states. Germany’s vaunted government budget surplus is to fall by 10 billion euros and unemployment is set to rise due to the arrival of an estimated 1.5 million migrants over two years (!).[15] Similarly, the Cuckold-Nation of Sweden, with a population of less than 10 million, is expected to receive 360,000 migrants with a 7 billion dollar price tag.[16]

Of course, the official media and pundits loudly proclaim, in a really shameless bit of effrontery, that the migrant invasion will actually prove an economic boon and will be key to funding our parents’ pensions. Germany, according to this piece of sophistry, is not substituting her own people for low-trust and low-IQ invaders, but is in fact executing a brilliant economic strategy other European nations are too dim to grasp: “You’d be a fool to pass this up, goyim!” There have been countless articles on this theme. One French idiot even claimed that the migrants contained “future Montaignes” . . .

In fact, we know that high welfare use, unemployment, and criminality, along with low educational achievement, are an intergenerational problem for most African or Islamic migrant groups in Europe. The statistics bear this out wherever we have them, be it in Great Britain, France, or Germany.[17] Thilo Sarrazin has documented with technocratic meticulousness that in Germany the worst performers are none other than the Turks, and everything suggests the neighboring Syrians will behave similarly.

The capitalist ruling classes of the West can be as brain dead as they like, but when adherence to multiculturalist ideology visibly proves prohibitively expensive, even businessmen start to think. Although, for reasons that somewhat escape me, Big Business has generally adopted an idiotically short-sighted approach to immigration, being absolutely blind to the medium- and long-term costs. While immigration provides cheap and docile labor, you would think businessmen would be smart enough to notice that immigrants and their children tend to pay less in taxes and consume more social services, which ultimately means more taxes on business! 

Conservative Populists Revolt Against Migrant Invasion

Europe’s mainstream conservatives are terrified of losing votes and credibility to anti-immigration parties to their right. This has been particularly the case for those I would call “populist conservatives,” members of basically mainstream conservative parties who like to signal opposition to immigration and multiculturalism, and who specialize in taking votes from ostensible nationalist parties.
The biggest populist conservative of them all is of course Prime Minister Orbán himself. But there are many others. In the German Land of Bavaria, the ruling party is the Christian Social Union (CSU), a long-time traditional right-wing ally of Merkel’s party. However, Bavarian Minister-President Horst Seehofer has condemned Merkel’s management of the crisis, explicitly backed Orbán’s approach, and even invited the Hungarian to a CSU party event.

This is extremely significant. Leftists have (correctly) “accused the Bavaria-based CSU [. . .] and the immigration-sceptical Alternative fur Deutschland [a new euroskeptic party], of blurring the lines and helping [the anti-Islamic group] Pegida by making right-wing language ‘respectable’.”[18] So a leading member of Fidesz explicitly backs White Advocacy, while the leader of a major German state and conservative party in turn backs Fidesz’s leader Orbán. We are not necessarily as far from a pro-European public discourse and government as we may think!

In Belgium, the leader of the New Flemish Alliance (N-VA) and Mayor of Antwerp Bart De Wever has gone from strength to strength, causing much anguish in the liberal media. Although his success has come at the detriment of the truly nationalist Flemish Interest (VB).

In recent elections in Switzerland, the Swiss People’s Party (SVP) received by the far the most votes with a whopping 29 percent, the biggest vote for any single party since the country instituted proportional representation in 1919. The SVP specializes in proposing, and winning, anti-immigration and anti-Islamization referendums.

In France, a wing of Nicolas Sarkozy’s conservative party (now called “Les Républicains” . . .) has always sought to steal Front National voters by making noises on Islam and immigration. This is usually just low race-baiting but sometimes significant proposals are made. For example, Éric Ciotti, an MP in the very right-wing southeast of France, has proposed eliminating birthright citizenship. Also, another member of Sarkozy’s party, Nadine Morano, has, quoting General Charles de Gaulle, argued that “ France is “a Judeo-Christian [society]. . . of white race” and should basically stay that way,[19] which is something Marine Le Pen’s “detoxified” FN would no longer say. (Indeed, Le Pen’s father Jean-Marie was purged from the party in part for explicitly referring to White demographic interests in opposing immigration.)

The mixed-race comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala poked fun at Morano: “You see how you were lynched. Because you’re too stupid. You think you can say things, but you can’t. Even though you said Judeo-Christian! You tried to cover yourself as much as possible . . . Didn’t pass!”[20] But actually, Morano was not harshly punished for her statement, besides being withdrawn from a minor regional election.

Indeed, the Overton window on the explicit discussion of native French interests appears to be shifting. Alain Finkielkraut — one of leading Jewish pundits occupying the French media space — actually came out in the defense of Morano: “If today De Gaulle published his Memoirs of Hope [where he describes European nations as White], he would have the M’RAP and the LICRA [two anti-racist NGOs] on his ass. There is nothing bad about saying that, indeed, the French people should remain the majority in France.”[21] Are the French going to be allowed to discussed their interests in their own country!? One would wish the approval of Levantine “intellectuals” were not necessary in the first place.

Last but not least, there are the conservatives of central and eastern Europe, a region whose nationalist potential I have written on at length.[22] It was only countries of this region — Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Romania — that voted against Merkel’s EU migrant redistribution scheme. Nevertheless, they found themselves forced to accept Afro-Islamic settlement. Czech President Miloš Zeman has advocated the formation of a European army to halt the migrant invasion.[23] Prime Minister of Slovakia Robert Fico has pledged to take the EU to court over the forced migrant redistribution scheme. Real European cooperation and solidarity is already being organized by these nations: The Visegrád Four (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, and Slovakia) have agreed to jointly police the Hungarian border, thus preventing a common problem.[24]

In Poland, the right has won a stunning victory in recent parliamentary elections, with the populist-conservative Law and Justice party (PiS) led by Jarosław Kaczyński having won an outright majority in parliament (with 37.6% of the votes). The new Polish government may prove critical: Poland, with 38 million people, is by far the largest and most powerful central European nation. The new PiS government can be expected to take a harder line on immigration than its predecessor, likely siding even more closely with Orbán and the other Visegrád leaders. One PiS MP recently said: “We want to avoid the mistakes of Western countries in the scale of immigrants [coming] from another civilization.”[25]

Shrill liberals have made much of the fact that, in election speeches, Kaczyński has said migrants carry “parasites and protozoa,” insinuating that the evil Pole is willing to reopen the gas chambers. In fact, PiS seems to be a rather unrigorous conservative-populist party, happier to bait Moscow and Brussels than take a systematic approach to immigration.  What’s more, it appears that Janusz Korwin-Mikke — the amiable mustachioed paleoconservative who recently achieved Internet fame by hilariously denouncing immigration in the European Parliament in particularly colorful terms, to the shock of the women in attendance[26] — may have failed to achieve the 5 percent of the vote necessary to enter the national parliament.

From Conservative Populism to European Nationalism

The conservative populists will not, in themselves, save Europe, even if they successfully impose a solution to the current migrant crisis. Their opposition to non-European immigration is as a rule instinctive and electoral, not ideological and principled. They oppose immigration, to the extent they do, because it pays and will cease to do so when it no longer pays. Indeed, Orbán’s poll numbers have shot up thanks to his successful crisis management and it is hard to say the extent to which his position is really ideologically principled or merely politically opportunistic.[27] The conservative populists’ objective role — visible especially in France, Germany, and Belgium — has often been to steal votes from the nationalist far-right, without actually addressing the underlying problem of immigration.

Nonetheless, recent events are promising. The multiculturalist Left which is destroying Europe has ruled through the successful demonization of the far-Right/nationalists, dividing the Right as a whole. Principled ethno-nationalists and opponents of immigration are thus firmly separated and safely quarantined from the various national ruling elites, and especially the mainstream conservative parties.[28] From Orbán Fidez through Seehofer’s CSU to Merkel’s CDU, there is a web of relationships linking explicit White advocacy to Europe’s most mainstream ruling elites.

The mood in Germany itself has changed rapidly. Of all the major European nations, Germany is by far the one in which the most citizens are concerned about immigration and in which fear of immigration has increased,[29] according to the EU’s own opinion polls:


Hate Map of Europe

This is causing considerable angst among Germany’s media and political authorities, whose first reflex is to heighten the regime’s persecution and ostracizing of dissenters. We can never stress enough that, concerning nationalists, the German Federal Republic is an authoritarian regime and in no way a “democracy.” As Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière recently wrote: “The hate against refugees, the hate against responsible politicians, the hate against people who think differently [sic!!!] has reached an unbearable level in the internet and on the streets.”[30] Criticism of immigration is thus to be stigmatized as “neonazi hate,” und so weiter. One conservative politician (Walter Lübcke) has suggested that critics of immigration should leave Germany, while the head of IG-Metall trade union, the largest in the world, has even said that workers opposed to immigration should simply be fired.[31]

The other reaction however has been to actually take some measures to at least attenuate the migration problem. Besides restoring border checks, Berlin has begun deporting some migrants and has, through new legislation passed at breakneck speed, toughened rules to attain refugee status and welfare. Federal police managing the borders checks have complained of being “drowned” in migrants and Rainer Wendt, head of the German police trade union, has called for the creation of a border fence.[32] Thus: Police and mayors on the ground, the conservative wing of the Christian Democrats, and the rising wave of right-wing street activism (PEGIDA) and political parties (Alternative for Germany, the National Democratic Party) could conceivably lead to a full reversal in German policy. Germany, such a hopeless country for nationalists today, could well prove the lynchpin of a new Europe.

Orbán has shown that the separation between the mainstream conservatives, the conservative populists, and the true nationalists is not as watertight as globalists hope. The Magyar sits in the mainstream European People’s Party and he is a Prime Minister in the European Council, lecturing in both capacities his fellow politicians and in particular “Mama Merkel” on the insanity of their immigration policies. Central European leaders and elements of Merkel’s own coalition have sided with Orbán. And even some Jewish intellectuals like Finkielkraut, if only for opportunistic reasons, have conceded that native Europeans should be able to speak up about their legitimate interests.

Yes, all this is promising. There must be waves of pressure: The Identitarians upon the nationalist parties, the nationalist parties upon the conservative populists, and finally the conservative populists upon the mainstream conservatives. Barring a bloody revolution, the only way for us to achieve the policies necessary to halt immigration and save Europe from destruction is by restoring that junction between our ruling elites and the ostracized nationalist dissidence. Thus our peoples’ interests and right to life would again be secured, and our ruling elites might again be legitimate leaders of the people they govern.

[1] Guillaume Durocher: “Orbán: Europeans should “throw away political correctness” and shut down migrant invasion’
[3]“Point taken, Mr Orban: Europe’s migration hardliners have some reasonable concerns,” The Economist, September 26, 2015.
[4]My emphasis. Guillaume Durocher, “Merkel’s Betrayal: From the Ethno-National Principle to an Afro-Islamic Germany,” The Occidental Obersver, September 16, 2015.
[5]Guillaume Durocher, “Aylan Nation,” Radix, September 8, 2015.
[6]“Immigration : un Français sur deux opposé à l’accueil des migrants,” Le Point, October 21, 2015.
[7]“Migrant : 51 % de Français d’accord avec le FN,” Le Figaro, September 14, 2015.
[8]“Umfrage — Merhheit hält Flüchtlingszahl für nicht mehr verkraftbar,” Reuters Deutschland, October 9, 2015.
[9]Donald Tusk, “Speech at the EPP congress in Madrid,” October 22, 2015.
[10]“Accueil des réfugiés : « collaborer, oui, se substituer, non ! »,” La Gazette des Communes, October 5, 2015.
[11]“Why Merkel changed her mind,” Politico Europe, September 17, 2015.
[12]Pamela Geller, “VIDEO: Muslim Migrants Burn Down Refugee Camps, Take Selfies,” October 21, 2015.
[13]“La Slovénie menace de construre une clôture anti-migrants,” 20minutes, 23 October, 2015.
[15]“Think tanks cut growth estimates for Germany,” Deutsche Welle, October 8, 2015.
[16]“Sweden Almost Triples Refugee Estimate as System Buckles,” Bloomberg, October 22, 2015.
[17]On Britain, see Policy Exchange, A Portrait of Modern Britain, May 6, 2014. on France see Guillaume Durocher, “Race in France: A Sketch Based on First- and Second-Generation Immigrants,” The Occidental Observer, April 25, 2014.
[18]“War of words escalates as German migration tensions intensify,” Financial Times, October 20, 2015.
[19]Guillaume Durocher, “Conservative Politician Punished for Pointing Out ‘France Is a White Country,’” The Occidental Observer, October 1, 2015.
[20]“Dieudonné soutient Nadine Morano !,” Égalité et Réconciliation, October 7, 2015.
[21]“Alain Finkielkraut : « Il faut que le peuple français reste majoritaire en France », Fdesouche, October 10, 2015.
[22]Guillaume Durocher, “Can the Ossis Save Europe?,” The Occidental Observer, June 14, 2015.
[23]Guillaume Durocher, “Czech President Miloš Zeman suggests European army to halt African invasion,” The Occidental Observer, August 28, 2015.
[24]“Eastern EU states agree joint border controls,” EUobserver, October 15, 2015.
[25]“Populism and conspiracy theories winning votes among disillusioned Poles,” Al Jazeera America, October 23, 2015.
[26]Janusz Korwin-Mikke, “Statements in the European Parliament plenary session,” September 8, 2015.
[27]“Orbán’s popularity up,” The Budapest Times, September 25, 2015.
[28]The French nationalist Alain Soral dreams of a junction of the nationalist far-Right with the socialist far-Left, which however seems far less feasible today than a nationalist/conservative alliance. Although it should be noted that the far-Left is far more often objectively opposed to Jewish-Zionist power — in the form of Wall Street and Israel — than are conservatives.
[29]Colin Liddel, “The Brand New ‘Hate’ Maps of Europe,” Alternative Right, October 25, 2015.
[30]“War of words escalates as German migration tensions intensify,” Financial Times, October 20, 2015.
[31]“Wer hetzt, der fliegt,” Deutschlandfunk, October 24, 2015.
[32]“Germany must build border fence, says police union chief,” Deutsche Welle, October 18, 2015.

How a Small White Community Created Their Own Internet Service

via Ars Technica

When you live somewhere with slow and unreliable Internet access, it usually seems like there’s nothing to do but complain. And that's exactly what residents of Orcas Island, one of the San Juan Islands in Washington state, were doing in late 2013. Faced with CenturyLink service that was slow and outage-prone, residents gathered at a community potluck and lamented their current connectivity.

“Everyone was asking, . . . Read more

Ethno-Christology, Part 2: African Jesus: Brother, Mother, and Father

via Faith & Heritage

Part 1

One of the first places to which the Gospel message spread after the Apostles were scattered was Africa. The North African coast, Egypt, and Ethiopia were the main hubs of Afro-Christianity for centuries before the Europeans came and spread it deep into the bush. When Christianity was in North Africa and Egypt under the Roman Empire, it retained its uniquely Judeo-Roman Mediterranean flavor and belief systems.

Despite popular conceptions, the African Church has by no means been irrelevant or without a major role. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church sent missionaries to the Council of Florence in 1441 to discuss reunion between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, and currently the African wings of the Anglican and Catholic churches are the vanguard in resisting the liberalization of the Western Church.

Despite this, the African Church is rarely discussed or examined. Most likely because there are no major theological works other than perhaps the Desert Fathers of Egypt, nor any infamous saints. Moreover Europe, not Africa, has been the center of global Christianity for the previous millennium. Despite this Eurocentric emphasis on the church during the last millennia, the twenty-first century may be the century of transition, the Christian Church being no longer centered in Europe, but overwhelmingly dominated by the non-European components. Therefore it is critical that European Christians understand the dynamics and nature of African Christology.

African Jesus

In Europe, the Christ-God is defined by His power, authority, majesty, and lawgiving. In Africa is the exact opposite. Africa has little comparative history in dealing with mighty monarchs and grand hierarchies that would naturally lead black Christians to appreciate such majesty and hierarchy. In contrast, Jesus Christ is defined in and by His meekness. But it is not even meekness as many dissident European Christian groups would define Him. Groups such as the Amish, evangelicals, and Mennonites attempt to emphasize the humble, suffering lowly Jesus in contrast to Roman Catholicism’s imperator of imperators. African Christology takes it to the next step. The Catholic Bishop of Ghana, Charles Palmer-Buckle, describes the African view of the Christ-God: “As a Ghanaian, one of the things we cherish is the family. And many people feel Jesus as a member of their family. People like to relate to Jesus as they relate to a member of the family.”[1. Diane Stinton, Jesus of Africa: Voices of Contemporary African Christology (Orbis Books; Maryknoll, NY, 2004), p. 143]
The centrality of African Christology sees Jesus as a loved one and member of the family, the community, and the collective. Christ is defined by the concepts of companionship and personal relationship, rather than seen as an overarching figure of authority. In Africa it is kinship, not kingship. Mary Savio, a nun of the Little Sisters of St. Francis in Uganda, described Jesus Christ thus: “He’s my brother! He’s the God-made-man who unites us all into one family of God and who leads us to the Father. He is my brother, he’s my friend, king and spouse, as a religious sister.”1

African society is defined by a “unity of life” which, “in sharing in this one life, is the first link which unites members of community.”2 Jesus plays into this dynamic by service the role of “mediator,” nurturing and advising rather than ruling and conquering. In short, the African approach to Jesus Christ is through a very matriarchal understanding of the world, standing in contrast to the very assertive, masculine role in which European civilization places Jesus.

The Africans of today, much like the Europeans of old, found membership and belonging in the membership of the commnity. There is an unbreakable metaphysical essence that binds the individual to the family, the family to the tribe, the tribe to the larger African family, the larger African family to the human family, and the human family to the eternity of the cosmos. The church. by consequence, is to then be viewed as a “family, not in the Euro-American sense of the nuclear family, but rather in the Negro-African sense of the large family which includes even cousins, distant cousins, and can go as far as to integrate friends and acquaintances . . . even the dead are a part of it.”[4. Ibid., p, 145]

Communalism is the staple mark of African society. This leads Jesus to be defined as a key member of the family. Whereas Jesus in European society is defined by His political and ecclesiastical roles, in African society, this is more overlooked in exchange for the dynamics of kinship. Bible references to Jesus’s lineage, circumcision, virgin birth, and familial relationships reinforce the African presuppositions about the Christ. These actions and connections emphasize His humanity, His connection to the greater human family establishing a close-knit religious group.

For the African, Jesus’s emphasis on the universal is very important. The fact that Jesus came originally for the Jewish people, along with His close familial lines of lineage, shows not only that He has strong familial ties that bind, but also that His ministry to the Gentiles evinces His commitment to the greater “human family.” If Christ is the head of families and the mediator and member of a family, then one can become a sibling by grace to the Christ-God. Furthermore, since Jesus is the member of the family and yet the firstborn of the new covenant, He is the “big brother” to every African Christian who needs relief from suffering, defense in a time of need, and advice and wisdom amid confusion or trouble.

Both African and European societies view blood-ties as essential to membership in the collective. However, the difference between the two is that European civilization has placed an emphasis upon patriarchy whereas African society has placed it upon the feminine and matriarchy. In African mythology and legendry, for example, there are no major examples of the exaltation of the individual and his romantic struggle over the obstacles of the world. In European society this would make Jesus Christ fit into a folkish pantheon of heroes such as Beowulf or Hector, but not so in African lore.

Politically speaking, when this interpretation of Jesus is applied, it naturally syncretizes to liberation theology and democratic socialism. The inner solidarity of the struggling class or downtrodden individual is the solution to the problems created by the collective. The family and community operate as a single functioning entity, rising and falling together.

Perhaps the strangest interpretation by Africans of Christianity is the concept of Jesus as a mother figure. Not only is African Christology heavily laden with matriarchal images, references, and presuppositions, but it furthermore amplifies this by explicitly attributing maternal attributes to Jesus Christ. Kenyan Catholic clergyman David Kamau described this maternal emphasis: “A mother is one who is concerned about the children. Actually, mother is the immediate person that the children will go to. They will never fear a mother. . . . So I think Jesus is a mother, in that sense, he understands us, he is very close to us, and therefore you should not be afraid of going to him.”3

Though this African-matriarchal Christ is unlikely to spur Christians to sally forth and reconquer the West, it is still a genuine form of Christianity, extremely entrenched and unlikely to be uprooted anytime soon. Take, for example, the plight of Ethiopian, Nigerian, and Sudanese Christians who at present form the geographical arc of black Africa against the advances of Islam. In Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania, the Christians are leading the charge against the infiltration of social liberalism that seeks to normalize homosexual behavior.

For better or for worse, African Christianity is deeply entrenched in sub-Saharan Africa, highly motivated to fight for Christ and unwilling to bow before Islam and secuarism’s global march of conquest. Black Christianity is unlikely to produce a massive global awakening in the way that European Christianity did, but what it does provide is a means for the Gospel to retain a modicum of global power. With Christianity reclaiming its lost position in Russia and the conversion of China becoming more inevitable, African Christians will cease looking to the liberal Episcopals, Lutherans, and Presbyterians for leadership and rather respect the more masculine Russian Orthodox, the Catholic Indians, and the neo-Protestants of China to provide global leadership in the fight against Islam and atheism.

From a geopolitical point of view, black Africa, by remaining Christian, shifts its geostrategic value away from serving the remnant of the British Empire or providing fertile grounds for Walmart expansion. Instead it plants itself strategically in a point to serve as important ideological and religious proxies of Russia, and perhaps a future Christian China.

Just as the once anti-American communist bloc is now evolving into the anti-American Christian bloc, so once the global ties of the Non-Allied Movement, Third World Solidarity, and anti-colonialism could soon be used to unite black Africa, a future Christianized China, and a staunchly Orthodox, nationalist Russia against a revived jihadist Islam and radically secular West.

Egyptian Jesus

Despite being located in Africa, Egypt has traditionally been treated as an entity unto itself. Even in the modern world it is heavily influenced by African, European, and Islamic cultures, along with its own indigenous traditions, and it should be treated as a separate entity. Yet it is still African.

Jesus Christ in the Egyptian tradition shares many similar traits to the pagan god Horus, god of the sun. The Egyptian mythological views on the sun are not the only ones that can be applied to Christ. The Romans saw many parallels between Sol Invictus and Jesus Christ as well. These parallels have led many skeptic-scholars to conclude that tales of Jesus Christ’s divinity are based upon Egyptian cult mythology, rather than an independent and true fulfillment of Hebraic prophecy.

Nonetheless, Jesus Christ in Egyptian culture works as a stand-in for the Horus mythology and Osiris cult. Horus and Osiris, god of the dead, both have traits and stories that are analogous to the life of Jesus Christ. Therefore pagan themes such as the resurrection of Jesus Christ synthesized with the resurrection narrative of Osiris.

When Christianity came to Egypt, Jesus Christ became a more convicting and powerful fulfillment of Egyptian mysticism. Much like in Nordic society, where Jesus Christ ascended in their religious life because He was stronger than the old gods, so also in Egypt, Christ was the more powerful and greater rescuer for the Egyptian people, long fallen away from the height of their national imperial power. With the death of the glory of Egypt’s power in antiquity, so went with it the power of their old gods – and the Christ-God has returned back to the land of the Nile to redeem it.

Despite this deep root inside Egypt, Coptic Christianity has taken a serious beating thanks to Islam. Since the fall of former President Hosni Mubarak and the end of nationalist/Baathist rule in Egypt that was replaced by the short reign of the Muslim Brotherhood, the social trends have begun to take Egypt away from its pluralistic historical view of itself and instead placed it on course to become staunchly Islamist. Ba’athism and Christianity worked hand-in-hand, and Egyptian Christians were welcomed as a unique and noble part of Arab/Egyptian identity under the Ba’athists. However, once the jihadists began to gain momentum, this unique view of Egyptian identity is, at least for the moment, on the way out.

  1. Ibid.
  2. Ibid., p. 144
  3. Ibid., p. 153

Uncle Sam to the Rescue: Thinking Ahead on the Refugee Crisis

via TradYouth

Those who’ve been paying close attention to what’s happening with Germany’s self-inflicted (Merkel-inflicted?) economic migrant invasion are familiar with the iconic village of Sumte which has been ordered to accept as many as 750 immigrants, over seven times its current population! The situation is surreal. After all, if the oligarchs have moved past that previous point where “White Genocide” was understood to be an abstract gradual thing and have moved on to genocidal population displacement as a concrete and immediate thing, what are the European people to do?

I know that the easy answer (idly accepting the erasure of one’s nation, community, and family) isn’t the honorable and Christian answer. I honestly don’t understand the collective German mind well enough to know how this will play out, though I suspect that working-class and East German frustration will boil over into a full-blown political crisis when the full social and economic ramifications of this seemingly limitless mass migration manifest in their daily lives.

There are only two options for saving the West’s political coalition; a draconian round-up and removal of the millions of recent migrants . . . or an American mass-migration bailout package. America and Canada are the only members of the NATO coalition socially, economically, politically, and logistically capable of absorbing this sort of shock to the system without coming undone. Nobody appears to be considering that potentiality, and I may very well be missing something. But it appears to me that we’re heading for the immigration equivalent of the bailout predicament we experienced back in 2008, where the political class panics and forces a wildly unpopular imposition on the American people in the name of precluding global anarchy.

It’s unthinkable, but the other alternatives are even more unthinkable, in my estimation. Russia Today is already crowing about the impending mayhem: “Migrant crisis pushing Germany towards ‘anarchy and civil war.” They may be getting a bit ahead of themselves, but it’s difficult to see how there will be anything other than chaos, especially as it dawns on the economic migrants that they will not receive the experience afforded to previous waves of migrants. They’ll become sullen, aggressive, and even violent with each passing day that they spend in makeshift accommodations in repurposed warehouses in unwelcoming and unimpressive small towns sprinkled about the countryside. The coming winter will do nothing to lift their sour moods.

Even if the German people keep their cool, remain friendly, and ensure that all of the “refugees” are humanely attended to, this situation is going to deteriorate. The very word “humane” implies the bare minimum of food and shelter that humans require to subsist. These people, even the legitimate refugees sprinkled among them, didn’t come all that way for food and shelter. They came for a dream of prosperity, of a first-world lifestyle, and of esteem. The economic migrants came with fantastical expectations about the Western European experience which simply can’t be delivered. It’s an experience which was explicitly promised to them by relatives who arrived earlier in smaller migrations and by pathologically irresponsible politicians like Angela Merkel.

Over the years, I’ve made a habit of offering milquetoast predictions when others were panicking. I predicted that Peak Oil was decades away and fuel prices would be heading down while Sebastian Ronin and others were whipping themselves into a blind panic. I took the unpopular position during the economic crisis of 2007 that America’s economic fundamentals were generally solid and that we weren’t in for an imminent collapse. While I do have a survival bug-out bag, it’s more of a camping hobby project than something I plan to rely on any time soon.

Generally, I tend to believe things are more stable than many on the hard right presume. But this looks like a powder keg to me which is going to politically rock the Western allies to their foundations and result in either a sweeping solution or a startling dissolution. If they are all dropped off in the American heartland, especially if it’s months after the bloom is off of the humanitarian rose and it’s clear we’re welcoming in millions of angry and disgruntled middle-class Muslims in order to bail out the European Union’s political coalition from unraveling, it won’t be pretty.

Perhaps I’m getting ahead of myself and being overly speculative. But what if? And how would we respond?

Becoming Who We Are: Richard Spencer Reflects on NPI's Recent Conference

via Radix

Thank you to all who attended Become Who We Are

We'll see you next year!

Cohen, Aaronovitch, and the Neocon School of Thought

via The Traitor Within

On 13 June 2013, the internationally renowned Israeli Jazz saxophonist, Gilad Atzmon, said this at his own blog:
“The Neocon school of thought that pushed the English-speaking Empire into Iraq was largely a Jewish Diaspora, Zionist clan. It’s also no secret that the second Gulf War was fought to serve Israeli interests… 
Similarly, it is well established that when Tony Blair decided to launch that criminal war, Lord Levy was the chief fundraiser for his Government while, in the British media, Jewish Chronicle writers David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen were busy beating the drums for war. 
And again, it was the exact same Jewish Lobby that was pushing for intervention in Syria, calling for the USA and NATO to fight alongside those same Jihadi forces that today threaten the last decade’s American ‘achievements’ in Iraq.”
Hey, Gilad, blow the whistle why don't you? 

Here's a sample of Nick Cohen's output in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq. This just after millions marched against the looming war:
"When Saddam is sent to rendezvous with a judge in The Hague, or a rope on a lamppost... Iraqi democrats and socialists have discovered that their natural allies in the European Left don't want to know them. They must add THE SHAMELESS STOP THE WAR COALITION to the enemies list...

You're never going to hear democratic Iraqi voices if you rely on the anti-war movement... The Iraqis must now accept that they will have to fight for democracy without the support of the British Left. Disgraceful though our failure to hear them has been, I can't help thinking that they'll be better off without us." (The Observer - 16 February 2003) 
"THE LEFT BETRAYS THE IRAQI PEOPLE BY OPPOSING WAR... The anti-war movement is a private party... Rather than make a brutal argument that would lose it the moral high ground, the anti-war movement prefers to deal with the Iraqi opposition by ignoring it...  
The Iraqi opposition had a right to expect support. The alternative it offers to Saddam's secular tyranny is not Islamic theocracy. The INC and the London conference of exiles both want a democratic Iraq that gives a voice to the suppressed Shia; a federal Iraq that allows autonomy for the Kurdish minority; and a secular Iraq that can contain the differences between Sunni and Shia Islam.  
When I put this programme to my democratic and secular comrades, they turn nasty. I hear that the peoples of Iraq will slaughter each other if Saddam goes; that any US-sponsored replacement will be worse...  
I expect that some Telegraph readers regard the British Left as good for nothing... As it is, the only people who won't be welcome in Baghdad if a free Iraq comes against the odds are the Iraqis' immensely condescending friends in the Stop the War coalition." (The Telegraph - 14 Jan 2003) 
'The peoples of Iraq will slaughter each other if Saddam goes; that any US-sponsored replacement will be worse.' 

Those who opposed the war were right weren't they, Nick? And you, in your contemptuous dismissal of any who could not countenance it, were so very, very wrong. Millions of dead and terribly injured Iraqis, most of whom will have been innocent of any crime, can attest to that.

As can thousands of young, similarly innocent soldiers sent to kill and die by foam-flecked politicians and journalists who had never known war themselves.

Here’s David Aaronovitch: 
“If I'd been a marcher, I would gloat, too. Ever since the weekend it's been like one long sugary Coca-Cola ad: ‘We are the world, we are the people'...
A woman more or less explained it. ‘Saddam is not threatening us,’ she told the Telegraph reporter, ‘The government should spend the money on British jobs, hospitals and the rural economy.’ Not in my name. Not in my back yard…
Do you really believe that this parroted ‘war about oil’ stuff is true?"
 I sure do, Dave, I did then and I do now - see Wolfowitz and Greenspan below.
"What did you feel about the marchers wearing stickers bearing the Israeli flag and the words ‘the fascist state'?" 
Spot on, I'd say.
"How about the equivalence used by Tony Benn, as in, ‘If there are inspectors in Iraq, I want to see inspectors in Israel, inspectors in Britain and inspectors in America'?"
Spot on squared.
"Do you agree with Harold Pinter that the US is ‘a country run by a bunch of criminals ... with Tony Blair as a hired Christian thug'?"
Yep, I'd agree with that all right, with many multicoloured knobs on.
"Is there any word in that sentence, apart from Tony, Blair and Christian, that isn't quite mad?"
I think subsequent events have informed us all as to the sanity of the contestants in the 'Stop the War' versus warmonger contest, Dave.
"Perhaps you can explain the extraordinary speech by Charles Kennedy MP… His speech was all about how unconvincing Blair's arguments were. ‘I have yet,’ he said, ‘to be persuaded that the case for war against Iraq has been made.’ IT’S BEEN MADE, CHARLES."
Hang on, Dave, this is a 2 February 2003 essay, seven weeks to go before the invasion commences.
Did you know something we didn't?
"Stop blathering on about how ‘people are suspicious and scared’ and tell them what you think ought to be done. Or is there a serious case for war, but you didn't want to say so in front of a million demonstrators? 
Back to those demonstrators, and just to ask, do you believe that Blair should act on your demands because so many people turned out on Saturday? If so, do you also think he should halt plans for the housing of asylum seekers in Lee-on-Solent because, at the same time as you marched, one-third of Lee's entire population took to the streets to demand no asylum seekers in their town?
I most certainly do think they should've halted said plans IF THAT'S WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTED! Do you see how contemptuous a 'former' Commie of Jewish extraction is of our most earnest wishes if they don't happen to coincide with his own?

Oh, yes, Dave, I'm with the foreigners-must-learn-to-wipe-their-own-behinds-and-b*gger-off-back-where-they-came-from brigade on this one.
"You could still be right and I could be mistaken."
 You're getting there, Dave.
 "A war could be far bloodier than I imagine."
 It was bloody all right. The aftermath still is.
"The consequences far worse than I believe they will be."
Far worse than a bloodthirsty armchair warrior led his readership to believe anyway.
"It is just possible that a new Iraqi government, instead of moving towards democracy, might be a corrupt oligarchy."
"All I can say is that the signs look relatively promising in both Kosovo and Afghanistan.” 
Oh, really? That wouldn't be the same Afghanistan where 454 British youngsters died because a***holes like you and Nick Cohen thought it would be a damn fine thing to invade, would it?

The one country history tells us not to invade, Bush, Blair and a gaggle of exuberant media whores on both sides of the Atlantic got the hots for.

“My dear boy, as long as you don’t invade Afghanistan you’ll be absolutely fine,” said Harold Macmillan to Alec Douglas-Home, prior to the latter taking over as Prime Minister.

As of November 2015, the Taliban is back in charge of much of Afghanistan.

And Kosovo, where  Clinton, Blair and co., fought FOR the Albanian Muslim, AGAINST the Christian Serb? Well, 'since the end of November (2014), an estimated 50,000 Kosovans have left this small Balkan nation of 1.8 million, mainly headed for Germany.'

They'd be refugees, I reckon. Refugees fleeing, it would seem, from their own Albanian Muslim endeavours in a Kosovo that is, to all intents and purposes, now exclusively theirs.
“Over Bosnia, Kosovo and over Afghanistan, voices on both the Left and Right have been consistently raised to object to the use of force… Most often they have belonged to the purely selfish, the pathologically timid, or to those who somehow believed that however bad things were in Country X, the Americans were always worse… I want (Saddam Hussein) out, for the sake of the region and therefore, eventually, for our sakes, but most particularly for the sake of the Iraqi people who cannot lift this yoke on their own…  
The argument that Saddam's removal will of necessity lead to 'chaos' or the democratic election of an unsuitable Islamist government is… pretty disgusting."
Doesn't look so disgusting from here, Dave. You see, that’s well nigh precisely how it turned out. Funny how those who disgust the oh-so sure can, so often, turn out to be oh-so right, isn’t it?
"The Iraqi people, however, can't shift their tyrant on their own… It has to be the Yanks. I do not believe that George Bush is the manic oil-chimp of caricature."
Got that wrong, then.

Much later in the day, Aaronovitch’s fellow Jews spilled the beans:

Greenspan admits Iraq was about oil, as deaths put at 1.2m

Iraq swims on a sea of oil!

Wolfowitz would probably figure in a photo finish with Richard Perle (also Jewish) in the who-was-most-responsible-for-forcing-Gulf-War-2-upon-the-world stakes, so his intervention here cannot be dismissed lightly.

Aaronovitch continues:
"His administration really does have a view that it is necessary to remove Saddam pour décourager les autres. It will, they have convinced themselves, show resolve, deter state terrorism, discourage proliferation and permit the building of a rare non-tyranny in the Arab world. There is something to be said for all this."
 Ha-ha! Irony alert!
"If, in a few weeks time, the Security Council agrees to wage war against Saddam, I shall support it.” (The Observer - 2 February 2003)
Of course you will, Dave, you were always destined to do so. Some of us are aware of this.

And what have Dave and Nick been up to recently, we wonder? 

A cynic might say they've been putting the icing on the cake. Before Angela Merkel waved the red flag at the alien hordes with a sign saying 'swamp us,' above her head, Calais was the big thing in the refugee playground.

The hysteria about Calais is the fear of foreigners, or racism!

We could take every single person!

Bomb the f*** out of a load of innocents minding there own business one minute, beckon in their relatives the next. 

Yeah, that'll definitely make the third world think we're wonderful. I mean, how would you feel about those who voted for a leadership that destroyed your home and livelihood, your certain place in the world and, possibly, your loved ones as well? Personally, I wouldn't think much of them at all.

Even if  they don't hold such things against you and ISIS-in-disguise doesn't slip through in their thousands, many will be very bitter indeed. And if most end up taking take what they can get with little, if any, consideration of the consequences for the indigenous population, it really won't be much of a surprise, will it?

Aaronovitch and Cohen know that the future isn't likely to be a bed of roses for those amongst whom an aggressive and disgruntled incomer will settle. Their sneering contempt for those who didn't agree with the sabre-rattlers twelve years ago, was as inappropriate then as their sneering contempt for the little Englander is now. As for the pity-the-poor-immigrant b***ocks, it'd be nice if, once in a while, they showed a little more sensitivity to the needs and feelings of the British majority. You know, the people who gave their ancestors sanctuary not so long back?

Don't hold your breath, ladies and gents. Just as the warmongers' lack of sympathy for the Stop-the-War effort has unleashed hell in the Middle East, their lack of sympathy for Europe's native peoples may, very likely, result in a similar catastrophe in northern Europe in the not too distant future. If it does, trust me, the chickenhawk media and their political counterparts won't give a damn. As long as the doomsday scenario plays out beyond the confines of the political bubble in which they operate, your plight won't loom large in their disapproval ratings.

There are many ways to destroy your enemies. Bombs and bullets are quicker, but displacement, the melting pot and the loss of homogeneity that results, are at least as effective in the long run.
Check out Harold Pinter's Nobel Lecture, if you want to know what an off-message literary lion of the Jewish persuasion thinks of the West's brutish behaviour towards others in recent times. 
I can only see one flaw in his excellent presentation of the facts. He makes no mention of the fact that the prime movers in the Neoconservative movement that forced Gulf War 2 upon the world were Jewish.

Never mind, I'm happy to rectify that little omission with the help of a somewhat less reticent Jewish gentleman.
The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 intellectuals, most of them Jewish...

Here's another:

On Apprenticeship

via Henry Dampier

My column this week at Social Matter is about the history of the apprenticeship system (mostly in America) and why it’s so challenging to revive it despite a lot of interest in doing so. Here’s an excerpt:
When intelligent people discuss the problems with the higher education system in the Western world – namely that it costs too much and fails to prepare most of its students and graduates for fulfilling lives – the suggestion to revive the apprenticeship system which existed in bygone times often comes up.
Billionaires like Nassim Taleb and Peter Thiel have both advocated something like a return to the apprenticeship system which was ubiquitous up until the early modern era. These suggestions are also often echoed by bloggers and others who know vaguely about what they want, but aren’t quite clear on what the old apprenticeship system was and why it ultimately faded.
This article will attempt to clear out some of the confusion and obfuscation around the issue.
One company that attempted to revive the apprenticeship concept for high tech companies just shut down earlier this month. In the closing letter, the founders cited some failed matches and high expenses for managing the relationships between ‘apprentices’ and mentors. Their ambition was to create a national apprenticeship network, but the model couldn’t scale.
Some states have also attempted to create larger apprenticeship programs outside the construction trades, where they are still prevalent (albeit in a different way than was traditional).
Despite all these well-intentioned efforts, many if not most of them are likely to fail. To understand why, we have to retrace the history of why compulsory education and labor reforms displaced the old apprenticeship model.
Head on over and read the whole thing. Please comment at Social Matter if you have any suggestions for follow-up topics. In particular, I’d like some suggestions for sources to learn more about the guild system in Europe.

What I’m working on

I have about 5,000 words in excerpts and notes written down about The Vampire Economy, which is a pre-WW2 book about the economy of Nazi Germany drawn mostly from letters and interviews. I’m going to experiment with some audio recordings on my phone (was good enough for at least a couple podcasts I’ve appeared on) of some of the more fun quotes from the book.

I’ve also collected and reformatted most of my posts from this blog and Social Matter. I’m going to be collecting them into a compilation that I’m going to be selling on Kindle and iBooks (the latter might be a later release than the former). This is mostly done and waiting for me to get a newsletter up and running to my satisfaction. That’ll make for an exceptionally fat eBook. In the future, I’ll be doing collections more frequently to prevent it from piling up like that.

I’ve made some progress on the e-mail course that I mentioned before. This’ll be a teaser for a weekly newsletter which will have a writing style closer to what my regular blogging was like. I’m getting that up before any of the other stuff. It a bad idea to start off with a drip course because it’s so time consuming to put together properly, but I’ve completed enough work on it that I don’t want to drop the project.

My book project is stalled at around 30,000 words. Some of the material is good — generally, one notch above the typical quality level on this website. I’m not sure that it needs to be a full book, or that the political manifesto type format is all that worthwhile. This is one of those not-so-hidden pitfalls of self-publishing, and it’ll be the last time that I attempt a full-length book without a publisher.

I’m unsure that the world really needs more opinionated books written by 29-year-olds. I’m going to look for some criticism to determine what I do with the manuscript. If I’m going to finish it, I want to be confident about it — and if I’m going to junk it, I want to junk it so that I can get started on some more worthwhile projects.
If I do elect to cancel it, I’ll just publish what’s mostly completed on the blog for free.
An example of an alternative project would be a digest of Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s most important works. I also have a bunch of other ideas that I’d like to tackle, like a discussion of Soviet infiltration in the US government during WW2 using Diana West’s book on the topic as a jumping-off point.

Italian Fascism

via Counter-Currents

On March 23, 1919, in Milan, Mussolini founded the “Fasci di combattimento” with a program that was both national and social. The first “Fasci” — made up of veterans, ex-socialists and revolutionary syndicalists — evolved slowly towards radical rightist positions until the end of 1920. From then on, tired of two years of socialist violence which had culminated in the occupation of factories, growing masses of the lower-middle and middle classes began to join “Fascism.” In the valley of the Po, the phenomenon of “squads” begins to spread — as a reaction of veterans and land-owners, especially the new agrarian bourgeoisie, against the terrorism of the red leagues. The squads — financed by landowners and tolerated by the government — spread throughout northern and central Italy. Carried along by the wave of northern Italian squadrismo, Mussolini shifts to far-right positions and founds the National Fascist Party (November 1921).

The following segments of society converge in Fascism:

a) WWI veterans, humiliated by the Socialists for their military past and disappointed by the weakness of the government when it came negotiating the terms of peace;
b) students, attracted by nationalist ideals and the hope of a “greater Italy”;
c) the middle and lower-middle classes, frightened by strikes and the violence of the socialists;
d) the landowners, smallholders and farmers threatened by the reds with land seizures and collectivisation.

The rise of Fascism takes place against the background of the crisis of the other political forces:

1) the liberals, who were incapable of adapting to the new era of mass parties;
2) the Socialists, who were tempted by violence but incapable of making a revolution;
3) Catholics, who were unable to come to an agreement with the liberals and the Socialists.

On October 28, 1922 — faced with the imposing convergence of fascist squads upon Rome — the King charges Mussolini with forming a coalition government. In essence, the National Fascist Party seized power through:

a) the enterprise, youth, and courage of the squads deployed against left-wing organisations;
b) the complicity of the police and the army, which shared its patriotic ideals;
c) the financial support of a significant segment of the economy, which wants a return to order and an end to the strikes;
d) the neutrality of much of the old liberal class, which was hostile to the Socialists and Catholics, and attracted to Mussolini’s patriotism and his call for order.

Thus, partly through force, partly through consent, fascism comes to power in a context that at first remains one of parliamentary monarchy. Groups that resisted Fascism for a longer time were:

1) workers in certain industrial areas, who were strictly faithful to the Communist Party.
2) a large number of Catholics linked to the Partito Popolare.
3) various figures and institutions of the old ruling class (Il Corriere della Sera, La Stampa) and industrialists, who feared the revolutionary spirit of Fascism.

The crisis that followed the killing of Matteotti and the abandonment of parliament by the opposition MPs allowed Mussolini to begin the transformation of a parliamentary democracy into the fascist state. A series of transformations — the last of which was completed in 1938 — lead to:

a) the dissolution of political parties and their replacement with the Fascist Party conceived as the party of the whole Italian people;

b) the gradual overthrow of the Parliament and its definitive substitution (1938) with a Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni which represents both the Party and the various manufacturing sectors;

c) the transformation of the squadre d’azione into the Milizia volontaria per la Sicurezza Nazionale in 1923, as an armed force alongside the Army;

d) the introduction of a special legislation against the enemies of the Fascist state with sentences ranging from confinement to the death penalty;

e) the dissolution of the trade unions and the abolition of the right to strike with the promulgation of the Charter of Labor, which establishes corporations and state mediation in disputes between employers and workers;

f) the creation of public institutions for intervention in the economy, along with numerous forms of social security expressed a conception of the State that is no longer neutral but concerned with protecting the citizen and economic initiatives in the common interest;

g) the mobilisation of young people in the sports and paramilitary organisations, along with the construction of sports fields, swimming pools, etc.

Through the alliance of the fascist movement with conservative forces (the monarchy, the army, and — after the conciliation — also the Church), the Fascist regime is formed, closely tied to the person of the Duce of Fascism — Mussolini — whose personal politics becomes the policy of the regime and of Italy.

This policy has the following internal objectives:

a) curbing the most revolutionary spirits of the fascist movement and the stronger and more independent personalities (Farinacci, Arpinati, Balbo).

b) The increasingly sharp assertion of the personality of the Duce over all organs of the party and state and the reduction of the National Fascist Party to an instrument of mass mobilization, rather than of political discussion.

c) the strict control of the press and radio as instruments of indoctrination of public opinion.

This political tactic was combined with a propaganda aimed at promoting the following ideals:

a) the exaltation of the nation state as the bearer of the tradition of ancient Rome and of a particular set of ethical and spiritual values. This exaltation of Rome and of the ethical nature of the state are, however, limited by the authority accorded to the Church after the Lateran treaty.

b) the upholding of moral ​​and military values, as well as the exaltation of the earth, of fertility, of the values of farmers and warriors rather than those of the urban population, and the opposition of the farmer to the “bourgeois.”

c) the extolment of all forms of risk and daring, along with the promotion of sports and pre-military education and the glorification of all collective manifestations of courage (Balbo’s flight across the Atlantic, etc.).

In addition to these methods of dictatorial government and mass propaganda, there are certain fixed directives of foreign policy:

1) the aspiration of providing the Italian people with a living space adequate to its importance and the number of its inhabitants;
2) the push for a revision of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles in favour of the less fortunate nations (Hungary, later Germany and Italy itself);
3) tensions with those nations that are excessively rich in territories and colonies (France and England) and the consequent creation of a strong army and navy capable of challenging Anglo-French dominance in North Africa and in the Mediterranean.

This orientation of foreign policy leads first to the conquest of Ethiopia and then to a rapprochement with Germany — the only nation capable of challenging the Anglo-French hegemony in Europe. The conquest of Ethiopia, the intervention in the Spanish civil war, resulting in the success of the “nationalists,” bring fascism to a peak of popularity. The opposition is practically destroyed — not only thanks to repressive measures, which are relatively mild — but thanks to skillful propaganda and the success of the regime.

Fascism is primarily supported by:

a) the youth, which had been educated by the Party and raised in the new climate of athletic mobilization and national enthusiasm;
b) the middle classes, satisfied with the regime’s political and economic stability;
c) the clergy, fairly happy with the conciliatory policy of fascism with regard to the Vatican;
d) the military and the monarchy, seduced by the new prestige gained by Italy in Europe;
c) vast segments of the working classes won over by Mussolini’s “populism” and the welfare institutions created by the regime.

Thus, the active opposition against Fascism was left with only a few intellectuals and a few thousand workers indoctrinated by the underground Communist Party. Later, the pact with Germany — and the consequent looming of a new war — the race laws and an overly intrusive “anti-bourgeois” propaganda bring large segments of the middle class and the Catholic Church to a position of criticism and reconsideration.

This position of criticism and reserve is strengthened by the entry into the war, to which Fascism is pushed:

a) by the logic of its doctrine of expansion and living space;
b) by its political and ideological affinities with Nazi Germany;
c) by the need to carry over to an international level its fight against liberal democracies and the capitalist bourgeoisie which — together with Russian Bolshevism — are the antithesis of fascism.

The military intervention is implemented by Mussolini at an extremely favorable moment (France is out of the game and England is unable to defend Malta and Egypt), but the indecisiveness and ineptitude of the political class and the military are soon catastrophically brought to light.

The war quickly uncovers the regime’s weaknesses:

a) Mussolini’s compromises with conservative forces has left the old ruling class, with its tendency to careerism and compromise (Badoglio, etc.), intact;
b) the Party, prostrated by too many years of conformism, is unable to effectively infuse the the Italian people with the will to fight;
c) propaganda is more nationalistic and patriotic than “fascist,” and does not sufficiently illustrate the ideological and geopolitical significance of Germany’s revolutionary continental war.

Thus, after the first defeats — and then with the allied invasion of Italy — the unity of the Monarchy with Fascism collapses and with it, that of the conservative ruling elite with the fascist movement. The national-fascist front is broken, and the “nationalist” — that is, the more conventionally bourgeois and conservative — segment looks for any kind of exit from the war. This leads to July 25 and September 7.

The Italian Social Republic and the new Fascist Republican Party represent a kind of “return to the origins” of fascism. The 18 points of Verona and the Law on the socialization of economic enterprises are completely secondary aspects of the new Fascism, the vitality of which had more to do with the defense of military honor and the fascination that the movement still exerts on part of the Italian youth.

Italian fascism was the paradigm of the other fascisms. The one party system, the youth organizations, the corporatist economic system, the party militia have served as a model for other fascist movements — beginning with National Socialism. However, fascism, despite having invented the “totalitarian state,” never realized it. Behind the facade of the National Fascist Party — a mass organization that took on an increasingly recreational character — the regime remained a dictatorship sustained by a monarchy. The militia, founded as the armed guard of the revolution, never rose to become the armed wing of the party like the SS, but remained a mere appendage of the army.

So Mussolini was not entirely wrong when he observed, at the time of the Social Republic, that “the Fascist revolution never took place: Italy is first and foremost a monarchy, and that was what it remained.”

Translator’s note: Adriano Romualdi (1940-1973) was an historian and the author of the first book-length monograph of Julius Evola, published in 1968 with Evola’s seal of approval. His father was Pino Romualdi, vice-secretary of the Republican Fascist Party and co-founder of the post-fascist party Movimento sociale italiano (M.S.I.), and his father-in-law was Hans F. K. Günther, the German racialist.