Nov 17, 2015

Simon Schama: A Case Study in Jewish Verbosity and Ethnic Activism

via The Occidental Observer

I’ve now spent more than fifteen years researching the Jewish Question and the impact of Jewish influence on the West. During that time I’ve encountered and documented a number of Jews who almost single-handedly encapsulate and characterize the Jewish modus operandi, as well as the hatred that organized Jewry has for our people and our way of life. In the case of cretins like Abraham Foxman and the aesthetically repulsive Hebrews of the Southern Poverty Law Center, the existence of such people is obvious. In other cases, similarly hateful Jews are acting with equal violence against our people and culture, but are doing so in a less obvious manner. Examples are countless, but I’m thinking in particular of individuals like Jonathan Freedland, Anthony Julius, Robert Wistrich, Norman Lebrecht and the academics behind the ‘Whiteness Studies’ hate genre. I have to confess that as much as I have an abiding feeling of enmity toward all of these individuals and their insidious works, I possess a singular ferocity of loathing for Columbia University’s Simon Schama. Schama, as I will presently discuss, is a walking, talking, mincing, gesticulating caricature who, in thought and deed, may as well have crawled from the lurid pages of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. What follows is a case study in Jewish political, academic, and cultural activism.

Schama was born in Marylebone, London. His mother, Gertie (née Steinberg), was from a Lithuanian Ashkenazi Jewish family, and his father, Arthur Schama, was of Sephardi Jewish background. Arthur was a textile merchant who, like many of his co-ethnics, favored risky business practices and flirted with bankruptcy on more than one occasion. In the mid-1940s, following one such bankruptcy, the family moved to Southend-on-Sea in Essex before moving back to the heavily-Jewish area of Golders Green in London. There the young Simon rubbed shoulders with the Saatchi brothers, the future mega-promoters of a vast array of degenerate art — a passion that Schama himself would later indulge in.

By his own admission, Schama had three youthful preoccupations: Marxism, history, and Jewishness. As a teenager he attended what he describes as after-school classes for “Left-Wing Zionists.” Asked about his connection to Judaism, Schama reveals that he is a synagogue-attending Zionist who believes that being Jewish “means to be the inheritor of an immense and gifted, as well as burdened, history. It’s about the richest and most extreme history you could possibly imagine. You also inherit an extraordinary bundle of ethical precepts in the Torah.” Ignoring Schama’s familiar Jewish cultural conceit, I would agree that the ethical precepts of the Torah and the Talmud are extraordinary — but not perhaps in the manner in which Schama is hinting at.

In 1956, the young Simon Schama, who undeniably possesses a very high verbal IQ, won a scholarship to the independent Haberdashers’ Aske’s Boys’ School in Cricklewood. He then went to a kibbutz in Israel before reading history at Christ’s College, Cambridge, graduating in 1966. He worked for a short period as a lecturer in history at Cambridge where, even though he would never complete a Ph.D., he became a Fellow and Director of Studies in History. He inexplicably enjoyed a similar ascendancy at Oxford, where he was made a Fellow of Brasenose College in 1976, specializing in the French Revolution. During the 1970s and 1980s Schama published sporadically, his work provoking a range of responses. At this time, Schama wrote his first book, Patriots and Liberators. The book was originally intended as a study of the French Revolution, but as published in 1977, it focused on the effect of the Patriot revolution in the Netherlands, and its aftermath. His second book, Two Rothschilds and the Land of Israel (1978), was a sympathetic study of the Zionist aims of Edmond James de Rothschild and James Armand de Rothschild.

Even in his earliest works, Schama’s approach to writing and interpreting history bore the hallmarks of his later activism. Reviewing his Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution (1989), the pre-eminent English historian of the French Revolution Norman Hampson remarked that “Schama’s argument is always intelligent and often persuasive but his facts are not always reliable.” The remark brings to mind similar reactions to other verbose Jewish historians, such as Jonathan Israel and his work on Spinoza. Schama today is, ostensibly, an historian specializing in art history, Dutch history, and French history. He is currently a Professor of History and Art History at New York’s Columbia University. As part of my research for this essay, I consulted Columbia student reviews of Schama’s teaching via and was unsurprised to discover that his overall rating was very low with many of his racial and character flaws coming to the fore. Reviews of his teaching closely mirror that of his research. One reviewer remarked that Schama “talks at you, not directly to you. He’s haughty and boastful — use of gratuitous vocabulary and not into teaching at all.” This incisive review of Schama’s teaching is equally applicable to the sphere of influence that has done most to bring him to prominence — television.

To date, Schama has worked on a dozen historical and political documentaries, the vast majority for the BBC. The topics covered in these documentaries are impressive in their range and variety — everything from Shakespeare, art, and the history of Britain, to the Obama Presidency and speculations about America’s future. However, much like Schama’s inexplicable rise to top positions at Cambridge and Oxford, he has been given the green light to produce and present these documentaries without being an acknowledged expert in any of them apart from art (and this is disputable). What does seem to have propelled much of Schama’s career and influence is his exceptional demonstration of the Jewish talent for dazzling gullible non-Jews with a deluge of mere verbiage. As one Guardian journalist put it: “Some people think Simon Schama — garlanded academic and presenter of such fabulous series as A History of Britain and Rough Crossings — is full of crap. There have been grumblings that he dumbs down and simplifies his history shows, taking a sweeping view of history designed more for the verbal flourish than historical accuracy.”

Schama’s television productions, and the books that accompanied them, can certainly be dismissed on these grounds. However, Schama’s story is much more than the age-old story of the verbally dazzling Jewish guru, promoted by his co-ethnics and worshipped by the gullible. There is also a clear thread of Jewish activism in his productions. For example, in his 2006 series The Power of Art, Schama does his part to promote the trashy productions of his fellow Jew, Mark Rothko. As the camera pans over Rothko’s ludicrous canvases, Schama feverishly narrates. It’s a great example of how the verbal flourishes emanating entirely from the imagination of the critic can make the gullible think they are in the presence of genius:
Everything that Rothko did to these paintings — the column-like forms suggested rather than drawn, the loose stainings, were all meant to make the surface ambiguous, porous, perhaps softly penetrable: a space that might be where we came from or where we will end up. They’re meant not to keep us out, but to embrace, from an artist whose highest compliment was to call you a human being. Can anything be less cool than this room in the heart of the Tate Modern? Further away from the razzle-dazzle of contemporary art, the frantic hustle of now? This isn’t about now. This is about forever. This is a place where you come to sit in the low light and feel the eons rolling by, to be taken towards the gates that open onto the thresholds of eternity, to feel the poignancy of our comings and our goings, our entrances and our exits, our births and our deaths: womb, tomb, and everything in between. Can art ever be more complete, more powerful? I don’t think so.
Rothko’s Degenerate Art: ‘Can art ever be more complete, more powerful?’
Rothko’s Degenerate Art: “Can art ever be more complete, more powerful?”

As a racially-conscious man of above-average intelligence, what strikes me most about Schama’s literary and visual productions is the inescapably non-European, and utterly alien, manner in which he communicates. Schama’s type of verbosity has for centuries been taken as a Jewish hallmark. The most famous attack on Jewish verbosity, of course, came from Richard Wagner who heavily critiqued his Jewish musical contemporaries for their preoccupation with speech “for the sake of speaking, rather than with the object that first makes speaking worthwhile.”  Amos Oz writes in Jews and Words (Yale University Press, 2012) of a “peculiar talkativeness,” and “a nervous and alert verbosity” that is typical of Jews. Jarrod Tanny writes in City of Rogues and Schnorrers: Russia’s Jews and the Myth of Old Odessa (2011; 72) that verbosity and gesticulations of the type evidenced by Schama were long considered valid Jewish stereotypes by both Jews and non-Jews: “Verbosity accompanied by rapid gesticulations are considered to be common Jewish traits, and such stereotypes figure prominently in representations of Jews, both in derogatory images with anti-Semitic overtones, and in self-portrayals often found in Jewish literature and anecdotes.”

This verbosity is due not only to a high Jewish verbal IQ, but also, as Wagner indicated, the incapacity of Jews to express themselves in a language and culture that is not their own. The resulting impression is like that of a homeless man who finds himself suddenly dressed in a fine suit — he appears ill at ease, his self-consciousness barely concealed under exaggerated movements and an air of nervousness. The Harvard Jewish philosopher Stanley Cavell once reminisced about his “father’s unease in any language.”[1] This unease then translates into one of two outcomes — the imposter gives up and descends into crudity and vulgarity, or he attempts to rise to the challenge and instead affects a strange and flamboyant air of superiority. In the former case he becomes the Jewish gutter comedian, and in the latter he becomes that familiar cultural trope — the German who strives to be more German than the Germans, or, like Schama, an obnoxious, enunciating and chattering Jewish marionette. In both cases, the common thread is that of endless verbosity — the salesman’s desire to overwhelm his subject’s capacity for thought and reflective silence with jargon and enthusiasm. The Jewish novelist Philip Roth once rather astutely commented that what made a book distinctively Jewish was “the nervousness, the excitability, the arguing, the dramatizing, the indignation, the obsessiveness … above all, the talking. The talking and the shouting. … It isn’t what it’s talking about that makes a book Jewish — it’s that the book won’t shut up.”[2]

Like the Jewish books Roth describes, Schama’s presentation style is full of the nervousness, excitability and endless, meaningless verbiage that one would expect from such an exceptional example of this chattering race. And, like many Jewish writers and promoters, Schama is successful because he won’t shut up. He is, moreover, far from alone. In his In Search of American Jewish Culture (2001), Stephen Whitfield writes that “even if Roth is wrong about Jewish verbosity, Jewish test-takers have ranked above the norm in verbal ability itself. They have also tended to earn lower scores than others when attributes such as visual ability and reasoning, as well as the conceptualization of space, are measured …. To be sure, writing about art demands acute visual powers. But Jews may nevertheless be more important in writing about American painting and sculpture than in creating it.”[3] Whitfield correctly observes the limits of Jewish ‘talent,’ but makes an error in asserting that one needs acute visual powers to write about art (‘art criticism’) and misses a crucial point by omitting Jewish interests in lowering the common artistic denominator. He also neglects to take into account the fact that art criticism is itself a facet of Modernism and thus a symptom of modern art’s degeneracy rather than part of a healthy artistic process. Most pertinently, Whitfield misses the point that a verbal wizard is perfectly capable of persuading and convincing others that he possesses acute visual powers, even if he does not.

As has been noted by those immune to his Pied Piper routine, Schama has contributed nothing new to knowledge and created nothing new in the field of art. His sole “talent” lies in parcelling his bankrupt observations in the most nauseatingly florid language. As a Jew, Schama’s visual powers, and thus his ability to effectively appreciate and critique art can be reasonably surmised to be sub-par. His 1994 ascendancy to the position of art critic at the New Yorker and later the BBC is based solely on his above-mentioned talent for pouring his verbal honey and prolific imagination into the ears of the easily-impressed. And, unfortunately, the numbers of the easily-impressed will always outnumber saner minds. The result has been an appalling triumph of style over substance, and in the case of Schama’s ‘art criticism’ of Rothko, the triumph of lies over truth; degeneracy over health. The Guardian’s Ben Dowell describes him as “easily Britain’s best arts presenter.” The Independent, meanwhile, has praised the Hebrew’s “smooth, velvety presenting style.”

The rewards have been copious. Schama is, by a considerable margin, Britain’s highest-paid TV historian. His salary comes from the BBC, which is in turn funded by UK taxpayers. So in an era where the British health system is stretched to the limit because of immigration, and cancer drugs are scarce due to lack of funds, somehow this same Government can still deem it affordable to pay Simon Schama in the region of $5 million per series, in order that it’s increasingly despairing population be informed of such life-saving facts as the cosmically excellent work of Mark Rothko. It gets worse. In 2010, Schama was made a consultant to the British government on the teaching of history in schools. This position has allowed Schama to wax lyrical to huge and captive audiences on an ever increasing number of social issues, including multiculturalism and the “refugee” crisis. And Schama’s positions on these themes are precisely what one would expect of a Jewish intellectual. Schama claims that simply by teaching all children a common history, “a classroom of pupils whose grandparents may have been born in Mumbai or Kingston will grasp what it means to be British today, just as easily as a girl whose grandparents hail from Exeter or Aberdeen.”

One of the truly astonishing things about Schama’s rise is that is has continued for so long. For all his affected eloquence, the man is a poor debater and a mere repeater of flattery and clichés. Just a few weeks ago, during a debate on the BBC’s Question Time show on the “refugee” crisis, Schama was eviscerated by journalist Rod Liddle. During one exchange, Liddle noted that British society has changed and become more ‘emotional’ since the death of Princess Diana and chastised commenters for the “Dianafication” of the refugee crisis. In particular, Liddle gave the audience the option of siding with Schama’s “non-sequitur, emotional incontinence” and his “bizarre view of the world,” or instead adopting a more practical approach to dealing with the migrant flood. As Liddle read out UN statistics proving that most of the migrants were not refugees, Schama grinned and minced like a well-fed reptile — an apt description given that his emotions are nothing more than crocodile tears. We won’t see him shedding tears for the effects of migration on White Britain, nor will we see him demanding that his beloved Israel be overrun with “refugees” from neighboring Syria. Eventually, though, the frame gave way and Schama interjected, describing Liddle as “contemptible” for accusing him of “whipping up” the British public on the issue, and for “saying emotion should have no part in how we respond.”

“I’m interested in outcomes, not in your emotion,” shot back Liddle, his eyes fixed on Schama. “I’m interested in what is good for those people [migrants] and what is good for this country, not in how you feel about yourself.” Schama, was at this point totally flustered, and utterly incapable of an articulate response. I actually burst into laughter when I first saw a YouTube clip of the debate showing that at this point Schama started mumbling “Ask not for whom the bell tolls…” before realizing the quote lacked all relevancy given the facts outlined by Liddle, and pausing before trying again. When he did make another attempt at answering Liddle, he merely ignored the factual evidence that the migrants weren’t refugees, chattering that “There’s nothing to be ashamed about having an emotional response to the suffering of four million Syrian refugees…”

Liddle, at this point visibly enjoying taking the celebrated Hebrew to task, retorted: “Then decide what to do about it.” Schama then merely escalates the theatrics, gesticulating as he admonishes Liddle: “Do not presume to lecture me about the inadequacy of an emotional response to mass human suffering.” As Liddle reminds Schama that he is yet again employing non sequiturs, Schama attempts to cover up his inadequacy with florid personal insults: “Go back to your journalistic hackery and talk about outcomes, and turn your suburban face away from the plight of the miserable.”

Schama’s employment of “suburban” as a slur against the conservative English middle class will be familiar in spirit to all readers of TOO. We are well aware of the Jewish hatred for the great bulk of normal, heterosexual, traditionally-minded Whites. In England, too, the slur did not go un-noticed, although it was interpreted as part of a broader hatred of Middle England nurtured by “the Left.” The suburbs, where 80% of the British population live, are still mainly White and still cling to tradition. They are home to people who want to raise children in low-crime areas with access to the countryside. In the aftermath of the Schama-Liddle debate, the Daily Mail correctly remarked upon Schama’s “sneering contempt” for this way of life. The article described Schama as “the very acme of cosmopolitan sophistication,” and stated that in Schama’s outburst
We were given a glimpse of the snobbery that underpins so much of the metropolitan elite’s world view. According to this high priest of the liberal intelligentsia, Liddle didn’t deserve to be taken seriously because he was a resident of that lower middle-class hinterland that people like Schama only ever see from the business-class cabin of a Boeing 747 as it soars away from Heathrow. Liddle was suburban and, as such, he was narrow-minded and mean-spirited — quite unlike the large-hearted citizen of the world at the other end of the panel.
Liddle’s post-mortem of Schama’s position was even more searing. He remarked that Schama lacked any argument and instead
got very angry and his hands started waving all over the place. Someone on a social media site said he looked like a Thunder-birds puppet controlled by a person with Parkinson’s disease. … Talking about the ‘refugee’ crisis, the art historian divested himself of a stream of emotionally incontinent non-sequiturs — and it was when I pointed this out that he became incandescent with pique …. The problem, as I saw it, was that Simon had simply not made any sense at all. It seemed to be sufficient to say that these people — the migrants — were ‘human beings’ and that feeling kindly disposed towards them was sufficient, in itself, to solve what many fear is the gravest crisis we have faced since the second world war. … What I realised after that edition of Question Time is that the facts, the practicalities, the realities of the situation, do not matter one jot. There is a small minority of British opinion — the polls suggest that the overwhelming majority of the population, suburban scum that they are, do not wish to see more migrants entering the country — which is absolutely impervious to the facts which show that letting more people in the country will make things worse both for them and for us. And clearly anyone who doesn’t agree is unaware that the migrants are ‘human beings’ and is thus a borderline psychopath, as well as being suburban.
Liddle blames Europe’s current crisis on the fact the public are being led by a “clamorous minority” who are spouting “ectoplasmic rubbish” in order to convinced the public that they can “feel better about themselves” by engaging in altruistic action. An impressive and succinct diagnosis. Schama has “ectoplasmic rubbish” down to a fine art. He is the very epitome of the showy, noisy, gesticulating, over-hyped Jew. A key task of our movement will be to discover the means of drowning out this noise with our own, and restoring reason and logic before these Pied Pipers lead our people, our children, and our future into the abyss.

[1] S. Whitfield, In Search of American Jewish Culture (Brandeis University Press, 1999), p.23.
[2] Ibid, p.24.
[3] Ibid.

Safe Spaces in the New Gilded Age

via Occident Invicta

While I refuse to hop on the anti-Millennial bandwagon, my generation in many ways is very perplexing. On account of the latest campus PC scandals polarizing the nation – including but not limited to Yale – I think it’s safe to say that certain youngsters have misplaced priorities. You would think that with a weak economy and degrees being rendered increasingly expensive and worthless, students have bigger game to hunt than a few offensive costumes. However, it seems that many Millennials are even more obsessed with identity politics than their predecessors. This definitely plays into the hands of wealthy elites who prefer that people focus more on provocative outfits than substantive issues; at least one leftist agrees.

And of course, one cannot ignore the racial angle here. While I don’t bash blacks the way many alt righters do, I have grown increasingly wary of some of their agitation. Protesting police killings of unarmed blacks is one thing; expecting white people like me to give a shit about insensitive costumes when growing numbers of white men are killing themselves is offensive in its own right. I think it’s safe to say that people who are burdened by poverty and genuine oppression don’t have time for histrionics over “microaggressions” and similar offenses. It should be said that blacks hardly have a monopoly on campus cultural agitation; coddled college kids of all backgrounds think that the world should revolve around their pet causes.

Which brings me to my next point. In addition to bequeathing useless degrees and debt to graduates, universities – who fancy themselves diverse institutions with students from all over the world – are setting up young adults for failure in the actual real world. The cold truth is that employers, landlords, people at banks, and other powerful individuals who can impact your progress in life don’t give two shits about your wounded sensibilities. Try demanding a “safe space” at your job and see where that gets you.

We live in a brutal, cutthroat, dog-eat-dog planet. Fostering a campus environment where “trigger warnings” are increasingly the norm amounts to a cruel bait-and-switch. Millennial kids grew up subjected to “zero tolerance” policies (ie. “it doesn’t matter who started the fight”), helicopter parenting, and increasingly wimpy campuses. Then, once they’re thrust into the actual world, they slowly realize that their upbringings left them woefully unprepared for just how plutocratic and competitive society really is.

This is a new Gilded Age, a new era of conflict. The wealthy elites who are siphoning off more and more wealth from the masses don’t spend much time worrying about “cultural appropriation,” and neither should most people. But I get it. Humans are not an especially rational, logical species; we all have feelings. So I’m not going to say that these black kids at Yale or agitators elsewhere should just suck it up and stop being so oversensitive. They’re entitled to feel however they like, and their pain is very much real to them.

But (and you knew there was a “but” coming), don’t expect me or other people to treat such feelings as sacrosanct. We do not have some obligation to drop everything we’re doing just to assuage wounded sentiments. In today’s new Gilded Age, there is no good reason to sacrifice time, “privilege” and resources in order to empower loud members of out-groups who may very well compete with us down the road.

Non-SJW white students and faculty should do what people like Viktor Orban do: tell ’em to fuck off. 

#WhatIfWeLost: The Man In the High Castle

via TradYouth

Amazon Prime is launching a brand new show titled The Man in the High Castle that is based on a book by the same name written by Philip K. Dick back in the early 1960’s. The show and novel portray a world in which the Allies were defeated in the Second World War and the Axis were victorious. In this new world, America is occupied by the Third Reich on the East Coast and Midwest and the Empire of Japan occupies the West Coast, with a neutral zone that is a buffer area between the two nations.

America twenty years after the end of the war is presented (at least in the first two episodes that have been released) as being in a bizarre total war environment with Times Square announcing production figures and the amount of war material produced but also as being very calm and downright normal.

Producer Frank Spotnitz told reporters that in America Nazi policies have become pretty normalized, and white Christian straight people have a ‘pretty nice’ life. ‘There’s a kind of freedom in fascism,'” Something that Mr. Spotnitz and I would have to agree on.

Spotnitz continued by saying,
“In this show, the bad guys are here, and a lot of them are us. The bad guys up close aren’t psychopaths but have rationales for what they do. Some characters I kind of like are saying things that almost make sense, and that makes me think twice. America is a beautiful idea, and every generation has to live up to that idea, and it’s built into the DNA of this story.”
It sounds to me like this show is likely to fall into the territory that American History X did, accidentally proving the logic and sense of nationalism and Traditionalism while trying to demonize it.

There’s a memorable scene in American History X in which the skinhead leader, played by Edward Norton, argues with his mother’s Jewish boyfriend about the racial riots and the Rodney King case. In this scene, Norton advocates for law and order, punishing law breakers, and calling out looters and rioters. The mother’s Jewish boyfriend talks about “rage,” “poverty,” and other Leftist talking points to justify beating random people on the street, robbing stores, and burning down large portions of neighborhoods.

In another scene, the skinhead talks to a group of skinheads about how illegal immigration is destroying the local community and California as a whole. The movie tells us in one voice over that the skinhead crew went out to organize young people who were “the frustrated ones, to the ones who were sick of having their asses kicked by Black and Mexican gangs.” The film had no solutions for addressing the fact that White kids in L.A were being constant victims of harassment, violence and had been stripped of the ability to get jobs due to the multiculturalism around them, the film only aimed to demonize Whites for standing up for themselves.

At the end of American History X the only bad guys were Black gangbangers who assaulted multiple individuals, attempted to steal the truck of the main character’s deceased father, and eventually killed a young White boy because he stood up for a White kid who was being bullied in the school bathroom. The other bad guys were folks in the movement who were either Aryan Brotherhood sellouts who were more interested in money than race and degenerates who were part of the pro-White “scene” but weren’t ideologically invested or interested in being community stewards, just thugs.

The White youth who needed to organize for self protection on the streets and needed to battle for the ability to work and provide for themselves and their families were never shown how they had any other choice but to raise their flag and work as an explicitly pro-White group for the White minority in Los Angeles.

American History X tried and failed to disprove White Nationalism, and I think The Man In The High Castle is about to do the same by attempting to disprove National Socialism while actually showing that the ideology would be far superior for White Americans culturally, ethnically, economically and religiously. If the show does any humanization at all of the National Socialists, the few words of truth spoken will likely override the propaganda that the producers and writers attempt to have characters shill for.

The producers of the Man in the High Castle think this image should terrify us… it doesn’t

The Man in the High Castle Twitter page put up a post to promote the show that showed a healthy White family with a husband, wife, and children standing smiling together in a healthy looking suburb of Middle America. Instead of neighborhood filled with Black on White violence, decaying infrastructure, and homosexuals marching down the road we are shown a vision of a happy, successful and peaceful community.

The picture of this happy White American family was supposed to send dread up spines because the father was wearing a swastika armband. The price of an organic community appears to be National Socialism in America. With enough escalation and humiliation of the current madness, ordinary folks may well be driven to conclude that the price is right.

After myself, the official Trad Youth Twitter account and other nationalists began responding to The Man in the High Castle hashtag #WhatIfWeLost with responses like “ America would treasure children and the family instead of infanticide, divorce, degeneracy and decay” and “ War criminal commissars of the Soviet Union would have been punished,not 90 year old German secretaries 70 years after the war,” the official Man in the High Castle Twitter deleted this image and stopped using the hashtag. A little bit of truth stopped a multi-million dollar Amazon Prime project in its tracks by pointing out that maybe if the Allies had lost the Second World War, things for American Whites would be better and more just than the world we live in today.

Their entire point is to have Americans ask themselves, “What if we lost?” They imagined viewers filled with fear and dread that the progressive, secular, multicultural and degenerate America we now live in never happened. Instead of a Jewish oligarchy controlling our mass media and national politics, perhaps we would have a government run for the best interests of our people.

#WhatIfWeLost… I can almost guarantee we would not have bogged ourselves down in wars in the Middle East for the Zionist interest and lobby groups.

#WhatIfWeLost… The 1965 Immigration Act that began the radical demographic shift to change America from a majority European nation to a majority Third World nation would have never happened.

#WhatIfWeLost… The financial control of our economy by a clique of Jewish and global cosmopolitan bankers would have been crushed, allowing Americans to actually profit off of our labor and not lose millions of homes and billions of dollars to usury, bank foreclosure, predatory lending and Wall Street bailouts.

#WhatIfWeLost… “No Fault Divorce” never would have been accepted and laws in America to help promote the family and keep spouses together would still be on the books.

If we had lost WW2 perhaps our nation would cherish the family, instead of trying to destroy it
If we had lost WW2 perhaps our nation would cherish the family, instead of trying to destroy it

#WhatIfWeLost… The border with Mexico would be secure and illegal immigration of tens of millions of Latin Americans wouldn’t have ever occurred. American workers would have more jobs available, wouldn’t spend tens of billions of dollars giving social programs to illegal immigrants and our wages would be higher due to the economic principles of supply and demand.

#WhatIfWeLost… The organized Labor Movement wouldn’t have become Leftist towards Democrats and then crushed under Republicans. We would have a system where workers were respected, had good working conditions, and had representation like the German people had in the German Labor Front.

#WhatIfWeLost… The “Woman of the Year” wouldn’t be a man with a penis who wears a dress. Instead it would be a woman who strives to have and raise healthy children and sacrifices for the sake of her community and nation.

#WhatIfWeLost… The Soviet Union would have been liberated from the shackles of Marxism decades sooner.

Overall I do not think if America had lost World War Two we would be living in a sort of Utopian system, but to my eyes, it looks like it would be a heck of a lot better off than under the corrupt regime.

Europe's Impossible Dilemma: The Aftermath of the Islamist Attack in Paris

via Nationalist Alternative

The obsession in Europe about “Tolerance”, “Compassion” and “Solidarity” is more than just moral signalling, it is perhaps a symptom of a people who cannot, will not, fight. Like animals who have succumbed to predators, or who have been ejected from the herd or pack, there is little to do but lie down, accept ones fate and let it be. The French are sending a clear signal to Islamists, and that is that they won’t fight. They will console each other, give each other comfort and work tireless to maintain a fantasy world where their society is not collapsing around them, where the colonisers are not consolidating their positions and waging hostile war, but they won’t fight. They will suppress and oppress those who do want to fight, perhaps not so much due to concern for the invaders, but because they represent a reality that Europeans dearly wish to avoid, that of violent and aggressive conflict.

There is no choice for Europe now, but to play out the violent coming conflict. The West is in denial. It doesn’t want to face the fact that decades of open borders and multiracialism has created an untenable position. It doesn’t want to admit that groups still compete for dominance, for living space, for resources. The West wants to believe that all this is past. The national chauvinism, the tribalism. It imports tribalistic peoples from all over the world, and hopes, prays that they will drop their allegiances and become rootless, cosmopolitan individuals. Some do. But not enough.

Europe, in particular France, is now home to a large, and increasingly expanding Muslim population. Violence from Islam in Europe is increasing, and as as the Muslim population grows, as per current trends, we can expect this active and vigorous nation to become more confident, more audacious and assert itself and its independence more and more, at our expense. Europeans don’t want to face the implications of all this. Dispossession. Violence. Tribalism. Nationalism. All the things they thought they left behind in 1945. They are back, and on the streets of Paris. All the Parisians want to do now, is shut their eyes and wish it away. Just a hash-tag. Just a logo. Just a vigil. Just some expressions of solidarity with Islam. That is what they wish was all that was needed. Maybe they can convince themselves that is is just a matter of not supporting the USA or Israel, but this won’t happen, and even if it did, it won’t make any difference. Europeans have shown themselves to be Dhimmi’s begging to be conquered. No conquering nation will leave this opportunity be.

But none of this will stop the coming terror attacks, which most definitely will come. They will continue to Islamise Europe. But making France even more Islamic will not reduce Islamic aggression. Allowing more immigration will not reverse the trend. The trend is due to immigration! Do they think that as non-whites grow in proportion, that as Muslims grow in number, they will become more and more “French”? This is most definitely not what has been happening. There is no reason at all to believe that somehow this trend will reverse, while doing the exact same thing, without deviation, which has led to the current situation.

There is only one outcome left. War. Europe will not shut the borders. Europe will not face the harsh task to reinforcing their national character and protecting their ethnic and cultural heritage. They will sleepwalk towards occupation, with their slumber disturbed by the occasional explosion and volley of bullets. When they awaken, it will be too late. The new normal will have been solidified, and Europe will realise that it’s future will resemble that of the Middle East, a land of frequent sectarian violence and struggle.

The goal of the far right is to prepare for the new reality, help bring about the awakening and force a reluctant and complacent White race to face the moral consequences of decades of Liberalism, of demographic engineering and of accepting the rule of traitors.

Former Nurse Tells of Hitler's Last Days

via Britannia

Erna Flegel
A 93 year-old woman claiming to have been Adolf Hitler's nurse in the final days of the Third Reich has spoken of her experiences in the Berlin bunker for the first time in 60 years.

 Many people have tried and failed to accurately portray or document the final hours of Adolf Hitler. Acclaimed attempts such as the recent successful German film "Der Untergang" (The Downfall) have made the most of the knowledge which is available and have mixed established facts and speculation to great effect.

But there have been very few corroborative first hand accounts that have revealed the true inner workings of the Führer's bunker and his mindset as his master plan came crashing down around him.

 Until now, possibly. According to the Berlin-based daily Berliner Zeitung, a survivor from Hitler's Berlin stronghold has decided to break her silence over what she saw and heard in the final days of the Third Reich.

Erna Flegel, a 93-year-old, claims to have been the Nazi leader's nurse at the end of World War II and to have been in his bunker when Hitler took his own life.

Under the headline "I was Hitler's nurse", Flegel tells a fascinating and tragic story of how she provided medical treatment to Hitler and his inner circle from 1943 until the Nazi leadership gave up their dogged resistance and hope in the face of the advancing Red Army and Allied forces two years later.

 Flegel's insight into the last days reveals that contemporary accounts have been more or less accurate concerning the mental state of the Führer.

Hitler paralyzed by paranoia in last days

The former nurse revealed in the interview that Hitler was almost paralyzed with paranoia as the end neared, even fearing that the cyanide capsules with which he was planning to take his own life had been switched and filled with fake poison. "By the end, he didn't trust anyone any more - not even the cyanide capsule he swallowed," she is quoted as saying in the paper.

 Conflicting reports suggest that only Hitler's wife Eva took cyanide while the Nazi leader himself died from a self-inflicted gunshot to the head. Both bodies were allegedly burned by aides shortly after being discovered.

 After Hitler committed suicide, Flegel stayed in the bunker as the Nazi regime crumbled around her.

 Flegel said that after Hitler's suicide, Josef Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda chief, took over as leader, but by then there was little sense of command and Goebbels was ignored.

 A witness to the desperate end of the Third Reich

The dead Goebbels children

She also revealed her desperate attempts to save Goebbels' six children from Magda, their "merciless" mother, but was ultimately powerless as she poisoned them. It was then that the Nazi hierarchy within the bunker began to implode.

 "(Hitler's) last subordinates shot themselves in succession," she said. "And those who didn't shoot themselves tried to flee." Still Flegel remained underground. "I had to look after the wounded," she added. 

Red Army approach heralded the final collapse

"Raising a flag over the Reichstag" the famous photograph by Yevgeny Khaldei, taken on May 2, 1945.  

In the interview, she remembers the approach of the Soviet Army and the realization that Hitler's brutal regime and his plans for world domination were ending in the dust and rubble of Berlin above. "You could feel that the Third Reich was coming to an end," she said. "The radios stopped working and it was impossible to get information."

 She recalled that the Russians treated her well and advised her to remain where she was and to keep the door closed and locked. Flegel stayed for several more days in the bunker and was one of the last to leave. She was then interviewed by US secret service agents, the last time that she spoke about her life as Hitler's nurse until now.

 "I don't want to take my secret with me to the grave," she said.

One Funeral at a Time

via Radix

Those of us on the nationalist or identitarian Right are maddened by this modern world. First, we are enraged by the violent and coercive destruction of our European homelands, through alien settlement, mass rape, violent criminality, and, as we have just seen again in Paris, bloodthirsty terrorism. Yet, as maddening as this is, we are often yet more enraged by those who, whether blindly or consciously, are enabling our doom: The liberals.[1]

Let us consider, however unpleasant, the liberal mind and its beliefs for a moment:
  1. Continuously import Muslims (and other unassimilable non-Europeans).
  2. Destroy Muslim nations (Palestine, Iraq, Libya, and Syria).
  3. Be very, very surprised—nay, “deeply shocked,” in the words of the ruling German Chancellorette—when a small minority of Muslims (and it only takes a very small number) murder Americans, Frenchmen, etc., en masse.
Rinse and repeat.

Albert Einstein is supposed to have said: “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.” (He didn’t, but it doesn’t matter.)

This enrages us. No, no one has a right to be “surprised,” “shocked” or anything of the sort when Blacks or Muslims murder Europeans or rape European girls. Leftists, whose appetite for smug pseudo-moral posturing knows no bounds, even exploit the tragedy to shame nationalists and identitarians for proposing concrete solutions to the problems of inter-ethnic strife.

And yet, even as my blood boils, I cannot help but understand the liberal “steeple” among us—you known the feminine types, changing their profile picture to a rainbow flag one day, a #JeSuisCharlie the next, etc. All societies are necessarily made up, in their overwhelming majority, of this conformist, follower, slightly dim-witted sort.

No, let us save our rage for those who mislead them: Our cultural and political elites, whether they be of European or foreign blood. Our people have become wholly brainwashed. They have had anti-nationalist, “anti-racist,” and Holocaust-centric values beaten into their heads from the day they were born, by their television screens, their radio stations, their newspapers, their left-wing teachers and professors, and often their friends and family, too.

And so, the liberal masses suffer, too. For the real world never corresponds to the lies of egalitarianism and multiculturalism. And our people, our liberal steeple, then suffer from cognitive dissonance, from the contradictions between their ideology and reality. They become hungry for anything that could comfort their theology: They look for scapegoats. And the hostile elites that rule the West—the Paul Krugmans and the Emmanuel Todds—are happy to provide a ready-made scapegoat: ethnocentric Whites, Christians, conservatives, nationalists, et al.

Man is not foremost a rational animal. I rather think of him as an animal merely capable, at his best, of rationality. We learn the hard way. Old beliefs die hard. Max Planck once said: “Science advances one funeral at a time.”

In truth, I had hoped to write something positive. I had been so energized, so inspired, made so optimistic by the National Policy Institute’s recent conference in Washington. And, actually, I remain boundlessly optimistic. The people there could only convert you to such optimism, to an ineradicable faith in Greater Europe. Even if we fail in the short term, even if our people remain comfortable and blind, even if our children and grandchildren become a minority in the United States, in Great Britain, and Continental Europe, I remain optimistic.

Boundlessly optimistic! Talk to a U.S. Marine, he’ll tell you how the Armed Forces’ combat roles are overwhelmingly manned by Whites. Read of William Shockley’s and Steve Sailer’s solutions. Watch (and rewatch) Mishima and The Battle of Algiers. Above all, meet, organize, take that energy, evident at “Become Who We Are,” and cultivate it, live it, try to be with it at all times.

Here is the truth our enemies are only too aware of. If we Europeans awaken to our identity, our interests, and our heroic potential destiny, nothing can stop us. Certainly not some inbred Levantine tribe. If European Man should die, it will not have been because of the strength of Africans or Muslims, but because he had already been enslaved to the selfishness and cowardice of bourgeois comfort, because the will-to-life had already been extinguished in his soul.

But we will not allow that. We on the Right have already seen the evil dream of the hostile elites who rule the West: to destroy our nations and turn them into hellish mongrel lands, a cross between Yugoslavia and Brazil, filled with rape, violence, and inexpiable tribal hatreds. They believe they can hold things together with a multiculturalist dictatorship, with reinforced surveillance, censorship, and persecution of nationalists.

But they cannot succeed. The enemies of our people fear one thing above all: White men meeting, discussing, and organizing to defend their interests. And they have every reason to. Let the cells of the “spiritual Ethno-State,” the vanguard of awakened Europeans, crop up and spread everywhere across our ancient civilization. We have nothing to lose, and a world to gain, if only we will it!

  1. I will not discuss the case of the Jewish community, whose typical liberalism has very different motivations than the ethno-masochist European, as Professor Kevin MacDonald has already amply explicated the subject. I refer you to The Occidental Observer and, in particular, to Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Twentieth-Century Jewish Intellectual and Political Movements (1st Books, 2002).


via Transudationism

Barbara Lerner Spectre calls for destruction of Christian European ethnic societies.

The Marxist Murderers

via Renegade Tribune

The jewish supremacists are deliberately destroying all Western countries as they have secretly declared war upon us! They conspired to take control of our nation’s infrastructure through carefully orchestrated acts of treason! They became our bankers, politicians & media owners. Their goal is to genocide the White race & to enslave the entire planet!

Being and Becoming at the NPI Conference

via Alternative Right

Richard Spencer
I had the good fortune of being able to attend my first NPI conference, which took place on this last All Soul’s Eve, or Halloween—a fact cheaply exploited by liberal media hacks.

According to NPI’s President and CEO, the charming and mild-mannered Richard B. Spencer, the media reported attendance at upwards of 175, including a rather unprecedented number of Millennials (those under 30). It was refreshing to see so many young faces, who, despite the mass pressure from the politically correct, the education system, and social media, have apparently developed a healthy skepticism of what they have been told, something that favors dissident modes of thought. It is heartening to see this group developing a modicum of self-interest that looks towards a post-capitalist and post-liberal America. In short, they have been "red-pilled," which was one of the themes – or memes – of the conference. Happily, there were also many women in attendance.

Such would-be "think-tanks" as the SPLC would have us think that the events at the dignified HQ of the National Press Club resembled a KKK rally or skinhead rock show rather than a meeting by a group of citizens concerned about their displacement from society and culture, and their marginalization by the media at large.

This may seem alarmist, given the large number of Europeans in attendance, but in light of the on-going migrant "refugee" crisis in Europe, there was an atmosphere of urgency and heightened concern at the conference.

Several millennials with whom this writer spoke, were bright, articulate, and cultured. My standard of comparison here are the average applicants whom I have interviewed time and again at various investment firms. Though possessing degrees from Ivy League institutions or top schools in finance, marketing, and economics, I often found them to be not only misinformed as to how Wall Street works, but also lacking basic skills – and let's not mention culture!

The young people at "Become Who We Are" were, by contrast, truly an example of nature triumphing over nurture. Despite the handicaps placed upon them, many have begun to think for themselves and have embraced their marginalized American and European cultures and identities, rather than the multiethnic morass of decadence offered to them by society.

These young people are tired of being stigmatized for being Caucasian, or of Anglo-Saxon or European descent. This hardly seems surprising given the great concern about the coming catastrophe of a world which has forgotten the West.

Kevin MacDonald

The first presentation was by Dr. Kevin MacDonald, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at California State University Long Beach, on "The Origins of the White Man." He elaborated, on his PowerPoint presentation, that there were two strands of Nordic and European character (and thus behavior): firstly, an individualism which stems from Indo-Europeans, and secondly an egalitarianism with roots in ancient Nordic hunter-gatherers.

It is this latter group, which has exhibited altruism based upon empathy rather than kinship, and it is this that has paved the way for the "universal morality" indicative of the Enlightenment (and consequently, our present political system of government). This is also behind our present, self-effacing ideologies.

This writer observed that Kant's Categorical Imperative locates moral rationality in "the Other," that is the universal, rather than in the self, in apparent agreement with MacDonald's analysis.

His social, psychological, and ethnological insights concerned the behavioral patterns of the family group of Caucasians, with particular focus on the Anglo-Saxon and Nordic cultures. According to MacDonald, these patterns are invariably consistent, from the Neolithic period to the current age. We are bound by hunter-gatherer behavior, but socially distinct with a preference for monogamy rather than polygamy – an implied difference with Semitic, Asian, and African peoples and cultures.

Since most of his academic work has been in behavioral genetics and intelligence, it will be interesting to see how these studies are informed by further gains in the genome project, which has punctuated the nature/nurture debate.

Richard Spencer

Evoking political theorist, Carl Schmitt, Richard Spencer’s address was passionate and articulate, as ever. Its title, "Political Theology," was rather appropriate, given the current Ernstfall and the political, economic and demographic predicament in which we find ourselves. He also detailed his rude awakening at last year’s European Congress, when he was detained by the Hungarian authorities on the decree of Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

This state of affairs has not been lost on this writer, or, one would imagine, some of the Europeans who spoke or attended the conference. They were quick to acknowledge that so-called free speech has been highly curtailed in the EU – including historical "revisionism," as though "history" were not indeed an abstraction, subject to addition or detraction in light of new evidence. While the flag of the Confederacy has now been ruled a "symbol of hatred" in our own allegedly constitutionally-protected republic, in the European Union such moves have gone much further. In politically sensitive Germany and France, the symbolism of the Third Reich, and even criticism of public policy on immigration and Israeli foreign policy, has long involved various sanctions and punishments. Mr. Spencer’s unfortunate experience in Hungary last year, which he briefly shared with me at the conference, fitted into a similar pattern. Having resided in that country for a year after the fall of Communism, it would not be unwarranted to suggest that democracies and their supposed "protections" have had virtually no enduring tradition.

Offering my own thoughts on the matter, I would say that what may work Stateside, may not be entirely appropriate in a European context. This ambivalence was reflected in Spencer's address, in which he made the case that playing "smart" – rather than "hard" – has been a winning strategy. He recounted how he had dealt with a "witch hunt" he experienced in his hometown in Montana.

I daresay that a little notoriety is necessary to appear on the radar, however, as with the "first name only" tags worn by attendees at the conference, a little discretion remains the order of the day.

It is of the utmost importance that both the form and content of future efforts to gather freely and openly be thoroughly thought through, as well as the particular attractions of place, time, and history. For example, Hungary has long been on the losing side of history, from the invasions of the Ottomans and the Treaty of Trianon to Horthy, Stalin, and the events of 1956. This has given the nation a strong subjective xenophobia, while membership of the EU has resulted in a need to affect certain politically correct airs to "save appearances." Such factors should have been taken into account beforehand, determining such things as Spencer's interview with Hungary's major leftist news organ Népszabadság.

It is regrettable that Spencer had to undergo this ordeal, but I believe that both he personally and we collectively may have learned from it. Nevertheless, one could sense his deep sense of satisfaction with the large turnout this year, as well as the convivial and informal atmosphere stemming from the increasing number of attendees, particularly among the young; as well as the greater sense of urgency and self-assuredness we all have regarding the "race question" under present geopolitical circumstances.

Spencer stated that our collective "project" ("Becoming Who We Are") is unfinished, giving an existential spin to the conference. He referenced the Matrix metaphor of being "red-pilled," and emphasized that knowing and doing were two distinct projects, and, in my words, that the intention of fighting the good fight was but a beginning. We too must see how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Rather than repeat the substance of Richard Spencer’s thoughts, I shall refer the reader to his brief summary:

Keith Preston

Self-avowed former Marxist, Keith Preston spoke of "The Empire vs. Identity," that is, how barren the mainstream political climate is, entrenched as it is in consolidating the power of the ruling elite. The imperial policies by both neoconservatives and the present administration have inevitably resulted in "blowback" of the kind that has resulted in the present Syrian refugee crisis. His point is that neoconservative ideology exports its capitalist egalitarianism wherever it rears its head.

His left and right sensibilities converged in what was an astute analysis and critique of empire that reflected the wider mood of dissent. Social media has certainly contributed to this greatly, not only allowing politically incorrect people, resistant to the ruling ideology, to network in a grassroots way across manifold time zones, but has also led to a general mistrust of the mainstream media, who benefit from business-as-usual.

Indeed, the current "cuckservative" phenomenon as a means of characterizing the political climate in America today, has actually been a benefit to the movement, which, even in the eyes of secularist PC media, seems to have moved away from some of the old, hackneyed "racist" associations and dead-end tropes traditionally associated with a southern White protestant base.

More on the media’s response to the conference shortly, which reflected this ambiguity. As an aside, it is worth noting, that Mr. Preston’s move from left to right is more often than not the rule rather than the exception. It must be remembered that far leftists are much more likely to move to the far right than to look for solutions in the median, with which they were disenchanted to begin with.

Sam Dickson

Whether one was a veteran or had just swallowed the "red-pill" – as many of the attendees had  – the second half of the conference was a clarion call to action, beginning with Sam Dickson on "The Tragedy of Southern Identity." He emphasized that race was more central than political consciousness, whether one was a communist, fascist, liberal or conservative, or straight or gay. Such distinctions paled in comparison with the increasingly urgent race question.

As a well-known speaker at several nationalist and identitarian conferences, this attorney’s affiliation with the "far-right" has been disingenuously seized upon by the media, who present him as a Southerner "openly affiliated with the KKK," simply because he had once provided legal representation for that group (as though they didn’t deserve it, unlike every other "innocent until proven guilty" defendant across the land). Apparently, #BlackLivesMatter more!

Although the conference was taking place at the National Press Club, a couple blocks from the Capitol, Mr. Dickson’s speech gave this writer pause to reflect on the increasing hostility to free speech in our own country. An increasingly autocratic executive, in the name of Barack Obama, has now made it illegal to display the historical symbol of the Confederate flag in the public arena. Given the current myopic ignorance of most young people, who in general do not even know who Christopher Columbus was, it is worrying that the Civil War will continue to be downplayed or simply ignored in history education, except in the degree to which it can be utilized for purposes of "White Guilt." One wonders when we too shall have our "free speech" curtailed with prison terms like out European brethren.

Roman Bernard

Roman Bernard, Radix Journal's foreign correspondent discussed free speech issues, and remarked that there was a fine line to tread in terms of what could and could not be said, specifically on the continent. Bernard seemed to approve of the EU as a federal body. I disagree with him on this point. It is worth noting, for example, that Goldman Sachs was instrumental in "cooking the books" of Greece, so that they could be "credit worthy" of EU membership.

The Vergangenheitsbewältigung of the German people, who were accused of being "Nazis" for not agreeing to bail out Greece, is presently also at work in allowing the colonization of Europe by hostile migrants and refugees, a situation soundly criticized by Bernard's more vocal compatriot Guillaume Faye. It is surprising to this writer, who also has a background in finance like Bernard, that he does not seem to realize this.

Perhaps, rather than a pan-European identity, poorly served by the current federation, Europe would be better off as a group of nation states, each true to its heritage, culture, and history. There is little doubt that as such, they would each be much abler to protect their sovereignty and ethnic and cultural destiny.

I daresay the same applies to the decreased sovereignty of the various states in our own Union, as federal policies, such as same-sex marriage, become the law of the land, in disregard of states' rights. Indeed, given the fact that there was both bloodletting at the founding of this country and a hundred years later with the attempt at secession by the Confederacy, one wonders whether we are not now approaching a similar "high noon."

Guillaume Faye

The keynote address by political philosopher Guillaume Faye, "Why We Will Win," sounded the alarm. He ridiculed Pope Francis' inclusion of Muslims and Angela Merkel's masochistic open-door policies, eviscerating the "ethno-masochism" of White Europeans in a way that was both funny and disturbing. He emphasized the notion that "demography" does not lie; and that statistics show that Germany not only has the lowest birth rate, but also an immigration policy that will inevitably lead to its extinction. In France there are areas (he did not use the term "ghettos"), where there are no Whites at all.

Sam Dickson, Guillaume Faye, Kevin MacDonald, Keith Preston
Also, in many of these areas, in which the living conditions are execrable, Sharia law is being instituted. Germans have promoted multiculturalism and liberal policies due to the collective guilt of the past. Messrs. Bernard and Faye explained that many of the topics under discussion at the conference were inexpressible in both Germany and France, where most politically incorrect discourse falls under the definition of "hate speech." As Mr. Dickson showed earlier, the situation is fast becoming similar in the United States.

Faye explained how even Aristotle stated that two peoples–demos–could not cohabitate the same polis. In the 1970s and '80s, Faye was a member of the French New Right and a member of GRECE, after which he disengaged with Benoist in 1986. Much of this is referred to in his excellent books, Archeofuturism (1999), Why We Fight (2001), and Convergence of Catastrophes (2004). Indeed, his prescient analysis in Archeofuturism is prophetic, given the current global state of affairs.

Some of the speakers dovetailed with each other, with Faye reiterating Dr. MacDonald's points about an altruistic "ethno-masochism" leading to a unilateral policy that overrides peoples' wishes. In fact, Germany is an interesting case in point.

Faye believes – and many of us agree with him – that migrant hostility and criminality, already a matter of public record, will lead to a breaking point, where, it is hoped, the White man will at long last come to his senses. Is it possible that Europeans and Americans will yet literally transform from acquiescing victims into berserkers?

Faye seemed to contradict himself somewhat as to the solution of this dismal state of affairs. For example, he expressed the hope that the recovery could be headed by a Front National-led France, but later stated that, just as the United States has checks and balances between its branches of governance, so too do countries such as France, which has a General Assembly that would make it impossible for the Front National to legislate unilaterally, etc.

This writer wondered why Faye did not speak more about the role of Russia in the fate of Europe. This is probably due to Russia's unique situation as not being a point of entry for immigration – apart from the likes of Edward Snowden! The reader is highly advised to read Guillaume Faye's books, especially Archeofuturism, if he has not done so already.

Faye was followed by a live podcast. Participants, for those still not in the know, were Richard Spencer, Mike Enoch of The Right Stuff, and Red Ice Radio's lovely Lana Lokteff and Henrik Palmgren – with both of whom I had the pleasure of sitting and getting acquainted. We discussed the situation in Sweden and the legacy of the late Girl with the Dragon Tattoo author Stieg Larsson.

Jack Donovan & Robert N. Taylor

After this, libations were poured and offered, accompanied by a narrative and musical performance by Teutonic spiritualists Jack Donovan (who is even larger in life than he is in print and pictures) and Alt-Right veteran folklorist, musician, and poet, Robert N. Taylor. Taylor was formerly of the Minutemen, a punk band of yore, of whom I was a great fan!).

Master Chim, Lana of Red Ice, and Jack Donovan
In his piece "The Tribal Mind," Donovan laid out some barbarian "guiding principles" we should all consider adopting. 

First, no tears for strangers; second, loot and plunder; and third, no apologies, no arguments, and no explanations!

The conviviality and excitement would did not wane, neither late into the night, nor after we made our collective getaway from the masked Antifa outside the National Press Club, a maneuver that was recorded on location by Master Chim!

The Press

The press coverage was, as expected, rather skewed. Pieces by the Huffington Post and Daily Beast were highly inaccurate and biased. Self-avowed Jewess Sarah Lachman, titled her article, "White Nationalists Gather on Halloween to Discuss How Oppressed They Are: They're not racist, they just want a white ethno-state." Even the National Review was there. I informed their reporter that it used to be a decent rag, but, alas, no more. Later I couldn't find anything about the conference on

There were demonstrators outside the Press Club, but for the most part they were laughable. I got "silly string" shot at me on the way in earlier in the day. At the Press Club I spoke affably with the Black security guards there, who were very nice. They did not seem to know or care what was going on at the conference.

In his "Thoughts on the NPI October 2015 Conference" Mr. Robert Venturelli a German Brazilian (or Brazilian German, I'm not sure which) incorrectly states that Jared Taylor was not at the conference. I met Mr. Taylor there briefly, at the beginning, after which he promptly left.

In fairness, however, may I say that Mr. Venturelli's summary was spot-on. All-in-all, it was a heartening and classy affair. I am grateful to all the speakers and the many in attendance, with whom I had the pleasure of becoming acquainted. The important thing to remember is that you are not alone.

To conclude, I would like to quote from our enemies at the SPLC:
"Spencer, a relatively young racist activist himself, was able to do something many similar groups have failed to do—attract lots of young people to his event. And he did something else white nationalists aren’t known for: Spencer made it clear that anti-LGBT voices would not be invited. Every other kind of extremism, and in particular anti-Semitism, was perfectly welcome."
I'll end with a link to the Minutemen. See you at the next conference!

John Friend Receives Free Speech Award

via The Realist Report

Merlin Miller of the American
Eagle Party and Mark Anderson,
a regular reporter for American
Free Press, also received awards
This past Saturday, I was honored to receive the Free Speech Award from the Foundation to Defend the First Amendment. The award was announced and presented to me at the Jim Traficant Memorial Tribute, an epic conference organized by American Free Press and hosted at the Capitol Skyline Hotel in Washington, D.C. Be sure to watch the entire Awards Ceremony in the YouTube video below, which was shot and uploaded by my good friend Jim Rizoli.

Avoiding a European Intifada

via Western Spring

In the wake of the Islamic attacks in Paris last night, as the death toll gradually rises as more and more bodies are discovered and as more people expire from fatal injuries, people all over Europe are today realising that what we are witnessing could have happened in any large European town or city, and probably will unless something radical is done to prevent it, now!
Several years ago, something could have easily been done to prevent the growing European Intifada, at the time when Islamic extremism first began to manifest, but our politicians with their obsession with multiculturalism and multiracialism turned a blind eye to the problem and told us it would be alright.

They told is that the religious fanatics were very small in number and represented only a tiny minority of Europe’s growing Islamic communities, but successive opinion polls and the evidence of our own eyes tells us that was not entirely true.

Euro-Intifada 3Yes, there are individual Muslims who actively oppose the use of violence to impose Sharia Law upon the people of Europe and some may even embrace the liberal values that have prevailed in the West in recent decades, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that it is they who are a tiny minority within Muslim communities. This is why, in their efforts to counter Islamic extremism, MI5 have struggled to attract Muslim recruits willing to gather intelligence from within the Muslim community. This is also why our police forces have struggled over so many years to attract any significant numbers of recruits prepared to even police the Muslim communities, and in doing so place ‘man made’ laws above the Sharia.

Euro-Intifada 1At the other extreme end of the scale are those Muslims prepared to actively wage violent Jihad against the West, and while these also represent only a small minority of Muslims, they number in the thousands across Europe as witnessed by the numbers volunteering to go to Afghanistan, Iraq and now Syria to join the insurgencies there. Furthermore, they have a very vocal support group of radicalised Muslims, who periodically turn out onto the streets of our towns and cities calling for beheadings, calling for the imposition of Sharia Law and calling for violent Jihad against ‘the Infidel’ — that is, us – and these people number in their hundreds of thousands across all of Europe.

These people form a fertile recruiting ground for more Jihadis in the future and we can be sure that they represent a fifth column, providing money, safe houses and low-level logistic support for the Jihadis of today.

This brings us to the nub of the issue relating to Islam. We are told by Islamic scholars and by their lick-spittles among Western politicians, that ‘Islam’ means ‘peace’, but more accurately, it means the ‘peace’ that prevails when everyone submits to Sharia Law. ‘Islam’ therefore, more accurately translates into English as ‘submission’, not ‘peace’.

Euro-Intifada 2In Muslim communities for over a thousand years now, those individuals who have refused to submit to Sharia Law, have been subjected to beatings, stonings, the amputation of limbs, burnings, beheadings, hangings and being thrown from the tops of tall buildings, and these people have therefore failed to thrive and reproduce and have gradually been bred out of the Muslim gene pool.

The vast majority of Muslims therefore do not care enough about Islam or Sharia law to be prepared to commit violence in their name, but neither do they care enough about Western civilisation and Western values to be prepared to counter the influence of the religious extremists. They are people who have learned to just get on with their lives and enjoy the ‘peace’ of Islam, and who have, through the natural selection prevailing within Muslim communities for over a thousand years now, been positively selected on the basis of their willingness to ‘submit’. In effect, they have been selectively bred to be socially and politically inert and to just do what they are told by the religious fanatics who have traditionally imposed Sharia Law upon them.

While it is none-the-less easy to find Muslims who are prepared to mouth mild platitudes deploring the violence associated with Jihad, these are in the main, just empty words designed to appease the sensibilities of Western politicians and journalists. The fact remains that no Islamic religious leaders of any note have stridently denounced the Jihadis in public and exhorted the government to do anything effective to counter them.

Paris Attacks 3They will call upon the government to spend public money on all sorts of ‘soft’ schemes — building dedicated youth clubs and the like — to distract Muslim youth, but few if any of them will be found calling upon their people to betray the Jihadis lurking within their midst, or calling upon the government to impose harsher measures to root out and eliminate those Jihadis.

We therefore have a situation in which opinion polls demonstrate widespread general support for the militant’s cause among Muslim populations, albeit that most of their people are not prepared to take any action, and widespread concern among Muslims that the non-Muslim majority might turn against them if the Jihadis go too far, but not enough for them to take any action.

The problem we face in the West is that it is not possible to effectively separate those who support Jihad and those who are prepared to commit Jihad, from the socially and politically inert majority. Indeed, differentiating between the two groups has been made all the more complicated because we have seen how families from within the socially and politically inert majority have spawned sons and daughters who have subsequently become radicalised and who have then gone off to join the Jihadis, and so we cannot simply separate and imprison the Jihadis and leave the majority Muslim populations at liberty. There is clearly something within Islamic teaching which demands of devout Muslims, that when they see the ‘peace’ of Islam disrupted by people who do not submit to Sharia Law, they must take increasingly violent and Draconian measures to force the errant individuals involved to ‘submit’ once again.

Others have gone through the Koran and highlighted the many passages that implore the followers of Islam to employ violence in order to punish and drive out the unbelievers, and so I do not intend to repeat that process here. Suffice to say that Islam is an intolerant doctrine that requires its followers to constantly strive to impose its laws, Sharia Law, upon the people among whom they live, and to use violence if necessary to do this. It is therefore a totalitarian doctrine that has been reinforced among the current populations of believers through centuries of selective breeding in which sceptics have been violently culled from the gene pool. It is also a doctrine that has been reinforced by selective breeding in which those with a propensity towards fanatical religious adherence have been rewarded and thereby enabled to spread their genes within that same gene pool.

Once we understand these issues, move beyond denial, and come to accept the reality of our situation, it is clear that Islam is incompatible with Western culture and the values underpinning Western civilisation, and there really are only three alternatives open to us:

Euro-Intifada 5Either we continue as we are, enduring mounting violence and as more Muslims migrate into Europe accept that we will one day be forced to submit to Sharia Law and become Muslims ourselves. In which case we can kiss goodbye forever to our current social freedoms — freedom of speech, democracy and women’s rights etc.; and we can kiss goodbye to thousands of years of Western culture, and stand by as fanatics outlaw singing and dancing and burn and destroy all works of art and literature and dynamite our historic buildings and statues in order to erase any trace of civilisation prior to the time of our submission to Islam;
Or we can ban the Muslim faith, ban Islamic teaching and force Muslims to choose between giving up their religion and leaving our countries. This is the option that Ferdinand and Isabella chose in medieval Spain, and which ushered in the Spanish Inquisition as a means of weeding out any Jews or Muslims who simply pretended to convert to Christianity and who remained secret adherents of their old religions. My belief is that a new ‘inquisition’ would either not work and we would be continue to be plagued by fanatical adherents of Islam who would simply go ‘underground’, or such an inquisition would become like the Spanish Inquisition before it, a prolonged and bloody process that most people would find distasteful and ultimately unacceptable;
Thirdly, and this in my opinion is the only practical and humane option, we opt to repatriate all Muslims from Europe to their land of ethnic origin, or some other destination of their choice, and we do this in as civilised and humane a way as possible, with financial assistance provided where warranted, so that Muslims can live in peace in their own way, in their own countries, and so that we Europeans can live in peace and maintain our many thousand year old cultural traditions.

Of course, as a corollary of this last option, it would be incumbent upon Western nations to allow Muslims to live in peace in their own lands and the deplorable practice of Western governments and Western agencies meddling in the internal affairs of Arab nations, and attempting ‘regime change’ would have to stop. This would be the ‘quid pro quo’, that would be vital in securing the peaceful compliance of Europe’s current Muslim populations with this preferred solution.

One practical obstacle to a policy of allowing Muslim nations unfettered self-determination is the continued existence of the state of Israel in its present form and part of the quid pro quo would also require some kind of even handed and civilised resolution of the situation there. One which accommodated the needs of the Israelis, but also satisfied the demands of the Palestinians. The continued expansion of Israeli settlements into Palestinian territories would have to stop
This would require Western governments to pressure the Israelis into being rather more accommodating and conciliatory than they have been to date in response to the various peace initiatives, and they will almost certainly need to concede some territory enabling the two Palestinian territories of Gaza and the West Bank to be somehow physically connected to form a viable Palestinian state.

Euro-Intifada 8We must acknowledge that the instability of the Arab states has been largely brought about by the creation of Israel and by Western governments pursuing a pro-Zionist agenda in their dealings with Israel’s neighbours. The creation of Israel and the callous displacement and ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people has led to antipathy against Israel and the consequent need for Israel and her Western allies to destabilise the neighbouring Arab countries so they will have neither the capacity to threaten Israel, nor the strength to defend the interests of the Palestinian people.

The various wars conducted by US coalitions, to destabilise Arab and other Muslim states in the Middle East and bring about ‘regime change’, together with the ‘Arab Spring’ revolutions sponsored by Zionist NGOs, have caused intolerable conditions in many Middle Eastern states, generating large numbers of refugees and other migrants that in turn fuel the migrant crisis in Europe and threaten the future wellbeing and security of the European nations, creating dysfunctional multiracial and multicultural societies in major towns and cities throughout the continent.

These problems are inextricably linked and it is likely there can be no solution to the immigration problems experienced in Europe without a solution to the Middle Eastern conflict. Mass immigration and the unwanted ‘transition’ to a dysfunctional multicultural state, is the price that Zionists expect Western nations to pay, in order for Western governments to continue supporting Israel in her intransigence in the Middle East. In short their position is that Europe must die so that Israel can live.

Euro-Intifada 6What I fear is that our corrupt pro-Zionist Western governments will under Jewish influence, remain doggedly committed to the first of these options and that eventually, in desperation, the peoples of Europe will rise up in protest and a bloody, continent wide civil war will ensue between European freedom fighters on the one hand and Jihadi fanatics on the other – a larger scale version of what happened in Bosnia a few years back.

Let us hope it does not come to that. We must act decisively to crush the Jihadis within our midst, but if we are to find a way out of this mess we must try to avoid the knee-jerk reaction of blind hostility towards Muslim communities that Zionists and their puppets will undoubtedly try to elicit. We must make our compatriots aware of the underlying issues involved so that our response is firm and uncompromising, but at the same time humane and just, as far as is humanly possible.