Dec 4, 2015

White Nationalism Explained with Charts, Part II: Towards White Minorityhood

via Counter-Currents

Part 1

1. American Whites: A Minority by 2043

The Founding Fathers created the United States of America as a country for people of European descent, White people. This was explicitly affirmed by figures as prominent and diverse as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson. This vision of building and being a genuine Western nation however is being destroyed as a part of a conscious program to change America’s ethnic composition, in particular with the immigration reform of 1965.[1]

US Ethnic Composition

Whites are now set to become a minority in the United States, the country their ancestors built and which the Founding Fathers specifically created for them. The Pew Research Center estimates this will happen by 2043 even if one includes Middle Easterners as White. This ethnic diversity will mean a country with greater violence, less social cohesion, and more inequality and welfare use than would otherwise be the case. America will no longer be a nation but, in the words of President Barack Hussein Obama, a “hodgepodge of folks” without cohesion, solidarity, or common-feeling. Against all the historical evidence, Obama claims racial tensions will be greatly reduced by the disappearance of the White majority. In fact, the non-White majority will be greatly empowered to victimize Whites for real and imagined grievances.

2. Whites Already a Minority of U.S. Births


Whites already make up a minority of births in the United States, largely due to the high fertility of Hispanic immigrants. As such, even if one completely halted immigration today, Whites would still eventually become a minority.

3. Non-White Births in England & Wales


American Whites are not the only ones who will lose their country in the coming decades if trends are not changed. Their European cousins are also facing massive displacement-level immigration, mostly from Africa and the Islamic World. As early as 2005, White Britons only made up between 64.4 and 75.3 per cent of births in England and Wales. Indigenous Britons are expected to become a minority in the country as a whole by 2066[2] and most of Western Europe (France, Benelux, Germany . . .) would follow shortly after.

4. Non-White Births in France

Source: Fdesouche
Source: Fdesouche

Official racial and ethnic statistics are rare in Continental Europe. Nonetheless, the same trends are evident there, as native Europeans have few children and fertile African and Muslim immigrants settle the Old Continent. The above map is an unofficial tally of non-White births in France based on the percentage of babies who are tested for sickle-cell disease. Only populations prone to the disease – essentially Blacks, North Africans, and Middle Easterners – are tested.

5. Towards an African World


The conservative writer Steve Sailer has called this “The World’s Most Important Graph.” According to United Nations population projections, the population of Europe, including non-Whites, will fall from 738 million today to 646 million by the year 2100. In contrast, the population of Africa will quadruple to 4.4 billion. This demographic change may well be the single most important challenge of the twenty-first century and could prove to be the death of Europe.

White Nationalists want to a prevent a world in which Whites would be both vulnerable minorities in their own former homelands, beholden to non-White majorities with historic grudges and ongoing grievances against them, and indeed a tiny, marginal, and vulnerable global minority.

1. “Latin American and Asian Immigration Since 1965 Changes U.S. Racial and Ethnic Makeup,” Pew Research Center, September 28, 2015.
2. Rosa Silverman, “White Britons ‘will be a minority’ by 2066, says professor,” Daily Telegraph, May 2, 2013.

The Special Theory of Political Relativity

via TradYouth

Objectively speaking, human life has never been better. Humanity’s pretty much got the whole AIDS thing more-or-less under control; Jimmy Carter’s got the guinea worm on the run; the global population is stabilizing even in the Global South; and even the refugees from war zones are well-fed, well-educated, and sport tricked out smartphones. There’s still some warfare, there’s still some starvation, there’s still some disease, to be sure. But objectively speaking, the world is not falling apart.

And, yet, it sure does subjectively feel like it’s falling apart for most of us. You can chalk it up to our being more informed and more sensationalized about the bad things going on, and there’s some truth to that. You can indulge in some psychological self-harm with some hand-wringing about how we don’t appreciate all of our blessings, and there’s some truth to that, too. But what political commentators and theorists consistently fail to grasp is that all politics is relative.

When one views contemporary politics through the prism of relativity rather than objectivity, a disturbing portrait emerges of relative disharmony which, if it’s not addressed, will eventually spill over into objective disharmony. Harmony equals expectations times the speed of progress squared, and the uneven nature of progress in the past few decades has resulted in massive disparities in outcomes relative to expectations. These are far more relevant to predicting future political unrest than the objective disparities.

Objectively speaking, the young Western male has little to complain about relative to, say, an African struggling for clean drinking water or an Afghani schoolgirl struggling against cultural and economic barriers to literacy. But pause for a moment to consider the relative context. Statistically speaking, his father is disappointed in him for struggling relative to himself. His sister and potential mating partners enjoy superior educational achievements and social status to himself. The jobs with pensions, the homeownership, the late model cars, and the stable romantic relationships are all slipping away from him while his friends, family, and society look on in disappointment.

Third World Problems
Third World Problems: For just pennies a day, you can help a struggling family charge all of their Android smartphones.

The kinds of people who unironically watch TED talks might scoff at his plight relative to a worldwide context which isn’t relevant to him. But that’s not his world. His world is very much falling apart, and it’s exacerbated by an academic, social, and political context which actively gloats about and rejoices in his dispossession as turnabout and revenge for historical injustices and inequalities which he played no part in and enjoys little if any discernible advantage from.

Relatively speaking, the world is indeed on fire. Western women are promised that they’ll get to have it all if they focus on their educations and careers, but end up barren and unfulfilled with dead end jobs and abysmal romantic prospects by the time they’re encouraged by society to settle down. Syrian refugees and their more numerous economic migrant cohorts are promised a veritable El Dorado of prosperity and inclusion by Angela Merkel and the Western oligarchs for making their treks, only to end up fighting for a USB charging port with a bunch of other disgruntled migrants in a makeshift barracks in a cold and dark Finnish village filled with anxious and cagey locals as the unforgiving nordic winter sets in. China’s factory workers are making more money than ever, but the treadmill keeps pace, keeping middle-class comfort and affordable family formation just out of reach.

Only the affluent chattering classes have the privilege of thinking about politics in Newtonian rather than Einsteinian terms, adding insult to injury to the White working class with their condescending lectures about objective standards of human development and prosperity. Objective standards of human development and prosperity are little comfort when one’s parents, dating prospects, peers, and self all expect and demand much more. The response to the first world crisis of despair is being met with derision and demands for even more rapid and complete dispossession, pressurizing a political powder keg which will take the quants who think exclusively in objective socioeconomic terms by surprise.

The global oligarchs are indeed concerned about “inequality,” but in a contrived egalitarian way which fails to account for the uneven distribution of human capital. Rather than dig into their own pockets, they push for policies which flatten the distribution of wealth among the 99%. In practice, this entails taking privilege and wealth from the West and redistributing it to The Rest. There are hotspots, largely within the BRIC bloc–Brazil, Russia, India, and China–where there has indeed been a lack of economic capital relative to human capital. But for the most part, the elites’ machinations are creating an artificial and unstable disparity between human capital and economic capital which is bound for a seismic correction.

Perhaps the most acute embodiment of this phenomenon lies in the #BlackLivesMatter movement on American college campuses. The White males who are already in relative crisis are the targets of increasingly aggressive demands from minorities and White females with unrealistic expectations drummed into them by the elites. There’s simply not enough of this ephemeral “privilege” to go around. And if the insurgents continue framing matters in competitive rather than collaborative terms, the cornered White males are going to fight back and they’ll win when they do.

I look forward to that historical process coming to fruition, and my only hope is that they are at least as vigorous in seizing what is rightfully theirs from the global oligarchs as they are from the minorities and the Global South. The NPR-enthusiast elites promised the world to the world in the past several decades. And rather than digging into their own overflowing pockets to ameliorate income inequality, they squeezed the White and East Asian workers a little harder with each passing decade. As tension over unmet expectations mounts worldwide, they’ll most likely double down on this strategy, guaranteeing more populist outrage and civil disobedience from disgruntled young White and Asian males.

Pluralis Judaeis

via Age of Treason

You’ve heard of the royal “we”, here are two good examples of the jewy “we”.

After Paris Attacks, Don’t Close Doors to Refugees – Open Them, Jesse Berney, Rolling Stone:
When we see attacks like the horror in Paris, we should open our borders to a flood of refugees, not close them. We should shower those families with generosity. We should make sure they have jobs that fit their skills. We should educate their children. We should provide them health care and whatever social services they need.
In other words, “let’s you and them mix”, or, “let’s you serve them”.

A more familiar variant takes the form, “let’s you and them fight”. See, for example, French Jewish Council Calls for ‘World War’ Against ‘Jihadist Fanaticism’, Breitbart:
“Our country is bloodied by all those innocent lives cut short by the bullets of these new barbarians. The world war against the monstrosity of jihadist fanaticism must become the top priority of democratic nations,” [CRIF] said.
“We must combat them tirelessly and without pity, until they are defeated,” the group added.
The jewy “we”, pluralis judaeis, is deployed by jewhadis, “left” and “right”, not only to shamelessly lecture everyone else what they should think and do, but specifically to serve the interests of jews, whatever harm it will cause anyone else.

What’s Behind Murray Vs. Trump?

via traditionalRIGHT

Prominent conservative scholar Charles Murray has caused quite a bit of consternation on social media with his seemingly highly personal Facebook and Twitter crusade against Donald Trump. I suspect many people are not taking Murray’s opposition to Trump well because they don’t view Murray, who got in PC hot water for his book The Bell Curve, as your typical PC signaling think tank denizen and therefore, expect different from him.

Angry people make angry accusations, so many were quick to accuse Murray of signaling to his fellow AEI scholars and the rest of the respectable set, that, while capable of wrongthink, he is not far enough off the ranch to support Trump. I don’t know for certain that Murray is not signaling this, but I think his opposition to Trump can be understood based on another dimension. I believe this because I have observed the same tendency in others who policy wise seemingly have reasons to be sympathetic to the Trump campaign.

Certain political commentators, of which Murray is an example, undertake their commentary in a very high minded and serious manner, and they likewise take the political process very seriously. For these folks, Trump, who does not play by the normal rules of decorum, is an affront to the process and should be opposed on those grounds alone. Opposition to Trump seems to be to them a defense of the very system, and if it signals anything it is this seriousness and respect for the process aspect as much as anything else. 

This sort of visceral opposition to Trump could come from the left, the right or the center. I believe it reflects to some extent the old money vs. new money distinction, both actually and metaphorically. While Trump did not come from a poor family, his family wasn’t that rich, so Trump behaves like new money – the brashness, the ostentatiousness, the conspicuous consumption, etc. As I mentioned in another article, I think a lot of Trump’s presentation and appeal is that he is in essence just a guy from Queens who made good for himself, and who may still have a bit of a chip on his shoulder. Trump’s Flyover Country supporters see a kindred spirit who happens to be a billionaire, but for those significantly concerned with propriety, they see an intolerably boorish lout. 

While this opposition could come from all points on the political spectrum, it presents a particular dilemma for high minded sorts of a traditionalist and conservative bent. Traditionalists and conservatives have always placed great emphasis on manners and codes of behavior, for good reason. Such things foster good order and are inherently conservative in the most basic sense of the word. 

From this view, comments about your female opponent’s appearance or alleged references to your female antagonist’s bodily functions are ungentlemanly. Repeatedly calling people stupid or engaging in back and forth with your critics on Twitter is pedestrian and below the dignity of the process and the office he seeks. 

Charles Murray’s opposition to Trump strikes me as primarily coming from this perspective. John Derbyshire attributed it to Murray’s “Midwestern niceness,” but herein lies the disconnect between Murray and many of his usual fans. 

Many of Trump’s supporters support him precisely because they no longer respect the process. They see the process as rigged and inherently hostile to them and their interests. For this reason, Trump’s brashness and willingness to say things the typical politician would not is not a liability, but an asset. While they don’t necessarily value rudeness, they’ll tolerate it or even consider it a necessary evil, in light of the current state of affairs, and they positively value his combativeness and willingness to engage the enemy.  When Trump supporters are questioned, they consistently cite this aspect of his presentation as a major reason for their support. Trump’s previous celebrity and sheer force of personality allow him to get away with saying things that ordinary political candidates cannot. 

Contained in this disconnect, is another related dimension. Trump’s supporters tend to view the current situation as dire and near the point of no return. For them, opposing a candidate because he engages in Twitter battles is akin to fretting about the arrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic. For many Trump supporters, our dire situation requires extraordinary measures, not appeals to the sanctity of the system that got us here in the first place. 

While I appreciate Murray’s and others’ support for traditional norms of behavior, as a Trump supporter, albeit a somewhat nuanced one, I agree with my cohorts that it is much too late in the game to allow his at times less than decorous behavior to disqualify him. I would suggest that the process Murray et al are attempting to protect is no longer the sacrosanct process they suppose, but is in fact a largely rigged game of political theater. Perhaps what we need at this time is not a statesman but a performance artist who can engage the system on its own terms and maybe just beat the Powers That Be at their own game.

Behold the Movement: Civil War?

via EGI Notes

Read here.

On the one hand, excessive feuding is not good. On the other hand, this blog (as well as "Richard Lynn's Pseudoscience") does critique certain individuals, and thus could be seen as part of the problem. On the other hand as well, a degree of healthy disagreement is useful; one would not want the "movement" to prematurely coalesce around wrong memes.

A balance needs to be found. Nietzsche wrote that his critiques of individuals were not personal (*), but that he intended to use the person in question as a lens of sort, to focus attention on that individual's ideas, which is what Nietzsche really wanted to attack.

So, there are memes I see as worthy of criticism, including but not limited to: HBD cognitive elitism, mainstreaming, "game" as an end and not as a means, ethnonationalism and subracialism elevated to the top of the activist priority list, economics over race, affirmative action in the "movement," esoteric traditionalism, pseudoscience, cocksure incompetence, anti-White trolling, hypocrisy and mendacity, data cherry picking, invented racial histories, straw man attacks on Salterism, proximate interests elevated over ultimate interests, non-Whites (including Jews) and race-mixers infiltrating the "movement" and distorting it.

Individuals promoting those destructive memes I see as fair game for criticism, as long as the criticism is motivated by those ideas, and not by personal animus.  "Personal" critiques are either tongue-in-cheek and not meant to be taken seriously (**), or merely quoting the person in question (***).  Or, for example, the Sen-Vallone question is directly relevant to motivations in dividing Europeans against each other.

Purely personal criticisms should be avoided. Whether one person is (actually, not jokingly) homosexual (as long as that doesn't significantly influence their ideology in a negative fashion), or ugly, or sickly, or merely with a personality that you may like or dislike - that should not be a relevant issue. Public feuding over personal, private disagreements accomplishes nothing except giving the Salonites grist for their mill.

*He may have been deluded about that, re: Wagner, but let us take him at his word for the moment.

**For example, obviously the heterosexual womanizer Roissy does not have a "homoerotic fixation" on Trump; that's a joke meant to illustrate a point about the "man on white horse" syndrome.

***Derbyshire himself admitted that his relationship with his wife is characterized by his "measured groveling."  That is a self-admission that illustrates his - in my opinion - attitudes toward White-Asian relations.

Dream On

via Radix

Radix Editor's Note: The following was delivered as a speech at the National Policy Institute's 2015 conference, which was held at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, on October 31st.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
As a start, I would like to quote the Holy Scriptures—and I’m not talking about Donald Trump’s deportation plan.
There is a saying in the Bible which boils down to: “No one is a prophet in their own country.”

And that describes my own situation pretty well. Last time—which happened to be the first time—I was invited to speak before a large audience was two years ago, here in Washington, D.C., at NPI’s conference.

The topic of my talk today is “Dream On.”

As you know, this year’s conference, “Become Who We Are,” is dedicated to the common identity of the European peoples, and I think that the best way to grasp such an old and complex civilization as ours is to focus on its aspirations, its ambitions . . . its dreams.

The implication here is that European civilization can only survive and thrive if it keeps its dreams, its higher goals.

So, what have been our civilization’s higher goals since the Greek Miracle?

Well, with the risk of being a bit simplistic, I would say that what has defined our civilization, and set it apart from the other ones, is a restless quest for self-overcoming.

This European spirit has manifested itself in spectacular achievements in art, science, and politics, but also in more modest fields related to lifestyle.

And though these achievements are still spectacular today, most notably in technology, I am afraid that the key ingredient that has permitted said achievements is missing, and has been missing for about a century now, on both shores of our common ocean.

In short, our civilization has stopped dreaming.

For better and more often for worse, Western rulers have been chiefly preoccupied with being “pragmatic” and “realistic.”

And I think it should be no wonder that they have failed by their own standards.

The politicians who assured us that all we had to worry about was limiting deficits, public spending, taxes and trade imbalance have been presiding over a massive increase in debt, taxes, and public spending.

Those who swore that all we had to do was to give jobs to the unemployed have been sitting idle while jobs were outsourced to developing countries, or to newcomers at home.

The time has come to ask: “How realistic is realism?”

Though any political doctrine worthy of the name should be rooted in reality instead of in utopian abstractions, none can fulfill its mundane goals without a grand vision.

There should be no paradox in the fact that our civilization achieved its highest economic, demographic, and technological growth when it was not obsessed with it, when it had higher goals in mind.

So what happened a century ago? Obviously, the First World War, quickly followed by the Second one, played a crucial role—though not an exclusive one—in this disenchantment.

Since then, as the late Dominique Venner termed it, European civilization has entered into a state of “Dormition.”

Although Venner did not include America in European civilization, I am doing so, and it seems obvious to me that European-Americans, much like their European cousins, have been victims of America’s short-term, material successes.

Politicians love to say—when they run for public office—that “When there’s a will, there’s a way.” And they’re right! The logical consequence is that when there is no will, there is no way.

You may detect a sense of worry in this remark. I am, indeed, worried that those who claim that they would do a better job than the current rulers—i.e. people like us—fail to present an inspiring alternative to the liberal utopia of “a shining city upon a hill.”

As often with the Right, the political movements that endeavour to save our civilization fail to elaborate a political doctrine, and more importantly fail to present a positive alternative to our current dispensation.

As was noted by Alain de Benoist many years ago, the Right is most of the time reacting against the Left, reacting against liberalism, which leads it to being defined by what it is not, instead of by what it is, or rather by what it should be.

This incapacity of the Right to provide European people with a forward and upward-looking alternative has led it to recede and retreat, even when it gained momentary victories.

And I believe that’s where we stand today.

Today, the nationalist and patriotic Right is gaining wide popular support in reaction to the dramatic increase in immigration.

Be it a casino tycoon with a blonde wig on, or the daughter of a controversial politican, or even a loud stockbroker from London’s City, the Right is leading in the polls.

The question remains though: leading to where?

It is worth noting here that even though these politicians can explain in nauseating details complicated things like how they would halt or even reverse immigration if they were elected, they seem unable to answer a simple question, such as: “What America, or Britain, or France, do you want for the 21st century?”.

Maybe this is not such a simple question, after all.

Even more striking, those who seem to have a clear understanding of the present situation, like Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban, seem unable to think of a way they could look after the well-being of Europe as a whole, instead of simply taking care of their own nation-state.

Even as Orban claims to worry about Europe, with Hungary being a mere component of it, the practical result of his fence-building policy is to fast-track so-called “refugees” to Western Europe.

Similarly, Donald Trump’s “America First” platform dissociates America’s Destiny from Europe’s, despite the fact that America originates from Europe and cannot, in my opinion, survive without it.

By only focusing on the emergency, these leaders are missing the big picture, and even their limited goals will be impossible to attain.

For what will be left of tiny Hungary if Europe collapses? What will be left of America if it separates from its matrix?

Some might rightly argue that Europe as a whole survived the Fall of the Western Roman Empire precisely because the nobility of the time started building castles, which were the Medieval equivalent of today’s gated communities.

I’m sure that Jack Donovan or Keith Preston here wouldn’t mind a world in which private properties would be bordered by signs saying: “Tresspassers will be eaten alive.”

And it is, indeed, the most likely way European civilization will be saved, and reborn.

But if History’s role is to teach us lessons, we shouldn’t forget that while the High Middle Ages were, indeed, the time of small political entities, those entities were able to survive because they were ready to fight together. Clearly the Battle of Poitiers—or Tours as American historians say—rings a bell here.

What happened when they didn’t? Well, you just have to check Spanish History in the 7th and 8th centuries.

What united Europeans then, besides a basic feeling of kinship, was a common faith. Now, I know there are many Christians in this room, and I hope you believe me when I say that I respect your faith, but I don’t think that Christianity can play that role again in the 21st century. It doesn’t mean that there won’t be room for Christians, but that Christianity cannot be this higher goal I was mentioning.

Rather, I think that this question is still open and that to new challenges, new solutions will be needed, and emerge in time. Usually these solutions arise in times of strife and turmoil.

A few years ago, Counter-Currents’ editor Greg Johnson, who was then editing The Occidental Quarterly, joked that Star Trek Conventions were more likely to give birth to an Ethnostate than White Nationalism. Behind the joke itself, what was implied was that space conquest, as fantastical as it might seem now, would be more inspiring, and thus more likely to draw the best in Europeans, than merely defending the status quo, or the status quo of the 1980s or the 1950s.

There is no stasis in nature, and of all people, those who profess biological realism should be aware of that.

Before we find this new goal that will unite Europeans in a common Destiny—and by “higher goal,” I don’t mean an Ethnostate, which is a means to an end rather than an end in itself—I think we should be open to political developments that might look frightening now, but that we could use to our advantage in the future.

Here I think of course of the European Union. Ironically this “coldest of cold monsters” has a useful role in that it gives Europeans the conscience of belonging to a common family, something which the Jacobin-style nationalisms of the 19th and 20th centuries had almost succeeded in erasing in European memories.

We have every reason to oppose today’s EU, but we should at least embrace the idea of a European Union, and maybe even consider taking it over to turn it into a powerful, and lasting tool.

Likewise, while everybody in this room is opposed for even better reasons to NATO or to the coming Transatlantic Treaty, we should, instead of merely opposing them, provide an inspiring alternative to them. It is the role of thinkers, writers and speakers to do that.

Do we really think that the current system of the nation-states will be any better, when we know for a fact that it has been the stepping stone towards the supranational organisations we decry, with our national rulers managing them collegially?

Clearly, there is room for imagination and creation here, instead of mere reaction.

I could end on that note and then get a bunch of claps, likes, tweets, and maybe even Instagram hearts by suggesting that we all leave this room right now and go storm the White House, or go establish a new Atlantis in Iceland.

I could do that, but I won’t, because prior to any serious political project, there must be a deep and thorough reflection on what one wants.

As some of you know, I have been doing political marketing these past years and among the things I have learned, is the notion that any fundraising campaign must end with what marketers call a “CTA,” a “Call to Action.”

There are whole buildings across the Potomac River where hundreds of people keep themselves busy all week—at least until 5PM on Friday—with crafting these “CTAs,” these “Calls to Action.”

Usually, the “action” elicited is that of sending a check, or even better, an automatic monthly wire transfer.

I would like, instead, to end this talk on a “CTR,” a Call to Reflection.

And I think everyone here should start by asking themselves the basic journalistic questions:
  • Who are we?
  • What do we want?
  • Why?
  • Where are we headed?
  • How are we going to attain our goals?
  • And when will we be able to attain them?
Now, I’ll be happy to take questions, or even better, to get the first answers to the questions I just asked.

Thank you very much.

Esoteric Darwinism

via Gornahoor

I spent a few hours this week reading some reviews of Mind and Cosmos; I hadn’t realized it was such a widely reviewed work. There are some broad categories of reviews. After briefly describing them, I will offer the esoteric interpretation. Finally, we will explain why Zarathustra was so frustrated.


There are the diehard materialists who reject the argument a priori. The objection is to the introduction of “mysterious” forces like mind, teleology, and so on. I suppose that familiarity breeds contempt, since gravity, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, the big bang, the origin of life, etc., are themselves quite mysterious. Moreover, the claim that “matter” follows “laws” is itself an indication that there is intelligence inherent in matter. On the other hand, consistent positivists like Stephen Hawking admit that scientific theories have merely pragmatic value, but tell us nothing about ultimate reality.

Ultimately, there is no way to resolve the conflict between materialism and idealism in thought alone. What the latter finds intelligible, the former considers just a serendipitous sequence embedded in a purely random sequence. It seems, also, that it is impossible for real materialists to consider subjective conscious experiences of any significance. It really comes down to differences in people and how they experience inner states. Some just don’t seem to have a very vivid interior life.

Sympathetic Views

There are broadly sympathetic views. However, they don’t seem to share Nagel’s viewpoint; rather, they latch onto the criticisms of neo-Darwinism. Nagel himself describes his point of view this way:

“The view that rational intelligibility is at the root of the natural order makes me, in a broad sense, an idealist—not a subjective idealist, since it doesn’t amount to the claim that all reality is ultimately appearance—but an objective idealist in the tradition of Plato and perhaps also of certain post-Kantians, such as Schelling and Hegel, who are usually called absolute idealists.”

I couldn’t find a review by an “absolute idealist”; perhaps there aren’t any left. Nagel claims that absolute idealism was simply abandoned, not refuted.

Curiously, a Thomist thinker wrote that Nagel’s view is an “essentially neo-Aristotelian position”. It would be interesting, but also welcome, to classify neo-Aristotelians among the absolute idealists. The idealists I’ve read would certainly have benefited by the inclusion of Aristotelean elements, in particular, hylomorphism. Certainly, Julius Evola did so with great effect with his ideas about essence, existence, and privation. For Rene Guenon, too, the notion of the Absolute was fundamental. Certainly, he combined ideas from the Samkhya school (purusha/prakriti) within his Vedantic approach.

Absolute idealism starts from “above”; i.e., it begins with the notion of the Absolute and derives the world. Aristotelianism starts from “below”, with sense experience, and by analogy reaches the Absolute.


There is a view called Neotheism, which considers God as a very powerful being among other beings, rather than as the Absolute or Being itself. Actually, this is the idea of God in the popular mind, rather than the true classical idea. Even atheists, for the most part, refute such a neo-god, thereby missing the point. If such a being exists, then there is still the Absolute – rather confusing.

Although this group likes Nagel’s critique of neo-Darwinism, it is really not very helpful. In effect, this view is not unlike the naïve realism of the materialists: the world is out there, right now, in some spatial container in time. However, they then presume that the neo-god provides the goal and meaning to this space-time material world. The world in itself is meaningless, just as it is for the materialists. They add to this world invisible beings and miracles that seem to come from nowhere.

Mystical Evolution

It seems, then, that we are faced with an impossible dilemma: accept science or accept a spiritual life. On the other hand, Valentin Tomberg gave us the teaching of Practical Monism, which reconciles, or neutralizes, the pair of opposites. However, that is accomplished not in the realm of speculative thought but rather in practical reason. That is, it is only by living, not just by thinking, that the dualism in thought is resolved in a practical monism.

The materialist view is consistent with esoteric teaching. For example, Boris Mouravieff writes this in Gnosis, Vol 1:
Properly speaking, this kind of existence cannot be considered as human; it could be described as anthropoid. This term is justified in the sense that exterior man, immersed in self-satisfaction, represents the crowning achievement of millions of years of evolution of the species from its animal ancestors, yet, from the point of view of esoteric evolution, he is a possibility which has not yet been realized.
So the scientific teaching that man, as he is, is an ape, an anthropoid, is consistent with esoteric teaching. Like all animal life, the anthropoid man is under the dominance of the General Law of fear, sex, and hunger. All his ideals are illusory epiphenomena, supervening on a bed of genetic, libidinal (Freud), and economic (Marx) forces.

That is the first birth. The initiation into the true life of the spirit is the second birth; the anthropoid gives birth to the man as he should be. He seeks to overcome the general law of biological life in order to realize his True Self. This is not an automatic or material process. Rather, it must be freely chosen and it requires conscious efforts. In other words, he becomes his aim in life.


Transformed is Zarathustra; Zarathustra has become a child; an awakened one is Zarathustra: what will you do in the land of the sleepers?

I love him who lives in order to know, and seeks to know in order that the overman may someday live.

Just as in the case of Galileo, people have heard rumors about Darwin, but its meaning has not yet sunk in. For the educated it is important to “believe in evolution”. But to believe that is to believe you are an anthropoid. Yet the modern man believes that he is the goal of evolution, its acme, and that nothing could be conceivably be higher. Thus he is the last man and proud of it. If everyone would be just like him, the Kingdom would arrive and the evil ones would be transported away on a cloud. There would be no war, no global warming, and so on.

So Zarathustra told them they were anthropoids, since they should want to know. Instead, they banished him, because in the country of the blind, the seer is a menace.

How to End Terrorism

via Alternative Right

German tourist in Paris
After an attack, our politicians and media like to slam the barn door really hard to show that escaped horse that it was wrong. Many people have made many statements about how to stop terrorism, and almost all of them are unrealistic and wrong.

Terrorism arose from guerrilla warfare and succeeds the same way guerrilla warfare does: by convincing the people making the decisions that there are too many costs of doing business to make it worth continuing to participate.

In the American Revolution, the guerrillas made a king back down after heavy losses; in the Vietnam war, the guerrillas learned a new weapon: the television. If they could get a whole lot of voters, who we all know are useful idiots, to panic and emote over what they see on the teevee screen, then the guerrillas win because the politicians will retreat.

And that's exactly what happened.

Much of the techniques of those Viet Cong guerrillas involved terrorism, both active and passive. Active terrorism means going into a village that has supported your opposition and maiming, killing and otherwise terrorizing the population so the voters back at home squeal and cry and demand a withdrawal. Passive terrorism means giving 8-year-old hand grenades to throw at Americans, knowing that at some point a My Lai will result. The Afghans did the same thing during the Russian occupation and ensured that the Russians had two types of soldiers: one, killers who wanted every duhkh dead, and two, hesistant killers who shortly would be dead from an inability to comprehend how profoundly they were hated.

Terrorism relies on two things: (1) opportunity and (2) audience. Opportunity means that it is generally far easier to stage a terrorist strike than, say, an invasion or commando raid. It requires lower skills, less equipment, and generally just a nasty will to kill and maim, which conveniently attracts sociopaths that you want out of your society anyway. Audience means a whole bunch of people watching television and poised over computer keyboards, so that when they see the horror you can count on them to flatter themselves as empathetic geniuses by engaging in public displays of weeping, mourning, why-can't-we-all-get-along and think-of-the-children style behavior.

I suggest applying Occam's razor and realizing that we can end all terrorism very quickly.

First, we deny opportunity. This action involves two parts:
  1. Anyone who is not of the indigenous populations to Western civilization – national groups in Europe and mixed Western Europeans in America – needs to get a welfare check and a plane ticket sending them back to their continent of origin. Asians to Asia, Africans to Africa, lawyers to Antarctica, and mixed-race/culture people to north Africa.

  2. Destroy the welfare state. A cynic sees humanity correctly: people who act in self-interest, especially by denying the interests of others. Each group wants to prevail. If you let them in, and you are wealthier than they are, they will both show up en masse and try to exterminate you because the sight of you succeeding offends their self-image. If we remove our welfare, benefits, free stuff, etc., that politicians use to attract voters, we will stop inviting people in by conspicuously waving our wealth in their faces.
Then, we deny audience. I do not suggest government make any laws or take any action here; laws and government are the most impotent form of action. Instead, our smartest people should begin spreading the word that the correct response to a terrorist attack is to ignore it, and put our support behind those rounding up and beheading the perpetrators. Stop the public heaps of flowers, the endless mourning, the switching of your masturbatory Facebook profile selfie to a French flag. All of that is personal drama in which people engage to make themselves look more compassionate, wealthy and important. (If anything, we should send those people to north Africa, too.).

We do not need laws and restrictions on media. If our smart people hammer out this message, those that admire them will also emulate it, on down to the least thoughtful among us. This changes demand for the product in media, and means that media will stop following the Jane Fonda route as useful idiots for guerrillas and terrorists.

These ideas may be a bit ahead of their time, and are certainly less exciting than the other stuff the talking heads and blog zombies are raving about, but unlike those, they have at least a chance of success.

Retrotopia: Economics by Other Means

via The Archdruid Report

Author's Note: This is the tenth installment of an exploration of some of the possible futures discussed on this blog, using the toolkit of narrative fiction. Our narrator catches a train for the agricultural hinterlands of the Lakeland Republic, and learns some of the reasons why the Republic is so hard to invade. 
The phone rang at eight a.m. sharp the next morning. I was in the bathroom, trying to get my electric shaver to give me a shave half as good as the one I got at the barbershop, and failing; I turned the thing off, put it down, and got to the phone on the third ring. “Hello?”
“Mr. Carr? Melanie Berger. We’ve got everything lined up for your trip today. Can you be at the train station by nine o’clock?”
“Sure thing,” I said.
“Good. Your tickets will be waiting for you, and Colonel Tom Pappas will meet you there. You can’t miss him; look for a wheelchair and a handlebar mustache.”
The wheelchair didn’t sound too promising—I had no idea what kind of accommodations counties in the Lakeland Republic’s lower tiers made for people with disabilities—but I figured Meeker’s people knew what they were doing. “I’ll do that.”
“You’ll be back Saturday evening,” Berger said then. “The president would like to see you again Monday afternoon, if you’re free.”
“I’ll put it on the schedule,” I assured her; we said the usual, and I hung up.
It took me only a few minutes to pack for the trip, and then it was out the door, down the stairs, and through the lobby to the street to wave down a taxi. As I got out onto the sidewalk, a kid with a bag of rolled newspapers hanging from one shoulder turned toward me expectantly and said, “Morning Blade? ‘Nother satellite got hit.”
That sounded worth the price of a paper; I handed over a bill and a couple of coins, got the paper in return, thanked the kid, and went to the street’s edge. A couple of minutes later I was sitting in a two-wheel cab headed for the train station, listening to the clip-clop of the horse’s hooves ahead and reading the top story on the newspaper’s front page.
The kid who’d sold me the paper hadn’t been exaggerating. A chunk of the Progresso IV satellite that got taken out by space junk a week before had plowed into a big Russian telecommunications satellite during the night, spraying fragments at twenty thousand miles an hour across any number of midrange orbits. Nothing else had been hit yet, but the odds of a full-blown Kessler syndrome had just gone up by a factor I didn’t want to think about.
Aside from the fact itself, only one thing caught my attention in the article: a comment from a professor of astronomy at the University of Toledo, mentioning that his department was calculating the orbits of as many fragments as they’d been able to track. I didn’t know a lot about astronomy, but I’d learned just enough that the thought of trying to work out an orbit using pen and paper made my head hurt. I wondered if they’d scraped together the money to buy a bootleg computer from a Chicago smuggling ring or something like that. 
I’d just about finished the first section of the paper when the taxi pulled up to the sidewalk in front of the train station. I paid the cabbie, stuffed the newspaper into my coat pocket, and headed inside. The big clock above the ticket counters said eight-thirty; there wasn’t much of a line, so by eight-forty I had my round trip ticket in an inner pocket and was heading through the doors marked Platform Four.
I’d just about gotten my bearings when I spotted a burly man in a wheelchair halfway down the platform. He turned around and saw me a moment later, made a little casual half-salute with one hand, and wheeled over to meet me. Berger hadn’t been kidding about the handlebar mustache; it was big, black, and curled at the tips. That and bushy eyebrows made up for the lack of a single visible hair anywhere else on his head. He was wearing the first hip-length jacket I’d seen anywhere in the Lakeland Republic, over an olive-drab military uniform.
“Peter Carr?” he said. “I’m Tom Pappas. Call me Tom; everyone else does.”
“Pleased to meet you,” I said, shaking his hand. The guy had hands the size of hams and a grip that would put a gorilla to shame.
“Melanie tells me you rattled the boss good and proper yesterday,” he said with a chuckle. “You probably know we’ve been getting a lot of semi-official visitors from outside governments since the borders opened. Of course they all want to know about our military. Care to guess how many of them asked about that right up front, to the President’s face?”
“I can’t be the only one,” I protested.
“Not quite. Ever met T. Bayard Batchley?”
I burst out laughing. “Yes, I’ve met him. Don’t tell me he’s the only other.”
“Got it in one. Of course he blustered about it in the grand Texan style, and more or less implied that the entire army of the Republic of Texas was drooling over the prospect of invading us.”
I shook my head, still laughing. “I bet. I was on a trade mission to Austin a while back, and we got a Batchley lecture to the effect that everyone in Philadelphia was going to starve to death if they didn’t get shipments of Texas beef that week.”
“Sounds about right.”
The train came up to the platform just then, and the roar of the locomotive erased any possibility of further conversation for the moment. The conductor took our tickets and waved us toward one of the cars. I wondered how Pappas was going to climb the foot or so from the platform to the door, but about the time I’d finished formulating the thought, one of the car attendants popped out, grabbed a handle I hadn’t noticed under the step, and slid out a steel ramp. Pappas rolled up into the car, the attendant pushed the ramp back into its place, they said a few words to each other, and then Pappas wheeled his way over to a place at the back of the car, flipped one of the two seats up, and got a couple of tiedown straps fastened onto his chair by the time I’d followed him.
I took the seat next to him. “Do they have this sort of thing in all the trains here?”
“Wheelchair spots? You bet. We had a lot of disabled vets after the Second Civil War, of course, and got a bunch more in ‘49. That’s how I ended up in this thing—got stupid during the siege of Paducah, and took some shrapnel down low in my back.”
The train filled up around us.  “I’m sorry to hear that,” I said.
“Oh, it doesn’t slow me down that much.  The only complaint I’ve got is that I’m stuck in a desk job in Toledo now, instead of out there in the field.” He shook his head. “How much did they tell you about our military?”
“Here, or back home?”
“Either one.”
“Here, nothing. Back home—” I considered the briefings I’d been given, edited out the classified parts. “They’re pretty much baffled. We know you’ve got universal military service on the Swiss model, but no modern military tech at all—plenty of light infantry and field artillery, but no armor, no drones, no air force worth mentioning, and a glorified coast guard on the Great Lakes.”
He nodded as the train lurched into motion. “That’s about right. And you’re wondering how we can get away with that.”
“It’s a concern,” I said. “As I told President Meeker, we don’t want a failed state or a war zone on our western border.”
Pappas laughed, as though I’d made a joke. “I bet. What if I told you that we’re less likely to end up that way than any other country on this continent?”
I gave him a wry look. “You’d have to to some very fast talking to convince me of that. With that kind of armament, I don’t see how you could expect to defeat a country with a modern military.”
“We don’t have to defeat them,” he said at once. “All we have to do is bankrupt them.”
I stared at him.
“War’s not cheap,” he went on. “Modern high-tech warfare, square and cube that. Half the reason the old United States collapsed was the amount of money it poured into trying to stay ahead of everybody else’s military technology. I’m not going to ask you how much the Atlantic Republic has to pay each year for drones, robot tanks, helicopter gunships, cruise missiles, and the information systems you need to run all of it; you know as well as I do that it’s a big chunk of the national budget, and I’d be willing to make a bet that you have to skimp on the rest of your military budget to make up for it—meaning that your ordinary grunts don’t have the training or the morale they might have.”
I didn’t answer. Outside the window, commercial buildings gave way to a residential neighborhood dotted with gardens and parks.
“So you’ve got a lot of money sunk in military hardware. Let’s say you guys decided to invade us.”
“That’s not going to happen,” I told him.
“Just for example.” He waved the objection away with one massive hand. “You send in your drones and robot tanks and helicopter gunships, seize Toledo and wherever else your general staff thinks is strategic enough to merit it, and dump a bunch of infantry to hold onto those places. You’ve won, right? Except that that’s when the fun begins.
“All that light infantry and field artillery you mentioned—it’s still there, distributed all over the country, and it’s not dependent on any kind of central command.  It’s got first-rate training, and most of the training is oriented to one thing and one thing only: insurgent operations. So thirty minutes after your drones cross the border, you’re dealing with a full-on, heavily armed insurgency with prepared positions and ample firepower, in every single county of the Lakeland Republic. However long you want to hold on, we can hold on longer, and every day of it costs you a lot more than it costs us. Oh, and a lot of the training our troops get focuses on taking out your high-tech assets with inexpensive munitions. So it’s the same kind of black hole the old United States kept getting itself into—no way to win, and the bills just keep piling up until you go home.”
“I’m a little surprised you’re telling me all this,” I said after a moment.
“Don’t be. We want people outside to know exactly what they’re up against if they invade.” He gestured out the window. “Check that out.”
We were still in the residential part of Toledo, the same patchwork of houses, gardens, and little business districts I’d seen on the way from Pittsburgh, but something new cut across the landscape: a canal. It didn’t have water in it yet, and so I could see that the sides were lined with big slabs of concrete that must have been salvaged from a prewar freeway.
“We’re putting those in everywhere that the landscape permits,” Pappas said. “Partly that’s economic—canals are cheaper to run than any other transport—but it’s also military. You want to try to cross one of those in a tank, be my guest. There’s a lot of that sort of thing. Every county is its own military unit and builds bunkers, prepared positions, tank traps, you name it. Since we’re not interested in invading anybody else, we can put a lot of resources into that.”
I decided to take a risk. “If you’re not interested in invading anybody else, why did your people put so much work into getting detailed topo maps of our territory back before the border opened?”
The bushy eyebrows went up. “You know about that.”
I nodded. “We got lucky.”
“Gotcha,” Pappas said. “Did you hear much about the other side of our dust-up with the Confederacy in ‘49?” I motioned for him to go on, and he grinned. “We sent teams across the border into their territory to mess with their infrastructure. Bridges, power lines, levees, you name it—anything that would raise the price tag. We even got a couple of teams onto Brazilian territory to do the same thing; we would have done more of that if the war hadn’t ended when it did.”
“So it’s all about economics,” I said.
“Of course. You know how Clausewitz said that war’s a continuation of politics by other means? He got that half right. It’s also a continuation of economics—and the last guy standing is the one who can afford to keep fighting longest.”
I nodded. Outside the window, the first of the farms and fields were coming into view, brown with stubble or green with cover crops for overwintering.
“All across this country,” Pappas said then, “we’ve got young men and women doing their two year stints in the army, and showing up for two weeks a year afterwards as long as they can still shoulder a gun—and there’s a good reason for that. This country got the short end of the stick for decades back before the Second Civil War, then got the crap pounded out of it during the fighting, and then—well, I could go on. We found out the hard way what happens when you let some jerk in a fancy white house a thousand miles away decide for you how you’re going to run your life. That’s why President Meeker’s not much more than a referee to ride herd on the parties in the legislature; that’s why each county makes so many of its own decisions by vote—and it’s why all the people you’re going to see tomorrow are putting a nice fall weekend into shooting at drones.”
“Is that what’s on the schedule for tomorrow?”
The bushy eyebrows went up again. “Melanie didn’t tell you?” Suddenly he chuckled, rubbed his big hands together. “Oh man. You’re going to get an education.”

The Army of Muslim Fanatics at the Heart of Europe

via The Occidental Observer

Saint and Sinners: Nadiya Hussein
and Islamic State
It’s what you call an ironic juxtaposition. On Saturday 14th November 2015, the front page of the London Times had both good and bad news for its readers. The good news was that a saintly Muslim woman in a hijab had written some cake-recipes. The bad news was that other Muslims in Paris had murdered “dozens of people” in coordinated terror attacks the day before.

When the charming Nadiya Hussein won the Great British Bake Off in September this year, Britain’s liberals were beside themselves with joy. Okay, Muslim rape-gangs are operating throughout the country, the security services are constantly battling Muslim terror-plots and corruption flourishes in every Muslim “community” — but look, a Muslim has won a baking competition. Take that, you haters, racists and xenophobes!

“When You Whisk Upon a Star…”

The Guardian proclaimed that “Nadiya has managed to defuse the negative, politicised and stereotypical discourse surrounding Muslims in one beat of a whisk.” She had shown that “the vast majority of people in Britain embrace diversity and inclusivity” and that “Britain is not limited by homogeneity but strengthened by diversity.” The implications are obvious: beleaguered France must hasten to acquire a Nadiya of its own. Then the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists will rise from the dead and the Paris attacks will turn out to have involved water-pistols and party-poppers.

Or so you might suppose. Yes, the reaction to Nadiya Hussein demonstrates the absurdity of liberalism and the irrational, superstitious psychology of liberals. Legend has it that Marie Antoinette was told that the peasants had no bread and replied: “Let them eat cake.” The phrase symbolizes indifference to the suffering of the masses. Liberals are certainly indifferent to the suffering of the White working-class, but their Nadiya-mania says “Let them eat cake!” in another sense too. Liberalism teaches that any amount of vice in a minority, no matter how vast, can be outweighed by any amount of virtue, no matter how small.

So Britain is supposed to forget Muslim rape-gangs, Muslim terrorism and Muslim corruption because one Muslim is good at baking cakes. François Hollande and David Cameron display more liberal superstition in their belief that dropping bombs in the Middle East will solve the problems posed by Muslims in Europe. Hollande has promisedsolennellemente” to do everything to destroy “l’armée des fanatiques” who have stained Paris with blood for the second time in ten months.

The Army of Fanatics

Will “everything” include ending Muslim immigration into France, let alone reversing it? No, of course not. France will continue to welcome Muslims in and to fund their high birth-rates. Their growing numbers will ensure that the fanatics are ever harder to track. The collaboration of “moderate” Muslims with the fanatics will be both active and passive. As a “Muslim FBI officer” put it in the Guardian after the Paris massacres: “how was a network able to operate in a tight-knit community and neighbourhood without any detection; why did the confidential informants, undercover agents, community leaders or citizens within the community not turn us on to this network … — why did they not say anything?”

He was talking about Belgium and the vibrant suburb of Molenbeek, a Muslim “no-go zone” within a few miles of NATO Headquarters. In other words, while France and NATO bomb Islamic State in Syria, Islamic Statelets are growing all over Europe, seething with crime, corruption and hatred of the White Christian nations that surround them and fund their expansion. And what has happened to those people, like Marine Le Pen and Brigitte Bardot, who have been warning for decades about the consequences of mass immigration from the Third World? Has France, land of Voltaire, cradle of liberty, disagreed with their opinions but resolutely defended their right to speak?

No, France has prosecuted them. In September this year, Marine Le Pen, leader of the Front National, went on trial under what the New York Times approvingly described as “France’s tough hate-speech laws.” She is accused of “inciting religious hatred against Muslims” in a speech she made in Lyon five years ago. The trial looked ridiculous when it began, a few months after the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris. It looks even more ridiculous now, after a new, improved massacre in the same city.

“A Very Umble Person”

But who is busy advocating “France’s tough hate-speech laws”? Who has wanted to stifle free speech, prosecute dissidents and ensure that Muslim pathologies worsen with every passing day? (Hint: He’s the same person I wrote about in a column on the Stalinization of Europe.) François Hollande knows the answer, because he bestowed France’s greatest honour on a leading inquisitor in June this year:
Dr. Moshe Kantor, President of the European Jewish Congress (EJC), was awarded the Officier de la Légion d’Honneur (Officer of the Legion of Honour) by the President of France François Hollande. The award is the highest decoration in France, established by Napoleon Bonaparte. For two centuries, it has been presented on behalf of the Head of State to reward the most deserving citizens in all fields of activity.
The award was bestowed on Dr. Kantor at the Elysée Palace by President Hollande for leading the fight against Antisemitism, racism, intolerance and xenophobia, promoting interfaith relations and a more tolerant Europe in his roles at the European Jewish Congress, the democratically-elected umbrella organization representing European Jewry. President Hollande called Dr. Kantor “a man of peace, a man of culture, a friend, and a friend of France.”
“You are an inspiring person in the Jewish world, a great figure of the Jewish People in Europe, heading a major institution, the European Jewish Congress, which today represents 42 communities,” President Hollande said before bestowing the award. “You and the EJC are promoting Jewish culture, interfaith dialogue and tolerance, fighting Antisemitism and racism and preserving the memory of the Holocaust. Because all of these reasons, all of these values — your fight against Antisemitism and for peace, and for your love of France — we honor you here today.” (Dr. Moshe Kantor Awarded Legion of Honour by President Hollande, European Jewish Congress, 30th June 2015)
Humble Moshe Kantor is honoured by François Hollande
Humble Moshe Kantor is honoured by François Hollande

Moshe Kantor is a Russian billionaire who was born under Stalin and, as noted, wants to see Stalinism re-created across Europe. He said he was “humbled by this honor” and hoped that “the French Government will support and even lead the appointment of a European Union special envoy as well as the creation of a task force on Antisemitism at the European level as done so well in France.”

In other words, Kantor wants more thought-police, more laws against free speech and more surveillance of the goyim. François Hollande was right to speak of an “army of fanatics,” but wrong to restrict that army’s membership to Muslim terrorists. By any rational standard, he and Kantor are fanatics and extremists too, determined to impose a totalitarian ideology on the unwilling White nations of Europe. These two are just as guilty of “staining Paris with blood” as the Muslims who fired bullets and detonated suicide-belts.

Muslims and other non-Whites aren’t in Europe by the democratic will of the majority, but by the anti-democratic will of the liberal elite. This treachery has been openly admitted by another member of the army of fanatics. He’s a repulsive British politician called Roy Hattersley, once deputy leader of the Labour party and Member of Parliament for the Birmingham constituency of Sparkbrook:
How are politicians to behave when, having listened, they find themselves in fundamental disagreement with what they have heard? Should I, in 1964, have called for what a clear majority of my constituents, and most of the country, undoubtedly wanted — the repatriation of all Commonwealth immigrants? [His answer: “Not in a million years.”] (Politics should be guided by principles, not populism, The Guardian, 5th May 2013) … For most of my 33 years in Westminster, I was able to resist Sparkbrook’s demands about the great issues of national policy — otherwise, my first decade would have been spent opposing all Commonwealth immigration and my last calling for withdrawal from the European Union. (Ideology’s our life, Esther, The Guardian, 31st July 2013)

Pearlstine’s Swine

The Labour party knew very well that its White working-class supporters vehemently opposed mass immigration from the Third World. It ignored their wishes, just as it ignored the screams of White working-class girls raped by Muslims in Rotherham and other enriched towns and cities throughout the UK. Labour has betrayed the very people it was founded to protect. As I’ve pointed out before, the party is best described as a criminal conspiracy, not as a political organization.

Lord Hattersley and Maggie Pearlstine
Lord Hattersley and Maggie Pearlstine

Roy Hattersley has been richly rewarded for his part in this conspiracy. He now sits in the House of Lords as Lord Hattersley and has made large sums of money as a writer, despite the shallowness of his intellect and the banality of his prose. In 2013, he married the woman who has fostered his golden mediocrity, his Jewish literary agent Maggie Pearlstine. Like the leaders of the Bolshevik Revolution, who often had Jewish wives if they were not themselves Jewish, Hattersley is a goy who has flourished in a Jewish milieu, where disdain for the White majority sits naturally with worship of minorities.

Would Hattersley be a rich Lord with a Jewish wife if he had called in 1964 for what “most of the country undoubtedly wanted”: “the repatriation of all Commonwealth immigrants”? Would François Hollande be president of France if he were condemning Moshe Kantor rather than slobbering over him? Of course not. The war on Whites is massively incentivized. Traitors like Hattersley and Hollande are rewarded; patriots like Bardot and Le Pen are persecuted.

Malevolence and psychosis

Hollande was lying when he promised to destroy the “army of fanatics.” In fact, he, Kantor, Hattersley and the rest of Europe’s liberal elite are part of the army. Their extremist ideology is responsible for the insane course Europe has taken since the World War II. Mass immigration from the Third World into the West has been like tipping a bucket of hungry piranhas into a pool full of goldfish. Anyone who promises that such experiments will end well is either a malevolent liar or psychotically detached from reality. That front page from the Times isn’t ironic just because it juxtaposes the saintly Nadiya with the sinful Islamic State. Look at the colour of her headscarf. Like Europe’s future, it’s blood-red.

The traitors responsible for the coming horrors will not escape the judgment of history. Nor, if justice is served, will they escape prosecution and punishment for what are, by their own liberal ideology, unmistakable crimes against humanity. Decade after decade, the liberal elite have deliberately encouraged the murder, rape, impoverishment and ethnic cleansing of Europe’s indigenous White population. While they are up, Europe is down. As Europe rises, they will fall.

Pegida Pulls Large Crowd, Talks Expansion on a Rainy Monday

via Carolyn Yeager

 Notice all the umbrellas opened up on
this November 30th evening in Dresden
The dark season is upon us, but this doesn't deter the Pegida  protestors in Dresden. They came out again in force and in high spirits, in spite of the rain, to hear Lutz Bachmann and Siegfried Doebritz, and two guests: Tommy Robinson from the UK and theologian Ernst Krahn from Nürnberg. But mostly they came out just to show their steadfastness in support for their cause: A peaceful, free Germany of Germans. 

Tommy Robinson spoke in English while Lutz Bachmann translated into German sentence by sentence. He spoke of the inspiration Pegida has been and announced a sister movement made up of all Europe, plus Britain and Australia beginning on Saturday, February 6, 2016. [Full disclosure: I'm not fond of Tommy Robinson and am sorry to see him get a role in this movement. Well, where there's a vacuum, you know ...]  

Ernst from Nürnberg said: "This bacillus (the Koran and Islam) has no place on German and European soil! And also this State Turkey has no place in a free Europe." (Large consent.) "What we stand for. This is what Pegida stands for. Fascists OUT! Nazis out. Islam Adé! (goodbye)." He said many other things too and got a lot of applause and cheers. A good speaker.

Daebritz said the CDU interior experts must be studying the Pegida speeches and he reported on some of the things they've been saying. He said to them: You will not get us off this path until we have direct democracy on the Swiss model." Until then, stay tuned in to Dresden: "Until 2017, or hopefully sooner, this is our open-air voting booth."
Live Stream, full demonstration 1hr25m on 30-11-15 

Pegida Dresden on Facebook