Nov 9, 2015

The Spectre of the Left

via RightOn

To formulate and shape ideas is not to make people aware of their interests; it is to create those interests in the first place. If people come to believe that traditional culture, values, and loyalties are part of a hidden structure of power, in a strange way that actually causes it to become the case.
‘You can only win the game when you understand that it is a game. Let a man play chess, and tell him that every pawn is his friend. Let him think both the bishops holy. Let him remember happy days in the shadows of his castle. Let him love his queen. Watch him lose them all.’
— Jorg Ancrath, Prince of Thorns
The Marxist Antonio Gramsci is a celebrated thinker; strangely enough he is probably more celebrated on the Right than he is on the Left. There is a good reason for why he is regarded as a useful thinker by the conservatives and nationalists that he would have fought against with ferocity in the early twentieth century. This reason has little to do with his politics, and much more to do with his creative methodology and his notion that you need to have culture on your side in order to succeed in politics. When some of his concepts are removed from their original context, they can be appropriated by the Right and made useful in our own struggle.

There are certain strands in Gramsci’s general thought, however, which give us reasons to be careful in using his methodology, even when it is adopted with the clear purpose of advancing the positions of the Right. There is a degree to which Gramsci can be seen as part of a cadre of Marxist intellectuals who worked on concepts pertaining to the importance of the people in society, history, and culture. One should also mention György Lukács and his ideas about class consciousness, Jean-Paul Sartre and his concept of bad faith, and the ideological state of Louis Althusser. When it comes to the intellectuals who in some ways came to replace the earlier, Marxist left, one can mention Michel Foucault and his ‘archaeological’ investigations, and one should certainly not forget Jacques Derrida and the school of deconstruction.

Some, but by no means all, of the Marxist intellectuals were aware that it is not a very good strategy to trust the workers to find their own way to their class identity, the struggle, and the party. For instance, Lukács believed that class consciousness could only arise under certain circumstances, and that cannot awaken on its own. There has always been a tension in Marxism when it comes to the relationship between the means of production and the cultural structure, or, as they put it, between the base and its superstructure. It should not be forgotten that Marxism, when it was first formulated, was viewed as a hard science by those who claimed to follow its teachings.

Marx himself held that he had formulated a science, and this was a serious claim. He believed to have discovered the laws of history and society, and he expressed them in terms of dialectical materialism and historical materialism. The first refers to his notion that culture arises from the material and that thought is altered by the material, and that ideas, in the end, are determined by the material. Historical materialism, as a complementary view, refers to the concept of class and its importance in the history of mankind. It is the idea that history is really about the sometimes open, and sometimes hidden, war between the classes: a sort of occult war that is destined to end with the working class triumphing over the bourgeoisie.

Jonathan Bowden once said that Marxism resembled a vortex of ideas, and he was certainly right. Since its founding, Marxism has gone in many different directions; some strands have been critiqued for being crude in their materialism and some have been almost completely oriented toward the study of culture. The interesting thing is, of course, why have Marxists always had an interest in culture? Why would they? In a more orthodox interpretation of this type of thought, culture is simply an outcome of the means of production. It is determined, it does not determine. Culture would perhaps be of interest to describe the decadent life of the bourgeoisie, but in the end it doesn’t really matter since it will change when the means of production are reorganised.

This stance has been rendered impossible by its own incongruity. Not even a hardcore materialist philosophy like Marxism can ignore the importance of culture and ideas in the long run. More than anyone, Gramsci became aware of this when he was active as the leader of the Italian Communist party. Their attempt at a revolution failed, and Gramsci was jailed by the Italian state, which at that time was being ruled by Benito Mussolini’s Fascists. During his time in jail, Gramsci developed the concepts that would come to be important for the Left in the decades following Gramsci’s death in 1937.

It is surely not surprising that during his time in jail, Gramsci considered the reasons why the revolution had failed, and why the workers had not done what the organisers and intellectuals of the Left had asked them to. Gramsci was not the only Marxist intellectual to have had these thoughts; Lukács also pondered this in his History and Class Consciousness, where he asked the question of how the working class becomes aware of itself as a working class; or, in other terms, how it develops its class consciousness. It seems to be a necessity that the working class actually thinks of itself as a working class if it is to be possible for it to fulfil its destiny.

This is also a good way to put the question that Gramsci must have asked himself: why did the working class not come to think of itself as a working class? It is in this context that he developed the concept of hegemony, which is an idea that is more complicated than it is sometimes made out to be. Hegemony is something that exists in the mind; it is rule by ideas, values, and norms. If an attempt to alter the existing hegemony is to succeed it is necessary that people internalise these ideas in a deeper sense. Ideas when understood in this context therefore exclude the sort of opinions that one can change from one day to the next; it also excludes coercion by means of force.

An interesting thing about Gramsci is the importance he assigned to intellectuals in the scheme of things. He held that it is not enough merely to be intelligent and to write on subjects that could be perceived as metapolitical in the broadest of senses. To be of any relevance in Gramsci’s eyes, it is necessary to be an organic intellectual, which is a type of intellectual who expresses the actual interests of his time and those of the people who live in it. It is not uncommon that academics believe that their particular contribution is uniquely important, but Gramsci’s response would be that most academics are unimportant by virtue of the fact that they are not expressing the interests of the people.

Hegemony is thus our ideas, values, and norms; those things that are closest to us and that, to a degree, we believe to be entirely natural or common sense. Gramsci believed that common sense is ideology in a form that ordinary people can understand, and that it is not, therefore, the product of the games of bourgeoisie intellectuals, but rather something that originates from human action and needs. The idea that our society, culture, history, and institutions are something different from what they seem is not new in Marxist thought. Marx himself wrote several books on these topics, such as The German Ideology and The Holy Family.

This is the reason why one should proceed with caution when attempting to use Gramsci, regardless of one’s purpose and intent. There is a destructive mechanism built into Marxism by which the culture and institutions that are important for a society’s functioning are transmuted into something different. In the light of its theories, all these valuable things can potentially be portrayed as something intrinsically bad and dangerous because they are all products of the capitalist order. The culture and history of a society are, in Gramsci’s view, merely something that has been imposed on the people by organic intellectuals, which the people have in turn internalised, and that needs to be done away with.

In the introduction to The Communist Manifesto, Marx refers to Communism as the spectre that is currently haunting Europe. I agree that Marxism has certain ghostly qualities, and Gramsci’s form of Marxism more so than others. The core value in Marxist cultural thought is, as I perceive it, to convince the working class that they are actually participating in a great game, in which they will always lose because the game is rigged. This is a necessity because when the working class doesn’t know that it is in a game, they are not interested in playing. And when the working class is not interested in playing, the Marxists lose the game.

That would be the claim of orthodox Marxism; Gramsci’s claim actually departs from this view by being even more radical. Gramsci can be read as an Idealist thinker, in the meaning of someone who views ideas as more important than the material world. The theorist of international relations, Alexander Wendt, has argued that ideas are not to be understood as something that exists as a utility of power, but are the very thing that power itself consists of. Just as I stated in my earlier discussion of Gramsci’s view of hegemony, ideas in this sense should be understood as being deep and internalised rather than becoming confused with the more shallow opinions and notions that people use when thinking and expressing themselves in everyday life.

Ideas are, as Wendt understands them, equal to power and interests. To formulate and shape ideas is not to make people aware of their interests; it is to create those interests in the first place. Gramsci’s thinking is not, therefore, so much about revealing hegemony as it is about making people in general believe that it exists. If people come to believe that traditional culture, values, and loyalties are part of a hidden structure of power, in a strange way that actually causes it to become the case. This is the hidden essence of Gramsci’s thought: hegemony and class consciousness come into being by the spellcasting of the theorist: these things of the mind are not discovered, they are invented.

Gramsci’s ideas of hegemony can thus be viewed as something like a prophecy that is supposed to lead people out of one form of cultural structure and into something else entirely. After all, if people act as if the claims of Marxism are true, it amounts to the same thing as if these claims actually are objectively true: the result will be the same. The only thing that mattered to Gramsci, which he had in common with the vicious character of Jorg Ancrath, is to win the game. And truth is just another way to lose the game.

@HipsterRacist Unmasks Our Conspiracy Again!

via TradYouth

It’s been quite a week here at the TradYouth headquarters. We’ve been in the middle of Anonymous’s big bungled dox campaign. There’s a big campaign going on right now to drum us out for our supposedly harboring a bunch of morally indefensible positions on homosexuality (and just generally being proles), mainly centering on the hysterical myth that Heimbach intends to round gays up and torture and kill them, or whatever. Capping the whole thing off, the British Empire has declared war on us, banning Heimbach from the United Kingdom.

HipsterRacist, a dedicated enemy of the project, has taken the opportunity to give us the good firm kick necessary to kill off our projects once and for all. It’s understandable why he (she?) would wish to do so. He’s an edgy liberal and we’re traditionalists. He’s also the silliest sort of conspiracy theorist, and our bad blood actually started when he caught wind of my (admittedly weak sauce) belief that Osama Bin Laden did 9/11. That’s why he’s mad, but rather than prattle on about steel beams and nanothermite, he’s inclined to weave a fresh new set of conspiracy theories.

Scott Terry is an Atheist SPLC Troll
That’s how fraudulent con-men like Scott Terry, Matt Parrott, and Matt Heimbach get away with their lies, because they know that no one will call them on their completely fake pose of religiousity. But Scott Terry, in his artificial pose at being a Rushdooney theonomist, made a number of mistakes that only those “in the know” would notice.
I don’t have the time now, but in the next couples of weeks I’m going to take on this transparent con man, Scott Terry, who is the one that started the Southern Povery Law Center’s attack on NPI. You see, Rushdooney has long been a target of the $PLC, and Scott Terry’s pretense at being a Rushdooney fan comes across EXACTLY as you would expect an $PLC troll would do, if he was pretending to be a radical Presbyterian.
There are plenty of intelligent people with intelligent reasons to doubt the mainstream consensus on 9/11. There’s nothing intelligent about doubting Scott Terry’s religious faith or immersive familiarity with theonomy, presuppositionalism, and radical Presbyterianism. When I first came across Scott, he was exhaustively arguing obscure Calvinist matters for hours a day in obscure Facebook groups. His personal library is an impressive collection of rare theological books that few theologians have the patience to pore over. If he’s an SPLC troll, he wasted years and years backstopping an impressive reputation as a very very specific sort of obscure religious radical before going in for the kill.

He mocks my contention that there’s a clique of homosexuals who have it in for us as a conspiracy theory. Depending on the thread, they’re either righteously organizing against us because we’re out to get them (we’re not) or the clique doesn’t exist and we’re tin foilers for thinking it does. I don’t much care. It’s certainly less of a stretch than the proposition that we’re all pretending to be pro-White and pretending to be Christians for some nefarious reason.

Matthew Heimbach is an Eighties Televangelist
Going back to the early 1990s and reading some of their stuff is just like reading stuff from Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell from the 1980s – it’s a bunch of “try hard” crap meant to sell records and tapes. Their pose at religion is just that, and the public records of the personal lives of these people show it quite clearly.
Remember how often these public “Christians” were shown to be cavorting in gay bath houses themselves, or were regular visitors to prostitutes, or how many of them were divorced by their wives for shtupping the church secretary?
Does anyone think that anything has changed in the last thirty years?
This is a typical complaint by anti-Christian sorts who don’t understand the difference between fundamentalism and traditionalism. We reject the Utopian approach to human sin, both politically and personally. Those of us in TradYouth who even are Christian don’t play off like we’re above sin and though we don’t bring our faith into things nearly as much as these guys would like to imagine, when we do, it’s never in a holier-than-thou manner. Seriously, take a few minutes to read Matthew Heimbach’s “Becoming a Legionnaire” series. Very humble stuff, hardly hypocritical high-n-mighty televangelist stuff.

Matt Parrott is a Closeted Pervert
Does anyone actually believe that Matt Parrott – a divorced man whose hobby is writing about gay sex orgies – is really someone who could stand to have his personal life examined?
I live in a fishbowl. Several movement folks have spent weeks, months, and years around me. There are certainly some complaints, and I can certainly be an ass, but HipsterRacist’s assumption that everybody who’s not happily married is up to some kink says more about him than it does me. The proposition that I allegedly have a “hobby” of writing about gay sex orgies is a bit of a stretch, given that my archives are readily available, and I’ve only infrequently engaged the gay thing. And when I do engage it, I don’t even put much religious spin on the matter. The gay subculture’s decadence and disease condemns it just fine without any need to lean on any of the chorus of traditions condemning it.

TradYouth is a Profiteering Scheme
Come on, folks. The Traditional Youth Network is fake; it’s a front group. It’s quite possible that Parrott and Heimbach themselves are just a couples of grifters, play acting “in the streets” to get donations on their website. But someone is promoting this front group and using it to discredit the pro-White movement and to associate the pro-White movement with every single crank group of the last 50 years.
For the year of 2015, our PayPal account has received a whopping $2,612.03. We’ve received about $100 worth of bitcoin donations and a handful of generous folks have chipped in directly here and there. But if this is a financial scam, then we’re all splitting about $10/day for our efforts. Considering the nationwide traveling, tons of printed materials, steady article production, professional video editing, and podcasting we’ve delivered within that time period, the question the antifa are asking is more apropos, “Where are they finding all this money to dump into pro-White stuff?”

I know I tease you about your harebrained conspiracy theories, HipsterRacist. But the conspiracy theory that we’re in it for the shekels truly takes the cake.

HipsterRacist is a Master of Unmasking Conspiracies
I swear, someone should pay me for this stuff. I am an EXPERT on how to infiltrate and disrupt political groups because, well, they used to pay me to do it.
So I’m going to be consulting here for free.
No. You’re a jackass.

Y’all are welcome to try your clever and exotic new angles, and I wish you the best with your newfound fixation on optics and liberal entryism. Seriously. Big thumbs up. Go for it. But when you and your pals get carried away with it, and insist that the traditional and traditionalist nationalist voices must be silenced and “drummed out” in order to sneak up on whatever cocktail cliques and effete subcultures you’ve got your sights on, you’re indulging in infighting and you’re overplaying your hand. There’s no point in any of this nonsense. Go do your thing and we’ll do ours.

We’re here. We’re not queer. Get used to it.

Update #1: Churches, Cults, and Front Groups
What about the fake front-group, Traditional Youth Network? Do they have any actual organic ties to any actual Christian group?
TradYouth is a broad network for identitarians and traditionalists to work together on common issues. We catch it from both sides with the anti-Christians, with them both accusing us of trying to impose a Christian litmus test on the movement and them going for an Alinskyite attempt to hoist us on our own rulebook. Both Heimbach and I did convert to Orthodoxy within the past several years. Before that, he had actual organic ties to Catholicism and I was essentially unchurched.
What we have here in the White Nationalist movement are a bunch of posers pretending that they speak for Christians. They don’t. No one is trying to drive out Christians from the White Nationalist movement. In reality, we have a bunch of trolls pretending to be Christians are starting divisions.
The divisions were neither instigated nor the bickering escalated by us. The notion that we’re constantly trying to speak for Christians is the kind of notion cliques get when they whip themselves into a lather without pausing to consider what’s actually going on. The vast majority of our work here at TradYouth has been generically identitarian and traditionalist in nature.
Heimbach said he read one book about the Iron Guard so he decided to “convert” to orthodox Christianity. He doesn’t know anything about orthodoxy, he literally just read some book. A serious convert to a real religion like orthodoxy would place themselves under the authority of the legitimate church authorities and an hones person would seek to LEARN something about their faith, not try to twist that new faith to be compatible with their pre-existing political ideas.
Heimbach was chrismated into the Church after a lengthy chrismation process following years of independent study of Orthodoxy and theological issues spanning several books.
I’m guessing that Scott Terry is about the same; learned a few catchphrases, picked up the “radical” scary parts, then poses online as a theonomist. The only actual theonomist idea he seems to care about is stoning people; that gets peoples attention, that’s “radical.”
The only theonomist idea that he responds to is that one because that’s the only one the anti-Christians bring up when he’s engaging with identitarian circles. Perhaps you two could have yourselves a podcast where you can quiz him about this stuff in real time and decide for yourself if he’s academically invested in theonomy or if he’s operating an elaborate conspiracy.
Since most people in the White Nationalist movement don’t really know much about American Christianity, it’s easy to fake it.
You know, until they get caught by people who DO know.
Keep weaving your conspiratorial accusations. I’ll keep editing this post with updated responses to your scattershot campaign to eventually, one of these years, manage to unveil our elaborate conspiracy.

Update #2: He’s uncovered yet more conspiracies!
NPI has distanced themselves from the Traditional Youth Network, and TYN responded by:
1. Lying about NPI, saying that Heimbach was excluded for being “anti-gay” and that NPI is run by a shadowy group of homosexuals.
I never asserted that NPI was run by a shadowy group of homosexuals. I asserted that there’s a homosexual clique which is out to get Heimbach and his group. We’ve dismissed the garbage rumor that Richard Spencer is a homosexual repeatedly.
2. Lying that NPI excluded Heimbach for being Christian, as part of a homosexual conspiracy to drive Christians out of the White Nationalist movement.
Now we’re just splitting hairs. The clique is gay-friendly, anti-Christian, and not all that shadowy. They’re right there in the comments arguing their case for gay-friendliness and against Christianity.
3. Lying that NPI excluded Heimbach because he “names the Jew” – a rather ridiculous lie considering Kevin MacDonald was a keynote speaker, as was the guys from and Red Ice Radio, two media channels that have never shied away from the Jewish Question.
I didn’t see that, and it certainly didn’t come from any of the principals.
4. Disqus handles defending the TYN made up completely false rumors about the leader of NPI being a homosexual and wrote a number of homoerotic posts about him. These rumors have come from internet handles both defending TYN as well as internet handles associated with the “anti-fa.” […] So here you have the Traditional Youth Network AND the “anti-fa” spreading the same rumors about NPI at the same time.
Everything Scott and I have said on the matter has been under our own name, and our message has been to limit engagement, hold our fire, and focus on investing in our own work. We’re not sock puppeting, goading any friends into piling on, or encouraging any of that. We haven’t claimed Spencer’s a homosexual. We’ve actively rejected that claim. And we’re not claiming that they “control” him or NPI.
I called out Traditional Youth Network as the fake it is months ago, long before this conference was planned. I merely pointed to Heimbach’s long record of costume clownery, his attention whoring, and his close working relationship with the media.
Indeed, you and your Poz Nationalist associates have been trying to whip this conflict up for months, putting the lie to your talking point that we’re the ones who started this infighting.
Parrott and Heimbach wear their purported religion on their sleeves and claim to be sincerely relgious, but the reality is that Heimbach only converted to orthodoxy after reading a political book and was immediately ex-communicated for using the orthodox church for his media campaigns. Matt Parrott is also pretending to be orthodox, although he was apparently ex-communicated too.
I was never excommunicated, and I struggle to see how a case can be made that I wear my religion on my sleeve. My posts are pretty much all specifically identitarian political work. Of course, I can’t win here. If I post about my religion, I’m a shameless televangelist fraud. If I stick to secular political matters, it proves that I’m not religious.
On the other hand, after reading a bunch of Scott Terry’s blog posts, I’m willing to believe his is a sincere Christian. Although, he’s not married and has no kids, so in the real Presbyterian church he would have no authority whatsoever.
Smart move backing off on that claim that Scott Terry’s not a Christian and not well-versed in his Presbyterian theology. Shift to attacking our physical appearances and picking apart our personal lives.
It’s also funny how Parrott claims poverty, yet admits that people wonder where all the money is coming from? After all, Heimbach and Parrott travel all over the country, performing for the cameras, making videos, and the like. Somebody has to be paying for it.
Do we attack Parrott for soaking up all the money or do we attack Parrott for spending more on activism than everybody else? WHY NOT BOTH? “Somebody has to be paying for it.” Yup. We are.
In the intervening couple of years, he’s proved my suspicions over and over again, as his act gets more and more ridiculous.
His act hasn’t gotten more ridiculous. His “act” has gotten more polished, more focused, and more traction.
The Orthodox Christian church has distanced themselves from Heimbach and Parrott, Stormfront has distanced themselves from Heimbach and Parrott, now NPI has distanced themselves from Heimbach and Parrott.
One assumes they are all in a Grand Homosexual Conspiracy?
Nope. There is a homosexual nationalist clique and it is out to get Heimbach. The funny thing about the Stormfront incident was that it was actually at the behest of Tom Robb, the same klan wizard who was out to get Jack Donovan. The only common factor with all the infighting is that it’s all coming at us rather than from us. A certain degree of territorialism and infighting is to be expected against rapidly emergent projects, and we expect it to take a few years before all the pre-existing factions recognize that we’re not a dangerous threat, but a promising new development.
LOL, and as far as the all-too-common potshots at 9/11 Truth, I notice that Matt Parrot’s OWN tard corral at TYN are essentially truthers as well, as well as Parrott’s buddies at TheDailyStormer, you know, the troll site that publishes known disinfo from Jews working with Rita Katz’s SITE Intelligence propaganda campaign.
Truthers are welcome in the project. You’re correct that most folks involved in and supportive of our project are some sort of Truther. I politely disagree with them on that, and we’re a big tent inclusive of a wide array of positions on this and most other issues. You’re the one who started with politely disagreeing on that. Not all Truthers are pathological conspiracy cranks, but all pathological conspiracy cranks are Truthers. The way to tell the difference is that the pathological conspiracy crank can’t resist the urge to spin off several more conspiracies when provoked.

Seriously. I’ve lost count.
So folks, just keep on watching. Eventually Parrott and Heimbach will be involved in more disinfomation, more fake religious posturing, more idiotic “street theater” and more disruption. After all, it’s their job.
I’ve been around for pretty much my entire adult life. And with a handful of exceptions, my record is one of consistent and humble activism on behalf of my folk. My record is one of working constructively with a broad range of identitarian factions. My record is one of investing my own time, money, and creative energy in delivering solid propaganda, thinking useful thoughts, and taking real risk on behalf of our folk.

You can cherry pick together your own narrative with my tens of thousands of posts, projects, and interactions, but you have to dig through a mountain of humble and respectable work to find it. Everybody’s invited to keep watching TradYouth to find out if we’re going to be disruptive or productive.
What is ACTUALLY happening is that Parrott’s and Heimbach’s ridiculous posturing is finding less and less of an audience among serious people – both in and out of the “movement.”
Make no mistake, folks, the NPI conference was a HUGE COUP for the pro-White movement. It was a win and that is exactly why Parrott and Heimbach are upping their disinformation campaign.
We’re glad the NPI event went well, and there is no disinformation campaign. We’re not claiming that Richard Spencer is a homosexual (he’s clearly not). All we’ve done here is respond to a tsunami of disinformation with corrections, trying to avoid adding fuel to the fire with accusations of our own. The closest thing to an accusation is that there’s a homosexual nationalist clique that’s out to get us. There absolutely is. And our milquetoast message to them is that they need to knock off the infighting, stop with attacks like this one, and join us in plugging away at useful work.

A Review of PBS Frontline’s The War Behind Closed Doors

via The Occidental Observer

While I was in the midst of trying to publicize the Jewish instigation and the folly of invading Iraq in early 2003 as an occasional writer of scripts for American Dissident Voices,  PBS Frontline presented a rather helpful documentary called The War Behind Closed Doors, written by Michael Kirk, and coproduced by Michael Kirk and Jim Gilmore.

The introduction to The War Behind Closed Doors is quite promising, with Frontline’s narrator stating: “Over two decades, they had served three presidents, and argued for one big idea, that the United States must project its power and influence throughout the world. This is the story of how they set out to change American foreign policy in the days immediately after the tragedy of September 11th.” Then, to be more specific about what that means, the intro includes a clip of former CIA analyst Kenneth Pollack saying: “And it does seem very clear that this group seized upon the events of September 11th to resurrect their policy of trying to go after Saddam Hussein and a regime-change in Iraq.” This was a documentary that would clarify who was responsible for the drive for war against Iraq: Neoconservatives — which meant that that the war was not fundamentally about oil.

The documentary describes the path to invasion of Iraq (which seemed imminent but had not yet occurred when the program aired on 20 February 2003) as a struggle between Neoconservatives (also calling themselves “Neo-Reaganites” or “hawks”) led by Paul Wolfowitz, and “pragmatists” or “realists” ostensibly led by Colin Powell. The Neoconservative position was that Saddam Hussein’s government must be destroyed, while the pragmatists, without disputing the Neoconservatives’ provocative claims about Saddam Hussein, advocated containment as the appropriate response.

Brent Scowcroft (a pragmatist who had been an advisor to George H.W. Bush) is shown explaining to an interviewer that George H.W. Bush had deliberately left Saddam Hussein in power in 1991, contrary to what the Neoconservatives had wanted, because it was desirable to preserve a balance of power between Iraq and Iran, and because overthrowing Saddam Hussein might lead to various negative consequences — reasons that in hindsight make excellent sense.

The interviewer, and some other Jewish commentators in the documentary — Kenneth Pollack and Richard Perle — speak as if the goal of the 1991 war had been to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but Scowcroft is adamant that it was not.

LOWELL BERGMAN: I thought we had two interests. One was to evict the Iraqi army from Kuwait, but the other really was to get Saddam out—
LOWELL BERGMAN: —of power.
BRENT SCOWCROFT: No, it wasn’t.
LOWELL BERGMAN: Well, either covertly or overtly.
BRENT SCOWCROFT: No. No, it wasn’t. That was never — you can’t find that anywhere as an objective, either in the U.N. mandate for what we did or in our declarations, that our goal was to get rid of Saddam Hussein. [PBS Frontline transcript]

The widespread belief that the goal of the 1991 war had been to eliminate Saddam Hussein was supported by the hyperbolic propaganda that had been used. The comparisons of Saddam Hussein to Adolf Hitler started in the mass-media. In late 1990 President Bush joined the trend by comparing Saddam Hussein (unfavorably) to Hitler, because of the supposed brutality of the Iraqi troops in Kuwait (AP, 2 November 1990).  There was a tendency to see everything in terms of this Hitler comparison, from “He gassed his own people!” to  supposedly unprovoked invasions of neighboring states. Given that President George H.W. Bush had engaged in and never repudiated that kind of crazed propaganda, the first Bush Administration would necessarily be seen as having failed to fulfill a moral imperative when, ultimately, they did the practical thing by leaving Saddam Hussein in power.

In fact, George H. W. Bush did call for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and then refrained from supporting such an effort, as the Neocons have charged. This can be seen either as disingenuous war-rhetoric or as vacillation between the influences of the pragmatists (Scowcroft) and the Neoconservatives (Wolfowitz), or as a combination of the two.

Immediately after the 1991 war, Paul Wolfowitz (as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy) authored a set of military guidelines that would justify preventive war — in other words, war against a state that had not attacked and was not threatening to attack, but might attack someday if not attacked first. Recall that in 1981 the State of Israel had been condemned by the UN Security Council for “preventive war” in its attack on the Osirak nuclear reactor, with the Reagan Administration’s ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick,  also voting to condemn. The President of the Security Council, Porfirio Muñoz Ledo, explained:
The reasons on which the Government of Israel bases its contention are as unacceptable as the act of aggression it committed. It is inadmissible to invoke the right to self-defense when no armed attack has taken place. The concept of preventive war, which for many years served as justification for the abuses of powerful States, since it left it to their discretion to define what constituted a threat to them, was definitively abolished by the Charter of the United Nations. [Security Council Official Records, S/PV.2288 19 June 1981]
Wolfowitz was now advocating that the government of the United States adopt the uninhibited belligerence of the State of Israel, using military strikes to maintain hegemony against merely suspected (or perhaps imagined) threats.

Information about the Wolfowitz Doctrine was leaked to the news media by people within the administration who opposed it, and it became a source of embarrassment. Dick Cheney was ordered to rewrite Wolfowitz’s guidelines in a way that eliminated the option of unilateral preventive war.

Neoconservative William Kristol however commends the Wolfowitz Doctrine, declaring that Wolfowitz was “ahead of his time.” The narrator explains: “One day there would be a more receptive president, and another opportunity.”

That more receptive president was not Bill Clinton.

The narrator implies that George W. Bush was chosen as the likely successor to Bill Clinton as early as 1998, and that a group of “foreign-policy wisemen” including Wolfowitz on one hand and Colin Powell on the other, attempted to groom him for that position.

This period, when the struggle for the mind of George W. Bush occurred, shows most clearly that invading Iraq was not the idea of George W. Bush. William Kristol states that Bush was not immediately supportive of the Neoconservatives’ aggressive foreign policy: “I wouldn’t say that if you read Wolfowitz’s defense policy guidelines from 1992 and read most of Bush’s campaign speeches and his statements in the debates, you would say, ‘Hey, Bush has really adopted Wolfowitz’s worldview.’” Thus the pragmatists initially prevailed over the Neoconservatives, so that George W. Bush, in the period before the election, was advocating a reduced role for American military forces in the world.

The narrator says that Bush’s foreign policy during the first few months of his administration was “stalled between the two competing forces” — stalled between the Neocons and the pragmatists. Kristol indicates that this continued until the 9-11 attacks: “I think you could make a case that on September 10th, 2001, that it’s not clear that George W. Bush was in any fundamental way going in our direction on foreign policy.”

A pivotal moment, following the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, came when Bush delivered a speech that evening that included the line: “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.”

The War Behind Closed Doors treats this as a highly important utterance. Obviously it is important, since rumors that some government harbors or supports terrorists are easy to generate, and were in fact generated. The narrator says: “The hawks welcomed the president’s phrase, ‘those who harbor’ terrorism.” Richard Perle is quoted praising the speech.

David Frum, Bush’s Canadian-born Jewish speechwriter, also praises the speech:
Within 48 hours, he had made the two key decisions that have defined the war on terror. First, this is a war, not a crime. And second, this war is not going to be limited to just the authors of the 9/11 attack but to anyone who assisted them and helped them and made their work possible, including states. And that is a dramatic, dramatic event. And that defines everything.
What Frontline fails to mention is that it was Frum who insisted on that crucial line in Bush’s speech. One week before PBS Frontline aired its documentary, The Nation magazine had already revealed that detail:
It was not, alas, “a war speech.” It did, though, contain the line about making “no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” And Frum cannot resist informing us he had been the one to insert that thought into every draft of the speech. [David Corn, “Who’s in Charge?” The Nation, 13 February 2003; emphasis added]
This casts a very interesting light on another comment from Frum about the speech: “When he laid down those principles, I don’t know whether he foresaw all of their implications, how far they would take him. I don’t know if he understood fully and foresaw fully the true radicalism of what he had just said.”

Who was really making the big decisions for which Frum liked to give Bush so much credit? Frum had put words into Bush’s mouth and then said that he was not sure that Bush had understood the implications. The picture that we get, by adding just a bit of information that Frontline had omitted, is that George W. Bush was pushed into belligerent posturing by his Jewish advisors.

The pragmatists continued to push the idea of going after terrorists rather than governments; Powell for example spoke of “persuading” governments that might be harboring terrorists. But the fact that the President had already talked about going after governments had created an expectation that was difficult to oppose.
Meanwhile the false notion that Iraq was unfinished business was revived. (Obviously such an evil man must be doing evil things.) The notion that Iraq was somehow a “state sponsor of terrorism” (having been taken off the list of state sponsors of terrorism by the Reagan Administration in 1982, but reinstated amid the war-propaganda of 1990) was bandied about.

Dick Cheney is a favorite target for leftist critics of the War on Terror, and for the John Birch Society, who want a scapegoat that allows them to avoid saying anything critical of Jews. Very often, Cheney is represented as a key “Neocon.” In fact Cheney had worked with the Neoconservatives at various times since the days of “Team B” during the Ford Administration. But William Kristol described Cheney’s position at the beginning of George W. Bush’s presidency thus: “Cheney is a complicated figure and, obviously, a very cautious and reticent figure, so hard to know what he thinks in his heart of hearts. I think he had feet in both camps, so to speak.” In other words, Cheney was not initially committed to the Neoconservative position on Iraq.

George W. Bush adopted the doctrine of preventive war that had been advocated by “the brains” of the Neoconservative outfit, Paul Wolfowitz (see here, p. 41ff, for a portrait of Wolfowitz’s Jewish identity and connections). From this, given 15 years of demonization-propaganda against Saddam Hussein and a little nudging from Jews like David Frum who were positioned to influence George W. Bush, the invasion of Iraq followed.

At the time when The War Behind Closed Doors aired, the Neoconservatives were getting their way and enjoying practically unanimous support for their project, and perhaps it was overconfidence that motivated William Kristol to claim for his Neoconservative movement such unequivocal responsibility for the imminent war. There was always obfuscation about who had agitated for war, with many habitually blaming the oil industry or other economic interests, because such explanations fit their leftist theory about how the world works. It was extremely useful that PBS Frontline documented that it was in fact Neoconservatives who spent more than a decade agitating for that war, and also, if it did not explain exactly who these Neoconservatives were, at least gave some indications about who they were not.

There are however some negative aspects to The War Behind Closed Doors, the worst of them being the propaganda spouted by Jewish television-host Ted Koppel’s Jewish son-in-law, Kenneth Pollack, who also happened to be a former CIA analyst, a sometime member of the National Security Council and various think-tanks, and author of a pro-war book, The Threatening Storm, that was especially influential with liberals. (Pollack had excellent liberal credentials, having served in the Clinton administration; he was also indicted for spying on behalf of Israel, but the indictment was dropped under less than convincing circumstances.) Although supposedly giving an expert outsider’s perspective on the Neoconservatives’ agitation for war, and seeming to criticize the Neoconservatives in some ways, the most important part of what Pollack said really supported the Neoconservatives’ project. I suspected that Pollack was Jewish when I first saw the program in 2003 because of the general thrust of what he was saying, but now it is confirmed.

In the section of PBS Frontline’s The War Behind Closed Doors about Bill Clinton, Pollack promotes the idea that Saddam Hussein really was developing WMDs behind the backs of the UN’s weapons-inspectors, and tries to portray the clashes in the 1990s between Iraqi officials and the UN’s inspectors as the expression of some kind of psychological strategy on Saddam Hussein’s part for undermining “containment.” Frontline should have pointed out that there was no direct evidence for any ongoing WMD-program. It was all speculation, based, as Pollack says, on the fact that the Iraqis gave the inspectors trouble. But the friction between inspectors and Iraqi authorities was easily explained with the fact that the inspection-team, infiltrated by agents of the CIA, appeared to have been used to try to orchestrate a coup:
But one of the problems is, is that you have a situation, in June of 1996, where the United States is fomenting a coup against Saddam Hussein, a coup based upon Special Republican Guard units. At the same time, you have an UNSCOM inspection, UNSCOM 150, which is in Iraq, creating a confrontation by inspecting Special Republican Guard sites.  [Scott Ritter, PBS Frontline: Spying on Saddam, 27 April 1999].
These known facts should have been brought to bear on Pollack’s statements.
The Newsweek of 24 February 2003, four days after this documentary aired, quoted Saddam Hussein’s son, General Hussein Kamel, as telling an interrogator in 1995: “All weapons — biological, chemical, missile, nuclear — were destroyed.” Pollack, with his positions in government as a supposed expert on Iraq, should have known about this.

It is the major fault of The War Behind Closed Doors that it allows Pollack’s claims in support of the WMD accusation to go undisputed.  Pollack admitted after the invasion that he had been wrong (“I made a mistake based on faulty intelligence.”  New York Times Magazine, 24 October 2004), but it is worse than being wrong: he was either a liar or incompetent. The failure to challenge Pollack’s statements is a crucial omission in PBS Frontline’s presentation, because the proposition that Saddam Hussein had been 100% successful in circumventing weapons-inspections was essential to the argument for war. Add the claim that weapons-inspections were not working (and probably could not work) to the premise that Saddam Hussein is “another Hitler,” and it becomes self-evident that one must go to war.

Considering Suicide

via Radix

You’re not waiting on a dystopia, you are living in one. Our postmodern landscape, with its hegemonic liberalism and endless advertising, dulls the senses to this fact. Young children and teens are spending up to nine hours a day in front of screens. By abrogating their responsibilities to what are essentially plug-ins to the system, many of today’s parents ensure their children’s baptism into the bankrupt religion of our time.

More telling, though, is a recently published report on the mortality rate of middle aged White Americans. From the authors:
Between 1978 to 1998, the mortality rate for U.S. whites aged 45 to 54 fell by 2 percent per year on average, which matched the average rate of decline in the six countries shown, and the average over all other industrialized countries. After 1998, other rich countries’ mortality rates continued to decline by 2 percent a year. In contrast, U.S. white non-Hispanic mortality rose by half a percent a year. No other rich country saw a similar turnaround.
This is the Baby Boom generation and beyond. For most of our younger readers, these are our parents. What used to be Cheeveresque tales of depression and disgust amidst plenty has moved on to full on despair about where they—and by necessity we—are heading. The reason for the spike in mortality is explained by greater drug and alcohol use, which is correlated with high rates of depression.

Having given up a prosperous and more or less homogenous society, our elders have sunk into the somas of a melancholic sleep rather than confront who they are. Agnus Deaton, one of the study’s co-authors argues, “Half a million people are dead who should not be dead. . . . [Y]ou’re getting up there with HIV-AIDS”. But this isn’t some malevolent conspiracy against us, it’s what we are doing to ourselves, which makes it all the more ominous.

You can rail against dark conspiracies, and, indeed, our enemies are many and enmeshed in the culture, cubical, media swamp that is out there, but our own demons are far darker. Meanwhile non-White mortality rates are falling; that’s because, as it stands now, the future belongs to them. Our dystopia is their utopia.

There is another way though. We do not have to accept the systematic disinheritance of our people as a given. As Richard has spoken of before, we have to become who we are in order to face the monsters we are in danger of becoming. The world we inhabit is not inevitable; it is the end result of thoughts and deeds, and it is through thoughts and deeds that we can rise above it.

Just seeing the energy pulsate through the room at NPI’s “Become Who We Are” conference heartens this author that we can win, and that despair need not win out. Because while the last generation has given itself up to vices, silence, and silent tragedy, we can seize the moment and the time. A when we do, tomorrow will belong to us!

Race in Brazil, Part 1: How Brazil became a such a MultiCult Cesspit

via American Renaissance

For many Americans, Brazil means Rio de Janeiro, Carnival, pretty women, and a mixed-race land of no racial tension. This makes Brazil a potential model for the United States: Immigration from the Third World will enrich us and miscegenation will make us one. In fact, Brazil is a nation of low average intelligence, very high crime rates, an aversion to work, and widespread corruption. It is precisely the multi-racial nightmare we must avoid.

The average IQ in Brazil is 87, which is lower than Mexico’s 88.[1] Fifty percent of college students are said to be functionally illiterate–they cannot understand even a basic newspaper or magazine article.[2] With 50,000 murders a year, Brazil comes close to having the highest murder rate in the world: 25.2 per 100,000. For South Africa, the figure is 31; for the United States, it is five.[3]

The Portuguese word for work (trabalho) used to mean “instrument of torture,” and as soon as they have the means, Brazilians do as little of it as possible. They hire people to put gas in their cars. In restaurants, waiters literally stand at your table to cut slices of pizza and put them on your plate. Maids do dishes, wash clothes, cook, and help children with homework.

Corruption is endemic. A common expression is jeitinho brasileiro or the “little Brazilian way,” which means the deeply rooted tradition of taking advantage of others and breaking the rules. Politicians reflect their society, so huge corruption scandals are almost daily news. Brazil’s racial history explains much of its national character.


Before the arrival of Europeans many different Indian tribes lived in the sparsely populated territory of modern-day Brazil. There were no political boundaries or cultural unity, and there was frequent tribal warfare. There were no advanced civilizations, such as the Mayans or Aztecs. The Tupinambás, Guaranis and Tupiniquins lived in the Stone Age.


First European Contact (1500-1532)

After the Portuguese arrived in 1500, there were few major conflicts and no large-scale use of Indian labor. The Catholic Church converted many Indians, and conversion was mostly voluntary. Many tribes remained untouched because they lived in remote areas with few economic attractions, while others maintained their way of life by moving away from settled areas. The Portuguese could find little gold or silver on the coast, so the newly discovered territory became little more than a refueling stop for ships headed to India or to other distant Portuguese colonies.

Lumbering was the first economic activity. The Portuguese found a relative of a dark-red, Asian species of tree that was being used in Europe to make red dye. The tree was known as pau-brazil (stick-ember or stick-burning charcoal), and this gave the territory its name. Harvesting brazilwood, as the tree is known in English, did not require permanent settlement, so there was no urgency to populate the colony.

Colonial Period (1532-1822)

Thirty years after claiming the territory, Portugal decided to populate Brazil for fear of losing it to France and Spain, who were also colonizing South America. However, not many Portuguese wanted to go. A few Jews wanted to escape forcible conversion, but Portugal was otherwise peaceful and homogeneous. Also, Catholics thought the ambition to accumulate wealth was a vice, so the government needed a way to force people to move to the colony.

The monarchy divided the territory into capitanias hereditárias (hereditary captaincies), which were huge land grants arbitrarily drawn in straight lines across the territory. The crown gave the land to baronets and earls who were ennobled during the war to drive out the Muslims but for whom no grants of land were available.


Aside from these landowners, most of the settlers were vagrants and criminals forcibly deported from Portugal. Almost all were men, so outside the nobility, there were nearly no white women.[4] The new landowners grew tobacco and sugar, both of which require a great deal of labor. Portugal already had colonies in Africa, so slaves were the obvious choice to work the plantations. Indians had captured and enslaved each other long before the arrival of Europeans, and the Portuguese enslaved a certain number of Indians as well. However, African slaves proved to be hardier workers, and by the 18th century Indian slavery survived only in the back country.

By 1700, an estimated one million African slaves had been brought to Brazil, more than to all the other colonies in the Americas combined up to that time. The African slave population had the same sex imbalance as the settler population. Chiefs in Africa often kept female slaves for themselves and the Portuguese kept only a few African women as cooks, nannies, and domestics.

With so few European women in Brazil, most whites married Indians, thus establishing alliances with local tribes. These alliances brought peace with Indians, which allowed Europeans to expand their settlements even as Indians waged war on each other. Of these mixed-race offspring, those who most resembled Europeans received preferential treatment and were seen as more marriageable. Adventurers moved from the coast to map the interior of the captaincies. Known as bandeirantes, or “those who carry the flag,” they are now seen as Brazilian pioneers. Monuments erected in their honor tend to portray them as European.

Interest in Brazil increased tremendously when bandeirantes discovered gold in the early 18th century. A gold rush attracted approximately 700,000 Europeans,[5] many of them non-Portuguese. Most were single men. They made the sex imbalance even worse, and most failed to get rich since they could not compete with slave owners who had hundreds of laborers to work the mines. White miners bred with the already heavily mixed population. There was some mixture with blacks, but the preference was for mestizos. A tiny, mostly-white middle class of merchants and artisans tried to import orphaned teenage girls from Portugal, but few were available.

Mining changed the racial dynamic in another way. Some masters freed slaves who mined large amounts of gold. Former slaves often went to live in black communities hidden deep in the jungle known as quilombos, along with a certain number of escaped slaves. Ironically, the leaders of quilombos often owned slaves themselves.[6] Quilombos survive into the present, and the 1988 constitution grants their residents collective land ownership and a status similar to that of indigenous people.

Brazilian Empire (1822-1889)

At the time of Napoleon’s invasion of Portugal in 1807, the Portuguese royal family fled to Brazil. Napoleon was defeated in 1815, and King John VI returned to Portugal in 1821, leaving his son Dom Pedro to rule the Brazilian provinces. A series of disputes between the provinces and the Portuguese cortes, or parliament, led to a brief war for Brazilian independence. In 1822, Dom Pedro took the title of emperor so as to mark a break between his rule and that of his father, the king of Portugal. He also sought to model his title on that of ancient Rome, where emperors had been chosen by popular acclaim. The early years of the Brazilian Empire were chaotic, with a major economic crisis, many uprisings, and even secession movements.

Immense coffee plantations were established under the empire, which led to an even greater demand for slaves. Slaves were valuable, but unlike American slave owners, Brazilians did not allow slaves to marry and establish families or own property. The Brazilian elite feared slave revolts; the Haitian Revolution of 1791 to 1804 was a constant reminder of what uncontrolled slaves might do. Slave holders feared that uprisings were more likely in stable communities, since people who have resources and privacy are more dangerous than those who have barely enough space to sleep and who compete with each other for food. Slaves were therefore kept in senzalas–large houses with perhaps a few beds and nothing else. Fugitives continued to increase the populations of the quilombos.

It was common for the sons of slave owners to have their sexual initiation with slave women. This may be the origin of the sexual promiscuity common in Brazil, though actual marriage among slave owners was usually with whites.

Youthful escapades produced a mulatto class, which often led to a rise in the mother’s status and sometimes emancipation for the children. Mulattos naturally tried to draw distinctions between themselves and enslaved blacks. At the same time, mulattas were seen as much more sexually available than the few, usually Catholic and conservative European women. This is the origin of the almost cult-like carnival symbol of the sensuous, naked mulatto woman.

Globo–the most popular television channel in Brazil–shows naked mulatto women between their programming for months before and during Carnaval.

After independence from Portugal, the ruling class decided that the country would be better if it were whiter. Upper-class Brazilians were embarrassed by foreign travelers who, noting the huge number of slaves and heavily-mixed free population, described Rio de Janeiro as an African city. However, slavery was a huge obstacle to European immigration. Poor whites could not compete with unpaid slaves, who worked in all types of industries and even as low-ranking police officers.

Brazil’s economy was dependent on slaves, so abolition would cause chaos and anger the slave masters. Emperor Dom Pedro II therefore decided to end slavery slowly. He abolished the slave trade in 1850 and tried to promote European immigration. It was not long thereafter that approximately 10,000 Confederates fled Reconstruction, settling the town of Americana in São Paulo state, where they hold annual celebrations of their Confederate heritage to this day.[7]


The next steps were emancipation of elderly slaves, then newborns, and finally women, in the hope that landowners would accept gradual abolition. However, while the emperor was out of the country his daughter, Princess Isabel, issued a decree in 1888 freeing all the slaves. Angry plantation owners joined army generals to overthrow the empire and establish a republic. Forced labor continued in many areas, but slavery ended.

Brazilian Republic (1889-1930)

Some emancipated slaves continued to work for their previous owners and some went to the old quilombos to live among other blacks, but the majority became vagabonds in the cities. They built the slums or favelas that today ring the city centers. Favelas have very high crime, extreme poverty, and no government services. Electricity and water supplies are irregular and improvised, which results in frequent accidents. To the extent that there is any order, it is provided by armed bandits. The police are afraid to patrol the favelas, and when there are major events, such as the Olympics or a Papal visit, the army maintains order.


The Brazilian Republic continued the racial policies of the Empire, importing large numbers of Europeans to make Brazil whiter and replace black labor. Indentured servants worked for a fixed period before being granted land. At first, most immigrants came from Portugal, Spain, Italy and Germany. Later, a more limited number of Slavs and a considerable number of Japanese arrived.

The demographic transformation was remarkable. According to the 1940 census, 63.47 percent of the population identified as white–up from 38.17 percent in the first census, taken in 1872. The principal point of entry for immigrants was Port Santos, the Brazilian equivalent of Ellis Island. Here are arrivals from 1908 to 1936:[8]

Nationality Total Male Percentage
Portuguese 275,257 67.9
Italian 270,749 64.7
Japanese 210,775 56.2
Spaniard 190,282 59.4
German 89,989 64.3
Turk 26,321 73.4
Romanian 23,756 53.2
Yugoslav 21,209 52.1
Lithuanian 20,918 58.6
Lebanese & Syrian 17,275 65.4
Polish 15,220 61.9
Austrian 15,041 72.7
Others 47,664 64.9
Total 2,221,282 63.8

For the first time, there were enough women immigrants to make endogamy common. Immigrants married and lived among themselves, retaining their folkways and languages. There was no dominant culture and therefore no assimilation to a larger whole. Brazil was still a broad geographical area with little cohesion and a weak federal government. States had almost complete autonomy and even imposed tariffs against each other.[9]

Italian community in São Paulo circa 1920.
Italian community in São Paulo circa 1920

European immigrants came in such numbers that the Portuguese elite were quickly outnumbered. They may also have been less competitive than the newcomers because of many generations of inbreeding. This decline explains why there are so few Portuguese surnames in the Brazilian upper class today. Instead, Portuguese names such as “Silva” and “dos Santos” are more common among non-whites and the poor.

This is especially striking in the South, which was sparsely populated, and where the demographic change was almost complete. Many small municipalities in the South still recognize Italian or German as an official language. In the 1940 census, the three states of the South–Paraná, Rio Grande do Sul, and Santa Catarina–respectively had populations that were 86.6, 88.7, and 94.4 percent white.[10]

The ethnic origins of the owners of industrial firms in the state of São Paulo–Brazil’s richest state–show the disappearance of the old elite. These figures are from 1962:[11]

Ethnic Origin Percentage
Italians 35
Brazilians* 16
Portuguese 12
Germans 10
Syrians and Lebanese 9
Russians 2.9
Austrians 2.4
Swiss 2.4
Other Europeans 9
Others 2
*Those who had been in Brazil for at least three generations.
Even if every one of the “Brazilians” is counted as Portuguese, the combined “Portuguese” total is only 28 percent.

At this time the idea of European superiority was open and widespread. The government and the intelligentsia hoped immigrants would intermarry with the existing population and turn the country white. After the death in 1908 of Brazil’s greatest writer, Machado de Assis, the race on his birth certificate was changed from mulatto to white so as to better explain his talent.[12]

New State (1930-1945)

In 1930, Getúlio Vargas took power in a coup that became known as the 1930 Revolution, and implemented nationalist measures designed to turn Brazil into a unified nation. He wanted to break up ethnic enclaves of European immigrants who hired and married each other, and refused to learn Portuguese.[13] He established ethnic quotas on immigrants to stop the growth of these enclaves, and required that employers ensure that their workforces were at least 60 percent native-born Brazilians. These measures effectively ended the era of mass immigration.

Getúlio Vargas
Getúlio Vargas

To promote a national identity, Vargas limited the autonomy of the states, ordered all state flags burned, and promoted cultural unification. He forbade the use of languages other than Portuguese in public, banned ethnic clubs and schools, and “Brazilianized” surnames and names of institutions in the hope of forcing Europeans and Japanese to integrate rather than maintain their own communities.

Vargas’s measures were inspired at least in part by the policies of the Axis powers, with which he had good relations.[14] Ironically, his nationalist attempts to unify the country damaged his relations with Italy, Germany and Japan. There were many Hitler Youth chapters in Brazil, as well as Italian clubs that worked to preserve national loyalty, and some members opted to return to Europe rather than integrate.

Vargas continued the eugenic policies of the previous republic and prevented the promotion of Army officers with clear African ancestry. Vargas celebrated such things as Race Day and Fatherland Week, and noted in a radio speech on September 7, 1938, that:
A rapid solution needs to be found for the question of strengthening the race, one that guarantees the cultural and eugenic preparation of the generations to come. . . The celebrations of the Fatherland and the Race must therefore show beyond any doubt our struggle to elevate the cultural and eugenic level of the youth. . . For a united Brazil, for a great Brazil.[15]
There is an interesting anecdote from shortly after President Vargas’s coup d’état. Spanish nobles of the same name asked the Pope to check baptism records to see whether Mr. Vargas was a relation. He asked that the research not be carried out for fear of what might be found in his family tree: “In Brazil we always expose ourselves to the risk of ending up in the jungles [being part Indian] or the kitchen [being part black].”[16]

There was a strong fascist movement called Integralismo, which arose outside of Vargas’s control and promoted the idea of a “Brazilian race.” Its more radical elements argued that genuine Brazilians were a mixture of whites, blacks, and Indians, and that only complete mixture would bring forth the true Brazilian race. The movement did not last long, but it influenced many patriotic Brazilians, and its ideas of mixture remained influential.

Despite Vargas’s racial nationalism, his attempts at imposing cultural unity stopped the flow of European immigrants, and the percentage of whites declined after the 1940 census. As of the 2010 census, only 47.7 percent of the Brazilian population calls itself white.

Military Regime (1964-1985)

Brazil returned to democratic government in 1946, but the government moved sharply to the Left. President Jânio Quadros awarded Che Guevara a medal, and President João Gular proposed redistribution of property. Both the Communists and the military were planning coups d’état, but the military struck first in 1964, with wide support from the population.

The Military Regime lasted until 1985, at a time when the West was trying to disassociate itself from anything perceived as “racist.” The generals had a “race blind” policy and promoted civic nationalism. However, they also enforced meritocracy, and did not pass laws against “racism” or promote any form of “affirmative action.” There was very little immigration, and the “race blind” policy seems to have encouraged more people to identify as brown/mixed rather than white. The government abandoned the idea that Brazil should be a white, European country, and this probably eased the pressure on poor and lower-middle-class people to identify as white.

[1] Richard Lynn & Tatu Vanhanen, IQ & Global Inequality, Washington Summit Publishers, 2006, appendix 1.
[2] retrieved on September 2, 2015.
[3] retrieved on September 2, 2015.
[4] Renato Pinto Venâncio, “Presença portuguesa: de colonizadores a imigrantes.” In Brasil, 500 anos de povoamento, IBGE, Centro de Documentação e Disseminação de Informação, 2000.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Leandro Narloch, Guia Politicamente Incorreto da História do Brasil (edição ampliada), LeYa, 2009, page 83.
[7] Paul N Herbert, Confederados forge new cultural identity, Washington Times, December 17, 2009 edition.
[8] Ana Silvia Volpi Scott, As Duas Faces da Imigração Portuguesa Para o Brasil (décadas de 1820-1930), 2000.
[9] Richard Bourne, Getúlio Vargas a Esfinge dos Pampas, Geração Editorial, 1974, page 32.
[10] retrieved on September 3, 2015.
[11] Luiz Carlos Bresser Pereira, Origens Étnicas e Sociais do Empresário Paulista, page 13.
[12] Edward Eric Telles, “Racial Classification:” the Significance of Skin Color in Brazil, Princeton University Press, 2004, pages 81 to 84.
[13] retrieved on September 15, 2015.
[14] Richard Bourne, Getúlio Vargas a Esfinge dos Pampas, Geração Editorial, 1974, page 150.
[15] Richard Bourne, Getúlio Vargas a Esfinge dos Pampas, Geração Editorial, 1974, page 138.
[16] Richard Bourne, Getúlio a Esfinge dos Pampas, Geração Editorial, 1974, page 27.

Connecting the Dots on Andrew Anglin?

via Alternative Right

Back in the wake of the Dylan Storm(er) Roof shootings, Pulitzer-Prize-winning journalist Stephanie Saul contacted me because she was doing a hit piece on White Nationalism. Except it wasn’t a hit piece. Because the trouble with good things is that you can’t do hit pieces on them.
"Here are a bunch of White people who don’t want to be disempowered, turned into a minority, and then abused into extinction. How terribly, terribly evil!"
See how that works?

Even if you try to spin it in a certain way by heavy emphasis on associations with the tediously enforced myths of the Nazis (bad guys, true, but hardly the worst), there is always the danger that such spin will bounce off, leaving even more people to contemplate the thing-in-itself, and in-itself there is simply nothing wrong with the essence of White Nationalism.

But what struck me about Saul’s overtures was that she seemed mainly interested in talking about the Daily Stormer. This is what first alerted me to the fact that the article was not actually going to be about White Nationalism, because the Stormer is not White Nationalism.

But why did Saul come to me? The reason is that she naively figured I would be good for some useful quotes, having written extensively on Andrew Anglin and the Stormer in a number of articles here, here, and here (read them, they're fun). She was looking for quotes that would allow her to build the Stormer up into the centerpiece of her article and the face of White Nationalism. It is not and never could be.

Naturally I sensed this and took a conscious decision to frustrate her intentions by playing down the Stormer, telling her it was just a childish troll site (certainly its modus operandi) and that none of what it said should be taken at face value. I then recommended that she pay more attention to the The Right Stuff and The Daily Shoah, a much more engaging and effective form of White Nationalist trolling/humour/debate, and certainly funnier and better informed than the dreary formulaic “Heil Hitler” boilerplate churned out by the boring Mr. Anglin.

Not an Octoroon.
TRS is also run by people I can vouch for, as they don’t avoid interactions on the internet, unlike Anglin who remains a suspiciously elusive personality.

Perhaps the most forthcoming bit of Anglinia (yes, sounds like a nasty infection) was the recent interview he did with Red Ice Radio, where he came across as a much milder and low-energy guy than his image as the reincarnation as Julius Streicher – another baldy like Anglin, but one that didn't look quite so much like an octoroon as Anglin, who no doubt shaves off his frizz. (Was it my imagination or did Anglin flinch when Lana in her breezily toneless English-as-a-second-language sort of way referred to Blacks as "monkeys?" Well, listen for yourself.)

The end result of my interview with Saul is that this famous Pulitzer-Prize-Winning journalist was made to look like a putz (a good Jewish word), while the “Anglin as the face of White Nationalism” narrative slowly starved to death. Instead Saul’s article – co-written with Michael Wines – was forced to focus more on Richard Spencer, who had also allowed himself to be interviewed. Whatever various people in the Alt-Right may think of Richard – and views do vary considerably – we can all agree that he is a better front man for White Nationalism than someone like Anglin.

In the New York Times article, Anglin and Stormer got a bit of a mention, but only the kind that newspaper readers skim over, so I'll kindly re-run here:
"The young challenger to’s influence is The Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi mixture of message boards and sarcastic commentary begun by 30-year-old Andrew Anglin in 2013. He started it amid a national uproar over the killing in Florida of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old black youth, by a neighborhood watch monitor, George Zimmerman. Mr. Anglin was born in 1984. Like Mr. Black, he has a podcast The Daily Stormer offers frequently updated content, much of it provocatively raw and written by Mr. Anglin, who declined to be interviewed for this article but is believed to run the site out of suburban Columbus, Ohio. In a post on Friday headlined 'Spineless Jewpublicans Respond to the Donald,' Mr. Anglin took to task virtually the entire Republican presidential field for criticizing Donald Trump’s statements on Mexican immigrants."
It is not altogether surprising that Anglin refused to be interviewed because, as mentioned above, there is a marked disjunction between his real personality and his projected reincarnation as Julius Streicher for the 21st century, which, even in a newspaper interview, might come out.

Another possibility is that what we have with the New York Times and Anglin are two tentacles of the same beast, and that Anglin’s comic book Naziism might have rung particularly false if presented in an article that was attempting to treat White nationalism in such a manner (I believe this is called overkill in some quarters). A little mediating distance was therefore required, which Saul or her handlers hoped would be provided by me. (Excuse me while I LOL.)

Proof that even dumb people win Pulitzer Prizes.
One of the things that is most suspicious about Anglin is his supposed work rate. Go to the site yourself and count how many articles, purportedly written by Anglin, appear every day. While a lot of these articles are just copy and paste reworkings of normal news items with a bit of Heil Hitler schtick thrown in, some of them, like his recent hit piece on Richard Spencer and the NPI conference, are of considerable length. I’m a fast writer, but I could not manage that kind of output even if I made my articles as boilerplate boring as Anglin's and took plenty of speed.

The only rational explanation for this is that Anglin is more than a one-man band, but who are the other nameless members of his troll gang and who are the paymasters? These are questions that are not likely to be answered, but are questions that should be forever kept in view when dealing with the topic of the Stormer. From now on, to emphasize this hidden workforce, I will only refer to Anglin in the plural.

In their hit piece on NPI – timed to coincide with more conventional hit pieces like this – the Andrew Anglins contend that Spencer is sucking up to the Jews:
"Surprise, Richard, surprise! These Jews hate you even when you try to be nice to them! Surprise!"
"After 100 to 130 interviews with Jewish journalists, you figure out that saying nice things about Jews doesn’t make them like you more. As a rule, it takes approximately 3500-4500 interviews with Jewish journalists before you realize there is nothing to be gained from interactions with Jewish journalists, and then don’t even bother inviting them to your conferences."
"Yes, beg the Jews for equality. It’s a method which simply cannot fail. These Jews will eventually feel pity and give it to you. It’s inevitable."
An impartial reader might think the Anglins have a point and that, yes, White Nationalists should completely insulate themselves from the media, but the Anglins only have a point if one assumes (a) that Spencer is completely naive about ethnocentric Jews, (b) that most Whites are not put off by Streicher-esque "gas the Kikes" anti-Semitism, and (c) that the media is an irrelevance.

I know Richard pretty well by now, as do many others in our movement, and none of us would ever call Richard naive on the JQ. As for the palatability of Streicher-esque anti-Semitism, it is certainly palatable for many White Nationalists – indeed in-itself it hardly bothers me as history is full of unsavoury characters and I rather like history – but for other Whites, not to mention those Jews who might want to identify as Whites and help our cause (and there are some), it is certainly a different story.

Accordingly, I responded to the Stormer hit piece on NPI with the following comment:
"What Mr Anglin fails to understand (assuming for the sake of argument that he isn't a paid ghettoizer of legitimate White Nationalism) is that Spencer's tone is not aimed at placating ethno-conscious Jews –nothing will do that – but rather at reassuring Whites that we are not a bunch of Nazi obsessives like Anglin."
This may or may not be allowed through moderation – another sign that there are more than one Anglin at Daily Stormer, as moderating the number of comments the Stormer gets would be a considerable chunk out of anyone’s day.

Knowing what I know, and parsimoniously deducing what I don’t know, I conclude that the Daily Stormer is a fake White Nationalist site, created by our enemies in order to soak up White Nationalist resources and sentiment and deploy them towards self-ghettozing those Whites already aware of their interests, and thus separating them from those who aren't. The actions of the Anglins, however many there turn out to be, point unerringly in that direction.

"America and the World Jews" Responsible for World War II: British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain Recounted

via Ur-Fascist Analytics

Fomer British PM, Neville Chamberlain
Ur-Fascist Analytics Editor's Note: British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told Joseph Kennedy, then US Ambassador to Great Britain, that "America and the world Jews" pushed Britain and Germany into war with one another. This exchange was documented in The Forrestal Diaries, the published journal of the first US Secretary of Defense, James Forrestal. US Jews, including William Bullitt, used economic and political leverage to foment an Anglo-German war.[1]

Excerpt from LIFE magazine, 15 October, 1951

The following, reproduced at this site, is an excerpt of The Forrestal Diaries:
Played golf today with Joe Kennedy [Joseph Kennedy, US Ambassador to Great Britain right before World War II and father of future US President John F. Kennedy]. I asked him about his conversations with Roosevelt and Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said Chamberlain’s position in 1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy’s view: That Hitler would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it had not been for Bullitt’s [William C. Bullitt, US Jewish diplomat, descendant of Hyam Saloman, then US Ambassador to France] urging on Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said, kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn’t fight, Kennedy that they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war. In his telephone conversation with Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 the President kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain’s backside. Kennedy’s response always was that putting iron up his backside did no good unless the British had some iron with which to fight, and they did not. ... 
To summarize, Forrestal is saying that at the height of positive Anglo-German relations in 1938, US and world Jews in general were working to destroy those relations. In particular, US Jew and envoy, William C. Bullitt, was striving to undermine peace between Britain and Germany. Bullitt put pressure on Roosevelt to harden US diplomacy toward Germany. His pressure on Roosevelt succeeded in putting pressure on Britain. The aim of US and world Jewry was to use Poland to commit Britain to go to war against Germany.

In Freedom Betrayed, by Herbert Hoover, Bullitt is recounted pressuring Poland to refuse a deal of any sort with Hitler that would peacefully return Danzig to Germany:
Further American activities were disclosed after the Germans had invaded Poland in September 1939 and seized the Polish Foreign Office records. The Germans released a mass of documents which certainly indicated that the American Ambassador to France, William C. Bullitt, who could only act on Mr. Roosevelt’s authority, had made a profusion of oral assurances to officials of Poland and France which they could only interpret as a promise of assistance of some kind of force from the United States.
Bullitt left no doubt of the intended effect of US foreign policy toward Britain, Poland, and Germany. US would push Britain into a suicidal war, and the US would finish it:
As Ambassador Bullitt puts it: “If a war breaks out, we probably would not participate in it at the beginning, but we would finish it.”… One thing, however, appears to be certain, namely that President Roosevelt’s policy in the immediate future will tend to … weaken Britain’s tendencies toward a compromise [meaning that Britain would not be allowed to find a peaceful compromise between Poland or Germany, but instead pushed into offering a war guarantee to Poland that would simultaneously ensure no diplomatic deal on Danzig would be reached].
Chamberlain's instinct was to avoid any commitments and to allow Germany and Poland to reach a compromise on Danzig, but Bullitt and Roosevelt were determined:
… Roosevelt and Bullitt were the major factors in the British making their guarantees to Poland and becoming involved in the war. Kennedy said that Bullitt, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the Poles not to make terms with the Germans and that he Kennedy, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the British to make guarantees to the Poles. 
He said that after Chamberlain had given these guarantees, Chamberlain told him (Kennedy) that he hoped the Americans and the Jews would now be satisfied but that he (Chamberlain) felt that he had signed the doom of civilization.
The immediate result of Jewish involvement in British, German, and Polish diplomacy was threefold: 1) It exerted pressure on Roosevelt to increase tensions between Britain and Germany, 2) it directly pressured Britain into making a promise to go to war with Germany, leading to the "war guarantee" of 31 March, 1939, and 3) this, in turn, influenced the Poles to refuse any further negotiations with Hitler for a peaceful resolution to Danzig or the Corridor. Its long term result was, in Chamberlain's own words, the "doom of civilization."
Notes: 1. I previously posted this research, but it is included again with additional quotes to deepen the historical context. See also this IHR article as well as this research.