Dec 22, 2015

New York Town Bans "Merry Christmas"

via WND

It now apparently takes lawyers to have a “Merry Christmas” in Bethlehem.

That’s after a dispute arose in Bethlehem, New York, over a “Merry Christmas” sign that has appeared on town property in past years.

This year, city officials decided it had to come down, because they feared it would violate the Constitution by entangling government and faith.

But the Alliance Defending Freedom contended in . . . Read More

Christmas: Beauty in Life

via Counter-Currents

We are approaching Christmas (another name for the winter solstice). Associated with the evergreen tree, Christmas has always been celebrated in European countries since time immemorial as the great feast presaging the revival of nature and life after the repose of winter. One cannot help but think that Europe, too, will one day emerge from its current Dormition, even if it is longer than the cycle of nature.

Christmas is for children. It is also a celebration where beauty has its place. Is it not the occasion to reflect upon this vital concept, one of the three components of the “Homeric triad“: “Nature as the foundation, excellence as a goal, the beauty of the horizon”?

Rather than a dissertation on beauty, I want to offer to those who read me some practical advice, without, however, neglecting a meditative reflection: aesthetics grounds ethics (the good is defined by what is beautiful) and ethics grounds aesthetics (the good is inseparable from the beautiful).

Cultivate beauty (aesthetic sense) for yourself and your loved ones. Beauty is not a matter of money and consumption. It resides in all things, primarily in the small details of life.

Beauty is given freely by nature: the poetry of clouds in a bright sky, the patter of rain on a tent, starry nights, sunsets in summer, the first snowflakes, the colors of the forest in winter, the first flowers in the garden, the hooting of the owl at night, the smell of a wood fire above a cottage in the country . . .

If the beauty of nature is given to us, the beauty we create in our lives requires effort and attention.

Remember that there is no beauty (or joy) without harmony of colors, materials, shapes, and styles. This is true for the home, clothing, and small accessories of life. Avoid synthetic and plastic materials in favor of natural ones.

There is no beauty without courtesy in dealings with those close and distant (except jerks).

I noted that aesthetics is the foundation of ethics. Indeed, there is no beauty without moral and physical poise. For example, keep your pains and troubles, those of the heart, body, and work to yourself for the difficult months. You’ll gain esteem for your discretion and a reputation for good company. You will also gain esteem for yourself.
Merry Christmas to all!

The Judeo-Globalist Empire Is Collapsing

via Transudationism

Hear (sic) a rare insider's view of what interests are behind U.S. wars, the manipulation of intelligence, the intertwining of the military and corporate worlds, and why the U.S. Empire is doomed.
Hear (sic) a rare insider's view of what interests are behind U.S. wars, the manipulation of intelligence, the intertwining of the military and corporate worlds, and why the U.S. Empire is doomed.

Merry Christmas . . . NOT!, Part 1

via The Occidental Observer

TOO Editor’s Note: In honor of the Christmas season, we are posting some past articles from TOO because they seem just as relevant today. This is the first of a two-part article by Edmund Connelly originally posted on December 21, 2008. is again running their wonderful War on Christmas series, begun in 1999. Various contributors there document how an overwhelmingly Christian America which for centuries celebrated Christmas as both a religious and cultural holiday has in recent years moved vigorously first to quash religious observance of Christmas in the public square and is now mopping up the remaining secular symbols.

While much has been written and reported about this assault, few want to situate the attack on Christmas within a larger set of conflicts between Jews and White Christians. But to understand the hostility toward Christmas in America, one must do just that, as Jewish columnist Burt Prelutsky bluntly did in his 2004 column “The Jewish grinch who stole Christmas.”

The blame for the brisk departure of Christmas observations in so many parts of American life now, Prelutsky argued, can be blamed on “my fellow Jews. When it comes to pushing the multicultural, anti-Christian agenda, you find Jewish judges, Jewish journalists, and the American Civil Liberties Union, at the forefront. . . . But the dirty little secret in America is that anti-Semitism is no longer a problem in society — it’s been replaced by a rampant anti-Christianity. “

One could spend a year, from one Christmas to the next, reading about the Gentile-Jewish basis of the War on Christmas. Some accounts are scholarly, while others are more popular. Some overtly point to the religious split as the source of the hostility, while others cautiously skirt around the issue.

Rush Limbaugh’s younger brother David is at pains not to name the source of the powerful anti-Christian bias he sees in our culture. Thus, in his 2003 work Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity, he can open a chapter by writing “In the documented bias against Christians and Christianity in our modern culture, Hollywood and Big Media play very major roles.” But he ignores the highly Jewish nature of the American media in general and Hollywood in particular. In fact, the words “Jews” and “Judaism” do not even appear in his extensive index.

The same can be said for Bill O’Reilly — another culture warrior on the good side of the War on Christmas who never mentions the Jewish angle. But I love his poster anyway, even though he doesn’t want to say whom he is really fighting against. This silence is, of course, a wonderful comment on Jewish power in America.

Incidentally, the Jewish dominance of Hollywood is so obvious and undeniable that Los Angeles Times’ columnist Joel Stein recently announced it. What else can you say when all eight major film studios are run by Jews. And Abe Foxman seems to agree. So I guess it’s okay for us at TOO to say it.

But, according to Foxman, these Hollywood Jewish executives just “happen to be Jewish,” as if the Jewishness of Hollywood really doesn’t make any difference. But of course it does, and the War on Christmas is Exhibit A for that proposition.

In The Culture-Wise Family: Upholding Christian Values in a Mass Media World, Theodore Baehr and Pat Boone have assembled a collection of Christian writings on the perils they and their families face in an increasingly anti-Christian America. Arguing that “whoever controls the media controls the culture,” they too avoid direct discussion of Jewish roles. Still, by including a chapter such as William Lind’s excellent “Who Stole Our Culture? it is obvious to even the halfway informed reader what civilizational rival they are discussing.

Lind goes as far as anyone in this book to frame the conflict:

The Frankfurt School was well on the way to creating political correctness. Then suddenly, fate intervened. In 1933, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power in Germany, where the Frankfurt School was located. Since the Frankfurt School was Marxist, and the Nazis hated Marxism, and since almost all its members were Jewish, it decided to leave Germany. In 1934, the Frankfurt School, including its leading members from Germany, was re-established in New York City with help from Columbia University. Soon, its focus shifted from destroying traditional Western culture in Germany to doing so in the United States. It would prove all too successful.

Needless to say, this emphasis on the Frankfurt school moves the discussion in the same direction as Kevin MacDonald does in The Culture of Critique, where MacDonald describes the broad range of Jewish movements arrayed against the culture of the West, including Christianity.

Perhaps one of the best books on this kulturkampf is Fox News Channel host John Gibson’s 2005 The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought. One need not read too intently between the lines to realize that the bulk of the “secular liberals” Gibson blames for the assault on Christmas are Jews.

He does this by bookending his tale with stories about Christians and Jews. In his preface, he relates the pain a Christian father recently experienced upon learning that his four-year-old son had learned to paint a menorah in preschool but not a Christmas tree. This was because the school had no “Christmas” tree, only a “friendship” tree. In contrast, the school displayed large drawings of menorahs with big block letters spelling out HAPPY HANUKAH. It’s pretty clear which culture is dominant these days.

Gibson closes the book with a debate with Ira Glasser of the ACLU, displaying the “hairsplitting” style of argumentation that Glasser so forcefully wielded in a debate. “Hairsplitting,” of course, could just as easily be what many people mean when they say reasoning is “Talmudic.”

Finally, if one is so inclined, a perusal of law professor Stephen M. Feldman’s Please Don’t Wish Me a Merry Christmas: A Critical History of the Separation of Church and State may be informative. What does it say, for instance, when someone who writes a book with such a title opens with the sentence “I am Jewish”? The scorching hostility toward everything Christian in this New York University Press book is inescapable, which is why Richard John Neuhaus called Feldman “relentless,” if not “fanatical.”

In everyday parlance, this debate is often referred to as the one over “A Neutral Public Square,” and it has been going on for a long time. “Happy Holidays” and “Season’s Greetings” were not always ubiquitous greetings at the end of December. For instance, back in 1952, George S. Kaufman appeared on a popular television show one week before Christmas and was asked what he wanted for the holiday. He replied, “Let’s make this one program on which no one sings ‘Silent Night.'”  The response from the audience (largely Gentile, one would presume) was fast and furious: Kaufman was removed from the show.

Fast-forward to 1982 and the popular Saturday Night Live could feature a skit called “Merry Christmas, Dammit!” This skit portrayed the relationship between Donny and Marie Osmond, two non-Jewish sibling pop singers, as incestuous, and the Virgin Mary was described as “that virgin chick” in a jazzed up version of “Silent Night.” Eddie Murphy — in his popular “Gumby” guise — reads children’s story in which Santa tears out the lungs of one of his elves because the elf asked for a sip of Santa’s hot chocolate. He ends the skit by saying “And to everyone out there — a merry Christmas! And to my producer, my director, my manager, and my lawyer — Happy Hanukkah, boys!” Obviously sensibilities had changed by then, and the people calling the shots were Jews.

Indeed, Jewish aversion to Christian symbols has resulted in a much more neutral public arena. As political scientist Benjamin Ginsberg, in his much under-appreciated 1993 work The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State, wrote:
Religious symbols and forms of expression that Jews find threatening have been almost completely eliminated from schools and other public institutions. Suits brought by the ACLU, an organization whose leadership and membership are predominantly Jewish, secured federal court decisions banning officially sanctioned prayer in the public schools and crèches and other religious displays in parks and public buildings.
Writer Mark Steyn light-heartedly described how Jews created a gradual division between religious and secular Christmas symbols, making America a society where “Jesus, Mary and Joseph are for home and for church; Santa, Rudolph and Frosty the Snowman—the  great secular trinity—are for everybody.” He continues:
It’s 1934 . . . and it falls to a Jew to introduce Tin Pan Alley’s first Christmas pop standard. Isidore Israel Itkowitz—or Eddie Cantor—doesn’t much like the song, but his wife talks him into it:
‘He’s making a list
And checking it twice,
He’s gonna find out
Who’s naughty or nice.
Santa Claus is coming to town . . .’
In just 60 years, those words have become as familiar to most Americans as the Pledge of Allegiance. ‘Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer’ has gone down in his-to-ree in only 45 years. He’s not just for Episcopalians and Catholics—and who better to teach little girls ‘that everyone deserves to be treated with dignity’ regardless of the colour of their nose?  Johnny Marks had such a hit—it’s one of the biggest sellers of all time—that he founded his own publishing house, St Nicholas Music, and devoted the rest of his life to composing seasonal songs, from ‘Rockin’ Around the Christmas Tree’ to a beautiful setting of Longfellow’s Civil War poem, ‘I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day’. . . . In the New World, the most potent Americana—observational or aspirational—is created by Jews. Perhaps the Yankees took the sleigh rides and winter wonderlands for granted, but you had to have grown up in the lowest East Side ghetto to see that.
It’s a happy feeling nothing in the world can buy
As they pass around the coffee and the
pumpkin pie . . .
Jule Styne . . . was born in the Jewish slums of Bethnal Green and liked to say that it was coming from that background that made him understand the dreams of ordinary Americans. With Sammy Cahn, he wrote:
Oh, the weather outside is frightful
But the fire is so delightful
And since we’ve no place to go
Let it snow! Let it snow! Let it snow!
. . . Irving Berlin understood. . . . Today, the calendar turns to Berlin anthems, to ‘Easter Parade’; and ‘God Bless America’ and ‘White Christmas’. They had white Christmases in Temun, Siberia, where he was born, but it’s not about the weather: a white Russian Christmas wouldn’t be the same. . . . (See M. Steyn, “A Triumph of Miscegenation,” The Spectator, December 17/24, 1994.)
Of course, this “compromise” to take Christ out of popular culture was a great victory for Jews, for it allowed the hostility many Jews felt toward a Christian majority to find vent without the Gentiles really noticing. Philip Roth, however, knew exactly what it meant:
The radio was playing ‘Easter Parade’ and I thought, But this is Jewish genius on a par with the Ten Commandments. God gave Moses the Ten Commandments and then He gave to Irving Berlin ‘Easter Parade’ and ‘White Christmas.’ The two holidays that celebrate the divinity of Christ—the divinity that’s the very heart of the Jewish rejection of Christianity—and what does Irving Berlin brilliantly do? He de-Christs them both! Easter he turns into a fashion show and Christmas into a holiday about snow. Gone is the gore and the murder of Christ—down with the crucifix and up with the bonnet! He turns their religion into schlock. But nicely! Nicely! So nicely the goyim don’t even know what hit ’em. They love it. Everybody loves it. The Jews especially. Jews loathe Jesus.
Sadly, Jews have been able to translate this hatred of Christ and his birthday into increasingly scandalous imagery, thanks to their domination of Hollywood and TV studios. The progression of Christmas images from overwhelmingly positive to secular and even vicious imagery is something I’ll discuss—and show—in my next column in a few days.

Merry Christmas!

More “Holocaust” Propaganda at the Oscars

via The Realist Report

The fake Jewish “Holocaust” narrative is constantly and endlessly promoted, reinforced, and perpetuated not only by our mainstream educational and political establishment, but – perhaps even more importantly – also by the mass media and “entertainment” complex centered in Hollywood. The Jewish Daily Forward recently reported that, once again, “Holocaust”-themed films are up for Academy Awards at this year’s Oscars ceremony.

Screenshot (70)

Two films about the Holocaust and its aftermath have made the cut to compete for best foreign-language film. They were selected from among entries from 80 countries vying for Oscar honors, according to an announcement Thursday evening by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
Both entries, “Son of Saul” and “Labyrinth of Lies,” are among the critics’ favorites to garner an Academy Award — indicating, once again, that the Shoah retains its grip on the minds and souls of both international filmmakers and the members of the academy who cast their votes.
Last year, the foreign-language Oscar went to the Polish movie “Ida,” which followed the path of a devout young woman raised in a convent and about to take her vows as a nun. Suddenly, she learns that her parents were Jews who perished in the Holocaust and sets out to rediscover her roots. […]
It should come as no surprise to astute observers and critics of Hollywood and American popular culture that “Holocaust”-themed movies tend to be represented at the Oscars, with many of them actually winning Academy Awards.

Hollywood and American popular culture are entirely dominated and controlled by Jews with a specific agenda, namely, the demoralization, exploitation, and ultimate genocide of the White race. The fake “Holocaust” narrative, which has been scientifically and scholarly debunked by courageous and honest historians, is crucial to international Jewry’s global agenda directed at the destruction of the White race and Western civilization. Indeed, Jews themselves have admitted that the “Holocaust” is a central factor to the Jewish takeover and domination of America and the wider Western world following WWII.

The lies told about Adolf Hitler, National Socialist Germany, and WWII generally form the basic historical paradigm the vast majority of Westerners hold today. The fake “Holocaust” narrative has not only advanced Jewish political, economic, and cultural interests, it has also served as a weapon used by Jewry to demonize and pathologize White identity. Jewish leaders often blame the entire White Western world for the entirely fictional “Holocaust” Jews allegedly experienced during WWII, and equate any sort of White racial consciousness with “White supremacy,” “Nazism,” and Adolf Hitler.

It is time for the world to recognize these basic facts, and understand the central role played by Hollywood and the mass media – which as stated previously are entirely controlled by Jews with a specifically anti-White agenda – in perpetuating the fake “Holocaust” narrative of WWII.

The Beauty of Class Collaboration for the Folk

via TradYouth

Our Message has been meeting with challenge from both sides of the aisle of late, in particular to our brother Matthew Heimbach’s strict condemnations of capitalism. They object to his appeal to the historical musical, thematic, rhetorical, and cultural efforts of our working class Southern forefathers, who were sadly swayed by communists in pursuit of justice during the Great Depression.

Those who object to our criticisms of capitalism equate any criticism of the same with Marxism, ignoring the Third Positionism we have espoused from the beginning. This position is foreign to the American context, in which an anti-capitalist is generally understood to be a pro-Marxist. But it has a long history among European Identitarians. So let’s stand up for a second and say, yes: We are dirty Unionists, from the perspective of die-hard capitalists and libertarians.

Yet our Union support extends not to the Internationale, but to the Solidarity of 1980s Poland, to the candles Catholics around the world lit in my childhood for our Catholic Brothers who were suffering persecution of their faith and denial of the fruits of their labour. We believe, fundamentally, in that truth expressed both by the Austrian Volkisch movement, and by countless popes. It’s the truth expressed by the Distributists, which gave birth to the Credit Union alternative:
“a society is healthiest when the majority of the people are able to save, and a society is not healthy when those who do the work which keeps the society running do not earn enough to feed their families and have some leisure.”
We have been at this point before in this country. We have seen the masses unemployed, and those who were employed unable to pay their rents, taxes, and bills. We have seen bloody struggle for the right to organize.But what is different in this era is something I have touched on before, in my article on the role of the sexes in our struggle: the classes have been divided, the sexes have been divided. Our folk has no unity. We are, in the words of the great British Colonial poet, Rudyard Kipling, “children whose teeth have been set on edge, by bitter bread and wine.”

Our whole lives we have been told not only that we must accept diversity, but that the divisions between rich and poor, between man and woman, are much stronger, much larger, than those which occur naturally and genetically between various peoples. They’re supposedly greater than those between different cultures with different creeds and histories. And worst of all, our unity has been stolen, our spirit of universal brotherhood has been turned into one of Universalist brotherhood, and those of us who want solidarity with our people have forgotten to express solidarity.

This is not by accident. Post-Marx Capitalist apologetics is just as much a form of class warfare and class struggle as Marxism, and they work together to destroy the society. One could even call them “Marxist Capitalism” and “Marxist Communism” respectively. Marxism is a means of establish a Strong Opposition of two Classes, with the result being mutual Destruction. Marx was a Student of Hegel, and he learned from him well. It does not matter if this is Economic, Sexual, or Ethnic Marxism. It does not even matter if it is applied from the oppressor or oppressed end of the equation. The result will always be chaos and the destruction of the social fabric.

It is time that we firmly right this great wrong! We must stand up as Traditionalists for the fundamental truth: Every Woman of our folk is a Daughter of our folk, and by right ought to be a Mother of our race as well! Men, we owe it to ourselves to take a stand against the culture of promiscuity that has been pushed on men and women alike our whole lives and say, “I refuse to participate in this not only through who I choose but through how I act”- yet how much more must all of us, men and women, stand up and say – Rich, Poor, Middle Class – we are all facing Genocide and the Suppression of our Identity and History!

We should push for Tradition, yes – but we must be quick to show compassion to those who admit their past mistakes and are willing to march into the future alongside us. I do not care that a member of my folk, man or woman, does things I do not agree with – I do not have to invite him over for poker, I do not have to ask her out on a date. What I care about is that he or she is my brother or sister of my kind, my neighbour, my kin!

And Women, you must remember that men are more than just potential mates, and support them in struggle, standing beside them, fighting for them and their rights. They are a Son, Husband, Father of one of your Sisters! You must work hard to not judge your fellow woman by her clothes or how many or how few children she has, nor your brother in struggle by how rich or poor his bank account is. Judge them by how rich or poor their heart and spirit are, how determined they are to secure a future for the children you bear!Y

Yesterday was Saint Nicholas day according to the Julian Calendar. How many of you have passed by white homeless and ignored them in the past year?

How many of you have looked down on your brother or sister within our movement, and said “I don’t like him or her” based on differences that boil down to Economic or Social class differences? Maybe it’s his accent, his neighborhood, her clothes, her admitted mistakes. If it is not an ideological divide which places them outside of the camp of Traditionalist action, it should be no divide at all, for this is your extended family.

It is time that we break these chains, and act in charity unto our own kind! We must say “I fight for all of my brothers and sisters, rich or poor, married or unmarried, young or old, it matters not, for the poorest and richest are both my kin, and we all owe it to one another to help each other, show mercy, compassion, forgiveness, and respect to one another! We are all merely digits in one ancient and living body, and we cannot let it die! ”

Let’s make this coming year the year of the Spirit of Charity. Let’s make our slogan, not only “freedom and bread”, but “bread and roses” too. For when we all stand together in unity, we will win.

Happy Saint Nicholas day, God bless and protect you all.

Victory to the European American workers! Victory to the forces of Tradition!

Why All White Women Are Feminists

via Renegade Tribune

Here are the top five reasons that all White women are feminists, no matter what they say.
5) They have emotions
In addition to boobs and vaginas, which are actually useful, women have yucky emotions and stuff.  They often will start crying when they are upset, and even sometimes raise their voices. It’s a disgusting quality, which men never show. White women need to get their emotions in check, and get back in the kitchen to make their men sandwiches.
4) They want to be respected
They want to be treated with respect. I know, it’s sickening. They expect men to treat them like they are actually human.  We all know that’s not the case, now don’t we? Men treating women like they are actually human is the reason this world is going to hell in a hand basket, fast! Thanks pagans.
3) They are attention whores
Whenever they create content for their people, they are simply doing it to be attention whores. Women aren’t intelligent enough to learn how to edit video, record music, create art, or radio programs, so they will pathetically try and “signal” to everyone that they are actually trying to fight against White genocide, which they are 100% responsible for in the first place.
2) They don’t like being property
They actually take issue with being treated as chattel. I mean, what the hell?  They say they are “traditionalists”, yet they actually want freedom, and rights? Ugh! Makes me sick.
1) They are rent-seeking
Previously these pesky women were trying to enter the work force, but now some actually want to be able to stay home with their children, and not work. Some will even try to find alternative ways to make an income, other than a slave job, and we absolutely CANNOT support that “rent seeking” behavior. Women need to stop being so lazy and go “rent seek” at their slave jobs, where they belong.


White women need to learn some obedience, realize their place in this world, and take an example from societies that really know how to correct the female problem, which is far more disastrous to us than the jewish problem. We would be in a much better state if this is what our women looked like...


These are some of the talking points that I see used against White women all over the internet.  Yes, some are trolls, but some are actually angry White men.

Racial Preferences at the Supreme Court

via American Renaissance

. . . the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution . . . . It may be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment . . . . Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78

On Wednesday, December 9, 2015, I was part of the audience at the Supreme Court to hear round two of Fisher v. University Texas. In 2008, Abigail Fisher, who is white, sued the University of Texas for rejecting her while admitting black and Hispanic students with lower grade point averages and tests scores. Miss Fisher claimed that she was denied her constitutional rights under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment because race was not just one of many but was “the” standard used in selecting certain students. The university claimed that its admission policies were legal and fell within the limits of “affirmative action” guidelines.

Nearly 20 years before, in 1996, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Hopwood v. Texas had ordered the University of Texas to completely eliminate consideration of race in admissions. Cheryl Hopwood, the plaintiff, had been rejected by the UT law school, but after looking at her qualifications and the obstacles she had to overcome–which included caring for her handicapped child–Circuit Judge Jerry Smith concluded that the law school was clearly discriminating against whites.

Texas Governor George W. Bush and other “compassionate conservatives” in the Texas legislature then came up with the 10-percent solution: The university would automatically accept all students in the top 10 percent of every Texas high school graduating class. Because Texas schools remain largely segregated, black students who were in the top 10 percent of their classes in urban schools were often much less qualified than white students who were not in the top 10 percent of their suburban high schools. The blacks were automatically admitted anyway. The 10-percent solution achieved racial diversity by admitting less qualified blacks and Hispanics while denying the use of race as an admissions criterion.

But because of Hopwood, no explicit racial preferences were permitted in the states covered by the ruling: Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. Hopwood was overturned seven years later by the 2003 Supreme Court case of Grutter v. Bollinger, in which a white applicant to the University of Michigan Law School, Barbara Grutter, made the same claim as Cheryl Hopwood: She suffered discrimination because she was white. The Court ruled that racial quotas in admission were not allowed but that “a narrowly tailored plan” that considered race or ethnicity a “plus factor” was. Since that ruling, most elite universities actually do admit blacks and Hispanics by quota, but they are very careful not to use the word.

EPSON DSC picture

The University of Texas started using race as a “plus factor” for admissions in addition to the 10 percent program designed to increase campus diversity. It was on the basis of this explicitly racial preference program that Abigail Fisher first sued the university in district court in 2008.

In 2013, the case came to the Supreme Court for Fisher round one, and I attended oral arguments at that time as well. The Supreme Court decided to remand the case–or send it back for reconsideration–to the Fifth Circuit, which had approved the University of Texas preferential admissions policy, but ordered that the appeals court submit the policy to the restrictive legal requirement of “strict scrutiny.” The Fifth Circuit, once known for its conservative judges but now filled with Obama appointees, did not change its decision even after applying “strict scrutiny” to the university’s racial preferences. “Affirmative action” admissions were re-certified, and this prompted Miss Fisher to bring the case back to the Supreme Court. On December 9, Abigail Fisher got her second day in the high court.

24 Doric columns

If you’ve never visited the US Supreme Court, a pleasant aesthetic surprise awaits you. Although there are other government buildings built during the 1930s, many of them in the older “Federal style” that uses classical architecture, the Supreme Court’s outside and interior design clearly make it one of the most impressive, along with the old building of the Library of Congress.

Supreme Court
Supreme Court

The façade of the building is of white marble quarried in Vermont and Alabama. For the inside, architect, Cass Gilbert used both Spanish and Italian marble. Gilbert wanted marble from a quarry in Italy for the 24 Doric columns that are part of the courtroom, and sent a letter in 1933 to Benito Mussolini, who granted the request. The building was completed in 1935, and actually cost less than was originally projected.
The interior is a labyrinth of corridors which lead to the offices of the justices, the largest of which is occupied by Chief Justice John Roberts. Once past the people milling about trying to enter the Court to hear oral arguments, and beyond wooden gates with security guards, there is an almost monastic silence in the area that houses the justices’ chambers.

The heart of the building is the courtroom: the space behind the nine seated justices is framed by four Doric columns in marble, and behind the columns is a large red curtain from the middle of which the justices enter and leave to a hushed audience. Twenty more such columns establish the perimeter of the courtroom. High above the justices’ bench and circling the courtroom are marble friezes of famous lawgivers, such as Hammurabi, Moses, and Justinian.


There are more than the usual security precautions. During oral arguments, armed guards patrol the public areas, sometimes blocking the view of the justices. Correspondence directed to the justices is screened for ricin or any other poison, and since the attacks of September 11, the Chief Justice has a bodyguard whenever he travels overseas.

When the court is called to order, the nine justices–not judges–enter one by one: Chief Justice John Roberts enters first, then Justice Scalia, the senior associate justice, and the last to enter is Justice Elena Kagan, who was most recently confirmed. Before entering, they follow a tradition that has a long history at the Supreme Court. They shake hands to signify that they are of one purpose: to interpret the Constitution of the United States as best they can. US flags flank the justices’ bench.

The public sits in three sections behind the seats allotted to members of the Supreme Court Bar and to the lawyers arguing the legal questions before the justices that day. At 10:00 a.m. on December 9, the clerk of the court banged her gavel and intoned, “Please Rise . . . God save this United States and this honorable court.” Justice Kagan had recused herself, as she had done two years before in round one, because she had been solicitor-general–the government’s chief lawyer–in the earlier phases of the suit, arguing in support of racial preferences. Therefore, only eight justices heard the case.

Liberals, who run the universities, do not like any challenge to their admission policies. As if on cue, the Washington Post featured a December 6 op-ed piece by Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Educational and Legal Defense Fund. She defended race preferences by explaining that “a critical mass [of minority students] is necessary to address the racial isolation experienced by minority students, and to obtain diversity of all students.” She noted “the stubborn persistence of racial segregation in Texas” and added that the 10-percent solution had increased the number of blacks and Hispanics but that “the resulting increases were still insufficient.” She did not explain how many would be sufficient.

From the oral arguments, one would never guess that seven justices had agreed to remand the case. Bert Rein, Miss Fisher’s lawyer, began his introductory remarks, but in less than a minute, he was interrupted by the barely audible Justice Ruth Ginsburg. She was followed by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who has often stated that her own life is an example of the value of affirmative action. One could not mistake their intentions: along with Justice Breyer, they would form the triumvirate that would seek to undermine Miss Fisher’s claim that her 14th Amendment rights were violated.

Justice Sotomayor asked what was wrong with a plan that overtly discriminated against whites. Such a policy apparently did not bother her. Justice Ginsburg, probably having read the NAACP brief, emphasized  “the role of segregation” in this case, although that policy died nearly a half century ago. Justices do not often show outward annoyance when a colleague asks a question, but Justice Breyer shook his head in apparent disbelief when Justice Scalia questioned the legality of race preferences. He was obviously annoyed when Chief Justice Roberts asked if the preferential admissions policy would ever stop.

Justice Alito wanted to know if the numerical estimates of the number of blacks and Hispanics who were not admitted “because of the persistence of segregation” were accurate. Throughout the one hour and forty minutes of oral arguments, Justice Clarence Thomas said not one word, a policy he has maintained since his appointment to the Court in 1991.


Gregory Garre, who served as solicitor general under President George W. Bush, argued for race preferences on behalf of the university. He emphasized that in 2002, there were only 282 blacks in a student body of eight thousand. It was at this point that Justice Scalia said that it might be wiser not to admit blacks with lower scores to “first rung” schools, such as the University of Texas–the comment that prompted blowback in the media. When Justice Scalia asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli when race preferences would ever end, he got only a repetition of the benefits of diversity. The solicitor general claimed that “diversity is the dogma of this case”–and, indeed, it is.

The question on everyone’s mind is how the case will be decided. Over a period of nearly two decades, I have been present at many oral arguments, but I don’t think anyone knows the answer. In April 2013, I heard the State of Arizona argue its case on how to deal with illegal immigration. With two or three possible exceptions, the questions by the justices were directly aimed at the solicitor general, and seemed to leave no doubt about the justices’ intentions. I predicted a “slam dunk” victory for the state. I was wrong. Not only did the court rule 6-3 against Arizona, even the chief justice, whose questions were arrows aimed at the heart of the administration’s case, did not vote as I thought he would. In the Texas case, it appears likely that Justice Kennedy may be the “swing” or deciding vote, as he has been in many others
Despite the uncertainty, I believe that Abigail Fisher did not have a successful day in court on December 9. Unlike their decision to sweep away legal restraints on abortion–which at that time was a crime in most states–or their most recent ukase on homosexual marriage, the justices will not abolish affirmative action. Miss Fisher will learn once again that the 14th Amendment does not really apply to her.

The Strong Horse

via Atlantic Centurion

“When people see a strong horse and a weak
horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.”
CIA asset Osama bin Laden may have channeled something embedded in man since time immemorial when he likened militant Islam to virility and its enemies to paltriness. Part of lived experience is learning that there are people better or worse than oneself at doing any number of things. We may admire these people, resent them, support them, be lead by them, undermine them; but in every case we related to them by deficiency or proficiency. The root of these imbalanced relations is the asymmetry of human perception and power—that is to say, person A is stronger than person B in some way, shape, or form. We are drawn to strength when we see it, so it has often been the case that the strong lead and influence the not-strong.

In the days of old, for a man who was sickly in body or sickly in mind to be made chief was an anomaly, for on what strength did his right to rule rest? In a dynastic era he might secure his power by the social construct of legitimacy—my father was king and so it is precedent that I rule in succession. Even so, such a ruler risked being deposed if he relied solely on bloodline and not on his own auctoritas. But not all systems of rule are hereditary and few remain so in a contemporary context. Universal suffrage democracy is used to select the next chief in the United States. A healthy people, whether a primordial tribe or modern nation, would ordinarily be expected to choose the highest quality leader possible. Defective to a minimum and excellent to a maximum, the leader is not merely meant to be a faceless chief executive that the people agree with, but someone whose aesthetic and functional qualities should be worthy of aspiration. That’s the ideal at the highest level of our social and political organization, but an ideal rooted in the metaphor of the strong horse. And the strong horse is always real, because strength is relative. An excellent case and point of this is the Republican primary, in which over a dozen people (but only 4-5 with any level of meaningful support) are trying to win the party nomination for president.

The roaring popularity of billionaire real estate mogul and reality TV star Donald Trump among polled Republican voters has been interpreted in a number of ways. Most commentators focus on denigrating blue collar and working class White males who make up his base (especially those without a liberal arts education), attributing his success to demagoguery (which leftists are apparently uniquely incapable of), calling him a racist or a fascist, and the like. None of that is particularly insightful since the left has a tendency to call anything too White or anything it doesn’t like fascism.

One major component of his success among White male voters is an implicit White populism that is still in its early development—Trump’s nativism and burgerclap patriotism are extremely Anglo-American and really resonate with a broad swath of the dogwhistled Middle America. His campaign rallies fill venues to the brim and even attract enemy agitators. But there is more to Trump than tribalism, even though tribalism is a positive Overton movement for the alt-right.

That extra factor is simply that Trump is the strong horse in this election. He knows it too. When leftists look at Trump, they hate him not only because he wants to deport brown liberal colonists but because he represents everything they hate: privilege, wealth, masculinity and gradation. Worse yet, he isn’t sorry about any of it. Not one bit. When uncucked conservatives look at Trump, they see all of these same features, and rather than scorn them they aspire to them. The recognize that his strength—that he is a powerful and successful person that is capable of leading an organization and returning benefits to its members. Does anyone get that feel from likes of ¡Heb!, Rubio, Benzo, Fiorina, or Lindsey? I don’t think so.

Trump has a beautiful wife and five children, wealth, and promises perimeter defense and rule of law. He’s an ideal form of masculinity. Other candidates preach love for our replacements and making it easier for more of them to come in. Neat. Trump tells lobbyists and overseas Israelis that they can’t buy him. Authoritative. Others beg for shekels so they can run TV spots about non-immigration issues that are a sideshow in this election. Pathetic. Trump does not concede moral authority to his leftist critics and attempt to prove he isn’t a conservative. Trump doesn’t counter-signal his own base. Trump is in control of his own thoughts. Completely different visions, completely different policies. One is strong and the other is weak. And the weak are not fit to rule the most powerful nation on earth or uphold our first and second amendments (both of which Trump lives in practicum).

Romney could not rally voters for the purpose of repealing healthcare legislation. McCain could not rally voters to bomb more kebabs and send more body bags and basket cases back home. The message of Trump is one of America’s resurgence and literally “taking our country back” from people who have transgressed it. They have to go back and those who threaten us will not be let in. And it doesn’t matter if it upsets his enemies; why would you put their interests before yours in the first place? Trump has an advantage no Republican has had in years; don’t discount the strong horse.

Ghosts of Christmas Past

via Radix

There is a pair of clichés about the Christmas season that carries more significance than we might think: "Christmas is for children" and "Christmas makes me feel like a kid again."

The first refers to a certain innocence we envy in the children around us, who seem to really believe in Santa, magic, and the world of fairies, and who instinctively love Christmas. For us, Christmas has become both expensive and cheap: the over-planned parties and schedules . . . the chore of buying gifts that will be quickly forgotten, disposed of, or re-gifted . . . the trudging through horrible, muzak-filled malls. . . "Becoming a kid again,” at least for a time, is our redemption.

And it's a very real feeling. Entering the world of adults is, among other things, entering a world that is incessantly moving forward. Our lives are defined by projects, goals, accomplishments, deadlines, etc. Christmas, on the other hand, is an Eternal Return, a natural cycle that gives us a respite from linear thinking and planning.

We experience this Return not only through the season itself (when the nights become long and cold) but also through ritual. Ritual is something modern people, even devout Christians, are too quick to dismiss. Ritual is, we think, a dispensable, even embarrassing, remnant of something irrational from long ago. But ritual is, among other things, a way we can physically experience being-in-the-world and our own past. We remember through our bodies and senses just as much as through our minds, such as when we visit our old high school and whiff a certain smell to the grass that recalls the entire experience. Every Christmas, we do the same things over and over: drink the same drinks, hang the same decorations, hear the same music. In reenactment, we are transported back to a series of moments earlier in our lives. We become "a kid again."

These memory-experiences are mostly postcard flashes. Every Christmas Eve, for instance, as I glance at lights on the tree and the too-dark sky, I re-live waiting, greedily, for Santa. Another flash, which is still quite vivid, comes from age seven or eight, as I lay in bed feeling real guilt and inner turmoil over wanting to believe in Santa Claus but no longer being able. Smelling hot-spiced wine, "Glühwein," I'm reminded of wandering the streets of Vienna in December as a young man in my early 20s, hearing the sounds of the Christmas market in the distance and not having a clue what to do with my life.

"Bob's eggnog recipe" or your favorite "Christmas sweater" might seem like recurring jokes. But in their ways, they fulfill the function of grand ritual. And this aspect of Christmas holds not only for our personal lives but for our people and civilization as well. We have become so accustomed to Christmas rituals—and so accustomed to them in the form of kitsch—that we forget how deep they take us into our race's history . . . far deeper than what the holiday is said to celebrate. For the rituals through which we understand ourselves are fundamentally Pagan in both essence and form.


In his famous book The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity, James Russell wrote of a "double conversion" that occurred when the early Church began spreading beyond the Mediterranean and Near East and sought to bring "the Germans" (i.e., the northern European tribes) into the Christian fold. At the time, these Europeans practiced what is now referred to as Germanic Paganism, a constellation of myths, gods, and symbols that was, at once, centered on the tribe and family and also shared by White men across the continent. Europeans did, eventually, profess Christianity, but the real "conversion" was that of Christianity itself, which both accommodated Europeans folkways and began to be articulated by them.

This process occurred on various cultural levels, from the Europeanized image and conception of Christ to notions of Right and sovereignty. The mix of Germanic, Scandinavian, and Roman customs that define "Christmas" is a metaphor of this history. For Christmas remains the most radically Pagan of all holidays, if we have the eyes to see it. This begins with the day itself. Nowhere in the Bible does December 25 appear as the birth date of Jesus Christ. (If the shepherds were attending their flocks by night (Luke 2:8), then Jesus would have been born in Spring.) December 25 was, however, well known as the birthday of Sol Invictus, the sun god who was patronized by later Roman emperors, including Constantine. The 25th was Dies Natalis Solis Invicti—"Birthday of the Unconquered Sun," when, after the Winter Solstice, the arc of the Sun across the sky begins to rise again. The famous literary pun of "Son" and “Sun," which works across Germanic languages, was a real experience of our ancestors.

Thinking in the way, the meanings of things we take for granted unlock themselves before our eyes: the evergreen (the endless life cycle) . . . the Yule log (festival of fire) . . . kissing under the Mistletoe (the sacred plant of Frigg, goddess of love, fertility, and the household) . . . and, of course, Santa. "St. Nick" is only remotely related to Saint Nicholas, a Church father at the Council of Nicaea whose feast day falls on December sixth. The character of Santa is much more a conflation of various Germanic gods and personages. One of these, as evidenced by Santa's descent into the fiery chimney, is the smithy god Hephaistos or Vulcan. (In other words, "The Church Lady," and many puritans before her, was right to fear that Santa has an etymological connection to S-a-t-a-n.) Most important of all is the chief god, Odin or Wotan, who stares out at us from behind Santa's many historical masks—from Father Frost (Ded Moroz), the Slavic god accepted by Russian Communists, to the jolly fat man promoted by Coca Cola. Odin is the Wanderer from the North, a god of war, but one who delivers gifts to children during Yuletide. Odin commands Sleipnir, the horse with eight legs, who, in his translation to contemporary myth, became the eight reindeer: Dasher! now, Dancer! now, Prancer and Vixen! On, Comet! on Cupid! on, Donder and Blitzen!


Last year, FOX News host Megyn Kelly was roundly ridiculed and condemned after she declared on national television that "Santa just is White" (along with Jesus). She affirmed this in response to an African-American blogger who argued for more multiracial depictions of Santa, or for him to be racially neutralized as a friendly Penguin. Santa, as we can know, is White, but in ways that Megyn is unable to understand.

The amusing "White Santa" controversy was only one variation on a theme. Between Thanksgiving and New Year's, FOX News' programming is packed with denunciations of the "War on Christmas"; these are made, almost without exception, by conservative Republicans and nationalists, who seem to define their identity against an ever-growing list of PC atrocities.

Like so many other "conservative" causes, opposing the War on Christmas masks much more than it reveals. To begin with, focusing on "secularization," exemplified by the dreaded "Happy Holidays” greetings, is convenient for Americans who want to ignore the ways Christmas rituals are being vulgarized by consumerism. Apparently, maxing out our credit cards on useless junk is fine, so long as the checkout girl says "Merry Christmas" and the indoor mall features a nativity scene.

Those who lament the "war on Christmas" rarely pinpoint what exactly is being warred upon. Undoubtedly, there is an elite in the United States and Europe that has contempt for Christian belief. But this effort has not led to any decline in public festivals and holiday merrymaking. The Bolshevik or Puritanical dream of "banning Christmas" in favor of grey-on-grey efficiency or de-Paganized Christianity has very few advocates and little chance of materializing. In my lifetime, the Christmas season has grown noticeably longer and public and private festivals, more elaborate and intense. To be sure, much of this has to do with the fact that America's post-industrial, consumer-driven economy depends on end-of-the-year gorging. But I also sense that something bigger is taking place—that in a multicultural, multiracial society, Christmas, alongside football and action movies, is one of the preious few collective rituals shared by all of us.


Christmas is being de-Christianized, the result not only of snooty liberals but of the gradual waning of faith across the population as a whole. What remain, though, are the Germanic, Latin, and Slavic customs and rituals of Yuletide. These might seem vulgar, hallow shells of themselves—Christmas kitsch—but they are distinctly European and distinctly ours. And they are a starting point for becoming, again, who we are.

In the small ski town in which I spend winters, every Christmas Eve, everyone goes to the base of the mountain and watches skiers descend the slopes holding flaming torches, which creates a magnificent display of lights. At the end of the parade comes Santa, illuminated like a god.

As I mentioned, one of my stranger Christmas memories is of struggling with my failing faith in Santa, as if in disbelieving in him, I would betray my parents and family and the whole joyous season. But what is belief, really? When we honor Santa by speaking of his coming, when we leave him offerings, we effectively believe again in the gods. When we celebrate Christmas, we become Pagans again.

For the time being, though, we know not what we do.

New Heavyweight Champ Models Traditional Masculinity

via Caste Football

For those who are not boxing fans you may not have had the pleasure of seeing this young man in action, and I don’t just mean in the boxing ring. Tyson Fury, who stands at 6′ 9″ was born in the UK into a band of gypsies known as the Traveling Irishmen. His Father named him Tyson after Mike Tyson in hopes that he would win the heavyweight crown someday which he did in remarkable fashion ten days ago when he beat Wladimir Klitschko who had reigned the heavyweight division for over a decade. Who knew that young Tyson Fury, right after winning the heavyweight title, would pick a fight with the New World Order. . . . Read more

Yuletide for European Unity

via Western Spring

Whether you are made aware of the impending winter solstice by the encroaching cold, the darkening days, the obligatory festive music or the incessant stream of Christmas memes on social media, you will no doubt have an opinion on it.

While neo-pagan acquaintances will be sure to insist on the pagan origin of the seasonal celebration, Christian friends will remind you of the birth of Jesus Christ and its importance to our culture.

Atheists and agnostics may side with the former or latter depending on which they find less irritating. But irreverence aside, it is alarming that many among the Alt-Right allow these admittedly crucial questions about religion to divide us.

At the risk of sounding like a New Labour politician, this article, I hope, will encourage the reader to unite with his fellow Europeans at Yuletide, regardless of their religious beliefs.
For non-believers, the midwinter holiday we now know as Christmas may not have the spiritual significance that it does for Christians and pagans, but it is still a time for reflection and wonder. Our ancestors have survived in the temperate Northern climate for more than 50,000 years and have learned to respect the power of nature. The importance of the midwinter festival to the ancients of the British Isles is evident from the alignment of millennia-old monuments like Maeshowe and Stonehenge. We know little about how the festival was observed 5000 years ago when these were built but in more recent times it was the last feast celebration before deep winter began and therefore played a crucial role both spiritually and socially.

By the time Christmas reached the British people, it was already a complicated fusion of several traditions. Saturnalia, a jovial Roman festival of Saturn involving feasting and drinking, was originally held on the 17th December but may have been moved to the 25th in the 1st century. Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity in 312 AD and we have the first reference to Christmas not long after in the Roman Philocalian calendar of 354. But Saturnalia was still celebrated as late as the 5th century so the two festivals may have been mingled.

The same calendar also states that the 25th was a civil holiday honouring the cult of Sol Invictus (The Unconquered Sun). This, originally Semitic, monotheistic cult has its origins in Syria but was introduced to the Roman Empire in 274 AD by Emperor Aurelian who made it a state religion. The focus on the sun as well as the date make it a likely predecessor of Christmas, particularly when you consider that Emperor Constantine himself was raised in the cult of Sol Invicta.

As a province of the Roman Empire, it is possible that all three of these were celebrated simultaneously in Britain alongside any native midwinter festivals that may have endured. By the time of the Anglo-Saxon invasions of the 5th century, the native Britons would have celebrated Christmas, although the “Celtic church” had diverged somewhat from Roman Catholicism at this time. The pagan Anglo-Saxons had their own Germanic winter celebrations – most notably Geól (pronounced “yay-ohl”). We know little about this but can assume it resembled the Nordic midwinter festival of Jul (pronounced the same as “Yule”).

If the elite Nordic Varangian guard of Byzantine Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus are anything to go by, then we can see that Germanic pagans were happy to celebrate Jul with Christians. De Ceremoniis Aulae Byzantinae, written in the 10th century, describes how the Emperor’s guard, dressed in masks and furs, would march around the feasting table beating drums and shouting “Jul, Jul Jul!” before composing poems in clumsy Latin in honour of their Christian Emperor.

King Haakon The Good

King Haakon The Good

But there is also evidence of conflict between pagans and Christians at this time of year. The Old Norse kings’ sagas tell how King Haakon The Good of Norway, who was fostered by a Christian English King, tried to convert his pagan countrymen. He sometimes had to conceal his religion in order to avoid angering his people, so strong was their hatred. In one story he gets in trouble for refusing to eat sacrificial horse meat at a pagan feast. At the following year’s Yule feast he is confronted by the pagan reactionaries and is again encouraged to eat horse meat as part of their counter-attack on Christianity in Norway.

Clearly some pagans thought Christians were threatening to Yule, but what exactly was Yule about? Like Saturnalia and modern British Christmas, it involved drinking and feasting. Haakon preserved these aspects and made a law that Yule had to coincide with Christmas and that “everyone was to have ale for the celebration with a measure of grain, or else pay fines, and had to keep the holiday while the ale lasted.”

We know from the same saga that in Norway the first Yule toast was drunk to Odin but that was more than 300 years after the Anglo-Saxons converted, and they may have had very different traditions. The Venerable Bede wrote that the English held a festival called Mōdraniht (Night of the Mothers) all night on Christmas Eve. There are many theories on what this might have been, but it is probable that a cult of maternity was related to fertility, which is in many cultures connected to the passage of the sun. It is worth mentioning that in Norse mythology, it is the moon that is male and the sun female. Also, when thinking of sacred Mothers, the Virgin Mary obviously comes to mind. One can see how a festival celebrating a sacred Mother and her son (sun) who conquers death, could easily merge with these older traditions.

These distinctly European traditions did not die. They continue in Christmas. Some pagans resisted conversion, others welcomed it, but the idea of the festival stolen from the pagans is a simplification. Every Northern culture in all times has honoured the winter solstice. While Christians will begin the 25th in solemn prayer and pagans may save their prayers for the 21st, all Europeans can feel a marvellous sense of pride in this unbroken chain which is a reflection not only of changing beliefs but of the very fabric and order of our universe. It is the sun that gave life to our race and its annual absence that made our minds keen and our blood strong. During this time the greatest virtues of our race are most evident; we celebrate community, we honour the family, we strengthen friendships, we are charitable to the less fortunate and we celebrate with gratitude the bounty that our Earth provides.

It is not a time for division. It is a time for unity.

Good Yule and Merry Christmas to all true Europeans!