Dec 2, 2015

White Nationalism Explained with Charts, Part I: Non-Whites in America

via Counter-Currents

White Nationalism, the idea that people of European-descent should live freely in their own homelands, has been receiving growing attention in recent years. While pro-White advocacy has been systematically stigmatized for decades in the mainstream media and wider society, relatively free speech on the Internet has led a growing number of Whites, especially young men, to embrace White identity. This article will explain why through charts.

1. Homicide by Race
Homicide rates among persons aged 10–24 years, by race/ethnicity — United States, 1990–2010 Source: Center for Disease Prevention and Control

A first reason for White Nationalism is the fact of non-White crime, particularly as committed by Non-Asian Minorities (NAMs). Progressives – despite half a century of integrationist social policies, welfare payments, and affirmative action – have failed to make any progress in closing the crime gap between Blacks and all other groups. The Obama Administration’s Justice Department has reported that:

Based on available data from 1980 to 2008—Blacks were disproportionately represented as both homicide victims and offenders. . .  . The offending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost 8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000).[1]

Hispanics in turn commit homicide and other violent crimes at about three times the White rate. Many opponents of Hispanic immigration fear that the replacement of White Americans with Mestizos will then lead to a permanent increase in violent crime, making America more like Mexico or Brazil.

2. Homicide by Race in New York City

In the 1960s, Malcolm X, the famous Black Nationalist, argued that the failure of racial integration in New York City, the most cosmopolitan city in the country, showed that such mixing could also never work in America as a whole. Nothing has happened in the Big Apple in the past half-century to discredit his pessimistic assessment. While the New York Times lectures White Americans in the Midwest about their supposed racism, New York’s jails are filled with Blacks and Hispanics, and the city’s schools are the most segregated in the entire country.[2] White Nationalists argue that: “If White people had a country of their own, this wouldn’t be happening.”

3. Post-Integration Homicide

White Nationalism is in part motivated by the manifest failures of the Sixties cultural and racial revolution. Critics point out that homicide, overwhelmingly committed by Blacks, exploded during this period. The Black community – far from being pacified or progressing under the new atmosphere of “equality,” the Great Society’s welfare state, the postwar economic boom, “liberation” from traditional values, and racial integration – degenerated into social and family dislocation, race riots, and a huge increase in murder and violence. Homicide only began fall again in the 1990s, after a backlash against Black violence led federal and local government to toughen sentencing to jail a huge proportion of crime-prone young Black males. Black violence has further increased under President Barack Hussein Obama, as his administration has delegitimized the police and encouraged Blacks in their rioting against real and imagined grievances.[3]

4. Black-on-White Crime

Source: Department of Justice/American Renaissance.

Most violent crime is committed by members of a given race against their own race. However, Black-on-White crime does exist and is notoriously more common than the reverse. While the mass media give enormous coverage to occasional White-on-Black police brutality, the fact is that White-on-Black violence is relatively rare. White-on-Black rape is extremely rare. In contrast, hundreds of innocent Whites are murdered and tens of thousands of White women are raped by Blacks and other minorities every year.

5. The Black-White Academic Gap

There has been no progress over the last half-century in closing “the gap” in educational performance between racial group in the United States. This is a source of great embarrassment to the liberal establishment as this shows the failure of integration of Blacks into White schools and of discrimination against Whites in favor of Blacks (“affirmative action”).

6. Racial Differences in Wealth

Given the importance of education to getting good jobs in the American business world, the racial gap in educational performance is also reflected in economic income. There has been no closing of the income gap whatsoever, with Jews and Asians faring better than Whites, and Hispanics and Blacks doing worse than Whites. This is also a deep source of embarrassment and angst to the liberal establishment.

7. Welfare Use by Race

Blacks and Hispanics have long been known to depend to a disproportionate degree on the U.S. welfare state, typically three to six times more than Whites. This represents a constant transfer of resources from White taxpayers to needy Blacks and Hispanics.

8. The IQ Bell Curve
Source: National Longitudinal Survey of Youth
Source: National Longitudinal Survey of Youth

This if the famous “bell curve” of intelligent quotient scores for the Black and White populations. IQ is strongly correlated with a variety of positive outcomes, such as educational performance, professional success, planned pregnancies, lower substance abuse, and so on. In America, Whites are on average generally found to have an IQ of 100, Blacks of 85, Asians 106, and Ashkenazi Jews 112.

Race-realists argue many of the differences between Blacks and Whites, or indeed with all Eurasians, is not primarily founded in differences in social environment, but in genetics. This would reflect tens of thousands of independent evolutionary history in radically different environments. In Eurasia and North Africa, long histories of sedentary agricultural societies, of planning for seasonal change (winter being more and more punitive the further north one goes), and of literate civilizations would have selected for impulse control, marital fidelity, delayed gratification, intelligence, and so forth. In contrast, south of the Sahara, these were not virtues that would allow individuals to reproduce.

While one can disagree with this point of view, White Nationalists ultimately do not want to debate the causes of Black poverty and social dysfunction, but rather to live in their own country. There have also been attempts at alliances with Black Nationalists to allow Blacks to live freely in their societies independently from Whites.

Paleoconservatives argue that the Black community collapsed in the 1960s precisely because of the destruction of traditional family values, economic disciplines, and authority. Segregationists furthermore argue that segregation both protected Whites and ultimately allowed the Black community as a whole to reach a higher potential than today because separation allowed local Black businesses to thrive (functioning as a kind of protectionism) and integration robbed Black neighborhoods of members of the “Talented Tenth” who were desperately needed to provide leadership and order (integration serving as a kind of a brain drain on the Black community, allowing the Black middle class to flee to White areas).

1. Alexia Cooper and Erica L. Smith, “Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2008,” U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2011, p. 3.
2. Joy Resmovits, “The Naton’s Most Segregated Schools Are Not Where You’d Think They’d Be,” The Huffington Post, March 26, 2014.
3. Monica Davey and Mitch Smith, “Murder Rates Rising Sharply in Many U.S. Cities,” New York Times, August 31, 2015.

“A Race Man,” First and Last: Thurgood Marshall’s Climb to the Supreme Court

via American Renaissance

Showdown is an interesting biographical study of Thurgood Marshall. Its special emphasis is on the summer of 1967, when the United States Senate approved President Lyndon B. Johnson’s nomination of Marshall as Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The black author, Will Haygood, knows how to tell a good story. One of his previous books, The Butler: A Witness to History, was translated into a dozen languages and was the basis for an award-winning motion picture, The Butler. But Mr. Haygood’s unusual method of presentation, which he calls “nonlinear narrative,” is not a success. He uses this method to construct a questionable narrative that converts the story of Marshall’s confirmation into a diatribe against Southerners and strict constructionists.

Mr. Haygood begins with a lively account of Marshall’s life before his appointment to the high court. He adds little to what earlier biographers have written, but this sets the stage for what will come. Marshall was born in Baltimore in 1908, the second son of a lower-middle-class family. His mother was a stay-at-home mom, and his father worked for a while as a waiter on the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad and later as a steward at the exclusive Gibson Island Club. As a teenager, Marshall attended the Colored High and Training School in Baltimore, where he eschewed sports and instead became one of the school’s star debaters.

At age 17, he enrolled at Lincoln University in Pennsylvania, where all the students were black and all the professors were white. At that time whites had the Ivy League, and blacks had their own “Black Ivy League,” of Fisk, Howard, and Lincoln. Lincoln was known as “the Black Princeton.” At Lincoln, Marshall joined the Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity for social life, and he became friendly with a fellow freshman, Langston Hughes.

A young Thurgood.
A young Thurgood Marshall.

As in high school, Marshall gained campus-wide recognition as a member of Lincoln’s nationally-known debate team. In 1927, Marshall and his teammates were applauded for their performance against a team from Penn State in a debate on the value of the National Prohibition Act, better known as the Volstead Act. The following year, Marshall’s team traveled to Harvard, where they debated the question: “Resolved: That Further Intermixture of Races in the United States is Desirable.” The Ku Klux Klan was opposed to debating this question, and bricks were thrown through the window of the Liberal Club, where the debate took place. As was the general practice, the teams had to draw straws to decide whether they would support or oppose the resolution. As it happened, Marshall and his teammates were given the task of arguing against race mixing.

Shortly after he graduated from Lincoln in 1929, the 21-year-old Marshall married Vivian “Buster” Burrey, a black University of Pennsylvania student who came from a family of means. Then, in 1930, Marshall entered Howard University Law School, where a new dean, Charles Hamilton Houston, placed special emphasis on training black lawyers to work for the rights and interests of blacks. This, Marshall decided, “was what I wanted to do for as long as I lived.” Under Houston’s tutelage, Marshall became what blacks of the 1930s admiringly called “a race man:” a black man whose major work was to advance the interests of his race.

In 1934, one year after graduating from Howard, Marshall went to work for the NAACP. One of his first assignments was to travel through the South gathering information on “separate but equal” public schools. Thanks to his modest NAACP salary he was also able to offer free legal services for blacks. Marshall often stayed with his black clients, “and he often asked the male members of those households if they had their shotguns ready for protection.” In Columbia, South Carolina, Marshall barely escaped being lynched. In Gadsden County, Florida, a home where Marshall had stayed was dynamited, and the homeowners, Harry and Henriette Moore, were killed.

Marshall showed extraordinary bravery as he roamed through the South arguing for black clients. He also amassed an impressive number of landmark victories in the Supreme Court. In 1944, there was Smith v. Allwright, in which Marshall persuaded the Court to outlaw the all-white Democratic primary in Texas. In Shelly v. Kramer (1948), the Court ruled it was illegal to bar blacks and other minorities from purchasing property, even if there was a restrictive covenant in a homeowners’ deed. In 1950, in Sweatt v. Painter, Marshall won an order requiring the University of Texas to admit a black it had previously barred from its law school.

In 1954 Marshall won his most consequential case, Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, in which he persuaded the Supreme Court to rule that public schools must admit students on a racially nondiscriminatory basis. Altogether, Marshall appeared 34 times as an advocate before the Supreme Court, and he won 29 of his cases. It is hard to dispute Mr. Haygood’s conclusion: “There was not another lawyer in America whose constitutional victories could match Thurgood Marshall’s . . . .” “No [other] Justice had come to the high court with the background he possessed in traveling the land and fighting from courthouse to courthouse . . . He was a colossal figure in American jurisprudence.”

George Hayes, Thurgood Marshall, and James Nabrit, Jr. after their victory in Brown v. Board of Education.
George Hayes, Thurgood Marshall, and James Nabrit, Jr. after their victory in Brown v. Board of Education.

Nevertheless, most Southern senators thought Marshall was a poor choice for appointment to the high court. They said Marshall’s disposition was suitable for an advocate but not for a magistrate. They also criticized Marshall’s legal philosophy, which Mr. Haygood summarizes as a “decades-long [and often-expressed] belief that the Constitution was a living document.”

North Carolina’s Senator Sam Ervin maintained that Marshall was “by practice and philosophy a legal and judicial activist.” Ervin further predicted that if Marshall were appointed to the Supreme Court he would join other activist justices in rendering decisions which would “substantially impair, if not destroy, the right of Americans for years to come to have the Government of the United States and the several states conducted in accordance with the Constitution.” Ervin professed that he had “no prejudice in my mind or heart against any man because of his race.” Ervin recognized, however, that in opposing Marshall’s nomination, he was laying himself “open to the easy, but false, charge that I am a racist . . . .“

Showdown is testimony to the truth of Ervin’s observation. Mr. Haygood searched for evidence of Ervin’s racism, but the most damning thing he could find was Ervin’s signature on the Southern Manifesto of 1954: a document that said the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board was “unwarranted” and that urged resistance to “forced integration by any lawful means.” Since this did not prove that Ervin was a racist, Mr. Haygood deployed his peculiar method, “nonlinear narrative.” In doing so, Mr. Haygood describes several instances that had little to do with Marshall but which Mr. Haygood offers as evidence that Southern opposition to Marshall’s elevation to the Supreme Court grew out of deep-seated racial bigotry.

Thus, Mr. Haygood devotes several pages in one chapter to the 1934 lynching of Claude Neale, a Florida laborer who (perhaps under duress) confessed to the rape and murder of a 19-year-old white girl. Another chapter tells of the 1904 lynching of Luther Holbert, a plantation worker who fled after killing the uncle of Mississippi Senator John Eastland. Senator Eastland’s father tracked Holbert down, tied him to a tree, and set the tree on fire. Mr. Haygood also devotes an entire chapter to Southern white opposition to the 1916 appointment of a Jew, Louis Brandeis, to the U. S. Supreme Court; and several pages to the 1915 lynching of another Jew, Leo Frank, who had been in prison after being convicted of the murder of a 13-year-old white girl. Another chapter condemns President Theodore Roosevelt for not considering the provocations that black soldiers had experienced in an incident in which they fired some 200 rounds in Brownsville, Texas, in 1906 (but killed only a white bartender and wounded one white police officer). Mr. Haygood also criticizes President Woodrow Wilson for similarly making light of provocations that, in 1917, prompted 120 black soldiers to stage a mutiny and shoot up Houston, Texas, in a spree that claimed the lives of 15 whites, two of whom were soldiers.

For Mr. Haygood, these and several other “nonlinear narratives” are not digressions by a garrulous raconteur. They are presented as the key to understanding why most Southern Senators opposed Thurgood Marshall’s appointment to the Supreme Court. According to Mr. Haygood, “No one in the hearing room” believed South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond “for a minute when he started talking about states’ rights and how he was trying to stop the encroachment of federal power. They thought it pure racist code.”

Mr. Haygood to the contrary notwithstanding, Southerners and other strict constructionist Senators–especially Sam Ervin and Strom Thurmond–raised several points that deserved respectful consideration. Ervin, for example, questioned Marshall’s temperament. He conceded that Marshall was one of the nation’s leading advocates; that Marshall had a distinguished career; and that Marshall had ably pleaded the cases and the cause of his clients and his people. But Ervin doubted that Marshall had a judicial disposition. According to Ervin, “in passing upon the qualifications of an appointee to the Supreme Court, it is not only important for a Senator to determine whether the nominee has sufficient knowledge of the law or sufficient legal experience, but also to determine whether he is able and willing to exercise that judicial self-restraint which is implicit in the judicial process.” Quoting Daniel Webster, Ervin declared: “It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.” According to Ervin, the Justices of the Supreme Court should “place themselves as nearly as possible in the position of the men who framed [the Constitution].” Their role was “simply to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the framers . . . .” For Ervin, the greatest judicial virtue was “the virtue of self-restraint.”

Marshall, on the other hand, had repeatedly said the Constitution should be interpreted as “a living document,” and he did not back away from this point of view during his confirmation hearing, in which he said the nation’s charter should be interpreted in the light of current problems. Like a predecessor-Justice, Robert Jackson, Marshall believed the Constitution contained “majestic generalities” that should be construed in the light of current needs. Like his soon-to-be fellow justice, William Brennan, Marshall thought the genius of the Constitution rested “not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems . . . .”


Marshall’s critics, on the other hand, rejected the idea that justices could change the interpretation of a Constitutional provision and give it another meaning. According to Ervin, that theory did not mean that the Constitution was “living” but rather that it was “dead.” Americans were being ruled by “the personal notions of the temporary occupants of the Supreme Court.”

Marshall’s partisans prevailed. In 1967 the Senate confirmed his appointment to the Supreme Court. The vote was 9-6 in the Judiciary Committee and 69-11 (with 20 abstentions) in the full Senate.

Mr. Haygood misses the mark when he dismisses strict construction as “pure racist code.” He is also mistaken when he fails to recognize that, all along, Marshall had been a race man, committed to advancing the interests of blacks. In the 1950s, in testimony before the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board, Marshall and his chief assistant, Robert Carter, had said it was their “dedicated belief” that the Constitution was “color-blind.” They said they were “not asking for affirmative relief. . . . The only thing that we ask for is that the state-imposed racial segregation be taken off, and to leave the county school board . . . to assign children on any reasonable basis they want to assign them on. . . . What we want from this Court is the striking down of race. . . . [D]o not put in race or color as a factor.”

But times change. Affirmative action for blacks came into fashion in the 1970s, and whites began to insist that the Constitution was “color blind” and that students should be admitted to selective programs on the basis of personal qualities, not race. When the issue came before the Supreme Court, however, Marshall favored discrimination to promote the interests of blacks.

One of the first Supreme Court cases on this question involved Marco DeFunis, a white applicant who filed an appeal after he learned that the law school at the University of Washington admitted black students whose qualifications were inferior to those of white applicants who were denied admission. When the justices of the Supreme Court discussed the case, it was clear that Thurgood Marshall no longer believed the Constitution was “color blind.” He was no longer opposed to preferring some students for racial reasons. “Why the turnaround?” asked Justice William O. Douglas. Marshall gave a straightforward answer: “You [white] guys have been practicing discrimination for years. Now it’s our turn.”

Haygood does not discuss Marshall’s record as a Supreme Court Justice. After the DeFunis case, however, Marshall consistently plumped for affirmative action to help blacks. His greatest triumph came in Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971) and other cases, in which he persuaded the Court to interpret laws against “discrimination” as laws that forbade any policy, test, or standard that affected blacks adversely. Thanks to Marshall, “no discrimination” came to mean “no disparate impact.” On the surface this seems inconsistent with Marshall’s plea in Brown v. Board–“What we want from this Court is the striking down of race . . . . [D]o not put in race or color as a factor.” But to say that Marshall was inconsistent is to misunderstand him. He was “a race man.” He was consistently for his race, first and last.

Yes, Ethnonationalism Is Biblical: A Response to Kevin Craig, Part 1

via Faith & Heritage

Kevin Craig, a perennial libertarian candidate for the United States Congress, has responded to my article, “A Biblical Defense of Ethno-Nationalism.” In my very limited interactions with Mr. Craig I have had positive experiences. I have not found Craig to be belligerent or rude towards those with whom he is in disagreement. I appreciate his demeanor, and it is my hope that he will interpret my response in kind. I believe that Craig’s understanding of morality and ethics is mistaken given his attempt to read libertarian philosophical presuppositions into biblical law. He is committed to a libertarian idea commonly referred to as the non-aggression principle which rejects government compulsion in moral matters, and this will be fleshed out very clearly in his critique.1  Craig’s response to the Kinist position on national identity is particularly valuable since it affords readers an opportunity to see firsthand where the common objections against Kinism must eventually lead. Many who reject Kinism seem to talk out of both sides of their mouth by rejecting ethnonationalism while still believing that national boundaries have some residual practical function in society. Not so with Kevin Craig. He rejects the idea of separate nationality as a legitimate concept at all, and that is why his critique is a worthwhile read.

Preliminary Issues with Craig’s Use of Terms and Category Mistakes

One recurring problem plaguing Craig’s response to my original article on ethnonationalism is that he often equivocates in his usage of certain words. At the outset of his response, Craig characterizes my essay, and presumably all of the content on Faith and Heritage, as a defense of racism, which he defines as “the belief that race matters.” Normally I have to chastise critics of Kinism for not providing a definition of the ubiquitous pejorative “racism” or “racist,” but that problem does not apply to Craig. He has provided us with a definition of racism which is necessary for any meaningful dialogue on the issue. What is striking is that he believes that racism is simply the belief that race matters. That’s it! While I applaud Craig’s candor, I must draw attention to the fact that this is not how this word is frequently used, and that the multiple definitions of this word pervading contemporary discourse on race serve only to muddy the waters. Many will make statements such as “I’m not a racist, but…” in which what follows invariably makes it evident that the speaker does believe that race matters in one way or another, even if only to afford nonwhites a common identity in their struggle against the ever-present evils of “white privilege” or “white oppression.” No doubt Craig may reject these competing definitions of the word, as is his prerogative, but we must be aware of just how abstract the concept of racism has always been, even among Christians who have attempted to ascribe a Christian meaning to the word.

Given Craig’s definition of racism as the belief that race matters, I readily admit that this definition fits me as well as Kinism and Kinists in general. I believe that race does matter for the reasons that I expounded in my original article, and I am certainly willing to defend those reasons here. Like many who oppose Kinism, Craig pretends to be ignorant of what race means on the one hand, and on the other hand he demonstrates an ability to understand race just as we do. Non-Kinists will often insist on qualifying the concept as different “people groups” or “cultures” with the caveat that they believe there is only one race, the human race. When Craig defines “racism” as the “belief that race matters,” I assume he is not using the word to mean “the human race,” but rather to mean the major hereditary subdivisions of mankind. He is using the term “race” in a way that he himself understands. This is why Craig is inconsistent when he asks later in his response, “What exactly is ‘race?’ Where is this crucial word defined in the Bible?” It is ironic that Craig states that Kinism is a defense of “racism” in that it is a “belief that race matters,” only to ask later what race is and where it is defined in the Bible. I suppose what Craig is really asking is what moral or other significance Kinists attribute to race, and where such a principle would be located in the Bible.

From a biblical perspective the concept of race can be derived from the concept of kindred nationhood. Nations are an extension of families, as has already been demonstrated. A race is made up of kindred nations who are closely related. We see this concept when Moses addresses the Edomites as brothers on account of their common descent from Abraham and Isaac, even though they are a separate nation from the Israelites (Num. 20:14; Deut. 23:7). The word Hebrew is also a name derived from the Shemite patriarch Eber (Gen. 10:21, 24-25). The nation of Israel is thus a constituent nation of the broader Hebrew people or race. This is why I believe that the NIV appropriately renders Rom. 9:3-4a, “For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, the people of Israel,” whereas the people of Israel are clearly a subset of all humanity. The typical convention among Kinists is to speak of mankind as one united species comprised of multiple races, and I believe that this convention conforms to the biblical data mentioned above.

Craig’s analysis is also hampered in several instances by his failure to recognize the distinct ways words are used in the Bible, specifically in regards to the concept of a nation. At times Craig pits the spiritual nation of all Christians mentioned in 1 Peter 2:9 against the concept of multiple physical nations defined by common ancestry and ethnicity. For Craig, if the concept of the spiritual nation of 1 Peter 2:9 is legitimate, this must make the existence of multiple physical nations illegitimate or irrelevant. Several observations are appropriate in response to Craig’s claims. First, though Craig seems unequivocal in his commitment to the idea that the only nation that matters or is legitimate in any sense is the one holy nation of all Christians mentioned in 1 Peter 2:9, he is in fact inconsistent on this point. At one point Craig concedes, “‘Nations’ in the sense seen in Genesis 10, are just ‘extended families.’

Another example of Craig’s inconsistency on this point is found in his linked article on what he calls Christocracy: “All nations obeying God, and blessed. This is ‘good news.’ That is Christocracy.” How can multiple nations be blessed by God when Craig has also stated, “There is today only one legitimate ‘nation’: that is the nation described in 1 Peter 2:9,” and “The only nation that matters is the ‘holy nation’ of 1 Peter 2:9, and whether you are a citizen of that holy nation, or a rebel against it.” Here we see equivocation that is all too typical among non-Kinists who pit the one nation and family of the church against the objective existence of multiple physical nations and families. Kinism can harmonize these concepts because we accept the reality of Christian spiritual unity but also the equally real and valuable solidarity of a kin-based nation. When the Bible speaks of multiple nations being blessed by God, as it does in verses like Galatians 3:8 (cf. Gen. 12:3), it is referring to nations as legitimate sources of identity, not as an “arbitrary humanistic contrivance” or an “arbitrary political fiction created by humanists,” as Craig calls them earlier. If there is only one legitimate nation, we cannot also state that all nations in the plural will be blessed by God. These statements are mutually exclusive, and this undermines the thrust of Craig’s assertion that the spiritual nation of 1 Peter 2:9 trumps the legitimacy of any other kind of national identity. In both of these quotes Craig tacitly concedes a major point of my original article to the Kinist understanding of nationhood!

Given these inconsistencies, what are we to make of Craig’s statements throughout his response, in which he states that all physical nations are illegitimate and arbitrary? Is the meaning of a nation as an extended family, which Craig concedes is in Genesis 10, unique to that chapter, or does this meaning resurface throughout the Bible? If Craig refuses to concede that the concept of nations as an outgrowth of extended kinship is not used outside of Genesis 10, upon what basis is his claim founded? Why are we to believe that Genesis 10 is unique in the way in which nations are discussed? If indeed this meaning of nationhood is used throughout the Bible, as I will argue, then Craig’s dichotomy obviously fails. We conclude by noting that Craig’s failure to account for the distinction between the spiritual nation of the church and legitimate physical nations undermines his position. The Bible teaches Christian unity as well as racial, ethnic, or familial particularity. There is no basis for Craig’s belief that these two concepts are somehow in conflict.

Unpacking Craig’s Statements on the Illegitimacy of Physical Nations

Throughout his response, Kevin Craig fails to make the valid distinction between the spiritual nation of the church and the multiple physical nations of mankind. Craig posits a false dichotomy between our loyalty to the spiritual nation of 1 Peter 2:9 and our loyalty to the nations pertaining to physical birth. Craig’s position is implicitly Unitarian in denying the orthodox Trinitarian solution to the problem of the one and the many. Just as one God exists in three distinct Persons, orthodox Trinitarian Christians understand that Christian unity is not in conflict with racial and ethnic plurality. I would like to examine the specific statements that Craig makes in regards to the illegitimacy of physical nations:
  • The nation as ‘state’ is an arbitrary political fiction created by humanists. It is the law of man, not the Law of God.
  • There is today only one legitimate ‘nation’: that is the nation described in 1 Peter 2:9. . . . If you are not part of this ‘race of the redeemed,’ then you are still a rebel in the fallen race of the First Adam. The Second Adam is the ruler of a new nation. If you want to start a baseball team and call it a ‘nation,’ that’s OK, but irrelevant. The Bible has no ethical or moral mandates concerning your ‘nation’ or any other human-created ‘nation.’ The only nation that matters is the ‘holy nation’ of 1 Peter 2:9, and whether you are a citizen of that holy nation, or a rebel against it.
  • [I]t wouldn’t surprise me to discover that the Bible also uses the word ‘ethnos’ to describe an arbitrary humanistic contrivance known as the political ‘nation-state,’ or ‘empire.’
  • Nations “aren’t ‘meaningless,’ they are just irrelevant.
  • There is no Biblical mandate to prefer heredity and lineage over the Church (the Body of Christ, the ‘Household of Faith,’ the ‘holy nation.’). Any family or business or school is free to prefer a genealogically un-related Christian over a brother, sister, father, or mother who is in rebellion against Christ and His Family/Nation.
  • Against my contention that “[e]mpires are a cheap imitation of Christ’s spiritual kingdom which will grow to encompass all physical nations and people,” Craig argues, “This sentence refutes the entire article. Christ’s Kingdom is in fact an empire which ‘extends over several different tribes, nations, and peoples.’ It is a propositional nation, or a doctrinal nation, or a nation based on faith, not genetics.
  • All ‘nationalism’ – ‘ethno-’ or otherwise — is a failure and a rebellion against Christ’s ‘holy nation.’
After stating his opposition to racism as he has defined it, Craig begins by distinguishing between a nation and the nation-state. Craig states, “The nation as ‘state’ is an arbitrary political fiction created by humanists. It is the law of man, not the Law of God.” I agree that the concepts of nations and states should be distinguished. I generally don’t speak positively of the state because of its connection to modern statism, although I do believe that there is such a thing as legitimate civil or governmental authority. Craig’s disagreement with Kinism on this point will be fleshed out more as his critique progresses. Craig not only rejects the legitimacy of civil governments with coercive power against crime, but also rejects the idea of national plurality within a Christian context as well.

Craig states, “There is today only one legitimate ‘nation’: that is the nation described in 1 Peter 2:9. . . . If you are not part of this ‘race of the redeemed,’ then you are still a rebel in the fallen race of the First Adam. The Second Adam is the ruler of a new nation. If you want to start a baseball team and call it a ‘nation,’ that’s OK, but irrelevant. The Bible has no ethical or moral mandates concerning your ‘nation’ or any other human-created ‘nation.’ The only nation that matters is the ‘holy nation’ of 1 Peter 2:9, and whether you are a citizen of that holy nation, or a rebel against it.” It is simply foolish for Craig to suggest that nations have as little ethical basis as something akin to a baseball team. In this verse Peter is speaking of national identity in a particular context. Just as nations are rooted in common birth, the holy nation of which Peter speaks is rooted in the common rebirth of the Holy Spirit. This does not negate legitimate uses of the word nation in other contexts with different meanings. Examples of this include the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20), in which Jesus tells His disciples to teach, disciple, and baptize the nations, and there is no indication that the nations will be abrogated or amalgamated as a result. This also applies to the division of the nations at the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11), and the division of the earth into homelands for the several nations (Deut. 32:8-9; Acts 17:26-27). The distinction between physical and spiritual realities is dealt with more thoroughly in my article “Adoption Reconsidered: Reexamining the Contemporary Trend of Adoption, Part 2,” so there is no need for a comprehensive treatment here.

When commenting on the meaning of the word “nation,” Craig states, “[I]t wouldn’t surprise me to discover that the Bible also uses the word ‘ethnos’ to describe an arbitrary humanistic contrivance known as the political ‘nation-state,’ or ‘empire.’” Craig expresses credulity that the biblical authors use the word “nation” in precisely the same fashion as it is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary. Craig provides no lexical evidence of his definition of a nation as an “arbitrary humanistic contrivance,” so there isn’t much that needs to be said in response. The point I was making in my original article is that the English word “nation” corresponds well to the biblical concept being translated from the word ethnos, since “nation” traditionally denoted people of a common hereditary origin as opposed to people governed by the same geopolitical entity. We should recall that Craig has conceded that “nation” is used in Genesis 10 to denote an outgrowth of extended families, and this demonstrates that the existence of multiple distinct nations is not the creation of statist humanism. National identity is a natural outgrowth of familial identity, neither of which are arbitrary. The burden of proof is on Craig to demonstrate that the meaning of “nation” is ever used to mean “an arbitrary humanistic contrivance” in the Bible. This burden has not been met. From here Craig’s confusion only seems to become more pronounced.

Craig demurs from the Kinist belief that we owe a particular allegiance to the welfare of our own physical people. Craig compares nationhood and race to the loyalty one might have to a baseball team, concluding that nations, “aren’t ‘meaningless,’ they are just irrelevant.” This is nothing but sophistry. I honestly don’t understand how ethnic and racial identity can be irrelevant yet meaningful. What meaning does Craig ascribe to ethnic or racial identity? Kinists concede, as I did in the original article, that salvation does not depend upon one’s national identity, as though salvation were a matter of having the right lineage. This is why I don’t understand why Craig feels the need to point out the comparative importance of Christ’s transformative work as opposed to the importance of a familial identity. Christ should be our first and foremost loyalty, but it does not follow that national identity has no essential role to play in society even after the conversion of the nations.

After repeating his error that the division of Babel was indifferent to ethnic or hereditary identity, Craig asserts, “Patriarchal authority is meaningless. It is often ugly and ungodly. . . . And since the family is the basis for ‘ethno-nationalism’ as defended in the article at left, we must conclude that ethno-nationalism is sinful. The only nation that matters is the ‘holy nation’ ruled by Christ the King.” True, patriarchal authority in a godless, unbelieving society can be and often is abused, but this should not lead us to the conclusion that patriarchal authority is meaningless. In Jeremiah 35, the Rechabites are praised and extolled for their fidelity to the precepts of their ancestor. Furthermore, honor and obedience to parents is clearly enjoined in Ex. 20:12; Deut. 5:16; Prov. 1:8; 6:20; Eph. 6:1; Col. 3:20. The role these commandments play in establishing patriarchal authority becomes clear when we juxtapose these verses with others that call our ancestors fathers.2 No human authority can ever trump or negate the force of divine law revealed to us in the Bible, but this does not mean that patriarchal authority, which definitely has a biblical basis, is “meaningless.”

A final example of Craig’s sloppy rhetoric is in his statement, “There is no Biblical requirement for ‘race’ or ‘nation’ because they are too far outside the concentric circle of ‘household.’” Here Craig has failed to provide us with any criteria for why national and racial identity are “too far outside” of a household or family. Why are we to believe that households are meaningful with ethical requirements while national and racial identity lack any ethical requirements? Craig would have us believe that the only nation of any kind of legitimacy is the holy nation of 1 Peter 2:9, but he could just as easily say the same of the “household of faith” of Galatians 6:10. Craig could just as easily have stated, “The Bible has no ethical or moral mandates concerning your ‘household’ or any other human-created ‘household.’ The only household that matters is the ‘household of faith’ of Gal. 6:10, and whether you are a member of that household of faith, or a rebel against it.” This confirms the Kinist maxim that an attack on the concept of race and ethnonationalism must ultimately devolve into an attack on the family itself.

Craig’s False Dichotomies, Unsubstantiated Claims, and Straw Men

Throughout his response, Kevin Craig makes what amount to several unsubstantiated claims and caricatures of the Kinist position. Craig states, “The Tower of Babel has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of separate ‘nations.’ They existed in Genesis 10, before the Tower. Nations were not created by God as a judgment of ‘the Religion of Humanity,’ differing languages were created by God at the Tower.” Later Craig similarly comments, “The division at Babel was linguistic, not national or racial. It was not a ‘reaffirmation of a preexisting social structure.’ God’s purpose in creating new languages was not to keep families apart.

The Kinist position is precisely that the existence of nations predates Babel. I used the Babel narrative as an example to demonstrate the corrosive effects of the blurring of national distinctions. I disagree that the Babel incident was only about a division on the basis of language as opposed to ethnicity. Genesis 10 makes clear that ethnic or national identity corresponds to linguistic identity (vv. 5, 20, 31-32). The usage of language in the division of Babel did not occur independently of preexisting national identities. Craig asserts, “There is nothing whatsoever in the Bible that says people can only speak their mother tongue.” This is true, but no Kinist would insist that we are only allowed to speak our mother tongue. We would simply suggest that the plurality of languages and their corresponding cultural distinctions are good, and that they ought to be conserved. The replacement of native languages with other languages such as Latin or English is most often the result of imperialism and forced integration.

Craig believes any concern for ethnic distinctions or genealogical relationships is “humanistic.” At one point Craig states, “The issue is morality, not blood. . . . The issue is God’s Law, not man’s ethnicity. . . . The issue is building God’s Kingdom and looking forward to the future, not preserving a humanistic ethnic ‘past.’” He also states, “Focus on human genealogy is, by definition, humanistic. It is human-centered rather than Christ-centered.” This is but another example of Craig’s casual use of language. What does he mean by “focus on human genealogy,” and what exactly is “humanistic” about a particular concern for ethnicity?

Humanism is not the same thing as a concern for aspects of human identity. Craig could just as easily reject the concept of innate differences between the male and female sexes and policies derived from these differences: “focus on human gender or sexual identity is, by definition, humanistic.” This simply does not comport with any meaningful definition of humanism, which Merriam-Webster defines as “a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially: a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual’s dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason.3 Virtually all who identify themselves as humanists in accordance with this definition deny that race is or ought to be consequential in any meaningful way. The reason for this is that humanists do not want divinely ordained categories like race, ethnicity, or sex “imposed” on them and their autonomous self-identification. The reality is that the Bible has many chapters devoted to human genealogies. I will develop this further when I discuss Craig’s belief in the radical discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments.

Perhaps Craig’s most egregious straw-man argument is the following:“‘Ethno-nationalism,’ because it is a false and unBiblical concept, leads inevitable [sic] to imperialism and mass death.” First I would point out that ethnonationalism is fundamentally opposed by definition to any kind of imperialism, since imperialism would inevitably lead to the opposition of the very foundational principles of ethnonationalism, such as the law of kin-rule. Craig could argue that while ethnonationalism and imperialism are opposed in theory, they are not in fact opposed in practice. This is analogous to the observation that while anarchy and tyranny are diametrically opposed to each other in theory, anarchy and tyranny are in reality two sides of the same coin. Anarchy often results in tyranny once someone strong enough to bring order from disorder gains power while ruling arbitrarily. This lapses back into anarchy as people rise up against the tyrant with anarchy emerging between rival factions.

In a similar way, Craig could argue that although ethnonationalism or Kinism are opposed to imperialism in theory, the end result is inevitably a lapse into imperialism over people who are believed to be inferior. In response, I would simply ask for any historical evidence of this position. European nations after their collective conversion to Christianity essentially functioned by following Christian ethnonationalist principles for centuries. Imperialism, when it could truly be called imperialism, came about during the post-Christian rationalist Enlightenment. Wars fought between Christian nations were often fought for political, cultural, or economic reasons, but not because of imperialistic pretensions. The charge that ethnonationalism leads to mass death is nothing short of slanderous. The twentieth century has witnessed the repudiation of Christian moral principles, among them the Christian concept of nationhood, and it has been perhaps the bloodiest century in the history of mankind. This is especially relevant to the contribution made by communism and cultural Marxist practices like abortion, considering that communism is explicit in its rejection of the Christian concept of nationhood. Craig’s accusation that ethnonationalism or kinism leads to “mass death” must be rejected as slander which lacks any historical foundation.

Conclusion to Part 1

I value Craig’s libertarian critique of my position on Kinist ethnonationalism, because I believe that his critique gets to the heart of major issues separating Kinists from those like Craig who try to reconcile Christian morality with the principles of libertarianism. Many Christians in the West like Craig believe that they have found in libertarianism an alternative to the anti-Christian zeitgeist. The reality is that libertarianism is part of the problem, for libertarian presuppositions require much of biblical morality to be ignored. I believe Kevin Craig unwittingly reads the Bible through a libertarian lens, causing him to reject much of what the Old Testament teaches about a truly godly social order. The next article will focus on Craig’s belief in the discontinuity between the testaments and the implications this has for his worldview.

  1. For a refutation of the non-aggression principle (NAP) as it is used to argue for open borders, see Nil Desperandum’s critique of Doug Wilson’s “Open Borders but No Freebies.” 
  2. Gen. 10:21; Lev. 26:45; Deut. 1:8; 5:3; 29:13; 30:20; 1 Ki. 19: 3-4; Prov. 22:28; Eze. 2:3; Amos 2:4; Matt. 23:30-32; Mk. 11:10; Lk. 1:72; Jn. 4:12, 20; 6:31, 49, 58; 7:22; Acts 26:6; 28:17; Rom. 4:1; 9:5; 11:28; 1 Cor. 10:1; Heb. 7:9-10; Jam. 2:21 
  3. Merriam-Webster definition of “humanism.” 

The Necessity of Leaving Paleoconservatism Behind

via TradYouth

The paleocon heritage of White identitarians in America is unmistakable and unshakable. While a rapidly emergent generation of Millennials is arriving which is largely divorced from that political tradition, the leadership and money remain firmly planted in 20th Century practices and patterns of thinking. These sorts of things take time, and plenty of prominent figures from a paleocon background are either keeping up with the paradigm shifts or allowing space for them.

The root problem with paleoconservatism lies in a parallax between their motives and their ideologies. They were largely motivated by the same instinctive and visceral forces that we are; faith, family, and folk. Their ideological framework was; however, a mercantile/masonic toolkit. They strove to justify their identitarian objectives in the language and logic of finance, liberty, and equality, ….with mixed results. Eventually, the unprincipled exceptions to the Enlightenment principles get ironed out and you have yourself an enemy of the tribe in the service of global finance, decadent license, and steamrolling egalitarianism.

The devolution of the Ron Paul movement into the Rand Paul sideshow is the most recent and simple example of this phenomenon playing out. It’s ideological cuckoldry and it will keep happening as long as the root of our ideology is intrinsically liberal. We cry out for state’s rights to defend segregation, and they rely on that state sovereignty to spearhead gay marriage. We cry out for smaller government in order to choke off interracial wealth redistribution, and they empty out the prisons and cut out the pensions to shrink the government. We cry out against the police state, so they stop policing minority gang activity.

Heads, liberals win; tails, paleocons lose.

A backlink caught my attention this evening because it concisely demonstrates every single reason to move forward from the paleocon worldview in order to achieve our identitarian and traditionalist goals. The site is Breaking All The Rules. I would argue that the site actually breaks all but one of the rules; the rule against Whites thinking tribally.

To give you an idea, even this conspiracy theorist’s positive review of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion takes pains to refrain from framing matters in tribal terms. It can’t violate Enlightenment principles, after all. We mustn’t think in petty, vulgar, folkish terms, after all. Actually resisting Jews as Jews is something the paleocon can’t ever bring himself to fully do. It’s kind of like the landscape of first-person shooter video games. There’s an invisible boundary that’s outside the scope of the game that you’re simply not allowed to cross.

You can see it. Sartre obviously sees the tribal mechanics undergirding everything going on, but he can’t go there.
Immediate charges of anti-Semitism prove the lack of sincerity and scholarly dishonesty from the gatekeepers of the satanic global New World Order. Even an elementary understanding of historic events and Realpolitik realize that condemning an entire race, religion or ethnic group for the transgressions of evil elements in any tribe is fundamentally ludicrous on face value.
The whole point of (disputed) authorship of the protocols is inverted by Sartre to not only absolve the Jewish people of collective accountability but to posit that they are themselves hapless victims.
Not all globalists are Jewish and certainly not all Jews are Zionists.
Nothing uniquely Jewish going on here, folks. Move along. After all, some gentiles are involved and some Jews are not involved. It’s just a random coalition of sinister people with no patterns of ethnic and tribal identity. As I’ve said before, David Icke’s reptilian space lizard hypothesis is more plausible than this Alex Jones rainbow conspiracy model. After all, I can’t readily disprove the lizard people. I can, however, easily confirm that human beings of very different ethnic and religious identities can’t co-conspire for extended periods of time without tribal rivalries and factionalism boiling over.

Conspiracies do occur, and I often conspire from time to time myself. But the most parsimonious explanation for the pervasively global and intergenerational pattern we observe lies in the work of behavioral psychologist Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique and Douglas Reed’s Controversy of Zion. That second one is far less popular, but I believe it’s a nice companion to MacDonald’s work, vividly illustrating how the Jewish mythology, folklore, and traditions inculcate Jewish youths with the subversive and resentful behavioral patterns which drive their adult political work.

Yes, all Jews. Judaism’s religious and racial aspects are dimensions of a cohesive and singular tribal phenomenon. The behavioral patterns which are inseparable from their heritage and identity are incompatible with inclusion. Period. If we don’t figure out how to socially and politically exclude them, they’ll continue to corrode and corrupt our society because that’s what they’re inclined to do; subvert and pervert host societies. Some do it in smaller ways, with sarcastic jabs about the local Christmas play. Some do it on a geopolitical scale, with George Soros’ jabs at sovereign regimes. But they’re all jabbing.

Turn down the lights and turn up some Clint Mansell to set the mood for Sartre’s latest Breaking All the Rules post, “Globalist Lockdown is Here to Stay.”
The theater that has become the international political scene is entering its last act. As the actors play out their specific roles and read from the script that was written for them by the mega elites, the general audience in the crowd do not know to clap or hiss the production. All the absurd instances that rip apart the last vestige of civilized culture are ready for the final imposition of the Illuminati system for total control. The few brave souls that remain in the struggle for combating the evil forces of globalism are the prime target for elimination.
Note the hopelessness of this narrative. These “Illuminati” are allegedly all-powerful. The masses are clueless and despicable “sheeple” who are, according to the site’s tagline, “stuck on stupid!” And now the mega-elites are coming for their foremost nemeses, the “few brave souls” who remain paleocon conspiracy theorists. We’re very fortunate that this political model is flawed, as it’s self-admittedly hopeless. Our enemies are not all-powerful, the masses aren’t endlessly stupid (even if they certainly seem so at times!), and the critical mega-trends are all turning in our direction.

Is there any evidence that the global elites are especially interested in his faction? I’m not suggesting that they consider our own faction much of a threat yet, either, mind you. His contention made some sense in the nineties with Janet Reno’s aggressive fixation on militia types, but I subscribe to the major think tank publication mailing lists and the general impression is that they’ve pretty much moved on to more powerful and proximate threats than paleocon radicals.
The stupidity that has taken over the mindsets of the compliant proves that most people do not deserve to be free. Since the willingness to accept despotism is so prevalent, what can stop the imposition of the most repressive oppression that is unfolding before our eyes daily?
The problem with being for classical liberal values is that you’re regularly confronted with the reality of the human condition. Humans need boundaries and rules, and humans organize themselves in hierarchies. Most people aren’t visionaries, leaders, or rebels, and society probably couldn’t function if that were the case. Like their coin-flip corollaries, Marxists, Alex Jones types get angry at humanity itself for not fitting into their ideological model.

Most humans aren’t politically erudite, an alarming problem for believers in democracy. Personally, I think a world where everybody cares and thinks deeply about politics would be infuriating.  Dance instructors have no more obligation to get to the bottom of the globalist agenda than I have an obligation to master the flamenco.
Optimism in a future better for the next generation has been so discredited that only a fool would argue that the proponents of individual liberty are winning.
In a sense, he’s right. Only a fool would argue that the proponents of individual liberty are winning. But that’s no reason to cease being optimistic. It sucks for paleocons, but the socialist and nationalist revolt against international socialism promises a better future for the next generation than the anarcho-tyranny these libertarian types would have delivered. The human experience is integrally tribal, and those who refuse to play the game will lose by default.

Don’t forfeit. Figure out who your tribe is, draw up a flag, and get in the game. People get confused about this. They don’t understand the relationship between objects and ideals, and imagine that they belong to some illusory “freedom” identity or “Christianity” identity or whatever. By all means, pick a tribe with the right ideals. It doesn’t necessarily even have to be mono-racial. I’m partial to my racial heritage and my primordial tribe is indeed defined in part by its European ancestry, but plenty of cohesive tribes are racially diverse.
The vast majority has been so completely indoctrinated into accepting a perverted version of reality that with every new incident of cooked up terror, the default response is to go into a panic mode and demand additional security protection.
A reliable old saw of the conspiracy theorist community is that all of the mass killings and terrorist attacks going on are carefully orchestrated in order to convince people to give up their guns and trust the government more. If there actually is an Illuminati and that is the model they’re working on, perhaps I could be invited to speak at their next Eyes Wide Shut conference to inform them that their target audience reflexively trusts the government to protect them less and clings to their guns all the more the scarier things get on the nightly news.

The world’s a scary place where people periodically blow stuff up and frightening things happen. The only crisis actors are the conspiracy theorists themselves, acting like the crises are all centrally orchestrated rather than the natural product of a human condition. It’s been fraught with conflict and violence from the beginning and will continue to be until the end.

There are indeed conspiratorial things going on. ISIS is working with state actors, including NATO, to some degree. Bin Laden was one of NATO’s proxies during the Cold War. But the whole mess is far more complicated, conflicted, and nuanced than the conspiratorial mindset can tolerate.
Invasion from Middle East and African barbarians, who have no intention to assimilate, adopt or accept Western culture and civilized law, is the height of madness.
Civic nationalism? Check. If only the invaders would don lederhosen and endorse liberty, equality, and fraternity while displacing and replacing Europeans from their ancestral homelands!

Finally, he dismisses our own core message…
Once upon a time, the viewpoint expressed by the Traditionalist Youth Network might be seen as valid.
“Every century has a battle between different worldviews and the battle of the 21st century is globalism versus nationalism. Nationalism and the creation of organic communities that respect the dignity of every person and our Traditions is something we should all we willing to fight for. This struggle is global, for the rights and dignity of every ethnic and cultural group to have a right to self-determination. For us in America, our only hope is to use our political organization to break free from America and her globalist masters.”
Conversely, the very essence of the nation state that is under the control of a globalist power that transcends national borders is the blunt reality that faces the planet. As long as this fact is ignored or denied, the actual behavior of the browbeaten population will never add to a solution.
Like many, he refuses to accept that nationalism can be and typically is an international phenomenon. Concluding that ethnic nationalism can’t interface with the globalist problem because it straddles multiple nations relies on the presumption that the nationalism is parochial nationalism. This is as asinine as insisting that people shouldn’t embrace family values because families only consist of a handful of people. Families add up to communities, communities add up to nations, and traditional nations allied together can take on the world.
The technocratic governance ignores the natural law and is not bound by constitutional restraints.
Muh Constitution.
Globalists are the singular demons in service of the Luciferian evil spirit.
Globalists, Illuminati, Luciferians. For the love of God, can you please take a break from writing polemics until you can clearly and consistently name who the people are who we’re supposed to be rebelling against? Let’s say I did fully follow your line of thinking. We’ve got ourselves a Luciferian cabal of some kind which must be defeated. Who and where are they? How do we defeat them?

Wait. That’s right. You insist that “they” can’t be defeated anyway. Never mind.
Refusal to acknowledge this certainty is the primary reason why Americans are stuck on stupid.
Americans are “stuck on stupid” because they’ve had it beaten into their heads that they must not under any circumstances think racially and tribally. Whites (and only Whites) are told that they must only think in universal political abstractions. A large and growing subset of American are starting to wake up, but you’re still…stuck on stupid.

You’re a smart guy, and you hate neocons and globalists. So you’re cool in my book, Sartre. But you’re still following some of the rules imposed by the mega-elites. You can’t defeat them as long as you can’t name who they are. You can’t defeat them as long as you argue and operate within their anti-tribal and anti-traditional ideologies. Break those rules you’ve imposed on yourself. Ditch all this classical liberalism garbage. Then join us in the simple and direct struggle for our faiths, families, and folks.

Joyful Determination

via Soul of the East

Even if Russia is a mystery to practically everyone, including Russians themselves, my recent time in Moscow left me with greater optimism regarding this nation’s future. The ongoing sanctions against the country; attempts by the West to cripple the economy; a campaign of demonisation of Russians and of President Putin by the Western corporate media (which goes at great length to distort and obscure facts while presenting Russians in a very negative light, relying on subconscious but now legitimate Russophobia); the decline of the ruble against the dollar and Western support for the pro-fascist regime in Kiev – all have failed to foster a spirit of melancholy, depression or fear.

That is not to say that life in Russia is perfect or that Moscow is necessarily indicative of the rest of the country. Indeed, in rural areas of the country, people have been affected to a much larger degree by the economic decline than in Moscow, and yet, over 80% of the population supports the course taken by President Putin. Indeed, those who take issue with Putin, and advocate that Russia bend backwards to please the US, are generally part of a small, affluent, but politically irrelevant liberal minority, one which resides in the large cities of Moscow and Saint Petersburg.

In a trip to Moscow prior to this one, taken at the end of April 2015, I was left with a different impression. The mass suffering and destruction I witnessed in Donetsk seemed to escape the notice or attention of many Muscovites, who seemed more interested in living a luxurious life style than in the pain and suffering taking place next door. It was almost as if residents of this great metropole were hoping to escape, ignore or evade the news from Ukraine, more concerned about remaining unaffected in their artificial bubble. Indeed, the assumption driving the Western approach to Russia has been that following the collapse of the USSR – and the fact that Russia is forbidden by following a particular ideology in its new constitution – most Russians under Putin wish to live a comfortable and affluent life, and if faced by sanctions they’ll withdraw their support from “bad guy” Putin.

Perhaps it was the lovely late summer weather that caused the many Muscovites who were out in the parks and streets to be in high spirits, but my impression was that a deeper phenomenon was in play. Museums and churches were packed with people. Residents enjoyed each other’s company in parks, even while spending less. And people did not seem subdued or concerned, but rather, more determined and proud of their identity and country.

Despite the sanctions, most people did not have worried looks on their faces, but seemed to embody a strong character and determination.

What may explain this resilience and inner strength, seemingly oblivious to the demands of the so-called “international community” and to the massive campaign of disinformation and hate launched by the Western corporate media, replete with horror stories on “Putin’s Russia” that leave one with the impression that Muscovites are depressed, living under tyranny, and devoid of life and joy?

It appears that the Western approach to Russia failed to take into account several basic facts, of which those familiar with Russian history and culture would be aware.

First, Russians no longer need the approval of the West to be happy or confident. Russians remember well that during the Yeltsin years, when they were supposedly enjoying the fruits of Western democracy and a time of prosperity following seventy years of the Soviet Union’s existence. In reality the country was privatized by the order of economists sent by Western-dominated financial institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF, and massive hunger ensued as the country was subject to new dictates imposed the Washington Consensus. Russia was “loved” by the world then, but that did not help Muscovites who needed bread to survive the night. Now that Putin is being demonized by the major Western countries, who also supported a violent coup led by neo-Nazi groups in Kiev and aid Islamist groups bringing total destruction to Syria, many Russians must realize that the alternative the West envisions for Russia is not a prosperous state, but a subdued and subjugated colony. With the difficult 1990s serving as a precious lesson, most Russians now realize that they no longer need to seek the West’s affirmation to exist happily, and that as long as they live by the moral standards they set themselves, they can appreciate the gift of inner peace, knowing that they are forging the right path regardless of international criticism.

Secondly, many Russians have come to understand that as Washington does not accept basic decency among countries as a value. The Euro-Atlantic powers have supported the rehabilitation of Nazism in Ukraine while voting in the UN along with Canada against a resolution condemning the glorification of Nazism, betraying the common legacy shared with the Soviet Union in the common struggle against Hitler. We witness the “indispensable nation”  violating the basic norms of human decency, but now its information campaigns, threats and hostile actions are not greeted with fear, but with even greater resilience.

Thirdly, Russians have proven to themselves, perhaps with some degree of surprise following several decades of a loss of ideology, that they actually do have an internal reservoir of untapped strength and that there are certain values they hold dear, values for which they are willing to sacrifice. Russians, who are not strangers to sufferings endued by hardships when being confronted by Nazi Germany’s Operation Barbarossa, for example, rediscovered a pleasure in realizing that there are still values worthy of struggle. In other words, Russians have essentially seen that there are certain essential Russian values – such as basic decency, opposition to blind chauvinism and senseless killings, love for one’s neighbor and justice – to which they still adhere. Hardships that expose these values within them are to be welcomed rather than feared. Russians know that the post-USSR Russian Federation has not been an aggressive country on the international stage and has not bombed countries into submission for the sake of controlling their markets as the US, UK and France, have done. Therefore, since they realized that they behaved rather decently, they are prepared to bear the burden of indecent behavior or retribution by the West.

Fourthly, Russians have turned back to communal values, a spiritual and religious outlook of life, and a reliance on one’s intuition and mystical knowledge rather than the split between the heart and mind common to the West, as evidenced by the revival of Orthodox Christianity. Many Russian citizens have turned to their native faith – whether Orthodox Christianity, Judaism, or Islam – and returned to traditional values such as the importance of family and community rather than adopting European post-modern values guided by atheism. These spiritual traditions, suppressed for decades and now reemerging, emphasize to present-day Russians that they are part of a long and glorious history spanning centuries, and that their own traditions contain spiritual and emotional riches which can provide their lives with meaning and spiritual knowledge. Russians now better realize that they are not empty slots but have roots. Now revived in a  religious and cultural rebirth which seems to be taking place, they are more powerful than the pain endured by financial losses, as they remind Russians that life has meaning, that the wisdom of the heart is stronger than the heartless rationality of productivity and “progress,” and that they can rightly be confident and proud of their own heritage and history. Russians have discovered, in other words, that they are not just a country, but a civilization, and that they can be confident in their own identity.

This joy of rediscovery of one’s strength outweighs most other difficulties, not that these difficulties should be underestimated.

Doubtless not all Russians share the view outlined above. Some, a majority of whom belong to a pro-Western middle class working in sectors related to the global circulation of capital, have an idealistic view of the West and seek to be part of it. They do not wish to stand apart from the West and do not wish to undergo economic difficulties. Some of their criticism may be justified, while other aspects may be downright childish and naive. To praise the West as perfect while turning a blind eye to Wall Street’s imperial wars, or to condemn the inauguration of a major mosque in the capital while viewing themselves as part of liberal, multicultural Europe, reveals a certain lack of sound reasoning, wishful thinking, and a needless inferiority complex. The debate between Westernizers who saw Russia as part of the West and Slavophiles who viewed Russia as a civilization in its own right harks back at least a century ago to the points raised by Herzen, Kireevsky, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. Today a majority of Russians would appear to hold the Slavophile position, proud of their identity and culture and determined to continue on their own civilizational path.

For these reasons, I left Russia more optimistic than several months ago. Russians have, in my opinion, demonstrated not only that they are determined to stray strong despite attempts at isolation and “containment,” thereby paving the way for a future multipolar world, but have also done so with a new-found joy and surprise at the discovery of values demanding righteous sacrifice. They have a rich and glorious civilization of which they must be proud, rather than ashamed, and which is strong enough to deflect efforts to subjugate it or destroy it. While it has been said long ago that Russians tend to adapt quickly to times of crisis, it also appears that this time they are also invigorated by the realization of inner strength. There are unique virtues and traditions which are not simply abstractions, and through struggle they reveal a spirit that exists within us.

The Jewish “Schindlers”

via The Political Cesspool

With the season of good will around the corner, now is time when many people’s thoughts turn to helping others — and some shrewd operators have not been slow to realise that in the chaos of the forced “Syrian refugee” migration into the west, there are huge amounts of money to be made.

The crisis presents an almost irresistible combination of exploitable elements — pictures of suffering children,  government and law enforcement chaos and a gullible public who seem willing to believe anything.

But what is different is the appearance of a new breed of online Jewish entrepreneurs — the Jewish “Schindlers” who style themselves as selfless saviours of non-Jewish refugees, much as the original Oskar Schindler was said to have saved Jews.

One of the most colourful is a Florida-based philanthropist and ex-con called Yank Barry who has made his millions from manufacturing soya “meat substitute” and supplying the non-discerning diners in hospitals, care homes for the elderly, correctional facilities and the like.  (Barry’s birth name is Gerald Falovitch. Yank is short for Yankel, his Yiddish name.)

Barry has invested millions in his own personal rescue project in Bulgaria by feeding and accommodating refugees in hostels and hotels en route to the West. His philanthropy gained him nominations for a Nobel peace prize by three US congressmen last year.

It also led to a flood of positive publicity. In Britain the Jewish-owned Daily Express dubbed him the “Jewish Schindler,” and he claims the United Nations has endorsed his efforts. He told the Jerusalem Post last year he had succeeded in his “goal to surpass Oskar Schindler, who saved 1,200 Jews,”. Reuters has reported on his expansion plans. He has an enviable media platform from which he is able to pronounce on the refugee crisis at length and criticise Sweden on Bloomberg TV (Bulgaria) for not providing a home for Palestinian refugees .

But all this is a world away from his past life. In 1982 the former singer and record producer was jailed for six years in a lurid gangland extortion case. Barry later told Larry King that he was a cocaine addict, but his incarceration helped him to turn his life around.

The description “convicted felon with organised crime connections” does not look good on anyone’s resume, but Yank Barry bounced back with Vitapro, and also a dietary supplement called Propectin which appears to have near miraculous healing qualities and seems to be specifically marketed at the Black community.

Since 2013 his charitable efforts for refugees in Bulgaria and elsewhere have been carried out through his charity, the Global Village Champions  Foundation — motto: “doing well by doing good ” — which, like his soya bean and dietary supplement companies, are based in the Bahamas. Celebrities  were happy to lend their names to his efforts.

When Syrians began fleeing over the Turkish border into Bulgaria, Yank Barry saw an opportunity. He already had his business connection with Bulgaria because Propectin and the Vitapro were made in Bulgarian factories.  Barry is targeting the booming refugee market and claims he has already fed refugees in Rwanda, Liberia and the Congo.

Not that charity can’t backfire at times. Accompanied by the usual posse of TV cameras, Yank Barry took journalists to a refugee camp near Sofia but his hostile reception clearly took him by surprise and he  beat a quick retreat, but not before plucking some refugees from the angry mob and accommodating them in his abandoned four-star hotel in Bankia on Sofia’s extreme outskirts.

But always there will be the carpers and naysayers. Led by German journalist Frank Stier and former Wall Street Journal reporter Mark Mitchell, the questions have not stopped. How many refugees has he really helped? Why do some of his named clients deny having dealt with him? Where is the accounting for his charity organisation? What is the basis for his claims that his Propectin dietary supplement can successfully treat diabetes, cancer and radiation sickness? By way of response, Barry has hit back with a tour of his Bulgarian plant but the questions aren’t going away.

Refugees continue to pour over the border from Turkey into Bulgaria and this has been cited as the new highway to Germany. If this comes about it will be partly through the efforts of philanthropists like Yank Barry.

Another businessman who has repeatedly called himself a “Jewish Schindler” also comes from Canada and also claims to have rescued the lives of women and girls in Syria and Iraq.

In Montreal Steve Maman says he was suddenly moved by the television pictures of refugees needing help.  Now his organisation, the Liberation of Christian and Yazidi Children of Iraq, raises funds to pay the ransoms of women and children held captive by Islamic State.

A slick social media marketing campaign featuring professionally made videos and supportive articles helped raise at least $600,000 dollars on GoFundMe, the crowdfunding website, and Paypal; Maman says he has freed 128 girls and women so far. This is far removed from his usual occupation of selling classic cars and jewellery. But Maman, an orthodox father of six, says he is obeying a Talmudic injunction to heal the world. The Schindler tag is repeated again and again in the media coverage. A Christian cross is at the centre of his website logo.

As in the case of Yank Barry, Maman’s actions have led to a tide of publicity from CBC, Fox TV, the Times of Israel and more. He also seems to have received the personal endorsement of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper who was pictured shaking his hand. Oddly, he has also won the backing of professional Muslim-baiter and sometime cartoon competition organiser Pamela Gellar.

Maman claims that donations have mainly been from the Jewish community who also provide his team of volunteers on the ground in Iraq but he says he is disappointed that Christian churches have not stepped up to contribute to his project.

One of the reasons for their reluctance might be a lack of transparency in his charity affairs. Another is the company he keeps. He recruited as a hostage negotiator an Israeli woman called Gill Rosenburg who came with a certain amount of baggage.

She spent four years in a jail in the US for her role in an Israeli-based telephone “boiler room” scam that was said to have bilked elderly Americans out of over $25 million. It was the biggest such racket ever uncovered in Israel and led to Rosenberg being extradited from Israel to the US to face justice.

But as with Yank Barry, questions are belatedly being asked. Vice reported that doubts had been raised from within the Yazidi community itself — disputing the number of rescued girls and women and casting doubt on the whole operation; these questions were repeated by the Montreal Monitor. Even the Jerusalem Post  and Times of Israel  appear sceptical.

The only female Yazidi member of the Iraqi Parliament said that as far as she knew, no Christians had been enslaved in the area — so none could have been liberated. Now Maman’s allies are trying to distance themselves from him. Even ex-con Gill Rosenberg says his hostage-brokers were “worse than ISIS.”

Confidence in Maman was not improved when his GoFundMe account was closed. By this time most people would have quit, but not the thick-skinned Steve Maman. He sails on.

It is all a sad turn of events for someone who claimed he was operating from the highest motives.  As he told CBC, “What motivated me is very simple … being Jewish, being part of a people that actually survived the Holocaust.”