Nov 13, 2015

Do White Lives Matter? Justice for Jeremy Mardis

via EGI Notes

Negro police kill a 6-year old autistic White boy, and seriously injure his father, for no apparent reason.

The White reaction: nothing. Silence. No protests. No comments. Nothing.

Majestically inferior Whites are too busy jock-sniffing Negro athletes and voting for Negro neurosurgeons. Who cares about Mardis?

Well, maybe I am being premature. Whites may indeed protest about this - protest in support of the policemen. After all, their innocent Black bodies are being persecuted by White racism; they had no "safe spaces" free from all those dangerous White 6-year olds.

Take to the streets, Whitey!  The innocent dindu nuffins need your support!

TradYouth Hour: Tales From the District of Corruption

via TradYouth

Listen Now

Matthew Heimbach and Matt Parrott return with news of their recent activities in the District of Columbia, where they were both frisked by a Nation of Islam security guard.

Black nationalists are often more aware of the Jewish question than White patriots are and since they wish to separate from us and we from them, then surely we should be reaching out to them and offering mutual support for this endeavor?

This does not mean that they are comrades, merely that they could be useful as allies in certain situations.

This can also be used as evidence to show that we are not supremacists who wish to rule over others, but separatists who just wish to live among our own folk.

Multiculturalism and the promotion of the homosexual agenda are taking place everywhere and it is not just White people that are organizing against it.

In fact in many instances Non-Whites are putting up more of a resistance to it than certain White Nationalist groups.

Traditionalism includes traditional relationships between people who look like your ancestors, there is no room for deviant sexual behavior dressed up as being ‘equal’ to natural marriage.

It is the time of year for conferences and the Traditionalist Worker Party are preparing for their own local party meetings in both Western and Eastern Kentucky, as well as for a march in a local Christmas parade alongside Republicans and Democrats.

Winning over the people before the Jew media gets a chance to stick its claws in is going to be a challenge and charity-drives to help Whites who are less well off, is just one of the ways the TWP are hoping to help our people.

Following the Golden Dawn example of concentrating on direct action rather than talk, the party have many social programs like this that they are currently working on.
Matt Parrott closes the podcast with some inspiring words about Willis Carto and how he tirelessly worked against all odds to promote our cause.

If he can put up with all the slurs and slanders for over seven decades, then we certainly can too.

The Fourth Generation Warfare Handbook

via traditionalRIGHT

The Fourth Generation Warfare Handbook, co-authored by Lt. Col. Greg Thiele and myself, is now available on Amazon. At present, it is only an e-book; the real book should be available early next year. The publisher is Castalia House Press.

The Fourth Generation Warfare Handbook is a follow-on to my Maneuver Warfare Handbook, which was published in 1985 and is still in print. The new book’s origins lie in the Fourth Generation Warfare seminar Lt. Col. Thiele and I taught for some years at the Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Warfare School. That seminar wrote a number of field manuals for 4GW, published as manuals of the K.u.K. Austro-Hungarian Marine Corps. Greg and I distilled the content of those manuals, added a good bit of material of our own (especially on true light infantry, normally the most effective force against 4GW opponents) and have published it in a form we think will reach more readers than have the field manuals.
The new book presumes the reader is familiar with the framework of the Four Generations of Modern War, although it does offer a summary of the first three generations in an appendix. After a discussion of the theory of 4GW which focuses on the dilemmas it poses to state armed forces, dilemmas which usually lead state militaries to defeat themselves, it turns to the practical problems 4GW presents. This is consistent with its nature as a handbook: its purpose is not academic discussion but providing useful ideas to those serving in state forces.

One of the potentially most useful tools it offers is the grid: a nine-box square with the three traditional levels of war, tactical, operational, and strategic, on the vertical axis and Col. John Boyd’s three new levels, physical, mental, and moral, on the horizontal axis. State armed forces (including police) can use the grid to evaluate planned missions by asking what results the mission is likely to bring in each of the nine boxes.

At present, most missions are evaluated in only one box, the tactical/physical. These are the two weakest levels of war. The blowback the mission brings at more powerful levels, especially the most powerful box, strategic/moral, helps explain why state militaries usually lose Fourth Generation wars. By using the grid to anticipate negative results at higher and more powerful levels, it may be possible to avoid those negative effects by changing what is done tactically and physically.

European readers of The Fourth Generation Warfare Handbook may wonder why much of the latter part of the book is devoted to true light (or Jaeger) infantry. The reason is that the U.S. armed forces mis-define light infantry as line infantry with less equipment. This false definition leads the Americans to think they have light infantry when in fact they do not. Because true light infantry are usually 4GW forces’ most dangerous opponents, this leaves the U.S. largely disarmed in this kind of war. Its fall-back of massive firepower literally blows up in its face at the moral level, ensuring its defeat. (The closest thing the U.S. has to true light infantry is probably the Marine Scout/Snipers. According to one report from Afghanistan, the Taliban refer to the Scout/Snipers as “The Marines who are well-trained.” The Pashtun are, and long have been, some of the world’s best light infantry.)

For Americans, the Handbook‘s chapter on how to convert line to light infantry may be its most important. Many infantry battalion, company, and platoon commanders would like to make the switch, but don’t know how. Now they will.

My hope is that the The Fourth Generation Warfare Handbook will prove as useful to members of sate armed forces a has the Maneuver Warfare Handbook. 4GW is a more difficult challenge than 3GW, maneuver warfare. Because only those state armed forces that have made it into the Third Generation have any chance of winning in 4GW, both books are likely to be around for a long time.

Jewish Character Traits in Israel

via Counter-Currents

A day in the life: Jews harass Palestinian woman
Counter-Currents Editor’s Note: Harold Covington once memorably described Israel as “a vast, open-air madhouse.” The following essay gives some support to this claim. It was excerpted by Irminsul’s Racial Nationalist Library from When Victims Rule, formerly online at Jewish Tribal Review. Irminsul added the title and deleted JTR’s in-text citations.

Like any nation, the modern state of Israel has a discernible collective psychological attitude: a communal “personality.” It is formed at its core by the conviction that Israel is a Jewish island, a people under constant siege by hostile goyim. A key ingredient of the Israeli public persona, much championed, is that Jews are tough, emotionally hardened, and ruthless, a self-image epitomized in the “sabra” (literally meaning a cactus fruit, but colloquially meaning a Jew born in Israel). In popular Israeli folklore, the Jews of Israel are “thorny and tough on the outside, but soft inside.”

The sabra image also has deep psychological sources in the nationalist “lessons” learned from the Holocaust, a situation where a perceived lack of Jewish physical force and power in the diaspora (galut) throughout the world inevitably must — sooner or later — lead to disaster at the hands of Gentiles.

Zionism, in whatever form, has invariably dovetailed with some of the central tenets of classical religious Judaism, including the old “people apart” syndrome: Jewish alienation from all other peoples. “The civil religion [of Israel],” notes Charles Liebman and Eliezer Dov-Yehiya, “has been most forceful in asserting that Israel is an isolated nation confronting a hostile world … The growing importance of traditional Judaism and Jewishness is associated with the centrality of the Holocaust as the primary political myth of Israeli society, the symbol of Israel’s present condition and the one which provides Israel with legitimacy … The Holocaust to a great extent fashions ‘our national consciousness’ and the memory is omnipresent in Israeli society.”

“Israeli political culture,” says Israeli professor Myron Aronoff, “reflects not only the general theme of the few against the many, but a growing emphasis of ‘them against us’ … The traditional concept of Esau hates Jacob [Gentiles hate Jews] and a nation that dwells alone became explanations of reality and legitimization of Israeli policy.” As former lobbyist for Israel Doug Bloomfield once noted, some Israelis tend to have a “You owe us” and “Screw the world” attitudes. Zev Chafets remembers an Israeli concert he attended in 1969, two years after he moved to Israel from America: “As the show drew to a close, the group swung into an up-temp number. ‘Ha’olam Ku’lo heg’denu,’ they sang. ‘The whole world is against us.’ The audience knew the song and joined in on the chorus … [:] ‘The whole world is against us; never mind, we’ll get by; we don’t give a damn about them anyway.’”

Jewish scholar Daniel Niewyk describes the racist dimension of this Zionist ideology of alienation from others, especially as it developed in Germany:

At the heart of the Zionist critique of liberal assimilation lay the conviction that Jews constitute a unique race. It was the belief in insurmountable racial differences that made the inevitability of anti-Semitism credible, just as it rationalizes the view that every effort to assimilate must go aground on the barrier reef of biological determinism … The maintenance of that [racial] purity was essential to German Zionism, for it acknowledged the essential prerequisite for nationhood to be [in the 1922 words of Zionist Fritz Kahn] “consanguinity of the flesh and solidarity of the soul” together with the “will to establish a closer [Jewish] brotherhood over [and] against all other communities on earth.”

Amnon Rubenstein notes the disturbing irony expressed in this world view of the Israeli people: “The establishment of Israel was an attempt to make Jews like everybody else. They would now have a state. It has not worked out that way. Israel has made Jews more, not less, exceptional. The pariah people, it seems, have simply succeeded in creating a pariah state.” Perhaps, however, this situation is inevitable. Unmentioned by Rubenstein is the religiously-based “nation apart” self-concept always so deeply embedded in Jewish mass psychology, a self-understanding and communal choice that apparently cannot be shaken, even in a secular nation-state context.

Non-Jewish scholar Virginia Dominguez, who spent long periods of time in Israel in later years doing research, noted the traditional Jewish narcissism and interest in pedigrees of identity expressed by the Israelis she met:

“What do you mean you say you are not Jewish?” I was asked on several occasions. “That you’re not religious? That your mother wasn’t Jewish? That ‘we the Jews’ wouldn’t count you as a Jew because you had some Jewish ancestry but not the right ones, according to Halacha?” I was incredulous at first. I had no way then to anticipate this reaction. Everything else seemed to point to the importance of Jewishness, and to controlling both the content and limits of Jewishness.

The omnipresent stresses of a predominantly military state, the emphatic “we versus them” paradigm of traditional Jewish identity, the glorification of power and aggression, millennia-old disdain for non-Jews, and the emotional powder keg of Holocaust death camps as a motivational tool have invariably led to the noxious Israeli collective persona that is so much remarked upon by non-Israelis (often even Israelis themselves) who spend much time in Israel. Common traits of this “national character” are arrogance, insolence (chutzpah), coldness, roughness, and rudeness, to begin a long list of unpleasant “uncivil” attributes.

Many Diaspora Jews, in describing this Israeli character, tend to romanticize it. “There is a coldness,” notes Jewish scholar Norman Cantor, “a mystery, a distance from humanity about [Israelis] that anyone from another country who lives and works in Israel for a half a year will be impressed by.” “Israelis have a reputation for bad manners,” notes Jewish American immigrant to Israel Charles Liebman, “to the extent this reputation is deserved it stems from the sense of familiarity that Israelis feel towards one another.” Adam Garfinkle adds that “Israelis are sometimes rude to an extent that it even bothers other Israelis.” “The behavior of young Israelis,” Israeli Jay Gonen writes, “… is characterized by a high degree of chutzpah or gall; it is direct, blatant, unruly, clever, humorous, and indicates a certain lack of sensitivity to social requirements … [It has a] disregard for rules, regulations, social norms, and good manners.” Melford Spiro, in his study of the kibbutzim, discusses “insolence” as an “outstanding characteristic of the sabras” (native-born Israelis).

Herbert Russcol — a Jewish American emigrant to Israel — and his sabra wife Margarit Banai described the Israeli national character this way:

“Horror stories” about the chutzpah — of the sabra-men, women, and children alike — are notorious. What appears to be (and often is) their cheek, their insolence, has shocked and enraged everyone who has met them. Sabras freely admit their chutzpahas a people, but are rarely aware of being chutzpadik themselves. They will tell you, “Oh, we’re terrible. It’s a national vice. I am not so bad, but I have some very rude friends” … Chutzpah is alarmingly close to chauvinism, and it must be admitted that the sabra is usually passionately chaunvinistic in an era when no gospel has been more discredited in the West than blind, excessive patriotism.

“The deliberate and unadorned frankness [of Israelis],” notes Zionist historian Melvin Urofsky, “so highly prized by Israelis, scornful of Westernized and ‘assimilated’ manners, struck [Jewish] Americans [who sought to live in Israel], accustomed to some courtesies in life, as downright rude. (As late as 1965, a study of bureaucratic behavior in one large Israeli enterprise disclosed that 60 per cent of officials in contact with the public did not believe in greeting a visitor, nor would they reply to his greeting; an even higher percentage would not offer him a chair, simply letting him stand during the interview.)

Such attributes, it may be recalled, are among those that Jews have been noted for across the centuries. Leon Poliakov rhetorically remarks on the inevitable echo here in the European Jewish past: “Are the Jews congenitally unsociable and rude, or are they this way as a result of having been segregated in ghettos? Such was the form of the question in which arguments raged [among non-Jewish intellectuals] in the 18th century on the eve of Emancipation.”

As Joyce Starr notes: “Among Americans who have had extensive dealings with Israelis, whether in government, business, or Jewish circles, the first adjectives that comes to their lips are arrogant, willful, and sometimes infuriating.” Ms. Starr, who is also Jewish, notes the interchange she had with a man called J.R., “a high-ranking Israeli intelligence officer”:

“Most Americans I interviewed in the government sphere — the State Department, Defense Department — use certain words when they describe Israelis.”
“Arrogant,” J. R. replied.
“Yes, arrogant is a word that comes up frequently.”
“By the way, I think it’s true. It applies to most Israelis. American fairness and Israeli fairness are different.”
“What is Israeli fairness?”
“Israeli fairness is ‘You give me 75 percent and leave 25 percent.’”
“Do they know they do it?”
“Most of them do not. I think most of them believe that by some divine decree, they deserve to get everything.”
“What is divine decree?”
“It comes from God.” He saw me laughing. “It”s not funny, Joyce.”

“To the brief tourist,” wrote Leonard Wolf, a Jewish resident of Israel in 1970, “[Israelis] are a rude, unsympathetic people, intent on themselves, irresponsive to nuances of feeling. Americans, who are instantly, if not profoundly, genial, are apt to find the slow pace of Israeli friendliness cold, comparing the Jewish hotelkeepers and tourist guides they meet unfavorably with the extraordinarily warm Arabs.”

In 2001, a Jewish ethnic newspaper, the Forward, noted that the national Israeli propensity to be cheats and hustlers (always evasive of the law) probably had roots in Jewish history in other lands:

[There is] universal awareness that something is definitely rotten in the state of Israel. This is, after all, a country in which bending the rules is said to be a national pasttime, cutting corners a way of life and cheating the authorities the proof of merit … Sticklers for the law are ridiculed and abused, where anyone who works by the book is branded a sap, a “freier,” the worst insult in modern Israeli lexicon … Many people believe Israeli laxity, which borders on anarchy, is a national personality trait that cannot be eradicated by laws alone. Some trace the trait all the way back to the historical Jewish Diaspora, where Jews often found solace in bending the rules imposed by the often anti-Semitic authorities.

In 1986, B. Z. Sobel, an Israeli sociologist at the University of Haifa, discussed his research into reasons why so many Israelis emigrate from Israel to other lands. Among the motivations for leaving, he noted that “there is indeed an edginess [in Israeli society]; tempers flare, and verbal violence is rampant … A large proportion of those [Israelis] interviewed for my study … have been abroad [overseas] or were born or raised abroad, and in almost all cases reference is made to the fact that ‘people are nice in chutz la’aretz.’ Strangers wish you a good day as they make change or pass you in the street, whereas at home [Israel] you can consider yourself fortunate to receive minimally civil treatment.”

“Americans are much more polite, I would say,” remarked Israeli journalist Ze’ev Schiff, “while we are rude and have no patience … You can see it when some of us are waiting in a queue in a bank or waiting for a bus … This is the way we deal with each other, with the Egyptians, the Europeans, whoever.” As Joyce Starr adds: “The tension [in Israel] spills out in sudden eruptions of rudeness. You can be standing in line in a gas station, and suddenly there will be an outbreak of shouts and terrible cursing for no apparent reason except that people explode in Israel.”

Moshe Shokeid notes the comments of an Israeli identified as “Eli,” and his perceptions of the Israelis he met in New York City: “When I looked at the crowd, I subconsciously saw myself in the mirror. When you see other Israelis screaming in Hebrew, you realize that you possibly look the same. Unfortunately, I rediscovered the ugly Israeli.”

In the 1980s, Virginia Dominguez, a Cuban American sociologist, fluent in Hebrew and a Fulbright scholar in Israel, worried that obnoxious Israeli behavior and Jewish self-obsession threatened to push her into the camp of the anti-Semites:

Has my obsessive, long-term encounter with Israeli society over the past six years turned me into the anti-Semite I never was? I find myself sharply intolerant of the noisy, brash behavior of most Israeli children. I coin terms of description that are even explicitly judgmental. I get exasperated with the perennial references in the [Hebrew] media to the Jewishness of well-known public figures abroad.

Wendy Orange, a Jewish American, a new immigrant to Israel, noted with irritation the commentary of a group of Christian visitors she overheard in Jerusalem restaurant:

I overheard one Ghanaian woman say, “Just ghastly, these people!” She’s talking to a pregnant Irish woman, who responded wholeheartedly: “I never imagined they’d be so crude … so rude.” The Ghanaian, tall and dignified, her hair wrapped high in a colorful African sash, became more emphatic: “No manners … They drive like madmen.” She paused. “They are far more barbarian than I was warned. And I was warned, my dear, many times.”

In 2001, Great Britain’s online Telegraph newspaper noted

Israelis — who take pride in being blunt and outspoken — are to teach children good manners in an attempt to cut the nation’s tendency towards violence. From the next school year, 12-year-olds will be taught how to behave politely, which knife and fork to use at table, and how to resolve arguments without shouting or coming to blows. Ronit Tirosh, director-general of the Education Ministry said: “We are a brutal and impatient society, and the delicacy learned through these lessons may reduce our society’s violent tendencies.” Israelis are proud not to say thank you and relish the informality of life … Israeli life is a bruising contest of one-upmanship. The deepest fear is to be thought a “sucker” who obeys the rules. Brusqueness has been cultivated by native-born Israelis as a reaction against the manners of Europe’s Diaspora Jews, who were seen as cringing and subservient … Educationalists have become worried about the level of playground violence.

Traditional Jewish chutzpah is of course an integral part of the Israeli identity. “To a large degree,” says Israeli professor Jay Gonen, “… Herzl’s impact [on Jewish nationalism] was due to a quality of chutzpah, or unmitigated gall, which became an integral part of Zionism and was subsequently elevated almost to an art form by native-born Israelis, or sabras.” An example of how far this chutzpah can go was evidenced in an incident during the Palestinian uprising — known as the Intifada — that began in 1987 against Israeli occupation in Gaza and the West Bank. Of the hundreds of Palestinians shot and killed or wounded by Israeli troops in the Intifada’s first year, one young Arab teenager, Nasir Hawwash, was shot in the head and lay in a hospital, irrecoverably brain dead. One day Nasir’s brother received a telephone call from a Jewish Israeli citizen, an emissary for the family of a fellow middle-aged Israeli in the hospital with a serious heart condition. The stranger on the phone asked that the Hawwash family donate Nasir’s heart to save the Jewish man in the hospital who needed it.

“Nasir’s older brother,” notes Glenn Frankel, “was appalled that an Israeli would ask such a thing. She told him, ‘This is how we’ll make peace between Arabs and Jews.’ He was not buying it. ‘How can you make peace when you shoot someone and then you take the heart to give life to another Israeli?’ he told her.”

As the story for the heart request made the Israeli news, one Palestinian “radical” noted that “If we give the Israelis this heart, soon they’ll be shooting us for our organs.”

The Arab boy’s father was eventually offered “more money than [his] family would have seen in a lifetime” for his son’s heart, but he told the Israeli pleaders no. “What did they want from me?” he asked. “This was my son. They took him away, then they wanted his body. This I could not give.”

“Islamization of Europe a good thing”

via The Occidental Observer

A 2012 article on a rabbi who approves of the Islamization of Europe is of interest because such thinking is widespread among Jews. Rabbi Baruch Erfrati, a  yeshiva head and West Bank settler, wrote that
the Islamization of Europe was better than a Christian Europe for ethical and theological reasons – as a punishment against Christians for persecuting the Jews and the fact that Christianity, as opposed to Islam, is considered “idolatry” from a halachic point of view.
“Jews should rejoice at the fact that Christian Europe is losing its identity as a punishment for what it did to us for the hundreds of years were in exile there,” the rabbi explained as the ethical reason for favoring Muslims, quoting shocking descriptions from the Rishonim literature (written by leading rabbis who lived during the 11th to 15th centuries) about pogroms and mass murders committed by Christians against Jews.
“We will never forgive Europe’s Christians for slaughtering millions of our children, women and elderly… Not just in the recent Holocaust, but throughout the generations, in a consistent manner which characterizes all factions of hypocritical Christianity…
“And now, Europe is losing its identity in favor of another people and another religion, and there will be no remnants and survivors from the impurity of Christianity, which shed a lot of blood it won’t be able to atone for.”
Such opinions would be of little note except that there are indications that such attitudes are widespread among Jews. I wrote an article on this a while ago, motivated by the statement of another rabbi, Joshua Hammerman, commenting on football player Tim Tebow’s strong Christian faith:
If Tebow wins the Super Bowl, against all odds, it will buoy his faithful, and emboldened faithful can do insane things, like burning mosques, bashing gays and indiscriminately banishing immigrants. While America has become more inclusive since Jerry Falwell’s first political forays, a Tebow triumph could set those efforts back considerably. (my emphasis) …
The deep fear of Christianity—especially when it’s emotionally compelling—is mother’s milk to American Jews.  For example, Israeli patriot Elliott Abrams  acknowledges that the mainstream Jewish community in America “clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.” According to Abrams, because of this vision, Jews have taken the lead in secularizing America.  In fact, the key role of Jewish organizations in shaping the Constitutional law on Church/State relations is well known. And it’s not much of a mystery who’s behind the war on Christmas; Hollywood certainly hates it, as Edmund Connelly reminds us (see here and here).
Or Joel Kotkin: “For generations, [American] Jews have viewed religious conservatives with a combination of fear and disdain.”
Or Norman Podhoretz:
[The Jews] emerged from the Middle Ages knowing for a certainty that — individual exceptions duly noted — the worst enemy they had in the world was Christianity: the churches in which it was embodied — whether Roman Catholic or Russian Orthodox or Protestant — and the people who prayed in and were shaped by them. It was a knowledge that Jewish experience in the ages to come would do very little, if indeed anything at all, to help future generations to forget. (See here.)
Or Steve Sailer describing Steven Pinker’s
deep-rooted aversion to engaging intellectually with the effects of Christianity. His distaste for the culture of Christendom before the Enlightenment is palpable. For instance, he responds to historian Barbara Tuchman’s summary of medieval economic theory with, “As my grandfather would have put it, ‘Goyische kopp!’—gentile head.” This old family attitude seems to make this otherwise very bright scholar’s interpretations of the last 2,000 years rather obtuse.
This fear and loathing of Christianity is mainstream among the numerically dominant liberal Jews like Hammerman—the 80+% of American Jews who voted for Obama.
So when we come across statements like Rabbi Erfrati’s, they should be added to what is a very long tradition. This fear persists despite the fact that large swaths of American Protestantism are philo-Semitic, including many millions who are rabidly pro-Israel.

Finally, Erfrati’s statement reminds us that this fear and loathing of Christian societies is one of the motivations for Jewish support of non-White, non-Christian immigration. If indeed the worst enemy in the world for Jews is Christianity, as Podhoretz says, a solution is to make European societies non-Christian. These themes come together in my article “Why so much Jewish fear and loathing of Donald Trump“: The real fear is that “Trump might actually do something on immigration, legal and illegal, that would slow White dispossession, and that this could perhaps snowball into something far greater, with unknown consequences.” The real concern is that Trump would roll back the ongoing onslaught against White Christian America.

Missouri Compromised

via Radix

The fight for justice is never over, of course, but it has achieved a small victory in forcing the resignations of University of Missouri system President Tim Wolfe and Chancellor Richard Loftin. By now, you have probably already heard why they had to go. Since the start of the Fall semester, there have been two different instances in which Whites called a Black student, or in one case, a group of Black students, niggers. Twice! That is a trend. That is dangerous. 

Naturally, a group of Black collegians decided to voice their concerns to then-Mizzou President Wolfe. So they tried to get his attention by blocking the route of his car during the annual Homecoming parade, but this only led to further racist outrage. No, they were not arrested, but instead of stopping the parade right then and there so he could hear their righteous demands, the students were removed, and Wolfe went on his way, waiving at the children or whatever it is they do at those things. (I should add in passing that at Mizzou, my alma mater incidentally, Homecoming is an even bigger deal than at most schools; the Homecoming tradition, now observed all over the country, was first started by MU.)

Then, on Oct. 24, it was discovered that some Shitlord had redecorated a wall in one the dorms with a Swastika made of feces.

Since all of this happened on Wolfe’s watch, he had to go. Black students began staging protests, one Black graduate student decided to go on a hunger strike until Wolfe stepped down, and then last Saturday, 32 Black Mizzou football players went on strike. Wolfe was gone by Monday. Wolfe could have revoked the players’ scholarships, he could have done a lot of things to fight back, but . . . well, you know the type. Maybe he received a golden parachute, which would make the situation even worse, because his cowardice deserves no reward of any kind.

No one is alleging that Wolfe has any personal connection the perpetrators. And so a rational person might wonder why the actions of a few locals should have cost Tim Wolfe his job. The answer is that we are not dealing with rationality. That is my point here. University life, which ought to be the most rational sphere in society, is now among the least. For Christ’s sake, the Professor in the viral video who called for “muscle” to remove a reporter from the protest site is a Professor of communication!

A similar situation is playing out over at the Mizzou of Connecticut, Yale. At Yale, every residence hall has a live-in Professor to guide the intellectual life of the hall. (At Mizzou, we did not have such a nurturing arrangement. We simply had R.A.s, who were just fat kids who might issue smoking-in-the-dorm citations and question you about why the couch in your room looks just like one that used to be in the lobby, but who otherwise left you to your own devices.) Anyways, in one of Yale’s resident colleges, husband and wife Nicholas and Erika Christakis, both teachers at that University, share this mentoring task.

Apparently, some residents of this hall complained to the couple that University administrators were taking the fun out of Halloween by advising them to avoid certain costumes. So Mrs. Christakis, who, as a Professor of early childhood education, would seem more than qualified to speak on such an issue, sent out a thoughtful email in reply. College students are probably mature enough to decide for themselves what costumes to wear . . . if it is alright for an eight-year-old blonde girl to dress as a non-White Disney Princess, who is to say at what age it is no longer acceptable? . . . perhaps we should be encouraging imagination, not restricting it . . . These were the kinds of reasonable things she said in the email. Ultimately, she concludes that we should not be forcing our “Hallowenish” standards on each other. That is obvious, I think.

Her husband added, “if you don’t like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or tell them you are offended. Talk to each other.” Again, this seems pretty obvious. If you are a sane and civilized person, those are pretty much your only two options.

Regrettably, it can no longer be taken for granted that Yale undergrads are sane and civilized. And now many of them are demanding that the couple resign their posts. In the words of one student, whom I am guessing considers herself a Strong Black Woman, and who is probably quite strong:
Then why the fuck did you accept the position?! Who the fuck hired you?! You should step down! If that is what you think about being a master you should step down! It is not about creating an intellectual space! ... Do you understand that? It’s about creating a home here.
Creating a home and an intellectual space were once thought to be compatible, but as the Tragedy of the West unfolds, this appears less and less true. Free speech and rationality are fading away in the name of tolerance.

I do not have a personal blog to remind you of my past wisdom, and I do not want to be one of those writers who produces the same story over and over, only with different characters. So if you are interested in placing these examples of academic degeneration in a larger societal context, see here.

But back to Mizzou and Columbia for a moment though. The image many in the media are promoting about Columbia, that it is an only semi-reconstructed Southern town, is flat-out silly. It is possible that since Ferguson the town has become more racially tense, but when I was there less than a decade ago, it was, for better and worse, a picture of American normalcy—college edition.

My first semester there, three differences from back home stuck-out to me.
  1. People were a bit nicer and a bit smarter.
  2. The distribution of personality-types and fashion-styles was much more narrow. I think MU acceptance letters must have come with complimentary Northface jackets. I must have forgotten to check that box on my admissions form.
  3. Back home, bathroom graffiti was mostly curse words and racial slurs; at Mizzou, it was debates about religion and between Greeks and non-Greeks.
In hindsight, these seem like the kind of differences that must be noticed by millions of kids arriving on campuses around the country every year. So in other words, Columbia is a normal American college town.

I heard very little in the way of racist commentary from my fellow students, even though it was known that I was a safe-space for the airing of such views. On my subjective racism-scale, I would rank Columbia as a bit less racist than Chicagoland, and a bit more so than Madison. And that might even overestimate Columbia’s racism, because people there are much more likely to be open-books than in those other two places.

Mind and Cosmos

via Gornahoor

Being a review of Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False, by Thomas Nagel.

A couple of weeks ago I watched the notorious atheist and Darwinist Richard Dawkins interviewed by a non-descript host on a cable news network. Since the context was a discussion of Ben Carson’s belief in creationism, the host listened with rapt attention to, but little understanding of, Dawkins’ presentation. Of course, for the half-educated intelligentsia represented by the hose, a blind belief in the “theory of evolution” is a status marker even though they neither understand it in depth nor are aware of its ultimate consequences for human thought.

Without defining the term, Dawkins asserted that “evolution” is a “fact”. We agree that the two basic components of evolution are facts. These are:
  • Descent with variation: the offspring are similar, but not identical to the parents.
  • Natural selection: some organisms will reproduce themselves better than others in their natural environments.
There are subsidiary facts, such as:
  • DNA sequences of similar organisms have many commonalities
  • The age of the earth seems to be quite old
  • The fossil record shows organisms arising and being replaced by other organisms

Nagel’s Thesis

There is no point in disputing settled scientific facts. Instead, Nagel himself points out some additional facts:
  • Consciousness: its subjective character has no physical explanation
  • Cognition: thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect independent of the thinker’s beliefs
  • Values: values are real, not merely subjective
Properly understood, Nagel shows that these facts cannot be explained by nature understood a simply physical and material. Nagel is an atheist, just like Dawkins, so there is no question of special pleading for a partisan religious view. The two components produce different results.
  1. Descent with random variation should work like a random walk. Specifically, “evolution” is not evolving, rather, it is probably going nowhere.
  2. Yet that is not what is observed. Instead, nature or the environment, seems to channel evolution in specific directions.


As part of organic life on Earth, man is subject to a multitude of laws. First of all, as a corporeal being, he is subject to the laws of physics: e.g., gravity, conservation of energy and momentum, and so on. Then, he is subject to the laws of chemistry, since a large number of chemical reactions constantly occur in the body.

However, physical and chemical laws are surely insufficient to understand any form of life, never mind human life. For example, it would not be possible to understand the movement of people in a city just based on force and momentum. It is not even possible in principle.

So, why would the “theory of evolution”, as a biological law, be able to explain the totality of the human being? That is what is objectionable in neo-Darwinism. The facts as such are not in dispute. What is far from obvious is that genetic variation and natural selection together explain everything about man. How can DNA cause conscious and sentient beings?

Chance and Intelligibility

Nagel begins his discussion with the notion of the intelligibility of the world. That is equivalent to the Principle of Sufficient Reason, the notion that everything about the world can be understood at some level. Absolute Idealism (e.g., Plato, Schelling, etc.) considers rational intelligibility to be at the root of the natural order. So Nagel considers himself an absolute idealist (but never writes of the Absolute in this book).

Since mind is part of that order, it, too, must be intelligible. Nagel denies that physical, chemical, and biological laws –i.e., efficient causes alone—suffice to explain mind. Therefore, he is compelled to bring in the idea of teleology, or final causes, to explain the emergence of mind. That acts as a “pull” to the “push” of efficient causes. Although he does not express it this way, efficient causes are quantitative while final causes are qualitative. Since the whole scientific enterprise began with Francis Bacon’s rejection of final causes and Galileo’s rejection of qualitative explanations, Nagel in effect rolls back thought to a pre-modern era.

Nevertheless, it is not a simple reaction against the modern world, since it also incorporates whatever truths modern science has given us.

Unfortunately, while science has promised to make the world intelligible, it has done so by leaving out important features. First of all, the opposite of intelligibility is chance or randomness. In fact, a random sequence is such because the next element of the sequence cannot be inferred from any of the preceding elements. Perfect randomness, therefore, is the denial of the Principle of Sufficient Reason.


Every outdoorsman knows that a random walk in the woods leads nowhere; most likely, you would end up where you started. That is why you need to mark your path so you don’t traverse the same places twice. Hence, if a city boy was lost in the woods, but emerged two days later, you might call that a miracle. Or else, you might suspect he had some skills he hadn’t owned up to.

That is the situation as Nagel sees it. The emergence of conscious, intelligent, and rational beings by chance alone does not seem at all plausible. Now, the first factor in evolution, viz., variation or genetic drift, is certainly random. If it follows a random walk, it should go nowhere. Fossil records should show species evolving backwards to more primitive forms, for example. In other words, there is no “direction” to evolution, or, in other words, not teleology.

On the other hand, the second factor, natural selection, is not random. Dawkins himself did an experiment with Scrabble-like tiles. By randomly placing the tiles, followed by a selection mechanism, he would end up with an English sentence.

So if life as we know it is the result of random variations and natural selection, Nagel explores the selection factor. Specifically, what would nature have to be like to produce human beings?


Nagel endeavors to explain three facts: the emergence of consciousness, cognition, and value in biological species. As a committed naturalist, he rejects theological explanations that account for those facts from a force outside nature. That is fine since the general understanding of God in exoteric religious adherents is usually defective, creating more confusion than insight. Likewise, he rejects reductive naturalism that, in effect, deny the three facts rather than explain them.

The distinctive feature of consciousness is its subjective, or we would say qualitative aspect. There is no explanation of conscious experience in terms of physical laws. While brain states may empirically be shown to create certain experiences, that opposite is also true. Consciousness can likewise affect brain states.

This all seems difficult for some to accept. A diehard reductionist will rely on behavioristic explanations. For example, if an organism responds to a flash of light, that behavior is an indication of consciousness. In that view, then, there is nothing to explain. Similarly, human beings will “report” having certain sensations and experiences. The reporting is all that matters.

Yet that misses the essential point, viz., the subjective aspect of consciousness, which it attempts to make objective. Are the automatic doors at the supermarket conscious in any sense? According to the behaviorist criterion, perhaps they are. So why do we believe an octopus is conscious but not a door?

Nagel concludes, then, that mind is an essential part of nature, not a byproduct of material processes. This is a form of panpsychism.


Nagel then turns to “cognition” as he calls it, which appears in the human being. Metaphysically, the human being is defined by “intelligence”, which is different from seemingly intelligent activity in animals. Specifically, Nagel defines cognition as “the functions that have enabled us to transcend the perspective of the immediate lifeworld given to us by our sense and instincts, and to explore the larger objective reality of nature and value.”

Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker’s beliefs. Logic, mathematics, and metaphysics are timeless, hence immaterial. This is reminiscent of a more sophisticated version of C S Lewis’ “Argument from Reason”. Cognition certainly cannot be explained solely in terms of behavior. And it should sound odd that a lifeform would arise that would seek to understand its own origins.

Now a reductionist may try to refute this in a couple of different ways. One is the emergence of serendipitous uses for features that evolved because of reproductive fitness. For example, a hand came to be used by a Michelangelo to create beautiful art. Certainly, that in itself has no reproductive value. But that inadvertently confirms an earlier point: biology alone cannot explain everything about the human being.

Another is the obvious and glaring lack of logic and rationality in the human race. Evolutionary psychologists have noted many of the logical fallacies and irrational beliefs of humans. Nevertheless, they have biological fitness. True rationality, then, is just a special case of the origin of thinking.

It is rather odd that false ways of thinking lead to reproductive success. The rare thinking occasions involving objective truths probably have little reproductive success. For example, try discussing this review on your next date; I can guarantee you will go home alone. Moreover, the most scientifically advances societies usually have negative birth rates.


Nagel then points out the existence of objective standards of value: good and bad, right and wrong. This he calls “value realism”. Again, he claims that objective values make no sense in a materialistic universe. Things are good or bad not because genetically determined behaviors lead to the preference of one thing over another.

Human action involves more than physiology and desires, it requires judgment. Clearly, then, this requires “free will”, or the ability to act on a moral judgment.

Nagel shows the richness of absolute idealism in retrieving a deeper, more human, view of the cosmos, beyond the materialist reductionism that dominates educated thinking today. Nagel accomplishes this while fully incorporating scientific knowledge.

Mind, consciousness, intelligibility, rationality, judgment, free will, are all restored in a more comprehensive understanding of the cosmos. Nagel does this sparingly, a type of philosophic minimalism, with no brick that is not essential to the edifice he has created.

The Alemanni, the Aryamanni

via Aryan Myth and Metahistory

I have discussed before on this blog the connection between the Indo-Aryan Aryaman, the Iranian Airyaman, the Gallic Ariomanus, the Irish Eremon and the Germanic Irmin, how they are all variants of the Indo-European racial God, the very representation of the Aryan folk before and after their division into the multiple separate folk groups that have manifested through recorded history as the Teutons, Celts, Slavs, Balts, Iranians, Indo-Aryans, Greeks, Latins and Hittites etc. All of these deities derive from the Proto-Iindo-European *aryo-mn. See my earlier articles  and

I have now identified a further link between this *aryo-mn and the Alemanni, a tribal confederation of Germanic peoples centred on the Upper Rhine and first referred to by Cassius Dio in the 3rd century CE. Their descendants are the native populations of French Alsace, Baden, Swabia, the Austrian Vorarlberg and northern Switzerland. They are responsible for the formation of the Old High German (OHG) dialect. Because the Alemanni were drawn from neighbouring Germanic tribes they became known as the "all men" or at least that was the explanation given by the 3rd century CE Greek historian Gaius Asinius Quadratus but Edward Gibbon in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire equated them with the Suebi, the name which they used as a self-descriptor. They apparently did not refer to themselves as Alemanni. That is the accepted historical view. However there is an alternative explanation which will be of interest to my readers.

Alexander Jacob states in his The Indo-European Origins of the Grail (published as part of The Two Grails, 2015, which contains an essay by Leopold von Schroeder, The Roots of the Saga of the Holy Grail (1910), translated by Alexander Jacob):
"Farther west, one of the oldest branches of the Germanic peoples is called the Alemanni, a name that may be a corruption of an earlier form as Aryamanni." (page 162)
He also briefly remarks that "the Germanic tribes may have formed a part of the northern Cimmerian Celtic race,", an exceedingly ancient Aryan people who he believes to have settled in the British Isles and Gaul, the original Druids being their priestly caste. The Alemanni my readers may recall are descended from the Herminones who I conjectured were named after their ancestral deity Irmin who is one of the Indo-European deities cognate with *aryo-mn.

The very fact that Indo-European peoples as widely dispersed as the Teutons, Irish, Gauls, Iranians and Indo-Aryans should have a common deity from which we get the term Arya is in itself sufficient evidence for the original common origins of these peoples. The realisation that the Germans should like the Iranians and Indo-Aryans call themselves Arya is further compelling evidence that this is a term which belongs not just to the Indo-Iranians but other Indo-Europeans. It is also interesting to note that the Alemanni is a term used of the entire German folk by the French, Allemands. The Alamanni, the Germans are thus the Aryan men. Likewise the ancient Irish in their caste system called their nobles Arya or more specifically aire:
"The ceile was the producer, the basis of the entire society. Above them came the warriors and nobles, the flaith, often coming under the title of aire (noble), which is cognate with the Sanskrit word arya, freeman. Then came the professional class, originally the Druids." (The Celts, Peter Berresford Ellis, 1998)

My Journey

via Faith & Heritage

Back in the 40s and 50s, a minority group thought that they had an excellent way to make society better — they would make people better. In their midst was a man who was educated, charismatic, determined, and very religious; he was a rising star in their movement. They put their plan into action in the areas in which they lived, and had some success, but they also faced serious opposition, even persecution; they were forced out of some places, they were targeted for assassination, and their leader was beaten nearly to death.

They returned to their base of operations to regroup and revise their plan. The leader had a notion to effect their desired changes in another place, but he was prevented from going. But this man had a message, and he was on a mission, and he had a vision. He pulled his team out of the place to which he was prevented from going, and they set out to do their work somewhere else. When they began having success in this new place, they again became targets of the entrenched, corrupt political system. They were arrested and jailed. But they were not without support from the ruler with ultimate authority, and after a groundbreaking event, they were freed.

The city officials asked them to leave the city, which they did. But the ultimate success of their efforts was truly epic. Their message had found fertile ground among all classes of people there, and in time an entire continent had been radically changed because of the commitment of this tiny group that endured and risked so much on the notion that they could make the world a better place by changing the way people think.

Yes, that was back in the 40s and 50s. Not the 1940s and 1950s, but the actual 40s and 50s. The place was the Middle East and Greece; the tiny group was a new religious sect that came to be known as Christians, and their leader was Saul of Tarsus, known to us today as Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ.

Paul and his compatriots made three missionary journeys to spread the Gospel, the second of which is of particular interest to us. As I described it above, Paul wanted to go to Asia to preach, but Acts 16 tells us that the Holy Spirit prevented him. In a vision, Paul saw a man standing across the sea, shouting to him, “Come to Macedonia and help us!” Paul immediately assembled his team and went. (By the way, the “groundbreaking event” to which I referred was an earthquake which caused enough damage to the jail that Paul and Silas were able to escape, but not before converting the jailer to Christianity.)

Why is this of particular interest to us? Because it was the introduction of Christianity to Europe, that is, to White people. Rather than send the Gospel to Asians, God first sent it to White people, our people. And we embraced it. Unlike other races and religions, the White race was not conquered into Christianity; we were convinced into Christianity. We saw its virtues, we accepted it. It changed the lives of our ancient ancestors, and continued on through the ages and generations of Europe. Christianity inspired our people to the greatest discoveries and accomplishments in the history of the world. If you are a White Christian, that is your heritage and birthright.

Columbus lands in the New World

Reasonable individuals would suppose that the people and religion that have done so much good for the other peoples of the world should be regarded as valuable assets to humanity. It just makes sense — if something or someone is helping you, then you let it. Furthermore, you encourage others to join in and partake of whatever it is that makes people aspire to such industry and philanthropy. But in these wretched days, Christianity in general and White Christians in particular endure daily savaging from the Jewish-dominated news media and entertainment industry, from the Zionist-infiltrated government, from the godless colleges and universities, and from every other outlet of information and influence.

In the United States there must be at least hundreds, maybe thousands of groups, organizations, agencies, movements, and influential people with the stated and apparent agenda to reduce not only the influence of White Christians, but also the numbers of White Christians — via our genocide. On the Political Cesspool Radio Program, and at websites such as Faith and Heritage, the names and activities of such entities are well-documented; also, most listeners and readers are already knowledgeable in that area, so there’s no need to discuss them in this essay. But their strategy to dominating the White race is simple:
  • Divide us from our history. Every week brings another town or city hauling away Christian and Confederate monuments, and any display of pride in our race’s many accomplishments is derided as “insensitive” at least, and as “racist” at worst;
  • Divide us from our culture. Every Columbus Day, every Christmas season, every Thanksgiving Day, every Independence Day, is met with protests, insults, and calls for revision;
  • Divide us from each other. Witness what happens whenever White college students even discuss forming a White Student Union. Every race and ethnicity has a Congressional Caucus, but a Congressional White Caucus is nigh unimaginable. Washington Post black columnist William Raspberry notoriously wrote, “It’s always illegitimate for White men to organize as White men”;
  • But most of all, divide the White race from Christianity.
Why do they want to separate us from Christianity? Ultimately, because they hate Jesus Christ, and Jesus told us that since they hate Him, they will also hate us (John 15:18-25). But most immediately, because the faith of our fathers makes us effective opponents of those who desire to enslave people to debt and to governance which does not produce societies fostering industry, accomplishment, justice, safety, and courage — all of which are hallmarks of Christian culture. (At least twice in history, Christians saved Europe from Islamic conquest.) If they can purge Christianity from our hearts, then it’s only a matter of time before they can dominate and destroy us; and with their toughest opposition out of the way, they can dominate the world.

How do they go about ridding us of Christianity? By far the most effective tactic has been to convince most White people of the lie that they cannot at the same time love and advocate for our race, and be a true Christian. The lie goes something like this: If you are White, and if you love your own people, then you are a racist, and the Bible and Christianity condemn racism. As I said, it’s a lie, but enough European Americans have believed it that it has become a primary tool in our genocide. Having believed it, people are left with a choice: either hate your own people so you can be a Christian, or stop being a Christian so you can be a racist.

To what other race and religion is this applied? What other race is told that advocacy for their people is contradictory to their religion? Would anyone even dream of saying that “Rev.” “Dr.” Michael “Martin Luther” King, Jr. was wrong for being both a “clergyman” and a partisan for blacks in America? Would anyone hazard the considerable risks of telling Abe Foxman to choose between Judaism and Zionist activism? To ask the question is to answer it. And yet, for the White race, loving our people and professing Christ are supposed to be antithetical.

Which one does a White person choose — racial identity or Christianity? Well, that brings up another problem; in the current climate, neither is welcome. European Americans who love and advocate for their race are branded as White supremacists; Bible-believing White Christians are marked as intolerant bigots. It’s not much of a choice given us by those who hate us, is it? What average person wants to deal with the constant onslaught of insult and hostility? Worse still, who wants to risk losing their job, should some non-White non-Christian become sufficiently offended at their stand? Most White Americans will decide that neither prospect is very appealing, so they choose neither. And since White people are nothing without Christianity, they become ashamed of being White, and they become ashamed of being Christian, and they try at least to distance themselves from both. The results are fewer White Christians to contend for the faith and the race, an increased burden upon the remnant that remains, and an effective strengthening of those who hate us and wish us to be gone.

I’m not surprised by the lengths to which our enemies have thus far gone to secure our demise; I’ve observed and studied them long enough that I put nothing beneath or beyond them. But what galls me to no end is the people who probably are Christians, but who (like those who hate us) want to separate White people from Christianity. Rarely are White Christians encouraged by what they see happening in American churches. Formerly decent and faithful churches and major denominations are falling like dominoes, adopting unbiblical policies and beliefs harmful to God’s people in general and hostile to White Christians in particular. I don’t mean the usual liberal, apostate denominations like the United Methodist Church or the Presbyterian Church, USA (PCUSA). Churches that have traditionally been havens for White Christians are caving to political correctness. As A. W. Tozer put it, “Religion today is not transforming people; rather it is being transformed by the people. It is not raising the moral level of society; it is descending to society’s own level, and congratulating itself that it has scored a victory because society is smilingly accepting its surrender.“

This year, the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) adopted a resolution apologizing for slavery and for opposing the “Civil Rights” movement, even though that church didn’t exist during the “Civil Rights” era. In recent years, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), once a stalwart specimen of traditional White religion in this country, elected a black president, apologized for slavery, apologized for its past “racism,” and in the wake of the Charleston church shooting called for the removal of the Confederate flag from the South Carolina state house grounds. Russell Moore, president of the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, wrote, “The cross and the Confederate flag cannot co-exist without one setting the other on fire.” That looks a damnable lot like the damnable lie that ends in forcing White Christians to choose between their racial identity and their religion, the lie deployed by those who hate Jesus Christ and who hate us.

I want to offer another option — don’t believe the lie. There are thousands of White Christians in this country who are godly, Bible-believing Christians and who love and advocate for the White race. I’m one of them, and I know many. For us, there is no contradiction between the two propositions, no inconsistency, no conflict whatsoever. In fact, they are complementary to the point that not only can you be a Christian and love your race; not only should you be a Christian and love your race; but if you are a Christian, then you will love your race. You will feel the same willingness to sacrifice yourself for your people that Paul did: “For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh” (Romans 9:3); you’ll feel the same imperative to protect your genetic line, as Abraham did when he told his servant, “But thou shalt go unto my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac” (Genesis 24:4); and you’ll fear the displeasure of God, Who said through Paul, “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” (1 Timothy 5:8)

For me, the reconciliation of Christianity and race realism came quite naturally. In fact, when looking back on my life up to this point I grow more thankful each day that I was born into a conservative Christian family with a mother and father who loved me enough to take me to church. From the time I was old enough to retain memory I knew that on Sunday morning we would go to worship Jesus Christ at my small, Southern Baptist congregation. On those pews I spent the early years of my life marinating in the Word of God, and it has made me a better man and a more effective advocate.

I came to accept Christ as my Savior at an early age. What was taught to me on Sunday was reinforced on weekdays at Briarcrest Christian School, a place that still holds a special place in my heart. I shudder to think what paths I might have taken had it not been for the solid foundation upon which my upbringing was built. I was very fortunate to have had the stability of consistent parents and grandparents who always let me know how much I was loved, the importance of our cultural and spiritual heritage, and the difference between right and wrong. In this nest, I flourished.

Deo Vindice! This map, presented by The New York Times, depicts where self-proclaimed Christian conservatives live by county. God richly blessed me when He gave me to a Southern family.

By the time the decision was made to switch to homeschooling during my freshman year of high school, the opportunity had presented itself for me to begin considering political opinions. I had a distant memory of my father once commenting to a man at a bowling alley in Arkansas that he planned to vote for Pat Buchanan in the 1992 Republican primaries. It just so happened that Buchanan was hosting Crossfire during my homeschooling years and, as fate would have it, he mounted another campaign in 1999. Having become a regular viewer, I enlisted in the Brigades and spent another year of growth during which I continued to develop my communication and leadership skills. During this time I also began to refine my comprehension of racial realities and make initial inquiries into the Jewish question. I was beginning to arrive at the intersection of Christianity and ethnonationalism.

When the elections of 2000 were over I was hungry and looking for another way to apply myself. In 2002 I decided to run for a seat in the Tennessee House of Representatives.

I was twenty-one years old when I initiated my candidacy and was convinced that I was going to win! We held a fairly well-attended kickoff party at a ballroom in Memphis to help generate momentum. Who introduced me before my announcement speech? None other than the pastor of my church, the only pastor I have ever known. The same man who had led me to Christ so many years earlier.

For the rest of that year that campaign consumed me. However, in spite of running a credible race and my best efforts, I was vanquished when the ballots were counted on Election Day. The bitter sting of defeat as I watched the returns remains vivid upon recollection. As a small consolation, I do vaguely recall reading at the time that I won a higher percentage of the vote than any independent candidate had ever received in a three-way race for a seat in the Tennessee State Legislature.

To this day running that campaign was one of the most profound memories of my life and, once again, I was rewarded with several building blocks and a world of experience that would prove useful to me in future endeavors. I was molded and tempered by the broken road, and for as long as I live I’ll never forget that magical year spent working with my father, mother, grandmother, pastor, then-girlfriend (now wife), and many friends to win that office.

Speaking of my wife, it should be mentioned that if not for my pastor and church, I would have never met her. Providence guided this encounter because she wasn’t even attending my church at the time, but was visiting as a guest in order to go on a week-long youth retreat with my pastor’s daughter.

Pastor came over to my house the night before the trip to ask if I’d help them haul luggage to the campsite. I said yes and showed up the next day. When I walked in and laid eyes on her for the first time I remember thinking to myself, “That’s mine.” She was absolutely stunning.

After my car was loaded up, Pastor told me that they were a little overcrowded and asked if I minded if two people rode with me. You can guess who one of the girls was. The rest is history.


The same man who led me to Christ officiated our wedding on May 5, 2006
Every day since then, she has stood by me and supported my efforts while I have toiled in the vineyard of political activism. She has never wavered even though the spotlight is always glaring on my work. She’s truly one in a hundred million, and I remain humbled that she took a chance on a man like me.

Want the keys to a successful marriage? Look to the Bible, which is full of godly instruction for husbands and wives:
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives submit themselves to their husbands in every thing. (Ephesians 5:23-24)
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it. . . . So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. . . . Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband. (Ephesians 5:25, 28, 33)
And love:
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud, it is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not rejoice in evil, but rejoices in the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. (I Corinthians 13:4-8)
Not only does she encourage my political advocacy, but she invests countless hours helping me prepare mailings and tend to the monotonous chores associated with running an organization. But much more importantly, she has given me two incredible children, Isabelle and Henry. My family is the light of my life and I owe them to the faith that brought us together.

I take my role as a husband and father very seriously. It’s enormously important to me that my children be raised in the same manner as I was, which is to be good Christian people who love their family and the ancestors whence they came. We should all have a deep respect and reverence for the beliefs of our forebears.

Isabelle and Henry

I want my children not only to learn about their ancestors, but to love them and be extraordinarily proud of their lineage. With this in mind I drove my family down to Thaxton, Mississippi, earlier this summer to visit the small community where my maternal grandparents were raised.

I was taken back to my childhood when I revisited the community center in which so many of our reunions used to be held. The place looked as it did in my earliest memories. The 1950 senior class photo of my maternal grandmother, Wilma McGreger, still hangs on the wall. Things don’t change much in Mississippi, which is one of the state’s most endearing qualities.

I’ve often said that I’d rather be on a dirt road in Mississippi than strolling through the streets of Times Square. That’s why those who hate us can’t understand our unwillingness to abandon our customs and symbols. This is who we are. It’s personal.

While there I took great pride in being able to visit the graves of my maternal great-grandparents. Even though my children can never know them, it still means so much to be able to teach them about who they were and raise them in the same traditions that were handed down to me. These were great people in every way that one can be great.

My daughter is five years old and my son just turned one, but they’re never too young to learn about heroes, including the ones in our own family tree who fought bravely on behalf of the Confederacy.

The grave of my great-great-great grandfather in Corinth, Mississippi

To be directly descended from this noble line of brave and fighting Christian men is the highest honor that I could ever receive. Other than my own wife and children, there is nothing in the world that makes me more proud.

With regard to my work on the radio, it was my vision from Day One to take the ingredients that have been so personally valuable in my life and share them with my audience. I wanted my show to serve as a leading voice that was at once Pro-Christian (God), Pro-White (Family), and Pro-South (Republic). One of the biggest keys to our success has been that ability to blend faith and folk. The positive incorporation of the Christian faith into my work makes my radio program very special to people. This belief was proven valid to me after our ten-year anniversary celebration last fall. Take a look at some of the feedback from three different individuals who attended that unprecedented conference:
  • Trust me, my friends, you had to have been there. Words can’t really express what we saw, experienced and felt. But I will try to tell you anyway. As I told him personally, James Edwards scored a triumph in Memphis this past weekend. The Political Cesspool’s 10th anniversary celebration was educational, entertaining, and emotional beyond any conference in our movement I have attended. If one word could describe the experience, from start to finish, it would be joyous.
  • I don’t want to belabor a point, but I have to stress how perfectly balanced this Cesspool event was. Good friends, good people, and good speakers. So much of the advocacy for our people is morbid, profanity-laden, pessimism – not so the Cesspool. Edwards’ work ignites in me the same hope I feel when looking at a sunset, or when looking out over the Appalachians. His show (and this event in particular) left me feeling inspired and uplifted. I remembered that this is my Father’s world. The rocks and seas, the skies and trees! All of it! There’s not a square inch whereupon He does not cry: “MINE”. It’s about time an organization remembered that. Thank God for Edwards and the Political Cesspool.
  • James and his co-hosts have balanced issues of race, ethnonationalism, history, politics, and culture with Christian faith, which makes all the world come into focus. There is no conservatism without order, no order without structure, and no structure unless flesh and spirit are viewed as complementary of the human soul. Today, we hear too many preachers say that faith is all that matters, we hear too many nationalists say that race is all that matters, and the vast majority of young people today have been trained to believe that neither matters. James is in the vanguard of those who seek to restore balance, and in doing so, he is in lockstep with our noble forefathers, who gave us all that we have as our inheritance. Everyone is searching for identity. To us, identity means distinction. To the enemies of Christ and our kinsmen, identity means uniformity. The difference between these two poles is the difference between building civilization and destroying it.
Everyone who attended that sold-out event last year told me something similar. What made that weekend so incredible? In my opinion, it was in large part because we stood triumphantly in the defense of our people while giving all glory to God. Faith and Heritage’s own Nathanael Strickland was a speaker and did a masterful job proving exactly why Christianity and ethnonationalism go hand in hand. In doing so he provided quotes from the giants of our faith to reinforce our position.

Indeed, there is something about the proper application of Christianity that motivates and inspires our people beyond anything else that can be offered to them. It is my sincere hope that all leaders in the pro-White cause follow in the footsteps of heroes like Jan Sobieski and once again unite under the righteous banner of the cross. Embracing Christianity has been a prerequisite of success for Western man since the time of Constantine and it must be re-embraced for our people to have a future.

When my time is over I hope it will be remembered that I was an advocate for our race who wasn’t ashamed to publicly proclaim the name of Jesus Christ. In our very darkest of hours, we must also remember the words spoken so long ago at the empty tomb. “He is not here, He is risen.” It only takes one. It can happen, because it did happen. And He promised that we would do even greater things than He, because He would be working through us.

And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. (Galatians 6:9)

Rising White Disadvantage in Academia

via Western Spring

In a recent five-year study conducted by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) and paid for by the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, it is revealed that indigenous British youngsters are now significantly less likely to be accepted as undergraduates at British universities than people other, minority ethnic groups.

The statistics presented in the report show that in 2008: of those school students who described themselves as ‘White British’, only 32.6% went on to university; while 75.7% of Chinese students found university places; 67.4% of Indian students; 48.8% of Bangladeshi students; 44.7% of Pakistani students; and 37.4% of Black Caribbean youngsters, did also.

The IFS researchers said they found little difference in the rate of university admissions between white British boys and girls, but they wrote: “All ethnic minority groups are now, on average, more likely to go to university than their white British peers.”

This state of affairs was described by Dr Claire Crawford, assistant professor of economics at the University of Warwick, and one of the authors of the report, as “staggering”, “We were particularly surprised to find that ethnic minority groups which have relatively low school attainment – such as those of Black Caribbean, Pakistani or Bangladeshi ethnic origin – are, on average, more likely to continue into higher education than white British pupils.”

The report said school performance did not appear to dictate which pupils went to university.

What this report therefore demonstrates is that even ethnic minorities drawn from racial groups who have consistently performed worse than Whites in intelligence testing, and whose academic achievement in schools is consistently lower than that of White pupils, are securing disproportionately more university places. For whatever reason therefore, university places are not being offered on the basis of academic merit, as they should be in a fair society.

The report suggested that non-White families may work harder to get their children into higher education, adding: “There must be other factors that are more common among ethnic minority families than among white British families which are positively associated with university participation.”

To suggest that White parents as a racial group are less concerned about their children’s education than ethnic minority parents is quite frankly insulting, and racist! However anti-White racism seems to glibly slip from the tongues of establishment pundits these days, as we are all only too well aware!

University Participation Chart

What we see here is the effect of what I describe as ‘Organised Minority Advantage’ (OMA), in which highly ethnocentric minority groups, living within a loosely cohesive host population, employ in-group preference in order to benefit themselves and advance their own people unfairly at the expense of the host population. As a corollary of this, the effects of OMA become exaggerated if there are ‘affirmative action’ programmes, or if there are attempts at ‘positive discrimination’ by influential members of the host population who misguidedly feel it their duty to discriminate against their own kind, as a means or rectifying real or imagined historic wrongs. This is clearly what is happening with regard to university admissions.

In an earlier article I have discussed the phenomenon of OMA and demonstrated how it allows ethnic minorities to enrich themselves in business at the expense of the host community, but it does not stop there, OMA has a very powerful effect in the world of academia as well.

Organised Minority Advantage is the same phenomenon that Marxists refer to as ‘White privilege’, except that White privilege works the other way around: it enables highly ethnocentric host communities to maintain their position of primacy in their own land by practicing in-group preference for their own people. However, while White societies may have practiced in-group preference in the dim and distant past – prior to the mid-1800s in most cases, and certainly prior to 1945 – in-group preference among Whites has not been practised by our elites for the best part of a century, and it has been illegal in almost all Western countries for at least five decades. Any suggestion that ‘White privilege’ still exists, other than as a figment of someone’s demented imagination, is quite ridiculous, whereas OMA on the other hand, is alive and kicking and manifests with increasing frequency every day.

One doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to deduce that our entire culture is now oriented in such a way as to deter Whites from even thinking ethnocentrically, let alone acting that way. Children are subject to multicultural and multiracial mental conditioning from their earliest days at school and this continues throughout their schooling, throughout university and follows them into the workplace. Non-Whites on the other hand are taught to be race conscious and to be ever vigilant in identifying all and every last vestige of ethnocentricity among Whites, labelling it as ‘racism’ and screaming the house down until the perpetrator is punished and prevented from continuing.

Furthermore, our mass media is meticulous and fanatical in its promotion of non-Whites as glamorous, sexy, powerful and dominant, and in portraying Whites as feeble, corrupt, bigoted, and effete in every way.

We are all familiar with the spread of cultural Marxism and its sanitised, but no less virulent form known as ‘political correctness’, beginning with the Frankfurt School and gradually filtering its way up through Western institutions, propelled by the vast wealth of organised Jewry. Large sums of money were donated to Ivy League colleges in the USA and to Oxford and Cambridge and the other Red Brick universities of Britain and the rest of Europe, establishing seats of learning through which the benefactors concerned would gain influence in the appointment of lecturers and in determining the content of university syllabuses.

Through this process, the selection processes applied by university dons in choosing which pupils were allocated university places has also been corrupted, such that where preference might once have been given to clean-cut and wholesome young White people with healthy traditional values, it is now given to people of immigrant stock, who believe and are increasingly made to believe that their people and their native countries have a genuine grievance against White people, for which they are justified in practicing ‘reverse discrimination’ in order to gain both group and individual redress.

When Whites write academic papers in their field of expertise, it is expected of them that they will cite sources to substantiate the points they make, that are drawn from the ethnic minorities. To do otherwise would be to run the risk of being considered racist by one’s peers and no White person in academia could afford to allow that today. Conversely, ethnic minority academics are free to write papers in which they disproportionately cite non-White sources, and like Professor Noel Ignatiev, they can write academic papers that are blatantly anti-White, without attracting opprobrium.

Through this process of disproportionate citation, non-White academics acquire positions of influence within academia out of proportion to the objective value of their writing and their work, and in this way, they gain elevated status within academia that is not justified by their ability nor by their contribution to academia in any objective sense.

The end result therefore, is that we have a disproportionate number of ethnic minority university dons, academics and lecturers, increasingly choosing to offer university places to a disproportionately large number of ethnic minority students, and showing preference for the work done by those students, thereby giving them higher grades than would otherwise be their due, and in this way the adverse impact of OMA upon the interests of White students becomes progressively exacerbated over time.

The proof of the non-White ethnocentricity at work here, and through OMA endowing ethnic minority students with a disproportionate advantage over White students, can be seen in the plethora of ethnic minority clubs and societies that exist on university campuses compared to the almost total absence of clubs and societies aimed at promoting White interests and social cohesion among White students. The influence of cultural Marxism to which I referred earlier can also be seen in the plethora of Communist, Marxist, socialist, left-wing, anarchist and anti-racist clubs, groups and societies on campuses, compared to the almost total absence of their right-wing or traditionalist counterparts.

Sadly, universities have become dangerous places for White student nowadays. Not necessarily dangerous in the sense they will necessarily be subject to physical violence just for being White, although they will face violence if they try to assert or defend their interests as White people, but dangerous in the sense that universities are now ‘occupied territory’, in which our racial enemies hold sway and subject our youth to further intense mental conditioning aimed at making them servile and submissive in the face of non-White aggression or the assertion of non-White interests ahead of those of our own people.

Any White parent needs to be vigilant when their child goes to university, and they need to take time to mentally prepare their children for what they will encounter, so that their children will not be psychologically damaged by the experience.

White children need to be prepared and schooled in the techniques and tactics required to avoid and counter the mental conditioning that they will inevitably be subject to.

Most importantly, we need to inculcate within our children a determination to maintain a healthy, pro-White, ethnocentric, outlook and to begin the reversal of the trends that I have described that are aimed at robbing them of their future prosperity and wellbeing.